|
Bugblatter posted:But Whedon is largely credited with popularizing the style in the 90s with Buffy, and it's a style he uses in everything he writes. I can't think of an earlier example that was so high profile, so his name is a useful shorthand for the style. What else would you call it that would so clearly and briefly communicate the style? Well, I'm not totally disagreeing, but Whedon is such a polarizing name, and it seems to get tossed around to describe self-aware, meta or "whitty" dialogue. Those things are all part of Whedon's style, and he carries it wherever he goes, but these are also common elements of humor. While Whedon may have helped popularize this comedic/dramatic style, it's also reflected in Dawson's Creek, which was on at the same time as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The creator of Dawson's Creek is the same person who wrote all four Scream movies, which are famous for their genre-awareness and meta commentary. Writers who worked on Dawson's Creek went on to work on Californication which also has a witty punch to it's dialogue. This is just off the top of my head. Sure it doesn't prove that Whedon wasn't the influence behinds some lines someone said in GotG, but I think it's pretty shallow and unfair to associate what has been a popular and wide-reaching current in dramadies for awhile now.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
It doesn't mean he invented it or that a given film is directly influenced by him, he's just the most prominent example and thus best name to use as short hand. It's a way to say "this thing is like this other thing," not "this thing is derived from this thing." What short hand would you provide in its place? If someone calls GotG "Dawson's Creekian" who will understand what is meant? If they name drop the showrunner for the series how many people will know who that is? Do you take offense to the terms Dickensian or Kafkaesque as well? Because they didn't respectively invent impoverished social injustice or surrealistic menacingly complex systems as narrative tools, nor are they the only skilled authors to use them. But they did make the most visible use of those elements in our culture. They're just widely recognized reference points that make for efficient communication of a concept. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Woah I was just talking about it. Carry on, or whatever...
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
I'm not angry or intending to sound mean, sorry if the tone came across harsh in writing. It's just odd to call people ignorant for using the term when it's a pretty logical and efficient term to use. Anyway, no aggression intended. Just clarifying, maybe with too much detail that made it sound like I'm talking down? Sorry if it came across that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I'm not angry or intending to sound mean, sorry if the tone came across harsh in writing. It's just odd to call people ignorant for using the term when it's a pretty logical and efficient term to use. Anyway, no aggression intended. Just clarifying, maybe with too much detail that made it sound like I'm talking down? Sorry if it came across that way. No it's okay. I just don't have any better application for all this pointless knowledge than to run my mouth about it. I think it just bugged me in the first place because Whedon is such a polarizing person that using his name as a descriptor is going to aid people in bringing their preconceptions
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
I'd say that Shane Black is a bigger influence on that style than Whedon was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I'd say that Shane Black is a bigger influence on that style than Whedon was. I'm not sure I could say he was a bigger influence, but he is yet another contemporary with a similar tone. edit: And it really doesn't help that Whedon, Black, and Gunn are now all MCU directors. There's a good chance it's why they are, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Snak posted:No it's okay. I just don't have any better application for all this pointless knowledge than to run my mouth about it. I think it just bugged me in the first place because Whedon is such a polarizing person that using his name as a descriptor is going to aid people in bringing their preconceptions Well yea - either you like his style or you don't, but he's a big enough name for it to BE polarizing. Which is the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Does a website exist that lists typical movie clichés? It's something I have a fondness for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
MisterGBH posted:Does a website exist that lists typical movie clichés? It's something I have a fondness for. If you ignore the terrible community and all the anime stuff, TVtropes has plenty of movie stuff. I'm not telling you to go there. I'm just saying this happens to be a true fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Ebert's Glossary of Movie Terms is far better option than TVTropes.Ebert posted:"Fruit Cart!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Who the yell uses "Fruit Cart" as an expletive and when the fruit cart would they use it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
xcore posted:Who the yell uses "Fruit Cart" as an expletive and when the fruit cart would they use it? Did you only read the first two words of that definition? Both of those questions are answered in the very same sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Why does John carpenter put his name in the title of all his movies and why is he the only director who does this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Why does John carpenter put his name in the title of all his movies and why is he the only director who does this? He doesn't. He's just a successful enough director to have his name appear above the title of his films, much like Spielberg, Scorsese, etc...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:He doesn't. He's just a successful enough director to have his name appear above the title of his films, much like Spielberg, Scorsese, etc... This isn't quite right. Carpenter's movies are often titled as 'John Carpenter's...'. The main titles of Halloween are listed as 'John Carpenter's Halloween', same thing with 'The Fog' I thought it was actually a contractual thing that he stipulated his name goes upfront.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:This isn't quite right. Carpenter's movies are often titled as 'John Carpenter's...'. The main titles of Halloween are listed as 'John Carpenter's Halloween', same thing with 'The Fog' I thought it was actually a contractual thing that he stipulated his name goes upfront. Yeah, it's in almost all of his movies.    
morestuff fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Yeah, but in the cases of "The Fog", "The Thing", "Vampires", Halloween" and "They Live" the argument could be made that those are really generic titles and throwing the Writer/Director/Producer's name in front could help distinguish it from someone else's movie. I don't know if anything could stop Asylum from making a completely unrelated "The Thing" movie for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Yeah, but in the cases of "The Fog", "The Thing", "Vampires", Halloween" and "They Live" the argument could be made that those are really generic titles and throwing the Writer/Director/Producer's name in front could help distinguish it from someone else's movie. I don't know if anything could stop Asylum from making a completely unrelated "The Thing" movie for example. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Does anyone know why 10 films won the Palme d'Or in 1946? I know that the festival was just getting established and no one probably knew it was going to be the massive event it is today, but was it just a massive tie or did they have some sort of different voting system in place?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
I have no idea but I really like to imagine it was via some kind of farcical door-slamming letter-mishandling fuckup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Does anyone know why 10 films won the Palme d'Or in 1946? I know that the festival was just getting established and no one probably knew it was going to be the massive event it is today, but was it just a massive tie or did they have some sort of different voting system in place? I have not found a specific citation or anything from the jury or festival, but it seems that the inaugural festival was leaning heavily on the internationalism of it all, so every country that submitted a film got a grand prize. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Why does John carpenter put his name in the title of all his movies and why is he the only director who does this? John Carpenter is just a really badass name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Snak posted:John Carpenter is just a really badass name. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
John Carpenter wrote and directed his movies and not too many people did that so that is a good reason to do it that way and why it's kind of rare. As to why he does it and others like Tarantino or Woody Allen don't probably comes down to personal preference. Blake Edwards also did it so Carpenter wasn't the only one to do it. edit: although Carpenter didn't write the Thing and I think that was the first one where he was credited like that so maybe not. Schweinhund fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Bram Stoker did it too with that Dracula movie he made
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Bram Stoker did it too with that Dracula movie he made I have a theory that all movies based on books that have the name of the Author in them are garbage. It hold's for Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein , and "Stephen King's The Shining". That's good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Snak posted:John Carpenter is just a really badass name. Certainly a lot more badass than Tyler Perry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Snak posted:I have a theory that all movies based on books that have the name of the Author in them are garbage. It hold's for Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein , and "Stephen King's The Shining". That's good enough for me. Look at this wrong guy being wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:32
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Look at this wrong guy being wrong. Defend Stephen King's Shining at your own peril, dude.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Disproven.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Look at this wrong guy being wrong. I'm not sure which movie you're saying I'm wrong about, but I'm prepared to be entertained by your argument. edit: CharlieFoxtrot posted:William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Disproven.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:Did you only read the first two words of that definition? Both of those questions are answered in the very same sentence. Yeah, but none of it makes sense. Film buffs get angry at seeing a French car chase and voice their anger by saying "Fruit Cart!"? Right....
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Snak posted:I'm not sure which movie you're saying I'm wrong about, but I'm prepared to be entertained by your argument. My opinion is you're wrong. I've telephoned your parents and they've expressed their lifelong disappointment in your movie choices, and they're overnighting me a care-package of brownies as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
There's a shot in Birdman in one of the dressing rooms where the camera moves into the room and you can't see the cameraman's reflection in the mirror, even though he should be visible given the angle. How do they do that, hide him? Mirror tricks? CGI? Something I haven't thought of? (Not talking Birdman specifically, just in general; it was just the first example that came to mind.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Allyn posted:There's a shot in Birdman in one of the dressing rooms where the camera moves into the room and you can't see the cameraman's reflection in the mirror, even though he should be visible given the angle. How do they do that, hide him? Mirror tricks? CGI? Something I haven't thought of? (Not talking Birdman specifically, just in general; it was just the first example that came to mind.) CGI
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Is that also how they did that mirror shot in Contact?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Is that also how they did that mirror shot in Contact? That and some editing fuckery for sure. here's the scene, it owns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCTGdhXCSks&hd=1 On rewatching I just noticed that the static shot it moved to is off angle from the mirror.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Snak posted:I'm not sure which movie you're saying I'm wrong about, but I'm prepared to be entertained by your argument. I'm not the one that responded to you but I felt like Bram Stoker's Dracula was very well done and has held up pretty well. Apart from Keanu, the acting is strong. The visual effects are amazing at times, especially when you consider how they were achieved, and provide such an unsettling atmosphere that works very well in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Sand Monster posted:I'm not the one that responded to you but I felt like Bram Stoker's Dracula was very well done and has held up pretty well. Apart from Keanu, the acting is strong. The visual effects are amazing at times, especially when you consider how they were achieved, and provide such an unsettling atmosphere that works very well in the movie. It's a shame that it's kind of a bad movie, but the look of it is amazing. Coppola throws everything at it and it has a verve of a much more youthful director. But it just doesn't hold together all that well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:02
|
|