26

(168 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Moneyball.

Srsly. That was my favorite film of 2011 excluding the requisite geek stuff. He's a secondary character, but he does his part. Pretty much anyone who can rock Aaron Sorkin humor is okay in my book.

Eddie wrote:

As for "casting abs," that is hysterically funny, since he had to lose about 45 pounds to get the lead.

Right, that's been the big thing during the modern blockbuster era. They hire the guy who reflects the character and give them the physique to fit the role. I saw a retweet from Pratt saying something like "Yeah, but shooting's over so I'm back to a 1-pack now."

27

(168 replies, posted in Off Topic)

And as luck would have it, it's on Netflix. Nice.

Squiggly_P wrote:

Kinda ranty, but I'm so over these fucking movies. New Robocop movie is fucking awful. Who the fuck didn't see that one coming? Fuck fuckitty fuck fuck.

Geezus somebody get this guy a Snicker's.

The tongue-in-cheek nature of the original is what I missed about the reboot. The flawed script is flawed, holding your hand through every little bit instead of letting us discover things, but I'm also a geek and when I see a robot dude doing robot dude things, I sit back and enjoy.
It was cool, it was a fun watch, but holy crap did they miss the point.

bullet3 wrote:

Deus Ex is already being adapted into a movie as we speak, and the writer has talked openly about the similarities to Robocop, and how Deus Ex deals with a very different set off themes. I do think that adaptation has the chance to be very successful in movie form.

Oh, very cool.

29

(168 replies, posted in Off Topic)

You can't deny the Terminator Salvation trailer was fantastic, though. That was my favorite part of the whole movie.
"You think you're human?" "I am human."
The daay the whooole world went awaaay.....
"NOOOOO!"
[chills]



Also, seconding Doctor Sub's words toward Pratt. I haven't seen Parks & Rec yet, but now I want to. Moneyball was where I first noticed him, he was playing kind of a huggable sweetheart. It's gonna be a neat transition watching him play a space asshole.
Plus, omg the LEGO movie. I was all but rolling on the floor, some of his lines were so funny.

30

(168 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:

He's not funny and carries no presence is exactly what I meant.

Uh huh.
Looks to me like he's going to be a solid rebellious and sarcastic space adventurer in the history of Han Solo, Malcolm Reynolds and the like. Pretty stock character on the surface, but every time I see Chris Pratt in a role, he always draws me in. It'll be fun.

BigDamnArtist wrote:

So if y'all want to take this seriously, good luck with that, but for now I'll continue to shake my head and laugh at the batshit hilarious awesomeness of the images being put in front of my face.

This.

31

(168 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The lead "doesn't bring much"? Look at him go, dude's funny and carries a presence. I'm super pumped for this movie.
Despite my decades of Marvel reading, I've never gotten into the space stuff cuz it was always just weird and uninteresting. Blah blah alien guy, yadda magic gems, badly drawn starship, blue people and galactic conquest, whatever.

This looks awesome and hilarious. The self-aware side that Dr. Sub is referring to is what'll make it great.
It's Marvel's Star Wars, and I think it's gonna be wild.


(Touch of Raiders in that opening scene, too.)

fireproof78 wrote:

The themes in the new Robocop could honestly have been done without the Robocop name. Then it doesn't come with the automatic burden of being compared to the original. They may be wanting to explore new themes, but those themes could be overshadowed by it being a remake.

The trouble with that theory is if you still want to do the story about a robot cop, the comparisons are inevitable anyway. People have compared the new Deus Ex to RoboCop and they couldn't be more stylistically different.
Though, in this chicken/egg story, I would imagine they said "Let's remake RoboCop" before they decided what it was going to be about.

Ewing wrote:

Wanna get more upset? Imagine if Aronofsky had stayed onboard the remake and been allowed to make his version instead of that shit.

Ugh. I hadn't heard that one. Want.
It was super pissed he pulled out of The Wolverine, too. I still liked what we got, but can you just imagine

Flawed but entertaining is a good way to describe the remake as well.

Ewing, I'd say go watch it. Based on your reasons to stay away, you might just be a little surprised.
I was upset with their alterations to the origin, but the remake turned out to actually have some ideas.
It's worth mentioning he has a stungun, but it is not his only weapon.

Yeah, I'm still grumpy about the stupid bare hand and agree the original origin is better, but the movie's got good stuff going for it. They are, wait for it, are exploring new themes. Well, at least one new theme central to Murphy, lol.


Also, here's another remake of the rapist scene:
[video (unkown provider)]

34

(9 replies, posted in Off Topic)

NOPE.
Only part I'm curious about is how Fox got the rights to air what I understood was a WB property.

35

(11 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

The book explains the relevance of the zero-G strategy a lot better than the movie does.

***SPOILERS***

   Show
There were tons of battles and training sessions the film leaves out. The bit with Ender moving his ships from under the ice is just skimming the surface of the stuff he came up with in the novel.
The movie never even explains why "the enemy gate is down". Dragon Army's trademark strategy would be to squat, then freeze their own legs and put their guns pointed down between their thighs and fire at the enemy as they "fall", so they have a clear shot, but the enemy is doing nothing but hitting the frozen legs. This is the complete opposite of the movie version, where Ender simply throws himself out in the middle being frozen in a spread eagle, firing as he spins. That didn't make any sense to me, as once he was hit, he was restricted to targets that would cross his X-axis only at the right moment (and once he's frozen, he shouldn't be able to fire anyway). Also, that line in the last fight about "Let's give them a formation", "but we've never done a formation" comes across as "We haven't done this cuz we're still new", whereas in the novel, the reason Ender doesn't do formations is because that's what all the other armies do. He sees it as predictable and flawed, so he breaks free of it. The armies notice this and begin doing more random attacks as well. Then, in the final battle when they are outnumbered 2 to 1, Ender throws them for a loop by using a formation more effectively than any of the other armies had, and wins by going for the enemy gate rather than picking off every soldier.

Same goes for Command School, Ender is an amazing strategist but in the end of the novel, they've been fighting for months and Ender and his crew are sleep-deprived, stressed and exhausted. A highlight was Petra making a deadly error and suffering a nervous breakdown, while Ender simply grunts in frustration and takes over her tasks in addition to his own.
Drilling toward the planet like in the film wasn't just a strategy to win, he was trying to get the game to end because he was tired of playing it. "Fuck it, blow up their planet." The movie glossed over the fact that the Dr. Device's resulting shockwave spread far enough to take out the surrounding fleet and IIRC, Ender's ships were caught in the blast as a result of this, not in a suicidal drill toward the surface.
The film's maneuver works the same no matter how you think about it in 3D space. Rotating the planet so it's 'beneath' the ships made no difference whatsoever.

This is where the film let me down, the final impact of the plot twist wasn't earned in the movie as it was in the book. They left out too much and didn't quite understand the tactics the book was trying to convey.

It's a good book.  smile
Sorry if I ruined a lot of it, but it's my favorite science fiction novel and I highly recommend it.


As for magic cameras, it's probably more like 3D scanning OR realtime simulation based on transponder signals and the like. I dunno, that's just a detail.

36

(3 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

WHAT DID I JUST WATCH?

***(SPOILERS)***

First off, that movie was hilarious and awesome and I enjoyed it to death, go see it.
Secondly, can we talk about the deeper message here?

Basically, I think what they were going for is this:
Somewhere between the corporate world/responsibility and an individual's desire to be uniquely expressed lies complete harmony.

With the opening scene of Everything is Awesome and the obvious digs at consumerist, capitalist and corporate America, I thought the film was going to be along the lines of Elysium and just take potshots at the big bad The Man. Then later, plot twist, the rebellious "Master Builders" are flawed too!
Their creations are amazing and great, but in a way, selfish. The submarine was the apex of this, showing that just because a person is their own person, does not mean their uniqueness is the best solution for the team. The individual sections of the submarine may have been functional as constructed and desirable works to their builders ("I only work in black."), but in the long term, they did not hold up to the stresses they face against the bigger challenge they were all trying to survive. We have to work together.
The completely unexpected jump into 'the real world' laid the message on thick, despite it being completely against the LEGO company's current branding.
Yes, they sell sets and instructions which, used as intended can create specific forms, but those are not the limits of what they are capable of.

We're getting into some John Nash level game theory here, so strap on your smart glasses.
“The Best for the Group comes when everyone in the group does what's best for himself AND the group.”

It's not "us vs. them", we're all part of "us".
That's what I got out of it, anyway. Anyone else?



I can't believe this silly kid's movie was this deep, holy hell.
Spaceship.

37

(11 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Teague hit the nail on the head for my experience.
It was a very loyal adaptation for just about every scene it did, most were very similar to how I'd pictured them for years, or did one better on what I'd thought up. However, for every moment I enjoyed, there was one I missed. Just when I thought they were finally on track with the book, they'd skip something and I'd be focused on that disappointment rather than paying attention.
This feeling is why I generally will read a popular book after I see the movie, but there was no getting around this here as this was one of the novels kids/geeks were passing around back in high school.
The inclusion of the Giant Game was surprising, I'd swear I'd read that was a subplot they'd dropped. I'm super happy they kept it in, but it's just too bad the parts where it becomes relevant to Ender's psyche were so underplayed.

It's also a shame they felt a need to keep it under two hours. This is a film that could've used the extra time.

BluRay's out today. I'll still pick it up, because it did do it mostly right. I think a second viewing with adjusted expectations will help. This does feel like the ENDER'S GAME film we've been waiting for, not just another kiddie film hot on the heels of the Hunger Games.

Now, if you want to talk about how "The Giver" is looking...

ShadowDuelist wrote:

And you guys should totally do an extended version of this for the next LCC.

Haha yeah, I've got another project I'll be working on this summer, but I have a feeling Nate and I will see each other again. I'm gonna try to help with RvN if I can, but we're waiting to see how scheduling goes.

Boter, ssshhh.

Teague wrote:

And it is done.

http://www.friendsinyourhead.com/forum/img/vapes.gif

Also, made a Reddit r/vfx thread for this.

Hahaha yessss.
I was super picky about that shot in editing, too. We almost lost it and ended using a lesser version, but I insisted "I know it's in there!"

The first comment on Reddit is pure win: "Cool! Only complain is you gave them all the same colour lightsabers."

Just doin' my part to up the viewcount. Y'all understand.

Seriously though, I'm proud of this. Boter and I were driving to CO from MI and Nate put us up for a night along the way. Naturally, we spent our time that evening bickering about our preferences for just what a lightsaber would look like in IRL and, well, this seemed like the best way to put the controversy to rest.

Ha, yeah, it didn't.
(Nate totally admitted he understands that mine is probably more accurate but he just prefers the aesthetic of his. Seriously. That happened.)

41

(35 replies, posted in Creations)

Ben, is that supposed to be an identity disc? Cuz that's kind of adorable, haha.

42

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'd argue that the initial reason this scene was so memorable is Cruise's performance, but you can't deny that right in the first scene of the film, Hoffman completely owns the role of the bad guy you do not fuck with.

43

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

fireproof78 wrote:

Regardless, it is nice to see some continuity (Bad Wolf, for example) but there are truly too many thread lines from both Classic Who and New Who to create a viable, self-contained, multi-layered arc.

I'd argue that Matt Smith's run, as far as the Ponds are concerned, is very self-contained. I was shown the first two Eccleston episodes and thought it was weird and ridiculous, saw only tidbits of Tennant, but a friend of mine, knowing this and knowing me, made a wise move and sat me down to watch "Blink", and then started me on Smith's first episode.
I still don't really care for the older seasons, but Smith's run is so good and it makes perfect sense to me. Anything you need to know, Daleks, Time Lords, etc., is explained.

From the Doctor falling into Amy's life until the time she blinks out of his, that's a full, complete story. For me, that's Doctor Who.




If you're talking about a solid arc that exists within that series and also ties into everything that's come before, well. Good luck. I don't think anyone's ever pulled that off with anything.

44

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I always have two top five lists. The first one is my personal favorites, geeking out included, that I've spent the most time thinking about since viewing them. The second list are the actual best cinematic experiences of the year. These are the ones that get me excited as a filmmaker. That's still subjective, of course, but there's a little less 'omg Superman's so cool' involved in the decisions.

So, of what I saw this year, which is not nearly as much as I'd intended to, my personal faves:

5) Ender's Game
4) The Wolverine
3) Oblivion
2) Catching Fire
1) Man of Steel

I'm honestly not prepared to make the second list because I saw so few of the films I think would deserve to be on it. Gravity and Oblivion, for sure. Probably American Hustle, too. Side Effects.
Eh, that's almost five. I'd probably say The Great Gatsby if they'd cast anyone but Tobey Maguire. That just totally killed the mood for me, IIRC everything else was superb.

45

(7 replies, posted in Off Topic)

My problem with Red Tails is it was so... by the book. There's something about the way it's shot or looks or the way the actors perform, while watching it, it felt like I should've been experiencing sympathetic emotions, but I didn't. It didn't affect me at all.

The whole movie was a flatline and I was disappointed to never find a pulse.

46

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I didn't even make it through the theatrical cut of Alexander, I can't imagine what he'd change to make me want to watch more of it.


So, I couldn't sleep last night, and happened across Amélie. It was a film I was supposed to see back during my International Cinema course, but I was sick or something that day, I forget.


It's a shame it took me so long, it was great. People are such fascinating creatures.

47

(255 replies, posted in Off Topic)

fireproof78 wrote:

How is Stormdancer? It sounds really interesting and I might have to pick it up, as part of my resolution to read more.

Interesting, reads well. I'm not very far in yet, but it definitely kept my attention from the chapters I've read. It seems to be setting itself up as a hero's journey amid an empire in uncertain times.

48

(255 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Do graphic novels count? Cuz I'm currently reading "The Long Halloween", which as it turns out is much of the basis for The Dark Knight. Lots of very familiar scenes and imagery.

Along with that, I'm doing an unusual thing for me and sort of jumping back and forth between four novels as the mood strikes/when I have time, which is rare. I'm the furthest along in Gaiman's "American Gods" (which is just begging to have that HBO series made), "Catching Fire" (because I can read and think about JLaw at the same time) and my random book find of the month is "Stormdancer", by one Jay Kristoff. I noticed it for the front cover, bought it because of the back.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51sT1gF5PTL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Several months ago I also randomly picked up "Leviathan Wakes", which is quite interesting as space operas go (it's kinda Alien/2010/Total Recall) and came with a recommendation from George R.R. Martin.

I hope to finish them all soon, they're all really good so far, but omg life.

Haha, depends on the image you use I guess.

Invid wrote:

No movie is so amazing that it can't annoy the fuck out of at least someone.

I want to put that on a demotivational poster and hang it up.

Dorkman wrote:
Darth Praxus wrote:

Dorkman hates Good Will Hunting?!

This is news to me as well. Did I say that in an episode?

This is in my Top 5 favorite films, so I certainly hope he's wrong. Though, it would be a landmark in defining how different our taste is.