51

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I don't think showing aliens softens the sci-fi. The laws of physics & chemistry that biology are based on are the same throughout the universe. The eye evolved on Earth independently several dozen times... convergent evolution. So I'm fine with depicting aliens, and the ones in Arrival were at the upper end of good sci-fi aliens. It's the "seeing into the future via reading a foreign language" aspect that "softens" the sci-fi. It's a BIG magic bean to swallow, for me anyway. If they had some fancy wormhole tech that enabled time travel or something, that'd be more plausible.

Arrival pushes Whorfianism way past breaking point - another language not just changing the way you think, but breaking the laws of physics in the process.

And there's the so-called "Liberal" Hollywood pushing the "abortion&trying again=bad" aspect. An alternative decision where Amy Adams decides to have another healthy child that leads a long happy life free of suffering is not considered. Princeton philosopher Peter Singer pushes this idea as ethically preferable, but I've never seen it taken up, even in Indie movies.

52

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Arrival - so if you learn to read circular alien logograms, you can suddenly see into the future? It's touted as "hard-SF" (and it exudes that vibe), but that makes as much sense as a genetic mutation giving you psychokinesis.
Love the tone, the score, the long helicopter approach sequence, and the lack of a one-on-one punch-up next to a ticking bomb.
Didn't like the time-travel aspect, which always has paradoxes - if the aliens know the future, why did they risk their plan fucking up with the bomb and attack from China? why did they hover off the coast of NW Australia? Why did they act all enigmatic - just give everyone all the information they need.
Thinking about it afterwards - the short story it's based on is simply "would you have a kid if you knew it was going to die young?" which a thousand gynecologists asks pregnant women after standard chorionic villus sampling every day.

Arrival is an imaginative, if roundabout way, of asking the same question. Enjoyed it overall. Something different.

53

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Boter wrote:

I agree that there was a lot of "they fight, because it's in the title". I enjoyed the fighting but as MCU grows it's one I may skip in marathons. Depends on how its own actions are paid off later down the line.

OMG, imagine a MCU marathon. Hours (eventually days!) of PG13 WWE-esque consequence-less punching. Go to the can, to the fridge, have a nap, check social media, run some errands, return to the couch, and they're still punching (in between quips and sky lasers)

54

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I forgot to mention CAPTAIN FANTASTIC - slays a lot of sacred cows. Check it out. It goes in some unexpected directions...

https://www.cineworld.co.uk/xmedia-cw/repo/feats/posters/HO00003779.jpg

55

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Nocturnal Animals (Tom Ford) - wasn't bad. Didn't mind Arrival and the self-referencing Deadpool.

Hated Independence Day: Resurgence.

Favorite movie of the year (some place it in 2015): The Revenant for its cinematography. Saw it 3X on the big screen.

56

(248 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://pm1.narvii.com/5988/a3b1bb6a94cebd6b14897d20727a74e74727145b_hq.jpg

We're all so happy you're back! We've missed you.

57

(152 replies, posted in Episodes)

theMaestro wrote:

...I'd love to hear new podcasts as well. Even if they're not commentaries, other types of podcasts would be cool too. Like maybe something talking about the state of movies today, or a new Uncomposed about modern film scores (I loved reading Alex's write-up about The Force Awakens' score), or even (and this was mentioned a while back) a podcast about color grading in movies would be fun.....if they want to do it of course.

https://www.patreon.com/

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder507/500x/58495507.jpg

wink

58

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yes, not a terrible movie... Taken-ish in a Breaking Bad setting. For more of the same (modern gunmen in the lawless border-badlands), check out Desierto by Alfonso Cuaron's son.

59

(18 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Der

A few responses:

Interesting point about the timing of the pro-Prequel articles

Don't feed the pretentious over-intellectualizing flakey film-studies majoring trolls

RLM once led from the front, now bringing up the rear

Agree about the puritanical sexless SW universe. Most PG13 franchises these days have been scrubbed clean of anything risque as most new emerging cinema markets are (at least) a century behind the times. Either that or it was hinted that showing sexiness is now deemed sexist (PC gone mad), so that we've gone full circle back to Victorian England values.

He got what he wished for (JJ doing Ep7) so he can hardly shit on it too much. He almost went full-circle himself and wished for Lucas again!

Good point about Soft Reboots

61

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

RE: Extended Bible Cinematic Universe

Just don't give the rights to DC.

You could argue that almost all the horror movies out there from the Exorcist onwards are set in the Extended Bible Cinematic Universe, as Demon-du-jour battles it out with priest or angel.

62

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

BTTF is one of the very few remaining top-shelf 80s franchises not ruined/exploited/sequeled and prequeled 30 years too late, or otherwise had its goodwill diminished by Hollywood suits looking for IP to milk. Can't think of too many others.

63

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://66.media.tumblr.com/41c26c9bf042f452ccc8743078ca36c8/tumblr_mhofrlUbUW1qigxxco1_500.gif
http://67.media.tumblr.com/001f3bc6f8c2ee3e3ab4d4a0c25a5953/tumblr_mhofrlUbUW1qigxxco2_500.gif

64

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Enjoyed TFA commentary fellas. Good fun. Well done. You should do more, you know.  big_smile

65

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'd pay to see the solo Wonder Woman movie, with its classical Greek setting.
But not interested in Avengers III or Thor IV or Iron Man V or Justice League - The Second Punching or whatever they're up to. It's all just WWE anyhow. How many more years can this trend last?

Bring on Dune or the Silmarillion or Blakes' 7 or a hard-R Star Wars spin-off.

66

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Joss Whedon surprised everyone by adeptly handling what seemed like too many characters into one Avengers movie. The chances of Goyer / Snyder even remotely being able to emulate that look grim, especially given that the rest of the Justice League are given no set up, and are lame characters anyway.

Three hours of caped crusaders slow-mo punching aliens in backlit rain! Whoo hooo. Sounds like fun.  tongue

Maybe they'll set it in China so the Chinese box office can recoup the destruction porn VFX bill.

67

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://www.theouthousers.com/images/templates/thumbnails/134562//batmanvsuperman_size3.png

Saw the 3-hour Ultimate Edition of Batman punches Superman, which adds half an hour of (what passes for) character development. While the theatrical release was trashed by everyone, this extended cut has been given lukewarm reviews (i.e. it doesn't entirely suck).

Obviously DC fucked up by not having solo movies first for the Justice League (or at least the main ones) before they assemble. Even better would be to follow on from the Nolan's trilogy (he is Exec Producer on the Snydner ones afterall) but dunno if it was a rights or cast issue, so they had to reboot with Batfleck.

The movie follows on from the punch-up ending Man of Steel, which sets up the plot which seems the same as Captain America punches IronMan and even recent Bond instalments: the government is shutting down vigilante violence. "Collateral damage  is unacceptable, except when we do it" (e.g. end of Avengers 1).

Most people like the Marvel version, and I recognize they set up their franchise less clumsily than DC. But I enjoy Snyder's idiosyncratic style, channeling Miller's graphic novel aesthetic.... backlit rain, ultra slow-mo close-ups, stylized violence (like Watchmen, 300, Sucker Punch), and the portentous brood-a-thon tone that pervades DC's films (I think there's three jokes in the entire three hours).

Lots of flaws of course: Amy Adams is a charisma vacuum, Lex Luther's motivation makes no sense and his portrayal by Eisenberg put most people off, there's too much plot for even three hours, the many dream sequences only make sense for hard core fans (and maybe not even then), more than 90% of drama in movies would be avoided if people just talked more, the now infamous Martha pivot, alien ship security seems extraordinarily lax ('warning, we can't grow this abomination except if you want to'), Diana Prince isn't given much to do in the first 2.5 hours, why does Supe's mom still have to wait tables and run a corn farm.... I could go on.

Some positives: Batfleck was acceptable after the initial casting controversy. The onus was on Ben to prove us skeptics wrong and he did. Gadot was intriguing, leaving us wanting more. Snyder continued Nolan's modernist architecture for Wayne's accommodation. The VFX were fine (burning through a quarter of a billion dollars with all those collapsing buildings). The Zimmer score was okay and more memorable than the Marvel equivalents. 

Purists won't like that Superman and Batman kill shitloads of people, but not having read any comics, I don't really mind. It's a messy world. What I didn't like is that the movie tries to get an emotional reaction by portraying Superman as dead not once, not twice, but three times! This is a problem with franchises - no one major dies, so STOP PRETENDING they are dead. We know they can't die. It's not emotional. It's not tense. It just wastes time. The upside is that gives it Zimmer another opportunity to insert one of his customary crescendos. But even he's now sick of scoring superhero movies and has announced 'no more'. So I wonder when global cinema audiences will finally get superhero fatigue because there ain't any sign of it yet. It was predicted a decade ago, but each one of these installments, whether from Marvel or DC, still earn around a billion dollars-ish.

Also saw HIGH RISE, which is just a montage of debauchery.

68

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Squiggly_P wrote:

How many other billions of other planets out there must have molten cores and no life to threaten the acquisition of that core? Also, what exactly do they do once they've gotten to the core? Suck it out with a giant straw? The molten core of the earth is made mostly of iron. Are they looking to boost their steel industry? I guess if they're making ships that big they'd need a lot of raw material, but in that case, why are they going after such puny little planets? I doubt the earth has enough raw materials to make even one of those giant ships. Wouldn't it be a better idea to find some giant, uninhabited planet to suck the iron and nickel from?

From the second interview here with VFX supervisors, Emmerich don't give two fucks about science, physics, 'n shit.

https://www.fxguide.com/fxpodcasts/fxpo … esurgence/

69

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Emmerich's idea of a relationship arc:

Set up: I haven't had time to look at the house listings you've sent me.
Pay-off: I've now had a look at the houses.

Or...

Set-up: You're a pussy.
Shoots aliens later on.
Pay-off: Now you have the heart of a warrior.

Probably takes 10 seconds for the set-up and 10 seconds for the pay-off and that's supposed to induce an emotional reaction in the audience. I've seen it done better in trailers.

70

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

There's hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi. And there's Roland Emmerich.

71

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Squiggly_P wrote:

ID4 2: Resurgence

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Independence-Day-2-poster.jpg

I'm one of those people who doesn't much like the first one, though I can see its appeal. It has its moments, but it feels like a movie too much. Emmerich's films almost all feel like the sort of thing you see in movies when they're watching a movie inside of the movie. Really corny and over-the-top with very obvious attempts at emotional manipulation. I just don't like em, and I don't like how they keep doing the obvious shit all the fucking time. They wouldn't be so bad if I didn't already know exactly what was going to happen in any given situation. Sometimes the beginning of a scene can catch you off guard, but the way any scene plays out is almost always exactly what you think it's going to be.

ID4 2 is no exception. It's a Roland Emmerich film. People will probably like it a lot, though it is clearly lacking in a lot of the moments that made the first one very popular. There's not as much cornball humor and the one-liners are not as punchy. The people delivering them aren't nearly as charismatic as Will Smith, either.

The sequel is almost a beat-by-beat clone of the first one, and I do mean that quite literally. There are very few scenes in this movie that don't have an equivalent scene in the first. He also recalls a couple of scenes from 2012. I think the guy may have just taken the scripts for those two movies and shuffled the pages together and then rewrote it as one movie. So you get to have a movie where there's an "assault on Area 51" scene AND a "flying a plane through a city as it gets destroyed" scene.

I didn't really give a shit about any of the characters, so almost none of the events had any sort of emotional tug. In the first film there are at least a couple of scenes where they do that with some effectiveness. In this movie I don't give a shit about the fact that guy's mom dies or that kid's parents die or that maybe generic character A will never see generic character B again. There's never any doubt about anything.

Also, the craft on display is pretty bad, just on a basic "how do we shoot this" level. There's a perfect example of how badly this film is shot at the very end. There's a character who asks a girl for a kiss, even though earlier in the film she wasn't interested in him. So he asks, but then looks down cause he knows she'll probably say 'no'. This is shot flat, directly facing the character. Cut to reverse and she's flatly shot directly facing camera and says "how about dinner first?" Cut to previous flat shot of the guy directly facing camera as he brightens up with this "FUCK YEAH, I'M GONNA GET LAID" expression on his face.

Aside from breaking the 180 rule (which I don't give a shit about, honestly), that could have just been one shot. Just have it be a tracking shot as they're walking away, and you get an angled view, with the guy furthest from the camera. Guy's all "hehe, I'd like a kiss or whatever playful banter teehee!" and girl's delayed reaction casuses him to go sour for a second. Same shot. Keep tracking. Then she's all "We should try dinner first" or something. Guy lights up all excited and stops. Camera holds for him while she just continues to walk off screen. Guy snaps out of it and runs off frame while spouting some kind of dialogue. I dunno. Camera doesn't follow him for that movement.

At that point you can either cut or - fancy! - you can pan the opposite direction to reframe on something else in the background that you then cut to. IE, reframe the camera for an establishing shot in the same shot as the entire previous dialogue exchange.

Things like that I would be mildly impressed with in a schlocky action flick. This flick cuts exactly on dialogue. Someone finishes their line, and cut. A lot of the framing is flat-on perpendicular shots of something. Hangar doors. Windows. Lines of people. Text on a wall. It's not really every shot or anything, but it's definitely a lot of them. Any time someone's about to say something dramatic, they cut to a flat wide shot of something. The film is visually boring to watch when the camera isn't flying all over the place and throwing explosions and laser beams at you.

Everything is locked down and presented, with little re-blocking of shots or anything. They just cut a bunch of static, boring shots together for the actor scenes and then let the animators go hog wild with the battle parts. But then, the first one isn't so great about that, either. The first one at least had more interesting scenes where you were shifting focus and the actors had some actual presence.

I dunno. I didn't like it, but I didn't like the first one. If you liked the first one, you'll probably agree that this one isn't nearly as good, but you might enjoy it.

One problem for me is that they shaved 30 minutes off the running time but with just as much plot, characters, relationship arcs (if not more) than the first one, so everything is thinly sketched.

Hemsworth has to have a bromance arc with his wing-man plus a girlfriend arc plus a frenemies arc with son-of-Will. And that's just one character. There's dozens more. Goldblum is alright and lands the best jokes, but 75% of the other gags fall flat.

Too many characters for the screen-time: Jeff's dad and teens, warrior warlord and some nerd, salvage crew on a ship, Will's wife, Goldblum's new squeeze, wacky scientist and his dad, Prez & ex-Prez, and so on. Shouldn't there be some POP-UP in Final Draft that says "You have too many characters for the pages."

Then there's an entire first-half subplot about seeing visions of a circle (Close Encounters) which doesn't really go anywhere or make much sense, and wastes a lot of screen time.

Who's the main character anyway? Choose a main character and flesh him/her out more

Improvements: cut the visions, cut the Africa detour, and warlord mentor arc and his nerd wannabe, cut Hemsworth's offsider, have the Chinese Angelbaby (is that her real name?) end up with son-of-Will, cut the school bus kids, cut all the stale jokes.

Then use the 45 minutes you've just saved to (1) have more of an adventure-exploration sequence inside the big ship, and (2) give the Queen Alien more of a Third Act encore once she emerges from her armour.

Squiggly, the way I interpreted that 'Dinner First' scene was that both of them were facing forward at the same time as they emerged from their fighters, but I may be wrong.

Not worth seeing again. 3/10. Only worth it if you want to see terabytes of CG porn where Earth wears a hat. The best VFX sequence for me was the moondust vortex where the other alien iSphere (iBall?) emerges and checks out the moon base.

Ron Howard's In the Heart of the Sea must be the teal-est movie I've ever seen. Set not on Earth but the planet Greeny McGreenface. So much so, it must be more than an aesthetic choice. I suspect they're doing it to cover up green-screen bleed.

Football, Baseball, and Basketball movies.

Almost the entire Kevin Costner oeuvre.

Almost the entire supernatural haunted house horror genre.

Clint Eastwood war movies.

'Good' movies that hold no interest: Ali, Philadelphia, Sound of Music, Pretty Woman, Crash.

74

(152 replies, posted in Episodes)

Can't believe it's already been over a year.
Nice Ben Folds Cover dudes - super effort.  big_smile

75

(142 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Big effort. I'm confused - is it random clips or a curated 'best of'?