|
Sand Monster posted:In 25th Hour, Barry Pepper's character lives in an apartment building that is seemingly adjacent to Ground Zero (the World Trade Center clean-up site is visible from his window). Does anyone know what building this is? I can't tell you which building it is specifically but as a New Yorker I can tell you that there are tons of apartment buildings overlooking ground zero. It'll probably be very difficult to narrow it down to any individual one.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Sand Monster posted:In 25th Hour, Barry Pepper's character lives in an apartment building that is seemingly adjacent to Ground Zero (the World Trade Center clean-up site is visible from his window). Does anyone know what building this is? If you don't get an answer here (and assuming that is a real shot), try this thread. I spent a day in NYC working on a rooftop and provided two snapshots taken that day asking the same thing you are and they were able to quickly identify exactly which building those photos were taken from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
I'm rewatching 'Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows', because I love it. Can someone tell me why Moriarty needed to cover up an assassination by bullet with an additional explosion of the entire room? I'm sure the scoundrel had his reasons but they escape me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:I'm rewatching 'Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows', because I love it. Can someone tell me why Moriarty needed to cover up an assassination by bullet with an additional explosion of the entire room? The movie doesn't spell it out anywhere, but I think that the plan was that the bullet was for the assassination and the bomb was to cover their tracks. The bomb is risky, since the target could have survived the blast, could have moved before the bomb arrived, etc. while the sniper is more certain to get the kill. I assume he also expected the bomb to blow out the windows and remove the traces of the assassination, because if he had, it would have been assumed to just be an anarchist bomb generally targeted at major businessmen, and not pointed back to Moriarty's plot to make sure that specific guy died.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Thanks, that was my best guess. Basically he wanted that one particular guy 100 percent for sure dead, and didn't think a bomb would guarantee it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
I've got a script question. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092618 I have a script to the movie Barfly. There are some differences in dialog, and a few additional characters. The front says: "New Draft", and its "Copyright April 1980, Writers Guild of America, West". Now, is this script something I could look up online, like on a writers guild membership kind of website? Im curious how early this script is compared to the final movie. It would be something I'd like to share if there is interest, and I want to be sure thats ok to post here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Atomic Robo-Kid posted:I've got a script question. What do you mean look up online? Like do you want to see other revisions and such? The closest thing that you would be able to find would be mypdfscripts, but their selection is limited and they're often offline because of copyright.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:What do you mean look up online? Like do you want to see other revisions and such? The closest thing that you would be able to find would be mypdfscripts, but their selection is limited and they're often offline because of copyright. I searched to see if any site had Barfly's script available, and I couldn't find anything. The most I could figure was "New Draft" means the script was used as a shooting script, but there enough differences between this and the final movie that makes me wonder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Would anybody be interested in a thread on alternate script drafts? Or is that far too broad? I love going back and seeing how a film was shaped by reading different drafts. Recently did that with Joe vs. The Volcano and actually got a lot out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Would anybody be interested in a thread on alternate script drafts? Or is that far too broad? I love going back and seeing how a film was shaped by reading different drafts. Recently did that with Joe vs. The Volcano and actually got a lot out of it. The Movies That Never Were... thread has been covering this lately, and it would be awesome to see more discussion centered around script drafts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
Atomic Robo-Kid posted:I've got a script question. If you want more information I suggest you read this http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Charles-Bukowski/dp/0876857632
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
I just started watching Dark City om Netflix and about half an hour in I wondered why the hell I had this idea that it was critically acclaimed and a cult classic, because I thought the pacing was very weird (it really felt like it lacked some more establishing in the beginning). So, I jumped on Wikipedia and lo and behold, there's a Director's Cut which removes the narration in the beginning (which also annoyed me) and adds 15 minutes. Should I skip watching the rest and try to pick up the DC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:A lot of stuff from Frank Darabont's Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods made it into Crystal Skull, so he must have got paid for that, right? Sadly, neither Henry Sr. singing Sinatra nor Indy quipping "Welcome to Earth" (before shooting an alien) made it into the finished product. If Darabont was hired to write a script, he would have been paid something at least for his trouble. With bonuses and residuals if his name appeared in the credits, but who gets credit is decided upon by the WGA. And they have rules about that sort of thing. Basically to receive a writing credit, the writer either has to pen an original screenplay (in which case they will at the very least get a "story by" credit, which counts for something) as opposed to an adaptation of a previous work, or have a certain percentage of their draft make it into the final screenplay. Evidently enough of the script was changed to get Darabont's name taken off as writer. Also, Indy 4 was obviously a sequel. Under WGA rules, a sequel is automatically an adaptation of the original film, so no story credit for Frank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Glass Joe posted:If Darabont was hired to write a script, he would have been paid something at least for his trouble. With bonuses and residuals if his name appeared in the credits, but who gets credit is decided upon by the WGA. And they have rules about that sort of thing. What about when a sequel is an adaptation of a previous original screenplay? Like the Die Hard films being adaptations of unrelated screenplays? Does a "story by" credit go to the writer of the original film, the writer of the work the sequel is based on, or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Eight Is Legend posted:I just started watching Dark City om Netflix and about half an hour in I wondered why the hell I had this idea that it was critically acclaimed and a cult classic, because I thought the pacing was very weird (it really felt like it lacked some more establishing in the beginning). So, I jumped on Wikipedia and lo and behold, there's a Director's Cut which removes the narration in the beginning (which also annoyed me) and adds 15 minutes. Should I skip watching the rest and try to pick up the DC? The Director's Cut establishes even less in the beginning - basically it starts off as more of a mystery thriller because you know as little as the amnesiac character does and discover things with him. I do recommend that version but if you're hating the Theatrical Version that much I'm not sure you'll like the Director's Cut either. It is better, though, and you should finish the movie in one of the two forms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:What about when a sequel is an adaptation of a previous original screenplay? Like the Die Hard films being adaptations of unrelated screenplays? Does a "story by" credit go to the writer of the original film, the writer of the work the sequel is based on, or what? Thank you for bringing up the one franchise that I knew would cause me trouble here! (Really, if anyone can clarify this please do so.) I know that Die Hard 2 was an adaptation of an unrelated novel called "58 Minutes," and there is a credit for "Based on the novel "58 Minutes" by [whoevertheguyisthatwrotethebook]." So there was that at least. And Die Hard 3 was originally a proposed sequel to "Lethal Weapon" I believe, which makes it an adaptation no matter how you shake it so the original writers were probably out of luck entirely. I don't know or care where the screenplays for Die Hard 4 and 5 came from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
Die Hard 4 was originally just a cyber-terrorism script that they put McClane + daughter into. The first Die Hard was a sequel to a Frank Sinatra movie for a while, as I recall. I believe the 5th Die Hard is literally the first one where the script started out as a Die Hard movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
Carthag posted:Die Hard 4 was originally just a cyber-terrorism script that they put McClane + daughter into. Die Hard was an adaptation of the novel "Nothing Lives Forever" by Roderick Thorp, which was the sequel to another book that became the Frank Sinatra homosexuality-themed mystery "The Detective." Which is pretty much nothing like Die Hard. At all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
Glass Joe posted:Die Hard was an adaptation of the novel "Nothing Lives Forever" by Roderick Thorp, which was the sequel to another book that became the Frank Sinatra homosexuality-themed mystery "The Detective." Which is pretty much nothing like Die Hard. At all. It's important to note that the novel was only written long after the Frank Sinatra film came out, and was written to be a sequel to the film, not the book. Same thing happened with The Lost World, in the book for Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm dies on a helicopter, there's a brief bit in the sequel novel where they say "It was so confusing, Ian Malcolm was thought to be dead for several minutes" or something to that effect. Michael Crichton didn't bother writing a third and now he's (sadly, thankfully? he went pretty drat crazy in his later years)dead so we don't know his thoughts on part 3 and the announced 4. But Malcolm not being dead and the name of the second island are about the only things The Lost World book and movie have in common.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
There was a point where they wanted Die Hard to be Commando 2, until Arnie said he wouldn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
I was watching Tropic Thunder again and I was wondering, does Robert Downey Jr break the 4th wall. When he says "I'm the dude playing the dude disguised as the other dude." is he saying I'm the dude (Robert Downey Jr.) playing the dude (Kirk Lazarus) disguised as the other dude (black face)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Bow2Gaijin posted:I was watching Tropic Thunder again and I was wondering, does Robert Downey Jr break the 4th wall. When he says "I'm the dude playing the dude disguised as the other dude." is he saying I'm the dude (Robert Downey Jr.) playing the dude (Kirk Lazarus) disguised as the other dude (black face)? Nah, he's Kirk Lazarus playing Lincoln Osiris disguised as a Vietnamese rice farmer. It could be read as a 4th wall joke given the subject of the whole movie, but it still makes sense in-story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
What are people talking about when they say things like "it was a 9/10 movie, but a 6/10 film" or "[Director] has made a great movie, but a terrible film". Is its "movie" value how entertaining it is, while its "film" rating is how admirable the craft involved is or something? I've seen this on both Something Awful and in professional reviews and it always sounds really arbitrary and pretentious but maybe someone can explain it to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
I don't recall seeing any reviews around here like that, but it normally means that the reviewer is dumb for distinguishing movies and films as though they were different things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
It means that one is more cheeseburger than filet mignon, more Carl's Jr. than Serendipity III, more Jonestown than Kristallnacht, etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:What are people talking about when they say things like "it was a 9/10 movie, but a 6/10 film" or "[Director] has made a great movie, but a terrible film". Is its "movie" value how entertaining it is, while its "film" rating is how admirable the craft involved is or something? I've seen this on both Something Awful and in professional reviews and it always sounds really arbitrary and pretentious but maybe someone can explain it to me. It's called blowing smoke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Same thing happened with The Lost World, in the book for Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm dies on a helicopter, there's a brief bit in the sequel novel where they say "It was so confusing, Ian Malcolm was thought to be dead for several minutes" or something to that effect. I'm pretty sure the version of the book that I read had a preface from Crichton that essentially said "Yes, Ian Malcolm died, but just pretend he didn't and we can all get along just fine."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
While watching 'Thriller: A Cruel Picture,' and was pretty surprised to see the hardcore porn scenes. Has there been any other non-pornographic film to actually show penetration? Also, while the film probably earned an X-rating for these inserts (if it was even allowed to be released in this format at all. Wikipedia suggests it wasn't until recently), but I think it would still be considered non-pornographic. I have a feeling that 'Last Tango in Paris' could have done this, but I haven't seen the film in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:While watching 'Thriller: A Cruel Picture,' and was pretty surprised to see the hardcore porn scenes. Has there been any other non-pornographic film to actually show penetration? Lars von Trier is a fan of this. I think both Antichrist and The Idiots have penetration. I recall hearing a while ago that his next film is to be released in both a hardcore and softcore version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:While watching 'Thriller: A Cruel Picture,' and was pretty surprised to see the hardcore porn scenes. Has there been any other non-pornographic film to actually show penetration? The X-rating doesn't exist anymore, or at least doesn't mean anything. Movies that get MPAA ratings and are too much for R get an NC-17 rating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
TenSpadesBeTrump posted:Lars von Trier is a fan of this. I think both Antichrist and The Idiots have penetration. I recall hearing a while ago that his next film is to be released in both a hardcore and softcore version. It's been a while since I have seen 'Antichrist,' so I can't really confirm, but it also feels like a film that probably did have a penetration shot at the beginning. However, for those who don't know, I feel like I should expand on what actually happens in 'Thriller.' There's a scene where the dude is giving her anal, and then cums all over her rear end in a top hat. But, in all the penetration scenes, you don't see much body or their faces, so it's pretty obvious that they are inserted from another film or are two different people. Skwirl posted:The X-rating doesn't exist anymore, or at least doesn't mean anything. Movies that get MPAA ratings and are too much for R get an NC-17 rating. Well, you learn something new everyday. But, I was referring to the time period, even though I don't know if Sweden had a rating system that included 'X'. Either way, Wikipedia makes it seem like the film was banned before it was even shown until it cut out twenty minutes of footage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
God I hated Thriller, in part due to the very shots you're talking about. It's a movie that gets off on the jerking the audience around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Are there any movies that have the Fatal Attraction/Play Misty for Me minor relationship -> stalker dynamic but with a man as the stalker?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Pacific Heights is about Michael Keaton terrorizing a couple after he moves into a suite in their home. Haven't seen it in ages, but I seem to remember enjoying it at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Fear. Starring Mark Wahlberg and Reese Witherspoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:Are there any movies that have the Fatal Attraction/Play Misty for Me minor relationship -> stalker dynamic but with a man as the stalker? Charade, with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepbun
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
The Cable Guy fits the bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
What movie is this?: Looks like Tom Cruise and Amanda Seyfried to me. edit: Always forgetting to use reverse image search... It's Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:What movie is this?: I am baffled that someone could NOT recognize Interview With a Vampire on sight... I don't even like it that much, but it was kind of a big deal... Brad Pitt's FIRST MAJOR ROLE..
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Snak posted:I am baffled that someone could NOT recognize Interview With a Vampire on sight... I don't even like it that much, but it was kind of a big deal... Brad Pitt's FIRST MAJOR ROLE.. Only a guy would say this, ever hear of A River Runs Through It? Girls knew about Brad Pitt way before Se7en came out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 22:12
|
|