|
Whoever replaced Dent wouldn't be a White Knight like him, so wouldn't have the moral fortitude to carry through with keeping the bad guys off the streets. It's a not a matter of legal technicalities, it's that Dent's plan relies on having someone like Dent leading it. While there are legal issues related to prosecutorial misconduct which might cause problems for Dent's replacement, I don't think that's what's most important to the plot.
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
That's actually covered in the Back to the Future expanded universe novel "Rocking Through the Ages," where it's revealed that Doc Brown is a part-time sound engineer (hence the giant stack of amps in his house at the start of the first movie). In the book, Marty travels back in time to 1955 again to make sure that Bo Diddley successfully has his television debut on Ed Sullivan's show, and we find out that Doc had manufactured the guitar and amps for the Enchantment Under the Sea dance, as well as Bo Diddley's TV performance, and as such they were significantly ahead of their time. It's pretty fortunate the EU writers were able to step in and correct that sort of blunder.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
I made it up after making sure there weren't actually any Back to the Future expanded universe novels, as that would have made the whole thing a little too sad. I did find out, though, that there were book adaptations of the movies, whose author or publisher apparently found the movies a little too risque, swapping out all the mild profanity ("horseshit") for even milder euphemisms ("horse droppings").
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
caiman posted:Is hearing a verbal recap the exact same as having seen the film? If that's the case why do we even sit down and watch them? If to know the plot is to know what the movie is about, then why not just read a short synopsis and save yourself the time and money? Depends on the movie. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of Wedding Crashers, but as it was in twenty-to-thirty minute non-chronological, overlapping segments that I only half paid attention to at friends' places, I'll never really know, because even if I haven't who really gives a poo poo about Wedding Crashers? On the other hand, someone once offered to "just bring me up to speed" halfway through The Godfather, before I'd seen it, and I wasn't particularly interested in that. It depends on whether you're watching a movie you're really interested in, or if it's just a social thing to gather around. As per spoilers, similarly, it depends on how much the movie trades on surprises for its enjoyment. Moon and Black Swan work just fine even if you know the outline of the story, while The Usual Suspects gets something out of the way the big revelation changes what the story means.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
The rules of time travel simply allow for the fact that an intelligent, self-aware robot is alive while a gun isn't. The "field" generated by a living creature, what's said to make time travel possible, is, of course, a soul. Reese's statement that the T-800 can time travel because it's "surrounded by living tissue" is nothing more than a guess put forward by a clearly-exasperated man who, when pushed on how future technology works, responds "I don't know tech stuff." You can't just shove a gun up a pig's rear end because the gun still isn't going to be part of the pig anymore than your clothes are part of you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Explosions! posted:Every time I watch Blade Trinity I can't help but notice Blade's raging boner in the police station, right after he takes a hit from his inhaler. Please tell me I'm not the only one fascinated by the decision to leave that in? The commentaries on the special edition DVD mention nothing about it, but I can't believe that NO ONE during the entire process didn't see that shot and think "Holy poo poo, is that a huge hard-on in that scene or what?" Why Goyer, why? Interrogator: "What about blood? When you drink blood do you feel yourself becoming sexually aroused? You see, it seems to me that this business of vampirism has strong connotations of sexual confusion. Bodily fluids being exchanged, that sort of thing, and you have to ask yourself where that comes from. And I'm wondering what your relationship was like with your mother. Were the two of you very close?" In the first movie, Blade discovers that his mother is a vampire and is sexually involved with the movie's villain. Right after learning this, he's taken captive and strapped to a machine that's supposed to kill him by draining his blood. His mother uses his helplessness as an opportunity to tease him sexually, right before activating the switch to have the device start killing him. He escapes, drinks blood from the love interest (while she spams, half-moaning, half mumbling for him to stop), then kills his mother. Right in the middle, between drinking his girlfriend and killing his mother, he roars and arches his back in slow motion, in a shot mirroring the one you've brought up. And this is, like the scene you're asking about, the transition point between him being released from captivity and engaging in the violence he uses to sublimate his sexuality. So, yeah, probably not an accident. Blade has a connection between sex and drinking blood, partly because of his relationship with his mother, just like the guy interrogating him suggests. The inhaler dispenses a blood-analog. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Sep 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Why does the mirror bit imply to people that Travis is hallucinating? I read it more as a sign of his continuing psychosis. But it's been a while since I've seen the movie, so I may be missing something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:What's the deal legally with slander/libel laws and portraying real organizations like the NYPD/LAPD as corrupt in movies? First amendment rights are extremely strong for criticizing the government.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
FreshFeesh posted:If however they want someone new to cover the song, or the cover wasn't done through a preexisting recording contract, do they have to ask the permission of the original artist? In the United States, and I believe most other countries, licensing for music and lyrics is compulsory by law. You do have to pay the original artist (or the entity they've sold their rights to) for using the music and lyrics, but you don't have to get their permission. Imagine I write an original song, record it, and release it on CD. If you want to license that recording you need the permission of the rights-holders (initially me, unless I transfer). I can demand as much money as I want for the right and I can refuse to license all-together: no one can force my voice to appear in the soundtrack of a movie. However, our copyright laws require me to license you the music and lyrics at a fee set by, I believe, a third-party panel if we can't come to an agreement on price, which for a famous song isn't going to be nearly as high as trying to get the recording. As such, if you want a song in a movie, a cover is likely to be much cheaper and may be the only possible way to get the song.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:A question I was wondering, I watched Contagion the other day and maybe I missed it but what happens to Kate Winslet's character? Last I saw she was really sick in one of the makeshift medical wards but after that they didn't really say whether she just dies or not. If I recall correctly, there's a shot of her being zipped into a body bag. So, hopefully, she died of the titular contagion. Voodoofly posted:As such, cover songs in movies are usually cheaper, but they are not automatic - you still need permission and you can still be raked over coals on the fee. Good point. I'm not sure about this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:Anyway, here's my question: I loving love Alfonso Cuaron, and I recorded the third one off of HBO. Is it worth watching? Does any of Cuaron's genius shine through, or is he more or less just moving the franchise along? It's the most playful and lively of the Harry Potter films and the one I enjoyed the most. It's not his best work, but if you're okay with Harry Potter, really enjoy Alfonso Cuaron, and already have it recorded then it's worth checking out.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:It was a pretty anti-climactic as well, as there wasn't even any buildup to the reveal that Weyland was on the ship. Rapace basically gets an inkling that maybe he's aboard, she runs around for about 10 seconds, turns a corner and then he's just there. I mean, I've seen better-paced episodes of Three's Company than that "stunning" reveal. Isn't it revealed that Weyland is on the ship when Vickers and David have a discussion about his orders? They don't use his name, but I thought it was apparent who they were talking about. It's only a reveal to Shaw, not the audience, so they don't bother wasting a lot of time on it.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
In Walk Hard, what musician is John C. Reilly parodying as Dewey Cox for "Guilty as Charged"? The clip of the song below includes two topless women engaged in simulated sex, so likely not work safe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yCNghEwMw0
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:In the 1997 movie Contact, Ellie is whisked away to an alien world by the Machine, but everyone on Earth thinks it was her hallucination because only seconds passed on Earth while she passed hours in space. She is then called crazy and is humiliated before Congress. I always wondered why they didn't just try again. The Machine is still intact, isn't it? It's good for multiple journeys, isn't it? It doesn't cost a billion dollars per trip, right? Just send another guy and see what he has to say. In the novel (and I thought the movie) they tried to spin it up again and nothing happened. There's a fair bit more material with the aliens, who I think reveal that they didn't build the transportation system, they just found it, that it requires them to make the wormholes available to the machine for it to work, and that they won't be doing that again for humanity now that they've done the meet-and-greet. Thwomp posted:Yeah. In the book, it's a group of people who go through together. It's been a bit since I read it but I believe that they all have separate but related experiences. They then return together. I'm pretty sure they have a shared experience, though it's also been a while for me. I don't recall the conflict between science and faith, and the final twist about how Ellie's experience is similar to a religious experience, being in the book, or at least as prominent.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
ratchild13 posted:Does anyone recall a thread that had a critical analysis of Michael Bay's Transformers movies, revealing that they were actually cinema genius in disguise? I tried the search feature, but couldn't find anything, and I can't remember the original poster. The thread was closed a while back but I wanted to re-read and forward to a friend. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3507949
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
ratchild13 posted:Thanks! By what wizardry did you find it so quickly? I searched for about 15 minutes before giving up I'd previously sent the link to a friend so just searched for that email, which doesn't really generalize into a broader solution for the forums, unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
effectual posted:What other movies are about pre-emptive war? Dr Strangelove and Sum of all Fears come to mind. W.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
The protagonist in a B level action movie is generally, if he were to be taken seriously, someone you would believe to be a psychotic wacko. The distinction is that the Driver character is revealed by the movie in which he appears to be a psychotic wacko.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Frankly, I loved Drive and I don't really see it either. Action heroes as psychotic wacks - explicitly in the text - goes back to First Blood and Lethal Weapon, it's sort of in the DNA of the genre. John Rambo is spit on from the beginning of First Blood and we're introduced to Riggs with a gun in his mouth. One of the things that makes Drive interesting (and I'm not claiming its the first film to do so) is the transition of him from loner to romantic figure to psychopath.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I've wondered this myself, and thought maybe it had to do with modern shows being mixed for 7.1, and when your TV or whatever downsamples to two channels the balance gets all thrown off. I'm guessing this is it. My father recently got a set of external speakers for his TV and he went from having to crank the volume up during dialog scenes (specifically including for Breaking Bad) to being able to listen to the show at a consistent volume setting. There's some movies and TV shows that only sound right if you have a center channel speaker because it's where most of the sound of people talking comes from.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Trump posted:This just isn't true. I think it got more to do with some weird virtual surround setting on the tv, because downmixed 5.1 tracks can be played perfectly fine in stereo. I'm not claiming that it's impossible to downmix 5.1 or 7.1 to stereo in way that produces legible dialog, but that's not inconsistent with my claim that it being done badly can result in TV shows sounding weird. It's not clear to me why you think we're in disagreement here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
caiman posted:That's exactly right. Which is why they could have picked almost literally ANY movie. Didn't they need to pick one where they could find people with crazy opinions about it? Would that be as practical with The Fast and the Furious?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
caiman posted:Well obviously they needed a movie whose fans have wacky opinions. But my point is that, given the utter baselessness of most of the interpretations, in theory the same documentary could be made about any movie (who knows, there may be some hardcore Fast and the Furious conspiracy theorists out there). Right, but in practice do you know that it could have actually been made about any other movie?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Snak posted:Contact is literally "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" the story. The entire thing is convoluted set up to put scientists in the position of asking other people to take their universe-altering revelation on faith. It's an allegory for religion. Which, unfortunately, doesn't really hold up, as it depends on everyone believing that Hadden secretly developed the ability to fake an interstellar signal and manipulate gravity, but silenced everyone involved in both projects. The return to the status quo at the end of the movie where it's an open question whether extraterrestrial life exists doesn't work at all. Fun movie outside of the very ending, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
More Contact discussion. This bit of Snak's post put in spoiler tags by me.Snak posted:It's true, the signal has to have been real, but I'm not sure what you mean about manipulating gravity. When they activate the machine that actually gets a chance to work, once the bright white light starts being produced, the ocean gets pulled towards it and the all the nearby ships tilt to something like a 45° angle (the wrong way, actually, but I assume that's a simple production mistake). Being able to produce a gravity field strong enough to drag a fleet of ships at least a few hundred yards away is an astonishing achievement for a hoax.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Which is covered by Woods' line "or a chance to test out experimental technology." So the hoax reasoning goes that Hadden discovered a potential technology that could manipulate gravity but no one was ever going to let him test it out. Therefore, he invents a fake alien signal which (among making him a ton of money by also being a contractor on the project) allows him to test it because it's easier to say yes to an alien than a corporate CEO who's made plenty of enemies. Yeah, I get that that's how James Woods's character tries to frame it, I just don't think it's a particularly plausible argument. A machine that bends gravity on that scale isn't just some expensive experimental technology, it would be one of the most important technological achievements of the century. Which Hadden would have to know would work without any tinkering based purely on an untested design. I really like the movie, I'm not trying to nitpick, but it undercuts the "it's a matter of faith" element by making the operation of the machine so extraordinary. Particularly when it presents the wormhole as being a lesser piece of evidence of legitimacy than the possibility that Hadden could somehow put eighteen hours of static on a video camera. edit: Apparently Monkeyseesaw covered this well already while I was writing, but gently caress it, it's here now. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Snak posted:First of all, when the device turns on that has the gravity effects, don't all of the cameras cut out? I don't remember is there is recorded evidence of the gravity effects. If that evidence doesn't exist, then all they have is a bunch of anecdotal "religious experiences". I don't think they indicate either way. The electronics in general keep working on the ships, but it's not like they show footage of the event at the hearing later. Considering it's the sort of monumental event where you'd want the belt-and-suspenders of both digital and film cameras recording things, I have trouble believing that the electronics to release and monitor the pod were still functioning while every recording device failed (at least without the movie specifically telling us that happened). Further, even if they did, this is the simultaneous anecdotal religious experiences of multiple ships filled with military, government, and scientific personnel. Snak posted:edit: To be clear I definitely thing the execution of these ideas is botched in the film Honestly, I don't think our opinions are that far apart. I get what they're going for, I just think the way things are presented makes it hard to believe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Is there a filmic term for the concept of anti-satire? No, there's a general term: "subtlety."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:When Star Wars came out, was it actually celebrated for it's good writing? It was nominated for an Academy Award for its screenplay, so whether or not you particularly cared for the writing or trust the Academy, it's not a stretch to say it was celebrated for it. Toy Story was also nominated. Casablanca and Pulp Fiction won the Oscar for their screenplays. I'd also personally describe most of the movies on that list as well-written, though not necessarily all the Star Treks, Austin Powerses, or Avatar.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
And if you're willing to call Chicago a serious role, then he had something similar in Scorsese's Gangs of New York and The Aviator.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:He was also great in Boogie Nights. Absolutely, though that's also a role that's pretty comedic (even if the movie isn't a comedy).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Are you kidding me? Who, outside of children, actually thinks like that? We have exceedingly wealthy people flat out stating,to people who are interviewing them, that they shouldn't have to share their wealth because they "worked hard for it". Did they think Elysium wasn't trying to make parallels with real life? One of the dominant arguments against even the weak UHC that is the PPACA/Obamacare was that it would inherently lead to shortages and extended waiting times for critical procedures. It was bullshit, but it's not shocking that some people believed it, and that was only about providing healthcare to Americans, not the global poor. The idea that poverty is about actual scarcity, rather than the politics and practicalities of redistribution, is believed by a distressingly large number of people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Dr_Amazing posted:Seriously? 0-100 for freezing/boiling makes way more sense than 30 and whatever. The argument is that the dominant use of temperature in human lives is in preparing to encounter the outdoor environment (what should I wear, are the roads going to be bad, etc.) rather than detecting whether water is going to boil or freeze (I use a whistle to tell if my water is hot enough to make tea, not a thermometer), and it's more intuitive for the measure of the environment to map to 0 to 100 instead of -20 to 40. That said, an educated person should be comfortable using either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Living in a country that gets winter this reasoning doesn't seem any more intuitive unless one has a big problem with negative numbers. Freezing is really important when you need to be on the alert for ice, snow, and frostbite, so basing the scale around that works very well. Sure, but the ground won't freeze in 0° C weather, and the less-intuitive demarcation for Celsius is the upper end anyways. Ultimately, to use a scale you want to get a feel for it, and that can be done for any of them. The point is that the argument for the 0-100 scale was that that range mapping to freezing/boiling "makes sense", but that's an appeal to human intuition, and the boiling point of water at one atmosphere is a nonsensical thing to use as an anchor for that. It's like promoting metric units on the basis of how easy conversion is: you don't need an intuitive mechanic for something that almost nobody has to do in their head. I'm trying to recall, does this issue come up in movies? I can't remember the last time I heard a movie character comment on the weather in terms of specific degrees. Miles get used a lot, does that seem weird to foreigners who watch American movies? When they do subtitles or dubs, do they switch it out for metric units?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:Wait, so "The boiling point of water at one atmosphere" is nonsensical, but "the temperature of a mix of ice, salt and ammonium chloride" and "The temperature of Fahrenheits wifes armpit" is a perfectly sensible way of defining a temperature scale? Someone claimed Celsius was preferable because it "makes sense". I'm suggesting it actually doesn't tie particularly well to things that it's useful to have human intuition for. I'm arguing against a particular argument for Celsius. This does not require a positive argument in favor of Fahrenheit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
After Earth doesn't really have a twist. The planet they end up on is, in fact, Earth, but the movie doesn't hide that from you. Will Smith tells his son that shortly after they crash, which is very early on. I think that line is even in one of the trailers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Snak posted:This is true, but Hollywood seems more two-faced because they are constantly advertising both the budget of films and how much money they make in the box-office. And there's nobody who's suckered into developing the iPhone with the promise of net profits that never materialize.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Quad posted:Assuming it'll end as a trilogy I don't know why they'd stop there if they keep making money. The main characters are CGI and they've already switched directors once. There's no member of the creative team that could force a stop to things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Vizzini isn't having even a little trouble conceptualizing the idea of someone climbing a cliff, so it's not a humorous exaggeration, it's just a misuse of the word. Him shouting "impossible," which is what the movie is riffing on, would be an exaggeration of him thinking that someone being able to climb the cliff is unlikely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
I get the impression that the straight-rolling is just the last of multiple elements that people find odd - the ship surviving a crash landing without deformation, the weirdness of being crushed by a rolling spaceship - with the way the characters run from it just the last, and therefore most memorable, of these. The ship is a dreamlike object, and not being able to escape it appropriately nightmarish. For some people clashes with the highly-detailed clarity of the presentation, though I think it's actually a big part of the charm of the movie. I feel like the, "Well, actually, they did run to the side a bit and the spaceship curves its path, and they couldn't technically run any more to the side, and..." arguments miss the point to much the same extent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 20:30
|
|