|
Ape Agitator posted:I won't speak about the legal ramifications of actors doing their stunts (but I assume that the lawyers do make them sign liability waivers) but I remember that the special effects and pyro work in Backdraft was pretty incredible. They were supposedly able to repeat a lot of the apparantly catastrophic stuff and had fine control of the fire effects so they could do amazing stuff with people right there. Good point.  I *was* impressed by some of the effects they pulled off like the aforementioned collapsing roof and the barrels exploding and shooting straight into the air during the climactic chemical plant fire. Any chance a mod can sticky this thread? This is like the 4th "movie questions" thread I've seen since I've been here (including one I started) and they seem to get a reasonable amount of posts, so it'd be nice to have it around for these little questions that don't deserve a whole new thread.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Og Oggilby posted:Yeah, I had a Freudian slip. Yea, or one of the worst offenders is the Stargate SG-1 dvds in the regular sized cases. I have season 1 and 2 in that size, and the rest in the thinpack ones. I'm pretty sure season 1 takes up as much room as the rest of the series. Andromeda is even worse because the box set is made up of those HUGE dual cases that you sometimes get. Who chooses the Trailers before a movie? I always though that while some trailers are mandated by the studio (Watchmen before The Dark Knight), that they are chosen by the theater chain. Though before TDK, we got a trailer for Mummy 3, which had already opened. I thought it was odd that they would still be running a trailer for a movie thats been released. If it was chosen by AMC, i would of thought it would of been removed as soon as it was open and replaced by something else. This also goes with Family and childerns movie trailers shown before Adult or R rated movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 16:24
|
|
|
There may be one or two trailers "attached" to a specific movie, and that may mean actually physically attached. I think they also ship several other trailers along with the movie that may be shown at the discretion of the theater. That's why you'll often see a different set of trailers if you see the same movie in the same theater on different screens. They'll generally ship out trailers that are thematically relevant to the movie itself, sometimes with the same actor or just "family appropriate" or "blockbuster". I think when you get to tiny arthouses, they cobble trailers from all over so you'll sometimes get some awesomely sexy ones before PG rated movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 17:01
|
|
|
I don't mind automatic trailers on a few releases like Pixar. To me, the Wall-E trailer and Lifted are part of Ratatouille as a whole. Disney doesn't do a lot of things right all the time, but I've admired how they've always made their trailers skippable. Even menu transitions are skippable.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 18:19
|
|
|
Sometimes I like trailers for movies that are already out. I remember seeing a trailer for Monsters Inc that played before Harry Potter, mentioning the film was 'playing in a theater near you...like really near you...like right next door'. I cant find it on youtube, but Wikipedia proves Im not insane:quote:In a trailer shown before the first Harry Potter film, Sulley is shown playing charades with Mike, but Mike is unable to guess the phrase "Harry Potter". The clip never specifically mentions Harry Potter, but the end states that Monsters, Inc. is playing right next door. Afterwards, Mike attempts to charade by waving his arms in the air to make a star shape. A bored Sulley quickly and correctly guesses Star Wars. A bewildered Mike asks how he does it. A different version has Mike using a hula hoop, and Sulley correctly guesses Saturn. Satch fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Aug 12, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 23:42
|
|
|
Righ'chere http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x438px_monsters-inc-theatrical-trailer-2ch_shortfilms Edit: The Saturn one http://www.pixar.com/theater/trailers/inc/teaser_480.html Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Aug 13, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 00:05
|
|
|
Satch posted:Sometimes I like trailers for movies that are already out. I remember seeing a trailer for Monsters Inc that played before Harry Potter, mentioning the film was 'playing in a theater near you...like really near you...like right next door'. I cant find it on youtube, but Wikipedia proves Im not insane: That's pretty rare though, in fact that's the first time I've ever heard of them attaching a new trailer for a movie that's already out in theaters. Most of the time when you're at the movies and see a trailer for something that's already out its just because the movie you're watching has been playing for a while. A rare treat is when a movie has been delayed, they reuse an old trailer and miss a reference to when it was actually supposed to come out. I can't remember what movie it was but I saw a trailer once that had the wrong year at the end of it, they said it was supposed to be coming out the previous year but it still hadn't hit theaters yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 02:30
|
|
|
I remember watching the same trailer for Supernova for like a year and a half as it kept getting delayed. And much maligned but personally beloved Haute Tension's stateside release was originally going to be Valentine's Day and they reused that trailer (with Valentine's Day note) in several theaters I frequented all the way to summer. But my favorite is that I was reminded that "in the year 2003, Uma Thurman will Kill Bill!". Too bad it got split and she didn't get around to it until 2004. Lazy bitch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBYGQZQKb7k
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 02:44
|
|
|
Also Quentin Tarantino's "4th" film. Whoops, actually 4th and 5th.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 02:52
|
|
|
Me and my friend have a bet on whether or not someone gets stabbed in the eye via a microscope in the first Mission Impossible. Does anyone have a screencap or know if this actually happens? I tried googling for an hour with no results, its pretty loving hard. I know that in The Phantom the librarian gets offed something like that, but I was curious if this happens in the first MI e: we don't own either movie and its 2am in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 09:23
|
|
|
Shnitzel posted:Me and my friend have a bet on whether or not someone gets stabbed in the eye via a microscope in the first Mission Impossible. There is a man wearing goggles that are sending a video transmission, who gets a spike through his face as people are watching the feed (it's in the first 20 or so minutes). No microscope that I can recall though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 10:34
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0069 posted:There is a man wearing goggles that are sending a video transmission, who gets a spike through his face as people are watching the feed (it's in the first 20 or so minutes). No microscope that I can recall though. Ok can anyone post anytime when someone gets stabbed in the eye with a microscope then? gently caress this is bugging me
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 12:02
|
|
|
gently caress dp
Shnitzel fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Aug 13, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 12:02
|
|
|
Shnitzel posted:Ok can anyone post anytime when someone gets stabbed in the eye with a microscope then? gently caress this is bugging me Do you mean a telescope? Because I'm trying to imagine someone picking up a microscope and thrusting it in someone's eye. Or something on a petri dish going "gently caress you" and leaping through the lens. As for being shot through a telescope, that's not all that uncommon. You've got it in your Saving Private Ryans and Enemy at the Gates and many others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 14:20
|
|
|
Here's what I am remembering A (presumibly bad guy) is looking through a microscope (it could be something else along those lines) in a lab (or something), and tells another guy "hey yo dude check this poo poo out" so the other guy comes over and as he is focusing, blades come out of the eyepeice and stab him in the eyes. It was pretty gruesome and sweet
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 21:19
|
|
|
Shnitzel posted:Here's what I am remembering This sounds much more like a vampire/virus movie or something with evil blood cells than Mission Impossible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 22:15
|
|
|
Og Oggilby posted:While it's flimsy, I really wish studios would make everything compact. There's no reason why a full sized DVD case needs to be used (instead of a thinpak) if it's only the disc. This was bugging my dad as well since he has a massive collection of DVDs. In addition to the ones he buys he dubs hundreds of movies he records with his TiVo along with every movie he rents from his maxed out Netflix account. This quickly led to a lack of shelf space (he had a 8' by 5' shelving unit built into his living room for this purpose) and his solution was to order bulk CD cases that are as thin as Thinpacks like the ones DVDRs come in. He even wrote a program for printing inserts for the cases that features DVD cover art or movie poster images along with spine info and a synopsis with cast and crew on the back. The entire collection is databased by genre, actor, director, or whatever so you can find a movie on any of the computers in his house. Last I visited (last Christmas) the collection was pushing a thousand movies and was steadily growing each week. This is what happens when a pothead computer scientist with more money and time than sense retires.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 22:21
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Yea, or one of the worst offenders is the Stargate SG-1 dvds in the regular sized cases. I have season 1 and 2 in that size, and the rest in the thinpack ones. I'm pretty sure season 1 takes up as much room as the rest of the series. I bought the first 7 seasons in the regular sized cases. They take up an entire shelf of my DVD cabinet, which is the same amount of space as (9 Simpsons + 4 Futurama + 4 Home Movies + 3 Arrested Development) season sets, or 38 standard DVDs/games. Maybe someday I'll be able to sell them and replace with thinpaks for not too large a price...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 23:00
|
|
|
Vulpes posted:This sounds much more like a vampire/virus movie or something with evil blood cells than Mission Impossible. No, it was a booby-trapped microscope, nothing supernatural. I've seen this scene as well, but I can't remember what movie it was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 02:54
|
|
|
Posting to give a possibly more helpful answer about trailers before a movie. I used to work as a projectionist at a Kerasotes theater. Each movie ships to us in a couple of cans with 3 or 4 reels per can. The first reel has the "attached" trailer on there before the start of the movie. This is the trailer that you will always see before a movie no matter what. The cans come with several other trailers for upcoming movies in them. Then we consult a trailer report emailed to us from corporate. The report tells us exactly what trailers to put before the movie, and usually they are the ones that came in the cans. If we do not have a needed trailer for whatever reason, we are allowed to substitute something else that was in the cans but not used. If a movie is expected to have multiple prints showing, the trailer report will say "use these trailers for print #1 of The Dark Knight, and use these trailers for print #2 of The Dark Knight, etc." This is why different trailers play before different showtimes of the same movie. We were a good theater that actually kept track of what movies were coming out the following weekend so that we could pull those trailers off of any prints that had them. Also, we had a 7 foot tall metal storage cabinet full of unused trailers, but we usually threw away the ones for movies that were coming out the following weekend. Also, we tried to avoid doing stupid things like putting trailers for R-rated movies before a kids' film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 02:57
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:Regarding the discussion of American Psycho Mary Harron is a horrible loving hack and made a mediocre movie instead of an actual good one when she had plenty of talent, money and source material at her disposal. The fact that she tries to outline a specific interpretation after the fact instead of comprehending the idea that the ambiguity of the entire concept is the lynchpin of the whole goddamn thing indicates that maybe she needed to go back and read it one more time. If you weren't someone who had read the book, there wasn't much way for that movie to make any loving sense. If not for Bale it would have been basically meritless. If you read the book, the crazy loving horseshit Bateman comes up with, like walking around with a woman's severed head suspended by his erect dick in her mouth, or setting loose a starved NYC sewer rat(which came up through his toilet no less) on a woman's vagina stuffed full of Cheez Whiz, it's OBVIOUSLY deranged nonsense and misogynist fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 08:06
|
|
|
And as far as 3:10 to Yuma: The idea is that Wade is sick of his gang and bored with his outlaw life and horribly disillusioned. He doesn't much like anyone in his gang, has all the money he needs, etc. The thrill is gone. Evans' is portrayed mostly as a lesser man, but he's got serious ideals, even though he suffers for them. His wife and son look down on him and think he is weak. Wade sees him for what he is though, and sees that in fact he and his gang are the ones who are weak. He comes to respect Evans greatly and realizes that this is his chance to get away from his gang and maybe even reset his entire life. He sees the way Evans' son looks at his father and himself and tries a bit to correct this. Notice in the last charge for the train after it pulls in, Evans' son is watching him and finally seeing him for who he is. Wade kills his gang because those bastards killed something they didn't even comprehend. His gang was NOTHING to him at this point, whereas truly, Evans had become his role model. There's probably some religious stuff in there too, with Evans drawing on the inside cover of the bible, or the obvious crucifix on his pistol right before he kills his gang, etc. The point that most people miss in the first half is that Wade wants to go to jail, he wants a different life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 08:17
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Mary Harron is a horrible loving hack and made a mediocre movie instead of an actual good one when she had plenty of talent, money and source material at her disposal. The fact that she tries to outline a specific interpretation after the fact instead of comprehending the idea that the ambiguity of the entire concept is the lynchpin of the whole goddamn thing indicates that maybe she needed to go back and read it one more time. If you weren't someone who had read the book, there wasn't much way for that movie to make any loving sense. If not for Bale it would have been basically meritless. What the hell are you talking about? I never read the book, but it was pretty easy for me to understand that Bateman's murders were all in his head. In fact, I can't imagine anything about American Psycho being the least bit hard to understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 08:30
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:What the hell are you talking about? I never read the book, but it was pretty easy for me to understand that Bateman's murders were all in his head. In fact, I can't imagine anything about American Psycho being the least bit hard to understand. Look at the post a few back where Harron says OH HE REALLY WAAAAAS A MURDERER!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 08:51
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Look at the post a few back where Harron says OH HE REALLY WAAAAAS A MURDERER! Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that. That's really bizarre, though. It's like Ridley Scott saying that Deckard was a Replicant in Blade Runner. Have these directors not seen their own movies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 09:43
|
|
|
Shnitzel posted:Here's what I am remembering We Are Citizen posted:No, it was a booby-trapped microscope, nothing supernatural. I've seen this scene as well, but I can't remember what movie it was. This one is driving me crazy. I know I've seen that movie but I can't think of the name. I want to say it's The Phantom. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Aug 14, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 10:13
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:No, it was a booby-trapped microscope, nothing supernatural. I've seen this scene as well, but I can't remember what movie it was. "Booby-trapped microscope" was such a good phrase I had to go Google for it; which led me to this review of The Phantom. e: Oh crap, I went off after typing this up, came back ten minutes later and didn't refresh before hitting "reply". 1 fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Aug 14, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 10:27
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:And as far as 3:10 to Yuma: Uh, did you completely miss the part of the movie where they say he's going to jail to be executed? Nobody wants to go to jail for that. He doesn't mind going to jail because he knows he's just going to break out as soon as he gets there not because he wants to turn over a new leaf. God you're just completely WRONG about all of his motivations aren't you? Ben Wade does NOT want to "change his life" he's a BAD MAN. He loves murdering and robbing people. You're falling in the exact same trap that Evans' son did in idolizing the man. Hell, the only reason he helped Evans out was because he felt sorry for the guy and it cost him NOTHING to do so. Either he would get sent to prison and break out or his gang would show up and free him. Either way he'd be free. The reason he killed his gang was because he was pissed off that Evans had actually won and they didn't recognize it. They weren't playing the same game he was and so in a fit of anger he murders them. That just goes to show how petty he was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 19:22
|
|
|
So I was thinking of different ways to break down and rate a movie and I came up with some of these categories to rate 1 out of 10, was wondering if you CD goons could come up with some more than these few: Special Effects Fun Factor Cinematography Plot Acting Sountrack Campyness Action Art Direction Twists \/\/\ Thanks, and its mostly for fun. I think it would be cool to be able to find the top 10 movies rated by such details as dialogue, campyness, twists, acting - and also the worst when it comes to some of these categories too. adam jay harris fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Aug 22, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2008 14:48
|
|
|
Dialogue Humor/Laughs Goriness  As a comment, there's a case to be made that too many categories makes it hard to use such a thing unless it was for your own personal edification. I think back to PC game reviews from the 80s that had like 10 categories and it was near impossible to kind of understand if the game was deemed good or not. To give an appropriate example, someone might say that Airplane has a low Cinematography, Art Direction, and Twist score but it's a fantastic movie. That said, I can understand the fun of being a bit detailed and anal about some stuff and it can be fun to break things down. It really gets your brain thinking about what goes into a good movie experience. Edit: As an alternative, use Screen It's system! 
Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Aug 22, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2008 15:09
|
|
|
I know this might be a general question, but how does a director decide which scenes to film first?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2008 15:40
|
|
|
Darthbane2007 posted:I know this might be a general question, but how does a director decide which scenes to film first? Although a few films are done sequentially, most are at the whim of all of the various elements that go into a scene. Availability of actors, availability of locations, weather, set construction, dovetailing elements (like doing all the separate scenes that need the same costly equipment), and sometimes litmus tests to bear out if the film will be able to maintain its projected budget. It's pretty complex and often involves lots of people, especially producers. Edit: If you haven't already, you should listen to the director's commentaries for some of your favorite films. It's a popular topic to talk about the first scene of shooting which can often be at the middle or even end of the film. They sometimes talk about how scenes are shuffled around too. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Aug 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2008 16:09
|
|
|
Terminator 2 is a model example of efficiency in filming a complicated film. All the effects shots were first due to the time needed to do CGI and optical work. Then the stunt scenes and last the rest. Not full scenes at one time. So, some scenes intercut shots filmed months apart, totally seamlessly. On the other hand, some weird choice are made like the Spatula City segment being the first scene filmed for UHF.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2008 16:26
|
|
|
Darthbane2007 posted:I know this might be a general question, but how does a director decide which scenes to film first? He doesn't, the line producer does. Usually it's by which location is available first or which actor do they need to shoot out first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2008 21:27
|
|
|
Which is the best version of the Army of Darkness DVD? I have the first 2 Evil Deads in the Book of The Dead editions, but I've lost hope that they'll release AOD in that format so I'm looking for the best one to complete the trilogy. I'm primarily concerned with audio/video quality, but It'd be nice to know which has the best features too. For the record, I prefer the S-Mart ending over the Apocalypse one. I'm willing to look on eBay if the better version is OOP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2008 01:04
|
|
|
Dacap posted:Which is the best version of the Army of Darkness DVD? I have the first 2 Evil Deads in the Book of The Dead editions, but I've lost hope that they'll release AOD in that format so I'm looking for the best one to complete the trilogy. There is a version that gives you both cuts called the Boomstick edition, which seems to be the best available. That's what I've got, and it's very nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2008 15:11
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:He doesn't, the line producer does. Usually it's by which location is available first or which actor do they need to shoot out first. What he said. FYI, the line producer is the person responsible for the physical manufacture of the film, including, essentially, budgeting and scheduling. The director has some input into this process, but it is the line producer's call (with the producer, if necessary). Actors are often available for specified limited periods, e.g., two weeks commencing Sept 20th - so if you want that actor in your film you'd better organise your schedule so that they get their scenes done in the 2 weeks starting then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2008 23:30
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:This one is driving me crazy. I know I've seen that movie but I can't think of the name. It's definitely the Phantom. I saw that flick in theaters as a kid, it was fuckin harsh for a PG movie. There was also a guy getting eaten by sharks, a guy getting impaled with a spear, people being disintigrated, a guy getting strangled to death by a skeleton (!) and tons of gunshot casualties. Good movie, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2008 00:52
|
|
|
What's the best edition of Hard-Boiled? There's 4 or 5, and they all seem to have pluses or minuses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2008 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
timeandtide posted:What's the best edition of Hard-Boiled? There's 4 or 5, and they all seem to have pluses or minuses. I own the recent Dragon Dynasty release and I have no problem with it. I guess the picture is slightly cropped, though I hadn't seen the movie in years when I finally bought it, so I couldn't tell you how much of a difference it makes. Also I guess the subtitles are slightly different than the original DVD releases because it follows the dub more closely than the actual Cantonese translation. If you want a lot of extras, anamorphic widescreen and DTS sound, go with the Dragon Dynasty release. If you want a more "true" version of the film, try to track down the out of print Criterion release. The Duke fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Aug 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2008 07:53
|
|
