redxavier wrote:

I'd consider the movie to already have a downer ending. Our access to space has been irreparably cut off and the destruction of a fair few satellites has cut off television, GPS and telecommunication services all over the world.

Increasingly, most of our telecommunications and entertainment data comes via the internet and cable TV, and not satellite. I once went to a talk by Frank Drake (head of SETI) who claimed that the Earth is getting 'dimmer' from the perspective of aliens listening to us. Famously, in Contact, aliens picked up Hitler opening the Berlin Olympics in the 1930s, and it's often joked that aliens must be sick of I Love Lucy in the 1950s and 60s.
But as the 21st century proceeds, most of humanity's chatter will be digital narrowcasting, rather than analogue broadcasting, so there's less leakage into space.

You're right - loss of GPS would suck. But if we can't launch anything anymore because of all the crap up there, we could replace space-based GPS with a ground based system (e.g. mobile phone antennae).
And yeah, having all that debris up there will make it impossible to launch anything e.g. probes to Mars. We'll need a giant orbiting Roomba to hoover it all up.

What about this... Sandra Bullock thought her daughter was dead (e.g. went missing or something). Then she finds out on the ISS that her daughter is actually  alive, which gives her the motivation to get back in the saddle.

And then Sandra Bullocks crash-lands her capsule...... on............... her daughter. Roll credits. Boom!  lol

453

(31 replies, posted in Off Topic)

bullet3 wrote:

I think this is outstanding. Remember when Teaser trailers could convey the theme of the movie without giving away the whole plot?

Also, this speaks so hard to me thematically. If this is the tone/theme of the movie, how we've lost our exploratory spirit as a society and need to get it back, it could really be an important film culturally.

Bring it Nolan

In the lead-up to Christmas I've spent some gruelling time in the shopping malls and department stores, and noticed that many products are now designed to look 'old', 'retro', and 'authentic' (whatever that means). We're harking back to some glory time (1950s?) Retro radios, retro cameras, retro clothes, retro luggage, etc.

In the past, we used to embrace the future. World exhibitions were about the world of tomorrow. Art Deco was about the look of the future. The future is now out of fashion.

Faldor wrote:

I've heard about how studios claim not to make a profit on big films before and perhaps this is a naive question but how is it not fraud?

Different departments within the studios can charge each other for services (studio & equipment hire, marketing, etc) and artificially inflate the expenses to cancel any profits on movies that have high backend deals. It's not actually illegal as the government can't dictate what department services should be worth.

In a similar way, multinationals do this all the time to minimize tax in high-tax countries. It's called 'transfer pricing'. All the profit is artificially and officially earned in a 0% tax haven, usually some island.

455

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

After reading about how the government is reluctant / unable to prosecute anyone responsible for the GFC, I could see a new type of 21st superhero that takes down Wall Street bankers, etc.

Rather than worrying about knife-crime in dark alleyways, a smart billionaire vigilante like Niteowl / Batman should be tackling the ultimate cause of crime e.g. poverty, inequality, etc - rather than the symptoms.

Is there such thing as a superhero that tackles white-collar crime e.g. hedge fund managers who bet against their clients, Madoff type of Ponzi scheme charlatans, those who award themselves massive bonuses after running their companies into the ground and receiving government assistance, auditors who assess risky portfolios of investments as safe, crooks who receive Presidential pardons at the end of term, negligent drone operators, generals who push for illegal invasions with no post-war planning that kills/displaces hundreds of thousands?

In the commentary, you guys spoke about how Rorschach was the ultimate far right-wing vigilante. Is there a left-wing equivalent in comic books?

456

(449 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Wally Pfister's Transcendence teaser... resembles the prologue to Idiocracy.

457

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Eddie wrote:

I think it was Jackman's best performance to date.

Have you seen him in The Fountain? It's less flamboyant a performance but equally outstanding acting.

458

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Here's the gold that underpins the British Pound - in the vaults underneath the Bank of England

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01447/Loadsa-gold_532_1447390a.jpg

Here's, like, 0.001% of what's in Erebor...

http://heirsofdurin.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/erebor-runes.png

We're gonna need a bigger vault.

459

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Phi wrote:
Invid wrote:

very possible. So, how does adding the riches of Moria work into the mix?

Mostly adding more riches would cause inflation, not vice versa. But reading your post again I'm thinking you meant that the dwarves just felt like they needed more gold in the post-Smaug economy, inflation be damned. Classic dwaves.

Good time to invest in mithril futures, now that production has stopped.

Zarban wrote:
Snail wrote:

My ending was... and then SHARKS!  big_smile

My ending was... and then APES ON HORSEBACK!

My ending was... Bullock crawls out of the lake, goes into a convulsion, and... CHESTBURSTER!

Middle Earth movies must be the most litigated in history. Everyone's had a go: Bob Shaye and New Line and Peter Jackson and the Weinsteins and the Australian actors union and Warner Bros and the Tolkien Estate. Then there was the whole MGM debacle that dragged on for years.

The Desolation of the Lawyers.

462

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So what's the third movie going to be? Just Smaug firebombing Laketown for 3 hours? Does Stephen...fry?  lol


[SPOILERS]

Saw it again in HFR - which had smoother action sequences e.g. the Donkey Kong gag was cool. But the best bit was the slow revealing of Smaug. Just awesome CG and sound design. The initial exchange between Bilbo and Smaug is one of those iconic sequences from the books (just like Riddles in the Dark, and the Balrog) that have be done faithfully.

For the rest, the editing is so sloppy - once again, dialogue, action, and humour beats just go on too long.

Martin Freeman's acting is opaque to me: he does this thing where he pauses, goes to speak but doesn't, puts his finger in the air, pauses, turns. I don't know what he's doing. I don't know if he wants to be there or not. Is he scared? Is he brave? Is he stoopid?

In one scene, Bilbo fights this crab-thing (WTF?) and then does these random grimaces for, like, ever.

Dwarves are still interchangeable, and often retarded. Half don't even seem to have any lines. Wish they had lost a few along the way.

Kate gets a lot of half-profile shots - that angle must show off her cheekbones the best.

Legolas clocks up 98,541,582 orc kills, for the cost of a nose-bleed. The PG stabbing starts to get wearisome by about kill #53,541. Sometimes it looks like he's barely touched them. Orc Candy Crush: push three in a row and they fall down.

Funny joke re: Gloin's wife - and Legolas gives the Mr Spock one-eyebrow look. Good to have some actual humour that works, after every joke fell flat in AUJ.

No Gollum - hope he returns.

No songs this time, although there might be some in the extended edition.

Not much NZ landscape porn either. It's getting less each movie.

Some inexplicable edits: when Bilbo wakes up in the Bear's house, there's a strange edit as if it's a mistake. And they inserted some low-res video footage from the POV of the barrels in the water. How'd that slip in? Must have been running out of time in the end, and the pre-vis temp shots remained in, or something.

The spiders, bear and dragon were all superb - better than the human actors imo.

Looking forward to #3 and, even more, to the behind-the-scenes.

463

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

ShadowDuelist wrote:

Your title is putting weird images into my head.

Smaug doesn't do any desolating. The title is spoken by Balin, but only in relation to the destruction of Dale, which occurred in the prologue to the first movie.
If anything, the title of the second Hobbit film should be The Hobbit: The Gold-Plating of Smaug or The Quantitative Easing of Middle Earth because when those coins in Erebor re-enter circulation, there's going to be some serious inflationary pressure. If I was a Gondorian economist, I'd be warning investors to move their portfolios offshore.

464

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

For those of you that have seen it, waddaya think?

Just saw it in 3D IMAX 24fps, and yeah, much better than the first one. Some genuine humour with the action gags, awesome production design, and nice cliff-hanger ending.

Expect another Return of the King and the Hobbit movies are going to disappoint. Expect bland tentpole fare, and this one is a cut above. The sheer man-hours involved in this production is staggering. There's more happening and more at stake, and it sets up the last one (if it is indeed the last one) tantilizingly well.

Giant spiders, giant bear, giant dragon, and Evangeline's cheekbones. 7/10.

465

(22 replies, posted in Episodes)

In the 2 hour+ making of Breaking Bad - Season 5, you see these screens all the time, and in many shots, there's no guns at all, so it's definitely not that. It must be glare, although I've never seen them before used in this way. Here are some shots of the screens in the mall sequence (attempted bugging) - no guns/squibs.

http://s21.postimg.org/e7k6klvuv/Screen2.jpg

http://s28.postimg.org/vnbocsual/Screen3.jpg

466

(22 replies, posted in Episodes)

Quick question:
I was watching some behind-the-scenes to BREAKING BAD and I noticed two large screens 'shielding' the camera that two men needed to hold and walk with the camera operator. Does anyone know what these are for? (No, it wasn't a squib or gunfire sequence). Are they for minimizing reflections on the viewfinder?

http://s8.postimg.org/vazjr8ccl/Screens.jpg

467

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Rob wrote:

I hadn't thought about it before this thread, but Cameron is by far my #1 guy in this respect -- all I need to know is that the latest thing he did is playing at the theater, and I immediately send my girlfriend out to warm up the car. Don't need to read reviews or buzz. Don't need to know what it's about. (Normally with Cameron the buzz has been inescapable, as with his current project, but you get the drift.) Everyone else I like to have some clue what it's about, who's in it, whether it's a doc or a fiction film. Not with Cameron. You'd think his films would therefore be my favorite films (some are), but it's more that with him I know I'm going to see an obsessively put together movie that probably has a big 'wow factor,' and that makes going to the theater worth it.

After the all pleasure he's given movie fans with T1 & T2, Aliens, Abyss, Titanic, and Avatar, he's earned his status as a 'unconditional' uber-director that delivers. Every critic who has trashed his projects in production (and there's been a lot over the years) has been wrong.

http://www.gifcrap.com/g2data/albums/TV/Wayne_s%20World%20-%20We_re%20not%20worthy.gif

468

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Saw the ULTIMATE 3.5 hour cut of WATCHMEN. Oh. My. God. Talk about operatic. Any snob you meet that claims opera is superior to comic book movies can be officially thumped in the nose.

469

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Aural Stimulation wrote:

I've been putting off watching Barry Lyndon. I think it's time I finally watch it.

So long as you go in expecting the exact opposite to shaky-cam and trigger-happy editing. Some knowledge of the Thackeray novel it's based upon would help to appreciate the subtleties in the narration, but even if one doesn't have that, you can appreciate it just on a visual level. The gorgeous compositions start right from the opening frame.

470

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Kubrick, if he was alive. Every one of his works was a masterpiece of composition.

471

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

bullet3 wrote:

Barry Lyndon

Finally watched this, one of the few Kubrick films I've never gotten around to. Similar narrative issues to a lot of his films, but fuck me if this isn't one of the most beautiful movies ever made. Like, literally every single shot is amazing. I put it in the 2001 camp, where it's less about story and more about conveying an experience, in this case instead of space it's 18th century england. Liked it a lot.

Yes, this is a cinematographic (is that a word?) classic. One of the all time best. It swept every cinematography award in its year. How they shot those candlelight scenes is legendary with those f0.7 Zeiss lenses (originally intended for NASA satellite imagery). In Oblivion, Kosinksi and Miranda used a Sony F65 to shoot that candlelight scene where Morgan Freeman introduces himself, but Barry Lyndon had a unique softness to the equivalent shots (Lyndon with the German mother and baby scene).
Occasionally they show this in revival cinemas in London - if you get a chance to see this on the big screen, then do so. Cinema history.
Otherwise the movie has a few flaws - O'Neal's acting, slow pacing during the second duel, and extremely stiff performances to the point of being stylised. It's often compared to a montage of carefully composed tableaux (like the opening credits sequence to Watchmen).
Pity there's no extras on the DVD or commentary. Would have loved to see some behind-the-scenes.

I'm a big fan of 18th century history (the Enlightenment) and this movie nails the look more than any other.

472

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Related to some recent topics, who are the directors that you'd slam down your $20 unconditionally?

I'd go in blind to see a Fincher, Nolan, Cuarón, and Cameron movie.

After Prometheus and a run of other recent rubbish, Ridley has been relegated to 'Reading the Reviews' (how's that for alliteration?)

Peter Jackson earned 'blind' status after LOTR, but after Lovely Bones and a lame Hobbit 1, he's borderline relegation.

Others: Aronofsky? Andy Niccol? David Lynch? Blomkamp? Kosinski? Spielberg? Scorsese? Gilliam? Not really - that's conditional on the material.

Which directors have negative balances? JJ I'd hate to say. Bay? I'd pay not to see his shite. Lucas ran down his goodwill a long time ago in a cinema far away.

Would any of you see a movie blind* due to an actor, writer, source material, composer, or even a DP?

* By blind, I mean with no knowledge of the material (or even in despite of negative reviews).

473

(93 replies, posted in Episodes)

Whine all you like, but deep down you KNOW you'll be there opening week for the sequels...  wink

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/de … ree-movies

474

(47 replies, posted in Episodes)

Just watched this again and realized - this $160M movie doesn't have a villain. There's no bad guy! How refreshing is that?

475

(31 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

I dunno. I think I've kinda burned out on Nolan as a filmmaker. Yeah, he's talented and all, but a lot of his recent films are fraught with storytelling issues. But since his films have that glossy look, that style that tells you, "This movie is important," people don't care, and they call him the best filmmaker working today. It's just, ugh. I dunno. If the theme of Interstellar interested me at all, maybe I'd be excited. But right now, I just don't care.

Thou shalt not blaspheme against Him, or take His holy name in vain, or put any directors before Him, or express indifference towards Him.