|
The Duke posted:Jim Brown is clearly killed by the martians when he attempts to box a whole crowd of them but then shows up at the very end like its nothing. It's clearly lampshading this trope which happens all the time in these kinds of movies. For an example of the trope played straight, watch the Tom Cruise "War of the Worlds" and try to construct any scenario where the son could have actually survived. And yet he does!
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
nocal posted:Yeah Tom Cruise is so manly and Johnny Depp is so lame. It's because Tom Cruise does his own stunts. That won't tell you a thing -- check Jackie Chan movies, there are still stuntmen. They don't just fill in for Major Star, they are also the people that dodge out of the way of the car chase through a street market, they sub in for bad guys getting thrown down a flight of stairs, etc etc. I have no idea whether Tom Cruise does all his own stunts or not, but the presence of stunt actors in the credits is entirely irrelevant to that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:Can anyone think of any art films about sports/athletes? Raging Bull Field of Dreams (debateable) The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner Chariots of Fire (not sure how artsy it is per se, but it won the Academy Award for Best Picture) Match Point is kind of about tennis and artsy in a Woody Allen way If martial arts is a sport or features athletes, then you have loads of choices. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Are there any really tightly plotted Italian horror films? It seems that the Italian approach has emphasized style and set pieces over story even more than in American horror- you really have to accept that there's a room full of razor sharp wire or that a helicopter crashed through the roof for no good reason. Suspira, if you're open to a movie that's a bit dated in feel and approach.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
BIZORT posted:I have some questions about Mulholland Drive. I know it's a popular movie to discuss but after finding the old Movie of the Month thread on it and re-watching it just now, I just have a couple of things. I'll spoiler all of it separately. My theory as to your first question is that you know how they say your life flashes before your eyes when you die? Well that happens here, just in a weird twisted way. She has already pulled the trigger before the first scene and in the milliseconds that the bullet enters her brain she is remembering / inventing her past. That's how she knew her corpse would be on the bed. Most of the rest of your questions can be answered with: It was originally going to be a tv series with lots of threads ala Twin Peaks but when the network (ABC?) canned it, truncated versions of everything found their way into the movie
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:What are some earlier instances of the plot in which the protagonist stages fights with someone who is ostensibly a villain for financial gain and shares the spoils with his or her accomplice? I know there are more of these but for some reason, the only ones that are coming to mind are Dragonheart and Shark Tale. I guess The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly could count but it's a little different. I feel like there are some really obvious ones I'm missing. That's what The Three Amigos think is going on at first. The Frighteners Diggstown e: Oh, earlier. Hm ... The Sting, kinda? regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Aug 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
SubG posted:Yeah, but that really just calls attention to the fact that it is usage, not etymology, which should inform such arguments. American pronunciation of `petite' and `lingerie' don't accurately mimic the French pronunciation, but that ship has sailed and so arguing that it ought to be something like `puh-TEE' and `la-ZHREE' isn't just pedantic, it's just as wrong as arguing that the K in `knight' shouldn't be silent because of the way it's said in Old English. Nah, petite is right, it's only in the masculine form, petit, that it would be pronounced as you indicate. Since English doesn't have masculine / feminine and the French feminine form is the version used in English, pronunciation would properly be peh-TEET, which is pretty close to how it's pronounced. I mean if you want to get all pedantic, we all pronounce Paris wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
What happened to Francis Ford Coppola? That is, in the 70s he made four movies that would be in any top 100 list, and was the screenwriter for another (Patton) that might not be quite of that caliber but is generally very well regarded. I'd put his body of work in that decade up with any director's best ten year span, and he looked well on his way to be considered one of the top 2 or 3 directors of all time. Since then, he's had maybe 2-3 decent, entertaining but ultimately slight movies and a whole bunch of duds. I mean, if not for the '70s, he'd be considered a mediocre ham-n-egger along the lines of Paul W. S. Anderson or, I don't know, Jon Turteltaub -- decently competent, forgettable, and largely anonymous. Was it just luck in the 70s? I just don't get how he seemingly lost his talent for directing or recognizing a good story vs a bad one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Interesting -- so a vanity project basically reduced him to gun-for-hire for a decade+. Easy to scoff at a vanity project gone wrong since it seems to happen a lot, but can't hardly blame the guy for thinking that a project he believed in and devoted his entire talent to would be a big hit, given his incredible run leading up to that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
How was the opening shot to The Turin Horse filmed? It's an astonishing bit of camerawork. Moves too quickly at times to be standard steadicam, there are no dolly tracks anywhere in evidence as there should be in some shots if a dolly was used, and it's too steady for filming from a vehicle considering the terrain. And the distance covered seems too great to be a crane shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DnCS7uXueQ I suppose dolly tracks could have been digitally edited out so a steadicam operator on a dolly cart is my best guess for now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:It doesn't look like it's moving fast. The horse never goes faster than a steady trot. The smoke makes it look like it's faster than it is. But there are times the camera moves much faster than the horse, to catch up and pass it by (in order to get in front of it). In any event, I asked a professional camera operator acquaintance of mine about it, his guess, citing fresh tire tracks at 1:30, was truck + steadicam.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
effectual posted:How would you stabilize it in post? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZploGEADsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo-leRJUVjc From what I understand, video editing software (via a plugin or w/e) does edge detection to identify persistent objects within each video frame and analyzes the movement or w/e of the camera, then modifies the video frame by frame to maintain smooth movement. A side effect is that the result may be cropped a bit, depending on how much camera movement there was.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:Was Million Dollar Baby based on Old Yeller? I think it was the other way around
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Is Osmosis Jones any good?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
For English language movies that have foreign characters who are supposed to be speaking their own language, usually their dialogue is conveyed in subtitles (if it's not a Hollywood blockbuster movie and/or the amount of foreign language is minimal) or they just speak English but with an accent, and the audience understands that they are supposed to be speaking their native language. The Hunt for Red October had a slightly different approach that I enjoyed -- the Russians initially spoke in Russian with subs then there was a zoom-in transition and they started speaking English with a Russian accent, with the understanding that they were in fact still speaking Russian. Was that approach original to that movie? And are there any other methods that have been tried to deal with the issue of foreign language in an English language movie? e: I guess another movie that handled it in a somewhat original manner was Inglorious Basterds, where the switch to English in the intro scene was worked into a necessary plot point (so the hidden Jewish family wouldn't understand the conversation) but I have to think at least part of the existence of that plot point was so that the entire conversation wouldn't have to be subtitled.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
JebanyPedal posted:I actually never get that impression, I always just see it as them speaking English. Why would a bunch of Soviets in a Soviet sub with no one on the sub except other Soviets be speaking English?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Ebjan posted:Does anybody know the name of a film made in Europe where a woman's father rapes her boyfriend? I think it might have been a Serb film. You might be slightly misremembering details from A Serbian Film; I think that might the one single permutation of relationship rape that isn't featured in it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I've read about movie names (or maybe it was book names?) that have to be changed because a prior work by that name already exists. But sometimes the movie goes forward with a name that's already been used -- there's a movie called Rush in theaters now but there was a 1991 movie of the same name. Do they have to get permission to use the name from the other studio, pay a licensing fee, or is it nbd?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
therattle posted:I'm guessing they are both MPAA members, which is why they couldn't both use The Butler (or whatever). Here is a blog post about the law and titles. Thanks for the link, that was informative and legit interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Red posted:If I have to watch one Friday the 13th film, which one should I watch - that is, which has the best deaths, good jokes, lots of hockey mask guy doing ridiculous stunts? The first one is probably the best if you want one that most effectively plays it completely straight Friday the 13th Part VI is interesting as a kind of proto-Scream, in that it makes some nods towards acknowledging horror movie conventions and some slight breaking of the 4th wall. It's not like a deconstruction or anything as significant a change from the franchise as that makes it sound, but there are a couple clever moments.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I don't know if this counts, but I'm at my wits end: I don't think search works for archives so it can be tough to find particular threads. At least, that's been my experience when looking for an old thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:I'm trying to recall whether we've seen a Lenovo/Mac laptop used in hacking sequences.... Surely you're forgetting the immortal scene where a Macbook hacks into an alien mothership and uploads a virus
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
Trying to figure out who says that old timey gangster line "Now look here, see?" in a nasally voice. Is it Edward G. Robinson?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Anyone know when and why older styles of transition like dissolves / cross-fades, irises, etc fell out of favor and the direct / smash cut came more into favor? It seems like if anything, before the advent of digital technology the simpler direct cut should have been used exclusively but things like irising out into a new scene definitely feels old timey; the only time non-standard cuts are used now are generally to give a film a certain atmosphere of that era (Star Wars recalling sci-fi serials, for instance).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Would Ender's Game be worth seeing if I've had what I assume to be a fairly significant plot element spoiled for me - namely that the "simulations" are anything but and Ender is actually commanding real forces that he's sacrificing. Curious how much my enjoyment of the story might be diminished by it. Even in the book, it's only a reveal to the sub-20 year old or a non-reader who isn't familiar with fiction conventions. I read it at 13 and was blown away by the twist, but most all of the people I've recommended it to as adults caught on; at some point, you're 20 pages away from the end of the book and say "Hey wait a minute, how the gently caress can this story be wrapped up with one chapter to go? Oh, wait a minute..." I haven't seen the movie but I assume the same would hold true as the movie nears the 90 minute mark. That said, I'd still recommend the book because it's a solid read and there's more to the story. It's as much about the psychology of the main character and the society in general as it is about the war. And it sets up the sequel, which is as different a book as it's possible for a sequel to be but also very good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:In the 50th Anniversary episode of Doctor Who, a (British) character mentions that they can't reveal to their American allies that they have the ability to travel time. Paraphrased, she says "Americans with the ability to change time? You've seen their movies." It's not a time travel joke. It's a joke about American exceptionalism and the perception (whether warranted or not, it's irrelevant except that it's how Americans are perceived) that Americans are convinced of their own superiority and inherent righteousness and, with time travel ability, would seek to alter any "problems" in history that result it history not conforming to how history *should* have been.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Ok, stupid question. I love apocalypse now but I don't understand what was going on with Kurtz's cult. What exactly was his MO and theirs as a group? It didn't seem as simple as a defection to the other side. "gently caress both sides, we quit. Now leave us alone. If you don't, we'll kill you."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
teen witch posted:Movies with extremely subtle social/political commentary to them? Bonus points if its satirical or dystopian. If Starship Troopers is your benchmark for extremely subtle then idk what to tell you. In any event, Audition can be read as a commentary on the changing role of women in Japanese society (that's my reading of it, anyway). City Hall (think I'm thinking of the right movie here) is about as subtle as Starship Troopers w/r/t it's commentary on the political process and the media.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
david_a posted:Can anybody think of movies similar to Chungking Express and Fallen Angels? I haven't seen any other Wong Kar-wai films, so I guess tracking down his other works would be a first step (I see Netflix has 3 of them)... Other possibilities: Blue Valentine Ghost World (quirky in a similar way to Chungking Express) Sideways Maybe Krzysztof Kieślowski's Three Colors trilogy Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Hibernator posted:I don't think it's fair to go after him for the plane thing. The company embarrassed him in public and he lashed out. Small potatoes. I have a pretty great idea on how the whole issue can be avoided in the future if he's interested.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Thanks for the nice responses folks. If you really wanted to make the effort to get through to them, I'd try to explain that the two mediums are different and so what works in one won't work in another. If Rowling had wanted Harry Potter 1 to be a movie instead of a book, she would have written a screenplay instead of a manuscript. As the medium changes, so must the message; obviously, portraying characters thoughts is much much more difficult in a movie, but movies have their own strengths that books lack, and so just as there are changes when translating from one language to another (i.e., a literal word-for-word translation of "ma petite ami" from French to English will rather miss the meaning) so will there be changes when going from book to movie. This isn't a weakness, it's an inevitible part of the process and can add to the final product when done well. Alternatively, ask them if there is a music video they really like. Pick it apart as not being a literal interpretation of the song lyrics and then ask them how they can like the video when it's not a literal interpretation. For your edit, I don't think it would be illegal at all (unless it shows illegal activities, in which case maybe something like disturbing the peace could apply?). I wouldn't go with a dv tape though -- burn that poo poo to dvd, otherwise someone will just grab the tape and end up throwing it in the junk drawer. e: maybe I misunderstood what you said about your friend(s). If their issue isn't the changes from book -> movie but that there are things that couldn't happen that way IRL ... well, what are they watching a movie about kid wizards for? My response would be to one up them and take a massive poo poo on any movie they watch or like. "Uh, Hobbits don't even exist in real life, who are they trying to fool?" "Heh, 'the force', nice try Lucas." regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The person in question honestly thinks this video is great for holding the movie up to a 'higher standard' than normal. The video doesn't simply get the film wrong and films wrong as a concept, it also misses the basic premise of sausages. This friend simultaneously 'doesn't care about the book, the film stands alone' and wants copious amounts of exposition to explain why Ron didn't/couldn't get off the horse instead of asking why for himself. As an example, I like the movie Blade Runner (if not to the degree that many people here do), but I think the premise has an inherent flaw. The government is really worried about replicants passing as human. So why hasn't a law been passed dictating that they all have green skin, or an extra eye, or a big brand on their forehead that says REPLICANT. I mean sure, there'd be no movie then, but I think it requires such a suspension of disbelief that society has a huge problem and also doesn't make one simple and obvious change that would fix everything to be problematic. Perhaps the prime example is The Matrix, given that the machine's general plan violates the second law of thermodynamics. I've heard that in the original screenplay it's addressed much better (instead of using humans as "batteries", they use human minds as a kind of giant computer -- fixes all the problems but it made it "too confusing" or something). Don't get me wrong -- like I said I enjoy those movies still, but it's definitely a problem I have with them. Movies have to follow an internal logic or else it's just a collection of images, whatever the craft they're made with and arranged into.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Exactly. Why aren't the replicants in Blade Runner bright green with "REPLICANT" written on their forehead? Because then there wouldn't be a movie. Anyone who gets bent out of shape because a movie violates its "internal logic" needs to ask themselves why they think airtight internal logic is important to a good film. I get that, I really do. That said, there must be some semblance of logic, at least for most movies. If you're watching Saving Private Ryan and all of a sudden a giant Optimus Prime appears and stomps Hitler to death, that would be rather disconcerting and ruin the show. (cue the "Id watch that it sounds awsum" crew. It'd be cute once, and only *because* most movies follow their rules for their internal universe and so a movie can come along that subverts it. If no movies had internal consistency, it would quickly lose its appeal. Or, for example, Tim and Eric only works *because* most shows have an internal logic and so a show that doesn't, has a novelty factor going. If every show and movie were like that ... well, movies would be a lot less popular than they are). Sure, you can point to exceptions like Un Chien Andalou as a purely surrealistic collection of images without internal logic or structure but it would get pretty tiresome if every movie said "logic doesn't matter, anything can happen, there are no rules in our universe". Or, just as bad, a movie that has rules that differ from ours but does not explore what that means. If the second law of thermodynamics really doesn't exist in The Matrix, that's a loving HUGE change. Like literally the world would be completely different. But oddly, it appears exactly like our world. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
echoplex posted:Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. "More human than human" is our motto. Commerce is the goal of any business. That hasn't stopped laws being passed to eliminate child labor, institute a minimum wage, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Cerv posted:and people break those laws all the time e: Thinking about it, I suppose it could be handwaved away via "It's legal in other countries", just as Apple et. al can pay wages in China and Malaysia that would be criminal in the US but are a-ok overseas. quote:let's assume that the first thing the escaping replicants did was acquire realistic skin to replace their neon green. the tech clearly exists given the realistic animals, etc. On the contrary, I think that would add a lot. They want to pass for human, why? Do they desire to emulate humanity, or is it to pass unnoticed for nefarious purposes? If every replicant ever has been clearly marked as such and now there are some that aren't ... scary stuff imo. In any event, reasonable people will disagree. e2: vvv one of the major issues I see brought up occasionally that I *don't* have a problem with is if Deckard is a replicant, how come he's so weak? He gets his rear end beat by every replicant he goes up against. In the scene where he's shown the escaped replicants on a display, they list traits of each of them -- intelligence, strength, and maybe something else? I just figured that for some reason he was a model with low strength. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The replicants are people with emotions and feelings, not 'passing' for anything. Being regarded as 'emulating' human is the sort of attitude that upsets them. They are viewed as villainous because, if I recall, they fought for their freedom instead of being used as effectively slaves. Deckard's big character development takes place when he shoots dead one of the replicants in the street and looks completely horrified at the fact that he has just killed a real person.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Carthag posted:They're humans who have for their entire life been told they are inhuman. Reacting violently under such circumstances isn't that villainous. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think murder except in direct self-defense is wrong. And they're not human. Alive, sentient, I'll give you that. But if just those two qualities define one as human, then intelligent aliens -- say, Spock or ET or Chewbacca -- are humans. If that's the sticking point, then go back to my original post and substitute homo sapien for people / human.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Minclark posted:Heard around the lunchroom today that there was a Hollywood movie camera that was used for a very short while that worked similar to an x ray machine. Is this truth or fiction? Given the mechanics of how x-ray machines work, this seems unlikely. Film cameras work by gathering in light through a lens which focuses that light onto the film contained behind the lens. X-ray machines work by shooting out radiation from the "camera" at a distant piece of film which is sensitive to that type of radiation, and materials that are too hard for the x-rays to penetrate as well (bone, for instance) that are in the way block some of that radiation so they show up, kind of like a shadow, on the film. That is, movie cameras gather while x-ray machines send out. Entirely different mechanisms, and I'm not sure how or why Hollywood would use the latter type of machine to make a movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Is it Brad Bourland? There's an article about him here. Also, be sure to do a surprisingly hard Sporcle quiz based on his lists here.. Looks like his website, themovielistonline.com , is down + for sale 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
PTizzle posted:Lately I've been thinking of actors playing against type or playing very odd roles (the kind of movie that they generally don't play if they're an actor/actress who is somewhat typecast), can anybody think of a few out of the norm I might have missed? Preferably not bit-parts, but otherwise anything is good. Robert De Niro in The King of Comedy (or, really, anything from the 70s aside from Godfather II. It wasn't until later in his career that he became the default mob / tough guy casting) I suppose you could say almost the same thing about Gene Hackman - The Conversation Marlon Brando - Don Juan Demarco (don't watch this) Charlize Theron - Monster Henry Fonda - Once Upon a Time in the West Mad Dog and Glory has a double reversal Possibly helpful: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PlayingAgainstType/FilmActing regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 11:50
|
|