DominicCobb

Big nope.

DominicCobb said:

My family is from England 12 generations back, so yes I'm English and will vote, thank you very much. Scotland's kind of weird because they wear kilts (and I think that's all they do? oh wait they play bagpipes) so I don't want them to be part of the UK anymore but on the other hand all the people I know with the name "Scott" are cool so maybe they should stay.

I guess I will abstain.

Also I am part of the Commonwealth (of Massachusetts, bitch) so I am doubly qualified to vote (though I still abstain). However now that I think about it I'm here in the city that started the greatest independence movement of all times, so maybe I should vote with the Scots as I am sympathetic to their plight. On the other hand, my ancestors were loyalists and fought on the side of the Brits. So maybe I should be with them.

I guess I will continue to abstain.

My family is from England 12 generations back, so yes I'm English and will vote, thank you very much. Scotland's kind of weird because they wear kilts (and I think that's all they do? oh wait they play bagpipes) so I don't want them to be part of the UK anymore but on the other hand all the people I know with the name "Scott" are cool so maybe they should stay.

I guess I will abstain.

TheBoost said:

DominicCobb said:

Ew, dubs.

 I support dubs.

No matter what, if the film isn't your language, you're going to lose something. 

Subtitles means your eyes are going to constantly NOT be on the picture. This fundamentally changes the vieweing experience, especially for films as gorgeous as Kurosawa's.

Dubs are equally flawed, but in a different way. I'd rather not be distracted from the image when watching an epic, visually stunning Kurosawa movie.

For something like Ingmar Berman, I'll take the subtitltes, because there's so little speaking in something like "Persona." 

But both are still a compromise. 

Of course that's the shame of linguistics in general. It's a question of the lesser of two evils. However, one is much less evil. To me, seeing dubbed mouths is as distracting as reading subtitles. More importantly, dubs are usually of poorer quality. I highly doubt Kurosawa directed the actors who performed on the dub. Plus, how great of actors are these dubbers anyway? Better than Mifune and Shimura and co.? Doubtful. 

And obviously to truly appreciate a masterpiece like Seven Samurai you need to watch it more than once.

I don't think dubs are ethically wrong or they should be burned or anything. I do think they should be preserved. But you won't catch me watching something with a dub (well sometimes I make an exception if it's lesser fare - Bruce Lee, Godzilla such). They just don't sit right with me. Hence, "ew."

Ew, dubs.

What about a AOTR callback, but a little different (just found this):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXJ7y9Z6Pxk

Cinema Sins just needs to die already.

Yes! Welcome back.

I hate when people are dicks, oh wait, can't say that, people aren't actually penises (though some may have the name "Dick").

Let me fix that. I hate when people are assholes. Nope, that's not right either. I hate when people are douche bags? Nah, doesn't work. 

It's such a shame that we always have to use the literal meanings for words. I would bitch about it like the thread tells me to but I can't really do the action of being a female dog.

Ghostbusters (1984) - Something strange in your neighborhood? Go out and see Ghostbusters! It's playing in theaters (still? I don't know, I saw it last week, late to post here). What a fantastic movie! It's been awhile since I last saw it and I'm glad to say it's still great, especially on the big screen. Lots of laughs, lots of fun. A classic. A

In the Loop (2009) - Another very funny film. I'm a big fan of Armando Iannucci's show Veep, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that this movie is almost exactly like that. Pleasant in that I get a kick out of how unpleasant the characters are to each other (I've always thought Veep features the best insults, this is no different. Surprised a bit because the film is rather un-film-like. It definitely works unto itself as a 90 minute or so feature, but I couldn't help but feel it was just a long TV episode. And now I learn this is based off a show? The Thick of It? How have I never heard of this before? Guess I have some watching to do. B

Before Sunrise (1995) - Been meaning to watch the Before trilogy for awhile now. A very good film. Probably the best depiction of two strangers meet and fall in love one night in a faraway place? I think so. It's strange how much I immediately love these characters. It must be because of how genuine they feel. There's a lot of great filmmaking going on here. There are some bits and pieces here and there that are awkward and maybe don't work so well, but, generally, very well done. B+

Before Sunset (2004) - I'm kind of torn on this one. Let me first of all state that I (as a friend told me afterwards) watched these films wrong. I guess I should have waited a bit in-between watches. Instead, I saw this almost right after the first. So maybe it didn't have the impact it should have, of seeing these characters so much later (9 years in there time). Thusly I think I felt the film was largely inconsequential. And how do you judge a film like this? All three are talkies (if I can appropriate the term), but this is the only one that is a single conversation, told in real time. On the one hand I am in awe of the acting, writing, and directing at play here. Not only is the conversation not boring, I actually was more consistently engaged with the film than either of the other two. I feel like I'm almost a part of the conversation. When I finished the film I had the same feeling I had when I just had a great hour plus talk with a good friend. The issue is that now, a few days after I've seen the film, I've forgotten much of what we talked about. There's just not much there. The film's is lacking the emotion of the other two, and it's ultimately not as interesting ("two strangers falling in love" and "the perfect couple having marital issues" vs. "lovebirds meet up again"). And yet, it may be the one of thought about most, which should be obvious based on the length of this. Even if it wasn't the best film it was still a highly enjoyable and innovate entry. B+

Before Midnight (2013) - And now I've come to the end. I had actually wanted to watch this last year when it was Oscar nominated, but I hadn't seen its predecessors. I'm glad I waited to watch them all. What can I say about this one other than that it is fantastic. All the elements of the production have been perfected in the eighteen years since the first installment, and they are a wonder to behold. Maybe just a little too much random talking in the first two thirds but hey, that's what these films are all about, right? And it works, that's what's important. The last third is amazing. A great ending to a highly unconventional, but completely exceptional, trilogy. A-

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) - What took me so long to watch this? Super awesome kickass funny fun from start to finish. Further proof that Edgar Wright is one of the best in the biz right now. Get this man a Star Wars movie! B+

On the Waterfront (1954) - Not my first watch and certainly not my last. What can be said that hasn't been already? An incredible piece of cinema. A+

AntcuFaalb said:

RicOlie_2 said:

That's hardly LOL material. HotRod has the humour of a two year old. I can't believe there are adults who find that kind of thing even remotely funny. I think I matured past that point by the time I was seven.

Some people hit a certain point of being mature enough (and confident enough in their own maturity) that limited excursions into the land of immaturity can be made with little-to-no consequence.

Anecdote: My grandmother-in-law is quite mature and often stern, but can relax into some good toilet humor every now and then.

I'm not saying that this applies to HotRod, but I am saying labeling all crude-humor-lovin' adults as immature is just... well... lazy. You need to evaluate people on an individual basis before you can make your determination and pass judgement.

Poopdick. Poopdick. Poopdick.

I agree. Toilet humor is so juvenile that when I hear a mature adult tell a poopdick joke, it is funny because it is so unexpectedly immature.

But here I go explaining a good joke.

I shave almost everyday in the shower against the grain with no shaving cream and a cheap razor. I have yet to meet anyone who does the same.

Wait, am I supposed to be bitching about something? 

Um, razors, bitch, um, yeah.

I laughed.

SilverWook said:

If you're going to remake TWOK, admit it up front. Abrams and company played coy with the true identity of "John Harrison" online for months. I saw the 2009 film three times in a theater, (twice in IMAX) I was one and done with TWOK Redux.

A little more honesty with fans, and lot less bait and switch, goes a long way.

 I'm someone who tries to avoid any sort of film marketing/spoilers so that wasn't really an issue for me.

For what it's worth I'm a Star Trek fan of only the Original Series and their films (TWOK especially of course) and I loved STID. I think I get the fan outrage but at the end of the day when I watch it I think "hey, that's a pretty good movie." Inappropriate allusions and continuity fucks aside, it's a well made and entirely enjoyable film.

On the other hand, I too am not super looking forward to the next film as it no longer has its best component (JJ) and it has replaced him with its worst element (Roberto Orci). So yeah. I'll still see it though.

No offense to ady but nothing he's done suggests he'd be able to spearhead a $600 million blockbuster film trilogy. It seems kind of ridiculous to criticize movies that haven't been finished/started yet, but whatever, go for it, if that's what you please. I will be where I am eagerly anticipating both ady and JJ's work.

Also, "twenty-thousand."

DuracellEnergizer said:

I refuse to accept Temple of Doom as a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Indy's clearly a committed religious skeptic prior to the ending of Raiders -- it makes little sense that he'd casually disregard the tales of the ark's power as "a lot of superstitious hocus pocus" if he'd encountered a bunch of magical glowing rocks and an evil priest who could rip hearts out of people without killing them only a year before.

Temple works far better as a sequel, and that is what I choose to accept it as.

 I've always felt the same way.

Yes, good bump. The song needs more love.

Gary Kurtz, jesus that's great. Congrats, indeed.

Hey now, I was able to properly identify that Park and Rec bit just from the top half of the poster. I framed my statement as a question because.

You certainly deserve the recognition Harmy. Congrats!

Did Patton Oswalt have anything to do with that?

Nick66 said:

DominicCobb said:

I've said it before and will say it again, there will NOT be new versions of the films.

I strongly disagree with this. New versions of these films is the one thing that I think is as close to a certainty as you can get with guessing.

But it's still in many ways, IMO, up to George. In ten years if he's still involved, and decides the 11 CGI looks too crappy and doesn't reflect his 1975 original vision, and that 2025 CGI would be closer to his 1975 original vision, and wants to have another crack at them I can't see Disney saying no.

George does not care about Star Wars anymore, and LFL does not care about George anymore. He's retired, he's out of the picture. Everything that LFL is doing with Star Wars, going ahead, has nothing to do with George. He is no longer involved.

Here's what I said earlier in the 4K thread:

I wouldn't bet on a new version of the SE. There are so many reasons why not. Let's first of all remember that none of the directors of the OT are in the picture any more, and usually when there's a new cut of a movie for home video they're involved. So who would be making the changes? What would be their goal? Would they get rid of some earlier changes? Let's not forget now that the people in charge now probably don't care at all for the SE. And Disney/LFL is on this OT train, and they must know that real lovers of the OT prefer the OOT and hate the SE with a passion. So they'd probably think (incorrectly) that OTers would not care for and possibly complain about a new SE.

I've said it before and will say it again, there will NOT be new versions of the films.

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

especially when the '97 and '11 versions are pretty much the same, the newest ones just have more prequel crap shoved into them

That is like saying 1997 and theatrical are pretty much the same.

 Well considering both '97 and '11 are shit and '77/'80/'83 are not...