DominicCobb

I'm as worried about new Trek and new Wars feeling to similar as the next guy, but I feel you have to look at this from a strictly Episode VII perspective.

Seriously, think about it. By the time it comes out, it will have been 32 years since Return of the Jedi. Would you really want to wait 32 years for the sequel to ROTJ, and have it be bad? With J.J. Abrams, you're assured a good Star Wars film.

So maybe in the context of the current cinematic landscape, this idea might feel stale, by in the context of the Star Wars franchise itself, this is a solid choice.

Anyway, I've begun calling this Star Wars Episode VII: The Best One Since the Eighties.

Also, to anyone mad that Abrams originally refused the job: he's not the first to initially refuse then accept the job of directing a Star Wars sequel. And the other one was not Richard Marquand.

Happy beyond belief. I really don't think I've ever been this excited for a film, ever.

He doesn't seem to take a hint, this guy.

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

considering seeing the film today, even though I said I decided not to.  

btw, Does this thing have an intermission?   I think it's a long enough movie to justify one.

No. Warning. I took a potty break right after "Master of the House" figuring I wouldn't miss anything too great... turns out that's right when the new song is. grrr

I mean, you didn't miss anything to great.

Seven Samurai + Star Wars is basically a dream come true.

Hmm, thought as much. Might be an interesting watch one day.

Yep.

I read a little about the director's cut. Is it bad?

The Lady Vanishes (1938) 8.5/10 - Thrilling film made of a rather simple story as only Hitchcock could do. Quite funny too.

Night Train to Munich (1940) 8/10 - Thrilling film made of a rather simple story as only Hitch- oh this is actually Carol Reed. Well, the two films are rather similar, which, let me be clear, is a good thing.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) 10/10 - Outstanding picture. Great performances from Stewart and Wayne. Not a typical John Ford film, in a good way.

Death Rides a Horse (1967) 7/10 - A straight-foward plot made awesome by Lee Van Cleef, Ennio Morricone, and the "West." Have to love a good sphagetti western. John Phillip Law is absolutely horrendous, though.  

The Warriors (1979) 9/10 - Easily one of the coolest films I've ever seen. Don't know what more needs be said, other than: I can dig it.

The Hurt Locker (2009) 10/10 - Still amazing on second watch. Really, very great.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) 10/10 - Also very great. Seriously, this film is amazing. Go see it now. Incredibly well done. Everything is top-notch. It's not my favorite film of the year, but it might be the best.

Looper (2012) 9.5/10 - Finally saw this. Great film. Great filmmaking. There are some minor nitpicks that made me almost give it a 9, but I'm giving it that extra half a point due to it's originality, which can't be understated. One thing that SPOILERS took me for a loop was that the JGL and BW's character arcs are resolved through just JGL's character. I guess it's okay because they're the same guy, but I did not expect that to happen. END SPOILERS

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I like it!  I'd wear a shirt like that, especially if it had a picture of CPY on it.

But CPY isn't an inconsistency... CPY is awesome.  An inconsistency is Anakin telling a senator that he just killed an entire village, and the senator not having him arrested immediately.  It would be like the Newtown kid showing up at City Hall and the mayor saying "oh, that's ok, it's human to get mad now and then".

Not to keep it on this topic, but I think Tatooine is outside of the Republic's jurisdiction.

Just because it's over 2 hours doesn't mean it's overlong.

I would like to think that Nolan will be considered a great director, 20 years from now, and I think there is evidence to support that hope. His movies have made over $1.6 billion in the US. He's received three Oscar nominations (though admittedly not for directing), two nominations each from the PGA and the WGA, which, again, weren't for directing, but, then again he's received three nominations from the DGA which were, obviously, for directing. He has three films many would consider classics (Memento, The Dark Knight, Inception) and others (Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige) that have very devoted followings. And as for the Dark Knight Trilogy, its influence on the mainstream cinematic landscape has been a major, and some would say, beneficial one.

All of this in 15 years (since he started in 1998).

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

So, the movie moved Anne Hathaway's song "I'm So Damn Sad, Dear God I'm Sad" from after she looses her job (which would make me sad) where it is in the stage musical,  until...

SPOILERS ALERT

...after she becomes a bald toothless prostitute (which would make me sadder). Seems a solid dramatic choice. 

Kinda weird that Ann would sing a song about being so darn sad in a story called Les Miserables. ;)

Honestly, that sounds like a better position for the song to me.

I just don't see the point in moving it. What for? As Cobb says so that it is superficially different from the stage play? That is silly.

Anyway, life was kind of falling apart for her and she was very, very, very sad before she had to sell her hair and herself into prostitution. That song was part of her transition to rock bottom, as you watch as things keep going downhill for her. Don't see why they felt she couldn't be so damn sad until after she had become a prostitute.

 

I didn't mean that movies should change things when they adapt just for the sake of it, I just meant that I don't think they have an obligation to, and if there is a change that seems like its worth doing, for the sake of the cinematic narrative, there's no reason why they shouldn't do it.

Like I said before, I'm not familiar with the stage musical, so I can't say for sure if the movie's restructuring is better; but, in the movie, I feel it makes more sense to put that song where it is now.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

The reason is because there are recorded performances of the actual musical. 

I have seen any, and I am certain none exist of the broadway cast.   Yeah, they did those concerts, but that was just them up on stage in costume singing the songs.   They were not actual performances of the show. 

Sorry, I was unaware. Still, I feel the movie is not obligated to show the play exactly as is just because there is no recorded performance of the play itself.

DominicCobb said:

And, yeah, some actors can make the change from stage to screen, I'm not saying they can't. But stage and screen acting are fundamentally different. When you're on stage, your acting towards the back of the house. When your on screen, your acting towards the camera that's right in front of you. That's a different type of acting.

Sorry, not buying it.  Give me one instance of someone who was great on stage, who reprized a stage role on the screen that didn't work.     

Not buying what? Stage and screen acting are different and that is a fact. I assume you're not buying that they can't make that switch. Well, unfortunately, I am not well versed in theater history, though I do remember, when I saw this film, actually, my aunt, a huge broadway fan (and a part-time stage actress herself) was talking about someone who wasn't able to make that transition. Yeah, I know, it doesn't really matter because I don't have a name, but I am certain she knew what she was talking about, and that there are others.

Think about silent film actors. I think it's actually a similar situation. It was a different type of acting, and almost none of the silent film stars successfully crossed into talkies.

The reason is because there are recorded performances of the actual musical. 

And, yeah, some actors can make the change from stage to screen, I'm not saying they can't. But stage and screen acting are fundamentally different. When you're on stage, your acting towards the back of the house. When your on screen, your acting towards the camera that's right in front of you. That's a different type of acting.

Warbler said:

that makes me dislike the movie a bit. IMO, when doing a movie based on a stage musical,  you should try to get as close to the original stage production as possible.   I hate it when Hollywood makes unnecessary changes to stage musicals.  

TheBoost said:

 

So, the movie moved Anne Hathaway's song "I'm So Damn Sad, Dear God I'm Sad" from after she looses her job (which would make me sad) where it is in the stage musical,  until...

SPOILERS ALERT

...after she becomes a bald toothless prostitute (which would make me sadder). Seems a solid dramatic choice.

 

I'm not someone who's familiar with the stage version at all, but the placement of that song in the film makes so much more sense, in my mind, than its apparent placement in the stage musical.

Also, what's the point of doing a movie if it's going to be exactly the same as the stage show? 

Also, stage acting and film acting are very different. 

As someone who's never read LOTR (I honestly cannot tell you why), I must say I'm happy with all of the changes PJ and co. made. I think they all work rather well. Now, I'll admit that it's hard for me to judge, as like I said before, I have not read LOTR, but I wonder if people dis the changes simply because they're changes.

There is one change I'm not okay with, and that's having the elves in Helm's Deep. Hurts the narrative in my opinion. The other ones help, I think.

What I have read is the Hobbit, and I'd like to say that, so far, I'm liking the changes quite a bit.

Ah, yes. It all makes sense now.

Thanks for the clarification, SilverWook. I guess I was mostly just confused by the fact that there seems to be such a big discrepancy in the look of video in the 60s and 70s and the look of digital video today. So what, exactly, is it that causes the "soap opera" effect?

SilverWook said:

I was editing video tape in college in the late 80's, early 90's, and it was always 30 fps.

Not really what I meant. Broadcast video tapes. I'm not an expert so I don't know if I'm explaining it right.

Ever watch those Twilight Zone marathons and catch one of the few episodes that looks different, like a soap? Those were shot on tape instead of film to save money.

Edit: I hate to sound stupid, but I'm not even sure what I'm talking about anymore. I was sure I read somewhere that soap operas and othe broadcast stuff was shot at 60, but, honestly, I'm not sure. The Internet is not very informative in this area.

Were soap operas really shot at 30fps? They don't look like it. 

Maybe finally seeing the Hobbit at 48 would clear things up.

Warbler said:

could have sworn it was 60fps, but  I am of course no expert. 

Pretty sure video tape has been 60fps for some time now, though nowadays that's mostly reserved for soaps and such. Video is usually shot with 30fps these days.

I guess that's what I get for never changing my avatar after being here for a year and a half. Thanks for the tip.

Well, I tried to change it again yesterday, and it, oddly loaded as my original avatar. I log in now, and it's the picture I actually loaded.

So I don't know what went wrong, why it was like that yesterday, or if someone fixed it. If that's the case, thank you! Because it's working now. So no worries.

My guess is they release all the 3D OT in 2014.

I've tried to change my avatar a few times in the past few hours but it simply won't let me. I've tried with different pictures just to see if that would work (even my original avatar), but it doesn't. 

Here is what it says when I try:

20 : 			var xOffset = 0;
21 : 			var yOffset = 0;
22 : 			ImgFileTempRead = ImageRead(arguments.ForumImgFilePath & ForumImgFile.serverfile);
23 : 			ImgFileTempInfo = ImageInfo(ImgFileTempRead);
24 : 			if ( ( ImgFileTempInfo.width gt arguments.ForumImgFileMaxWidth or ImgFileTempInfo.height gt arguments.ForumImgFileMaxHeight ) or ( ( ImgFileTempInfo.width lt arguments.ForumImgFileMaxWidth and ImgFileTempInfo.height lt arguments.ForumImgFileMaxHeight ) and arguments.ForumImgFileResizeUp ) )

coldfusion.image.ImageReader$ImageReadingException: An exception occurred while trying to read the image.
	at coldfusion.image.Image.getFilePath(Image.java:254)
	at coldfusion.image.Image.<init>(Image.java:233)
	at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.ImageRead(CFPage.java:5910)
	at cfForumImageProcessing2ecfc1878984125$funcFORUMIMAGERESIZE.runFunction(E:\Inetpub\originaltrilogy.com\wwwroot\forum\components\ForumImageProcessing.cfc:22)
	at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod.invoke(UDFMethod.java:418)
	at coldfusion.filter.SilentFilter.invoke(SilentFilter.java:47)
	at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod$ReturnTypeFilter.invoke(UDFMethod.java:360)
	at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod$ArgumentCollectionFilter.invoke(UDFMethod.java:324)
	at coldfusion.filter.FunctionAccessFilter.invoke(FunctionAccessFilter.java:59)
	at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod.runFilterChain(UDFMethod.java:277)
	at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod.invoke(UDFMethod.java:463)
	at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.invoke(TemplateProxy.java:453)
	at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.invoke(TemplateProxy.java:320)
	at coldfusion.runtime.CfJspPage._invoke(CfJspPage.java:2222)
	at coldfusion.tagext.lang.InvokeTag.doEndTag(InvokeTag.java:358)
	at cfprofile2dedit2ecfm1945986834._factor5(E:\Inetpub\originaltrilogy.com\wwwroot\forum\profile-edit.cfm:84)
	at cfprofile2dedit2ecfm1945986834._factor7(E:\Inetpub\originaltrilogy.com\wwwroot\forum\profile-edit.cfm:74)
	at cfprofile2dedit2ecfm1945986834._factor25(E:\Inetpub\originaltrilogy.com\wwwroot\forum\profile-edit.cfm:71)
	at cfprofile2dedit2ecfm1945986834._factor29(E:\Inetpub\originaltrilogy.com\wwwroot\forum\profile-edit.cfm:14)
	at cfprofile2dedit2ecfm1945986834.runPage(E:\Inetpub\originaltrilogy.com\wwwroot\forum\profile-edit.cfm:1)
	at coldfusion.runtime.CfJspPage.invoke(CfJspPage.java:196)
	at coldfusion.tagext.lang.IncludeTag.doStartTag(IncludeTag.java:370)
	at coldfusion.filter.CfincludeFilter.invoke(CfincludeFilter.java:65)
	at coldfusion.filter.ApplicationFilter.invoke(ApplicationFilter.java:273)
	at coldfusion.filter.RequestMonitorFilter.invoke(RequestMonitorFilter.java:48)
	at coldfusion.filter.MonitoringFilter.invoke(MonitoringFilter.java:40)
	at coldfusion.filter.PathFilter.invoke(PathFilter.java:86)
	at coldfusion.filter.ExceptionFilter.invoke(ExceptionFilter.java:70)
	at coldfusion.filter.ClientScopePersistenceFilter.invoke(ClientScopePersistenceFilter.java:28)
	at coldfusion.filter.BrowserFilter.invoke(BrowserFilter.java:38)
	at coldfusion.filter.NoCacheFilter.invoke(NoCacheFilter.java:46)
	at coldfusion.filter.GlobalsFilter.invoke(GlobalsFilter.java:38)
	at coldfusion.filter.DatasourceFilter.invoke(DatasourceFilter.java:22)
	at coldfusion.filter.RequestThrottleFilter.invoke(RequestThrottleFilter.java:126)
	at coldfusion.CfmServlet.service(CfmServlet.java:175)
	at coldfusion.bootstrap.BootstrapServlet.service(BootstrapServlet.java:89)
	at jrun.servlet.FilterChain.doFilter(FilterChain.java:86)
	at coldfusion.monitor.event.MonitoringServletFilter.doFilter(MonitoringServletFilter.java:42)
	at coldfusion.bootstrap.BootstrapFilter.doFilter(BootstrapFilter.java:46)
	at jrun.servlet.FilterChain.doFilter(FilterChain.java:94)
	at jrun.servlet.FilterChain.service(FilterChain.java:101)
	at jrun.servlet.ServletInvoker.invoke(ServletInvoker.java:106)
	at jrun.servlet.JRunInvokerChain.invokeNext(JRunInvokerChain.java:42)
	at jrun.servlet.JRunRequestDispatcher.invoke(JRunRequestDispatcher.java:286)
	at jrun.servlet.ServletEngineService.dispatch(ServletEngineService.java:543)
	at jrun.servlet.jrpp.JRunProxyService.invokeRunnable(JRunProxyService.java:203)
	at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$DownstreamMetrics.invokeRunnable(ThreadPool.java:320)
	at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$ThreadThrottle.invokeRunnable(ThreadPool.java:428)
	at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$UpstreamMetrics.invokeRunnable(ThreadPool.java:266)
	at jrunx.scheduler.WorkerThread.run(WorkerThread.java:66)

Akwat Kbrana said:

For those that have seen the film, is it true that Thorin is much less of a douchebag than he is in the book?

More of a douchebag actually, in my opinion. It's one of the few things I disliked about the film.

Spoilerspoilerspoliersopuliargutsophdrhlier alert!

He's a little douchey but overcomes it at the end. 

Man with the Movie Camera (1929) 10/10 - I'll admit I was a bit skeptical at first (a movie without a story - really?), but WOW. The cinematography and the editing were simply mesmerizing. Far ahead of its time. I loved it. It certainly helped too that I'm generally interested by life and history, and this one had both. And while it may claim to have no story, it really has hundreds about the every day lives of Russians in the late twenties. And, of course, the over-arching story, about the man with the camera documenting the picture, who has regressed and become a part of the picture himself, is particularly thought provoking. It really makes one think about the possibilities of movies and movie making.