801

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Snail wrote:
Doctor Submarine wrote:

I'm a little bit confused about the continuity here.

Also,...

  Show
How can all three have the same Screwdriver? When the 10th's was destroyed when the TARDIS crashed (The TARDIS then gave 11th a new one), and then 10th's was given to River to use in The Library.  hmm

Same software, different case. The idea presented is that the TARDIS makes new designs, but that the software itself is the safe throughout.

802

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Thank you both. That clarifies things a lot.

That said, I loved the special. I thought that the focus on the Zygons was unnecessary, but I liked that it gave the Doctors an opportunity to work together in the way that only multiple Doctors can. An episode focusing on the Time War entirely might have been a bit too somber for an episode that was supposed to be celebratory.

803

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm a little bit confused about the continuity here.

  Show
So, The End of Time pretty clearly established that Gallifrey was time-locked, right? So why does the Doctor think that he destroyed the planet and killed all of them when he knows that they're still out there? Can someone do a concise explanation of what exactly happened with the Time War, given what we learned in this new special?

804

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The picture they're using on the Wikipedia page for the Twelfth Doctor is amazing.

Dorkman wrote:

It certainly can happen. One of the reasons I was so taken with Breaking Bad was the fact that they were quite openly making it up as they went and yet managed to frequently make things feel like they were coming full circle.

Yup. Vince Gilligan is very open about that fact. He's said in the past that the only thing the writers ever planned ahead for was the end of season 2, because they had those flash forwards. He said that they enjoyed finding details from past episodes and working them into new ones.

Maybe she didn't mention every single aspect of her massive world upfront because that's both terrible writing and it would rob the series of any reveals down the road?

How is it contrived in any way? You've never argued with your friends before? Given the pressure and stress they were under, it's not that surprising. Not to mention the Horcrux corrupting them, which is the direct cause of the fights.

808

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's gone.

Zarban wrote:
Dorkman wrote:

Watch CHAMBER again. That's what it does there, too. It blows Lockhart back but his wand stays in his hand.

Same with Snape in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner, altho I think he gets hit by 2 or 3 at once.

If I was a wizard going into a duel, the first thing I'd do is cast a few defensive spells on myself, especially something to counter or reflect spells. Casting unforgivable curses becomes a lot trickier if you have to worry about it bouncing back at you. You would want to use more spells that affect the area around the other wizard rather than the wizard himself, etc. MUCH more interesting battle. The stuff between Dumbledore and Voldemort at the Ministry of Magic was great; why not have more of that?

Because those two are masters of magic, so they're able to accomplish things that literally no one else can. It also sets up much more intense stakes for the final battle. If Dumbledore could barely repel Voldemort, how can Harry possibly defeat him?

Not that the last film handles that battle very well.

810

(9 replies, posted in Off Topic)

is there a movie you watch once a year, every year, perhaps on some anniversary?
Die Hard every Christmas. The Prince of Egypt on Passover.

do you switch off the lights and the phones and unplug the door bells?
It depends. I have a terrible attention span so my phone is always drawing my focus away from the screen. I guess I keep the lights on most of the time, though.

do you always book the same seats in the cinema?
Upper middle row, with a seat right in the middle. For IMAX 3D, I sit in the middle of the back row.

if there are sequels, do you try and watch all of them together?
Only for LOTR. I can't watch those movies separately.

can you just watch #2 or #5 in a series, or do you have to watch all in order?
If I'm familiar enough with all of them, it doesn't make a difference to me.

can you watch over other friend's houses, or do you have to have it perfect at home?
Some of my friends have better TVs than me, lol. So sometimes I prefer to watch it over there.

do the blu-ray snobs refuse to watch DVDs now?
I notice the drop in quality, but it doesn't make a difference to me.

with certain movies, can you just watch a scene or do you have to watch the entire movie?
Even if I only want to watch one scene, I really find myself wanting to watch the whole movie.

if you arrive at the cinema late, do you still go in, or come back another session?
I never get to the cinema late. I hate being the guy who wanders in during the opening scene and noisily tries to find a seat. I'm almost always the first person in the theater.

811

(164 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I don't watch too many shows regularly.

- Stewart/Colbert
- Walking Dead
- Bob's Burgers (and Archer, when it comes back)
- Brooklyn Nine-Nine
- ...nope, that's it

812

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

"And they lived happily ever after...



















































































BUT WHAT IF THEY DIDN'T?!?!"

813

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I also love how the title is "It's a Wonderful Life: The Rest of the Story". It implies that the original is incomplete without this new film. Like the world was clamoring for more information on what happened to George and his family after the credits rolled.

(What happened is this, by the way.)

814

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Karolyn Grimes, who played George Bailey’s daughter “Zuzu” in the original, will return for the “Wonderful Life” sequel as an angel who shows Bailey’s unlikeable grandson (also named George Bailey) how much better off the world would have been had he never been born.

HAHA WHAT. The whole movie is just her going, "Yeah, you kinda fucking suck. Go ahead and jump you piece of shit. You'll be doing the world a favor." This movie cannot be real.

815

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

"Last time, he saw a world where he'd never been born...

This summer, see the world...where ONLY he was born!"

[shot of streets filled with thousands of George Baileys]

Tagline: "On July 19th, lives will be wonderful."

Withkittens wrote:

I shall attempt to stay up the entire 24-ish hours, studying for finals be damned.

Finals? What finals? Don't my professors know that there are people on the internet who want to spend an entire day talking about Harry Potter?!?

817

(262 replies, posted in Episodes)

bullet3 wrote:

As long as it doesn't turn into a Spiderman 2 style unanimous hatefest. I'll still take Rises over pretty much any Marvel movie, at least it looks like a real movie instead of animated concept art

Sure, it looks like a real movie. But the plot is convoluted and there's not a whole lot going on thematically beyond "Anyone can be a hero," which is a pretty simplistic theme to hang such a grand and epic film on.

And it's funny, because I wrote a GLOWING review a few days after seeing it. It took a while for me to realize that it's not as great as I thought it was coming out of the theater.

818

(262 replies, posted in Episodes)

I think Elysium is coming out on DVD soon. My one and only regret is that I won't be on the couch for that episode. I would annihilate that movie with the unending fury of a thousand supernovas.

819

(14 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

I think that 12 Years specifically exposes a tendency in modern art to shy away from historical violence, or at least tone it down by contrasting it with positivity. Its brutality will likely make you uncomfortable, as well it should. There's no value in making this subject matter safe to consume.

820

(14 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

bullet3 wrote:

The latest slashfilmcast has Armond White on to discuss this film, and it's definitely worth a listen, as he's one of the lone voices who hates it. As usual I don't agree, but he makes some interesting points and it's a good discussion.

I read his review, and it was interesting. I disagree with his idea that the level of violence amounts to "torture porn," though, because like I said, I think it's to serve a point. I think he misses the point of the film entirely, though. He asserts that McQueen wants us to enjoy watching Solomon and the other slaves being tortured, when that's clearly not the case. The way he feels about the film is the way that you're SUPPOSED to feel. He says that "good art elates and edifies," but that's a reductive definition. I don't feel elated when I look at Picasso's Guernica, but that doesn't take away from its artistic merit.

821

(14 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

For as long as cinema has existed as a medium, there have been movies about human atrocity. It’s one of our favorite things to tell stories about. The optimist would say that these films help us to heal wounds, to work through difficult cultural memories by recreating them on film. The pessimist would say that these types of films are too often treacly and cloying, and that they inappropriately use real-life horror to yank at your heartstrings, your wallet, and possibly your Oscar vote. But if there’s one thing that 12 Years a Slave doesn’t do, it’s that. Director Steve McQueen favors a distant, removed approach, one that might alienate viewers who expect to be lead by the hand through this story. He doesn’t shove his images in your face. He places them on screen and leaves them there. This film has “12 Years” right there in the title, and there are scenes where he makes you feel that horrifying length.

There’s an extraordinary scene probably a third of the way through the movie where Solomon, played expertly by Chiwetel Ejiofor, is strung up on a tree with a noose around his neck, as a type of punishment. He’s left with just enough room beneath his feet to stand, so that he won’t suffocate. But the ground is muddy and loose. McQueen holds on a wide shot of Solomon hanging for what felt like several minutes. He doesn’t give you the safety of a cut. You’re forced to watch this awful, awful thing, and what’s more, you’re forced to feel its duration. McQueen is sort of making a point about all the movies about slavery – and other human atrocities – that have come and gone. This movie doesn’t make you feel safe. It doesn’t want you to think of Solomon’s story as a “learning experience.” This actually happened, this is someone’s life. This isn’t an opportunity for you to feel proud of yourself for watching such a difficult movie. McQueen isn’t going to leave any of this to your imagination, because whatever you could come up with wouldn’t be half as bad as what actually happened.

The film weaves through a cavalcade of character actors, and most of them come and go without making much of an impression. Quvenzhané Wallis, the young actress who stunned so many people with her performance last year in Beasts of the Souther Wild, shows up very briefly at the beginning of the film. I don’t even think she has a line. Michael K. Williams, best known for his role on The Wire, also shows up for one scene. There’s a lot of this going on in the movie, and it mostly feels like casting for the sake of casting. The worst example of this is Brad Pitt, who shows up in a pivotal role at the end. I like Pitt, but he’s not quite strong enough as an actor to do what he needs to be doing on screen. I’d rather see a bunch of great unknown actors in these parts, especially considering how great Lupita N’yongo is as Patsey, a slave whom Solomon meets later in the film. Her performance is mind-bogglingly good, maybe the best in the film, and she was cast straight out of college.

Michael Fassbender’s performance is one that I can really see standing the test of time, much in the same way that Ralph Fiennes in Schindler’s List is still a part of the cultural consciousness surrounding Nazism. Fassbender plays Edwin Epps, a brutal plantation owner who Solomon is owned by for most of his enslavement. Fassbender makes an interesting choice to not play Epps as just sadistic and mean. He’s a really complex character, who is pressured by his manipulative wife (Sarah Paulson, who crushes it) to use more and more power over the people he owns. Epps is shown to often come home late at night, extremely drunk, and wake up his slaves to dance for his amusement. He’s not being cruel to people, in his mind. He’s playing with his pets. And he’s using his slaves to exert control that he can’t with his wife. He has a sexually abusive relationship with Patsey, who in turn is tormented by Epps’ wife out of jealous hatred. But despite his wife’s pleas, he refuses to get rid of Patsey. In a sick, demented way, he loves her, and his self-loathing for that fact manifests in further torture of her. Lesser actors (under lesser directors) would have just said, “I’ll make him one-dimensionally evil, and no one will complain because he’s a slave owner.” Like Nazis, slave-owning Southerners are seen as inherently evil in a ton of pop culture. McQueen and Fassbender don’t excuse Epps’ horrific behavior, but they place it in a psychological context that’s captivating and intelligent. In fact, “captivating and intelligent” is a good way to describe 12 Years a Slave itself.

Of course, the film is anchored by Chiwetel Ejiofor, and it’s a testament to the strength of this cast that I’ve taken this long to get around to him. It’s the kind of performance that’s so obviously good that there’s not a whole lot to say about it. It’s all in his eyes. McQueen’s camera has a love affair with Ejiofor’s eyes, and with good reason. He’s able to communicate with a look what some actors couldn’t with a three-page speech. That’s something you need for such a minimalistic film.

That brings me to one of my few complaints about 12 Years a Slave, which is to do with the screenplay. A lot of scenes feel awfully over-written. I’ve been praising the movie for not pandering to Oscar voters, but there are a few scenes which lean too heavily on speechifying. It’s like they lifted passages directly from Solomon’s memoir and made him say them on screen. That sort of thing works for direct lines of dialogue, but people probably wouldn’t talk in the way that Solomon narrates the book. And the screenplay avoids that most of the time, but the moments where it doesn’t stand out.

My only other complaint is about the score. I’m not a Hans Zimmer fan, and I think that this might be one of his worst works. He’s smart enough to get out of the way and let some scenes play without music, but his score just doesn’t fit with the film most of the time. When it’s not using some weird, blaring, out-of-place percussion, it’s going for the sweeping, weeping strings that slap you until you cry along with them. You know who would have been great instead? Jonny Greenwood, composer of There Will Be Blood and The Master. Again, minimalism is what this film is all about, and he’s a composer who bonds tightly with the director’s style. Unlike Zimmer, who just does his Zimmer thing all over the place regardless of what the film calls for.

But those are minor quibbles. They don’t tarnish 12 Years a Slave‘s status as one of the most vital films ever made about slavery, or indeed any similarly monstrous institution. It captures tragedy and cruelty with a clinical eye, and by doing so strips away any preconceived notions or emotions. You have to take this movie on its own terms, not yours. You don’t get to walk out feeling all happy for yourself because you sat through it. Because what good could possibly come out of something as heinous as slavery? We don’t get to stand on top of this movie and feel better about ourselves. That’s not fair to the thousands of real people who suffered and died during this time. The fact that 12 Years a Slave understands this makes it smarter than any other movie about slavery that I can think of, not to mention one of the best films of 2013. This is essential American cinema.

822

(44 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Darth Praxus wrote:
Snail wrote:

Weren't the original negatives restored for the Special Editions?

Reports contradict each other; Lucasfilm claims to have destroyed the negatives, but other sources claim they're still intact. If they did in fact destroy the negatives (which would be heinous), it would have to have been after they restored them for the Special Editions.


I doubt Lucas would be that callous towards ANY film.

823

(44 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Marty J wrote:
Trey wrote:

Disney, on the other hand, is a corporation that will happily sell anything to the public if the public will buy it.

I sincerely hope that's true, because it would mean that a good quality DVD/Blu-Ray release of the original trilogy (without all that Special Edition tinkering) is possible. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Pretty sure Fox still owns the distribution rights to those.

824

(44 replies, posted in Off Topic)

That's one of my favorite Rifftrax (Rifftraxes?) so I'm psyched to hear this. They riff the commercials, which is amazing. I guess I'm not that surprised that Disney okayed this.

dj_bakerman wrote:

CANON