I'll be seeing this either monday or tuesday. This is one of the films I've been most excited about going to see, and it's really good reviews. Can't wait.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Squiggly_P
I'll be seeing this either monday or tuesday. This is one of the films I've been most excited about going to see, and it's really good reviews. Can't wait.
My favorite commentary is Kung Pow: Enter The Fist. It's at once completely insane and stupid, but also an utterly fascinating story of how the movie got made. The idea for the movie itself is rather crazy and it's quite a feat that they managed to pull it off as well as they did. Sadly, the movie itself is only marginally funny if you're into really stupid screwball comedy. It's got a charm to it, tho, and it's genuinely funny in spurts.
I don't honestly remember a lot of the commentaries I've listened to. I don't think I've listened to one in a couple years. I should probably go back through a few movies and check them out.
I find that metal and chiptunes and other really energetic music keeps me going when I'm doing tedious stuff, but it's hard to find energetic music that isn't overly ... invasive?...
Lately it's been bands like Outrun the Sunlight and Porcupine Tree. Porcupine Tree is fucking amazing. I recommend their In Absentia album. They'll do some heavier riffs and then segue into the smoothest prog/rock you'll ever hear.
Good luck sleeping for the next couple of days.
Sequelitis is the best show about video games I've seen in a long time. I fucking love that guy, and I wish he was faster. Waiting months between videos is hard when the resulting videos are that good.
Dorkman wrote:Gregory Harbin wrote:How was Tintin not nominated and Puss in Boots was?
Filmmakers have taken to insisting that "performance capture" films, like TINTIN and everything Zemeckis has made lately -- are not the same as animated films despite everything being created digitally. So perhaps, as a result, it didn't qualify.
…Rango?
Rango wasn't performance capture. It was actors acting out the bits in front of a camera that the animators used for reference. Animators do that stuff anyway, they just do it themselves. The novelty of Rango was that the actual voice actors were doing a lot of the reference.
On a different note, I must not have noticed the credits for many Disney flicks if they credit their films that way. I can't remember seeing it done like that. I'll have to go back and watch some of their other 80's and 90's flicks. Pretty sure they didn't do that back in the days of yore. I don't watch their more recent films as often as I watch their older ones.
They try to hide that behind the more modern argument of 'states rights', if they're actually displaying the flag for that reason. I live in 'Bama, so I see them a lot, and for the most part I think people just associate it with 'The South' in general, rather than all the politics and negative implications of that time.
People also call it the Stars & Bars, but it's actually the confederate naval flag. The Stars & Bars was the first official flag of the confederacy, and looked nothing like the southern cross at all. The army's battle flag was very similar, but was square. You can tell the different versions of the flag here. If you live in or have traveled through the south, you may have seen several variations of the flag and wondered what the differences were. http://www.usflag.org/history/confedera … dbars.html
It should be noted that toward the bottom of that page, the author makes the State's Rights argument I was talking about. I think state's rights are great, but if that's what you're all about, it would almost make more sense to fly the old Gadsden flag.
I remember a few years back I saw an animated film - was it The Emperor's New Groove? - that credited the artists by character. As in, there was the name of a character from the movie, then a block of credits underneath: the voice actor, the animation team, the design team etc. I thought that was a really nice way to acknowledge everyone's contribution, but I can't remember seeing it done that way anywhere else.
That's such an elegant and respectful way of crediting an animated movie. Now that you mention it, it just seems like the obvious way to do it. I'll have to see New Groove (Pocahantas killed Disney for me, so I have yet to see most of the movies they made afterwards)
But that makes complete sense, since the main characters have lead animators and a team behind them that pretty much focus on that one character for the majority of the movie. At least, in 2D movies. I'm not really sure if 3D films do that, given the inherent malleability of the performances in 3D animation and the number of animators that will work on any given scene. It would make sense, tho.
Gregory Harbin wrote:How was Tintin not nominated and Puss in Boots was?
Filmmakers have taken to insisting that "performance capture" films, like TINTIN and everything Zemeckis has made lately -- are not the same as animated films despite everything being created digitally. So perhaps, as a result, it didn't qualify.
It makes me wonder, as we get more and more films like this that are either entirely CG or use performance capture to get a couple of CG characters into a live action movie, what the likelihood of that sort of performance getting it's own category is. And what they'd call it. "Best Digital Performance"? Also, would you nominate the actor or the animation supervisor or both or ...?
Looks like it's gonna be Who Framed Roger Rabbit
I voted for a few of the topics, but not all of them, as I've not yet seen the artist, the descendents or dragon tattoo. Dragon tattoo is one that I have no excuse for. The others - and many of the movies nominated for stuff this year - didn't play near me because I live in redneckville alabama where the three (!) 16-or-more-screens (!) theaters here all played the exact same ten movies at any given time, most of them being either the latest crappy horror movie or the latest crappy action movie or the latest crappy comedy about people having sex and throwing up.
But they did play The Help - which is pretty damn good - and Dragon Tattoo. So, for instance, "Actress in a leading role"... all of those movies are playing right now, and only those two I mentioned have played here. If it's not out on DVD and it's listed on this chart somewhere, then odds are I haven't seen it due to it not playing here.
I really need to look into the logistics, costs and availability of funding for running my own theater. This is one of the most populated areas in Alabama, and the closest thing to an arthouse theater here is over two hours away.
"Lonely Dogs"
Made by a few Gobelins students.
wait, they're making ads for ads now?
Was there a link button somewhere that said "Click here to see a sneak preview of the new Ferris Bueller Superbowl ad!" somewhere? 'Cause that would be an ad for an ad for an ad...
Yeah, because clearly I'm the only one who hasn't seen all the documentary short subjects. But I'll sit back while the rest of ya discuss them.
We could just rename it to "Best Documentary Short Subject Title"
I vote for "The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement"
Trey, is there something you're not telling us?
Do you secretly run The Pirate Bay?
Best Animated Film is gonna be interesting (not really).
Odds that Chico & Rita will win based on merit: 2:1
Odds that Chico & Rita will win based on the number of voters who saw it: 10,000:1
I haven't seen A Cat In Paris or Puss In Boots. Is Puss In Boots any good, or is it basically Shreck without Shreck? I still think it's laughable that they bother to nominate stuff like that for best animated film. That would be like nominating Home Alone for best picture. The US industry was doing pretty good up until a few years ago. Now it's back on it's downward spiral.
I haven't seen any of the foreign films this year, which kinda bothers me on a personal level.
The days of people having 3D printers in their home will be upon us sooner than you might think:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/20/origo- … -for-kids/
Squiggly_P wrote:What's playing in the arthouse theaters there right now?
Ralph Finnes' directed Shakespear adaptation, a Singapore animation, Shame, The Artist and a collection of slapstick comedy shorts.
If there were a theater here that was playing that line-up I'd be in heaven. The nearest theater to me that would consider playing any of that stuff is about 100 miles away. I've got one screen playing The Artist right now and one screen playing The Iron Lady and that's as arthouse as it usually gets around here. I'm kinda surprised they're playing The Artist. I'll have to go see it, as I didn't think it would play...
Also, I think in the case of The King's Speech, a lot of the perceived 'smallness' of that movie here has probably more to do with the weird way they rolled it out. It started on a couple dozen screens, then rolled into a hundred or so, then rolled onto a few hundred, etc. There was an article here about how they were thinking about cutting it down to a PG-13 because they were disappointed at the returns they were seeing on it.
The problem with that was that it was, at that time, being played on about 800 screens and was currently in 3rd on the weekend charts. It was making more than the #1 and #2 movies per theater combined, and they thought people weren't going to see it because of the rating. If they had opened it on a couple thousand screens in the beginning, they probably would have made a hell of a lot more money than they did. I don't think they ever had it playing on more than 1500 screens at once, tho, and by that time it had been out for almost two months.
It was, for the first month of release, the only film on the charts that was consistently going up at least a couple spots every weekend. It started out at #14 or something and after a month was sitting at #2 or 3. You don't often see that, and it was particularly weird in this case due to the fairly large amount of buzz surrounding it prior to it's release.
I would be all for more movies of that caliber. If he means "make more coherent movies that have real plots and stuff and fewer films that are about plastic statues of jesus being covered in honey and carpenter ants and then set on fire... or stuff like "Trash Humpers", then yeah, I'd say do that. "Art film" is such a broad thing now. Here in the states, The King's Speech is considered by many to be more of an arthouse film because it's a period drama with a bit of comedy and nobody explodes or gets shot in the face. There's no ten minute sequence where plucky teens in sports cars evade an invading force of cyborg aliens.
Make more movies like "King's Speech" or "Harry Brown" or "Brassed Off" and people - even people in the US - will watch it. If he means he wants you to make 2012 or Stargate, then tell him to shove off.
If that's what you guys consider to be commercial, then what's considered "arthouse"? I'm legitimately curious about this. Not that I think Harry Brown is particularly arthouse, but it's gotten to the point now where you would go to what is traditionally an arthouse theater to see something like a Harry Brown or a Brassed Off. I personally find it pretty depressing. What's playing in the arthouse theaters there right now?
Wow. If you scroll through some of the tech/news sites out there you'll notice that since Megaupload went down, several other sites have suddenly blocked US users or limited their services to remove sharing functionality.
The comments on every one of those stories is 95% in favor of piracy and these websites. It doesn't surprise me at all, but I find it kinda funny that these kids today are just so god damn adamant that taking whatever they want for free should be their right and privilege as internet users, and anyone who tries to stop them is clearly wrong.
It's like the entire internet is made up of spoiled 10 year old kids.
looks more like AI to me than Surrogates.
I think Dorkman was trying to say that if it's pretty good, then it's not like Surrogates.
I don't think Surrogates was particularly bad, tho. It was the result of taking an interesting idea and then doing the most by-the-numbers generic sort of movie you could with it.
That website is fascinating. I've often thought about make a website that would read way too far into movies like this, but this guy's definitely better at it than I'd ever be. You just know all of this was due to the sweater. Some dude saw the sweater and was all "OMG! He's trying to tell us something!" and just reverse engineered the rest from there.
I'll have to look through the rest of that site. I love that there are people out there who are so dedicated to this sort of crazy shit.
I don't think Jar-Jar's luck has as much to do with luck as it does Lucas' writing whatever he feels like writing. The Queen keeps guns in the little drink holder in her throne. It was sure lucky they remembered to put guns in there, considering that it doesn't seem like they would ever need anything like that. In reality, they just needed guns to pop up from somewhere in that scene, so that's where Lucas put them. Something like that you can get away with if you take the time to set it up before hand. Have the queen about to pull the guns when she first gets captured and have captain McOne-Eye give her a subtle head shake, as if to say "bitch, don't pull those fucking guns outta that throne!" Then when you get to the later scene, she pulls the guns and the audience goes "OH YEAH!! THEY WERE THERE BEFORE!" and there's a sense of realization and satisfaction to that, even if it's still really stupid to have those guns there. It doesn't feel as stupid and contrived anymore if you set it up really early like that.
But, honestly, Jar-Jar is probably the most well-written character in the first movie. He's got a clear arc, from bumbling idiot outcast to bumbling idiot military leader. He's got personality. it's an annoying personality, but it's a personality. I kinda feel sorry for him. He just gets used a lot in the movie. The Jedi meet up with him and he's all "I don't wanna go home, guys, they'll fucking kill me" and the jedi badger him into going so he takes them. Then the Jedi come this close to just leaving him there. He has to beg them to help him. What assholes. Then they leave and they treat him like shit up until they get back to Naboo, and then they're like "OK, we need you to distract the robots, so you and the other gungans go on this suicide mission to get wiped out and if we can pull off this thousand-to-one shot over here then maybe you won't die."
Honestly, tho, the thing in that movie that bothers me the most is the bomb in the kid's head. There's a fucking bomb in his head. When did they take that out of there? There's no "extracting the bomb from the kid's head" scene, and they don't bring it up after they leave the planet, so... Is it still there? Did they take it out on the way to Corescant or however it's spelled? You think they woulda at least stuck a shot in there where someone says "while we're flying to this other planet, we'll have time to take the bomb out of your head", or get to the planet and tell some doctor there to remove it.
Cause it's a bomb, and it's in his head.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Squiggly_P
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.