General Movie Questions (and hopefully answers)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > General Movie Questions (and hopefully answers)

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Domukaz posted:

Stupid I-just-ought-to-google-it question: what is mise-en-sc�ne and why is it important?

Quick answer: Camera angle, actor position/placement, colour, light/dark tones and texture relay to the viewer either additional information about the scene or emphasize what is going on in the scene.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2008 02:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 21:45

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

nitty gritty titty posted:

What are the major differences between Blade Runner: Final Cut and the older versions? I have the Director's Cut on DVD, and have been considering picking up the Final Cut, but not sure if it's needed.

There's only about 2 minutes of changed footage but you should get it anyway because it's a beautiful transfer and looks and sounds amazing. Plus they use CGI properly to fix minor issues that needed touching up (not George Lucas CGI where they toss tons of random poo poo where it's not needed).

# ¿ Jun 21, 2008 18:34

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

twistedmentat posted:

I just watched Dark City with the Ebert Commentary. I know he did commentary for his movie Beneth The Valley of the Dolls, but are there any other movies he's done commentary for?

Also, in Platoon, when Charlie Sheen is waiting for the VC soldiers to come into the ambush, he keeps covering and uncover his eyes. Why the gently caress is he doing that?

He does an excellent commentary for Citizen Kane.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2008 06:58

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

I just watched Dead Ringers and good God I am confused at why what just happened happened. I've always found Cronenberg and Lynch to be the two toughest film makers to digest but I'm more confused with Dead Ringers than I was with The Brood or hell even Eraserhead.

I don't even know where to start. I watched the movie but the entire time was basically me going :psyduck:

# ¿ Jul 11, 2008 09:06

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

euphronius posted:

Why is "The Unforgiven" considered a "revisionist" Western?

I assume you mean "Unforgiven" not "The Unforgiven" which is a Korean film. Anyhow, people could give you the long version but basically it's revisionist because it's morally grey. Traditional westerns have protagonists that are, for the most part, pillars of morality with an unshakable moral code. The west wasn't the nice wholesome place it's been idealized as.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2010 20:32

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

euphronius posted:

Yeah, "Unforgiven" by Eastwood. Sorry.

So it is revisionist for revising the revisionist films, heh.

What? No. Revisionist westerns have been around since the 60's if I recall correctly.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2010 20:44

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

euphronius posted:

What? now I am confused. So was it revisionist or not?

Revisionist is a type of movie in the western genre. It doesn't mean that every revisionist western is revisionist relative to the westerns before it. It's revisionist in relation to traditional westerns.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2010 20:58

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

...of SCIENCE! posted:

If you follow the ridiculous ARG (which I didn't, but I've read a summary) you find out that the monster used to live on the bottom of the ocean eating an aquatic plant that is both addictive and acts as a strong sedative. A soft drink company found the plant and added it to their beverage, where the addictive properties made the beverage grow more and more popular, until they harvested so much of the plant that the monster couldn't eat enough and because of this the sedative effect wore off and it started to rampage.

So the "clover field" is the patch of undersea plants, I guess, and the monster used to graze from it like a cow in a patch of clover?

This is why I tell people time and time again that "have to know" that it's honestly better not to.

SODA POP DESTROYED THE WORLD

# ¿ May 9, 2010 08:26

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Parachute posted:

Bad Boys 2 wants a word with you.

Bad Boys 2 is Michael Bay's magnum opus.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2010 18:40

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

NeuroticErotica posted:

The Hitchcock zoom is also pretty universally regarded as bad technique.

Really? I actually really like it. I'm honestly surprised at it's considered "bad".

# ¿ Jun 30, 2010 23:59

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

fenix down posted:

This has probably been asked before, but has there ever been a remake of a movie or TV show that rose above the source material or got good reviews?

The only one I could think of was The Man Who Knew Too Much - but it doesn't seem like that one would count.

Man on Fire.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2010 18:45

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

LtKenFrankenstein posted:

The only one I can remember is Wing Commander having the Phantom Menace trailer before it.

Anybody actually see that movie? It looked like a piece of poo poo.

I bought Wing Commander because Matthew Lillard was in it.

PS - Don't every buy a movie because Matthew Lillard is in it.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2010 06:29

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Slasherfan posted:

With Tron Legacy opening this Christmas 28 years after the original, I'm wondering if it's the longest sequel ever released? If not what is the longest sequel?
I'm only counting movies that got a decent enough cinema release.

Apparently it's The Birds and Birds II with 31 years in between for movies.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1852056_1852251_1852252,00.html

Of course if you're talking about GOOD sequels then I guess we'll have to wait until Tron Legacy comes out. Original one wasn't that great in the first place.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2010 02:11

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Slasherfan posted:

Birds 2 is a TV movie so I don't really count that. Is Return To Oz considered a sequel to The Wizard Of Oz?

To me a movie's a movie. While TV movies are usually not very good I've seen some drat fine ones in my day.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2010 02:23

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

ProfessorClumsy posted:

You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style?

I like it for the most part. Sadly with some films they really loving overboard for no reason. Guy checking the mail like every other day? CAMERA EXPLODES WITH EXCITEMENT!

Still it seems like a good way to save money on using dollys, tracks, cranes and all sorts of poo poo.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2011 21:22

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Magic Hate Ball posted:

Yeah, it's really more of a pastiche to that general style. Also, am I alone in thinking that The Meaning Of Life is the best Python film? The humor is so wonderfully, uncompromisingly cruel.

While I don't really like The Meaning of Life overall I can't deny it has some biting skits. Others just fall flat for me.

Personally I think the Life of Brian is their best and Holy Grail is tremendously overrated by people that just want wacky things to quote.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2011 02:53

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

caiman posted:

There have been times where a friend is watching a movie and invites me to join. The movie's been playing for fifteen or twenty minutes, and I say I don't want to watch it because I hate missing big chunks of any film. The friend insists that "you haven't missed anything. I'll fill you in on what happened."

I've done this a few times and people get genuinely pissed off like you're calling them diseased when you say you don't want to watch a partial movie.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2011 20:20

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

JusCantST0PMe posted:

So Star Trek seems like great stuff, but I've never seen the show and want to know if the movies are worth watching by themselves.

I've seen enough references in television and pop culture to think I have a fairly good grasp on the show. I don't really have the time and wouldn't even know where to begin if I wanted to watch the entire TV series, but I really enjoyed the latest movie and was wondering if it would be worth my interest to at least go through the other movies. I know there are quite a few and that they are not all exactly gold, but I was wondering if they stood up on their own without the shows.

Star Trek II and Star Trek VI are generally regarded as the two best of the movies.

Personally I think Star Trek I is also a great flick. Star Trek III is OK, IV isn't particularly great and V is vastly underrated (appreciate it in the same way you would a Firefly episode and don't take anything too seriously). If you watch the ones featuring the original cast in order you don't need any real knowledge from the TV show. Star Trek II makes a direct reference to an episode but I've yet to see it and have no problems following along.

All the TNG movies aren't very good. It's actually kind of strange. I much prefer The Next Generation TV show to The Original Series but gently caress me TOS movies are, far, far better than the TNG ones.

doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Apr 25, 2011

# ¿ Apr 25, 2011 11:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 21:45

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Ornamented Death posted:

Someone in CineD summed up my issues with First Contact (and really all TNG movies) in a very succinct way. For seven seasons, we saw Captain Picard always do everything in his power to find a diplomatic solution. In the movies, he turns into Rambo with phasers.

Quite right.

TNG was great because it actually felt like progress. Instead of strong-arming the way through the galaxy it was possible to try and find the best solution for all involved while, at the same time, admitting that sometimes the best decision is really the least lovely one.

If it was just one movie, fine, some episodes turned out to be big firefights. But I can't think of a single moment in a TNG movie that was resolved with civil discourse.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2011 02:55

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > General Movie Questions (and hopefully answers)