We watched The Lost City last night and it was pretty good. Just a nice, light adventure movie, Channing Tatum plays the naif perfectly, the dialogue is good and keeps things moving and doesn't make it seem like the movie is just action sequences strung together by setups for action sequences.
Also, whoever managed to convince Sandra Bullock to wear a sequined onesie in the jungle for months to film it should be sent to negotiate peace treaties.
from a discussion in the DCEU thread regarding the fact that The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is only two minutes longer than The Batman.
I just rewatched the Ecstasy of Gold scene and something is blowing my mind that I never noticed before. Tuco is running and he's hauling ass such that the entire background is a blur while he's perfectly in focus in a side shot. If I saw that in a movie released today, I'd assume it was VFX.
PSN: ImRyanBurgundy
+9
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Violence whenever someone says something we don't like is good.
from a discussion in the DCEU thread regarding the fact that The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is only two minutes longer than The Batman.
I just rewatched the Ecstasy of Gold scene and something is blowing my mind that I never noticed before. Tuco is running and he's hauling ass such that the entire background is a blur while he's perfectly in focus in a side shot. If I saw that in a movie released today, I'd assume it was VFX.
It’s a pretty easy and common shot in older movies. You have a long lens and a tight focus and so as the camera tracks the parallax makes the background blur hugely. So long as your actor runs on the focus line (which might even be drawn on the ground) you keep focus. It makes it easy to create movement and confusion even if the actor isn’t moving a lot. (“Boom bayhem!” is the logical conclusion of this; the camera moves rather than the actor making even static shots feel huge and dynamic)
It’s been largely replaced by wide shots because there tends to actually be more things happening on screen and directors want to show those things. (But also I think because you have fewer disoriented heroes in forefront cinema and so you have fewer people aping those style choices)
Goumindong on
+6
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yeah, your point of disoriented hero brings up the interesting question about how protagonists are presented. Lots of "the one" in the past 20 years, where the background bends to them
Still, that first shot of the cemetery and the headstones and the fact that all of them are real
Yeah, your point of disoriented hero brings up the interesting question about how protagonists are presented. Lots of "the one" in the past 20 years, where the background bends to them
Still, that first shot of the cemetery and the headstones and the fact that all of them are real
Oh yea I saw those headstones (and the dirt dug up to make it look like it was fresh) and was like “goddamn that budget”
Yeah, your point of disoriented hero brings up the interesting question about how protagonists are presented. Lots of "the one" in the past 20 years, where the background bends to them
Still, that first shot of the cemetery and the headstones and the fact that all of them are real
Oh yea I saw those headstones (and the dirt dug up to make it look like it was fresh) and was like “goddamn that budget”
I know, right? But there wasn't a union in the Italian day laborer film industry then. Leone threw some bills and guys said "fuck it, sure"
PSN: ImRyanBurgundy
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I have no take, unlike the rest of you stupid peasants, you disordered rabble, you celebrity-obsessed rubes.
from a discussion in the DCEU thread regarding the fact that The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is only two minutes longer than The Batman.
I just rewatched the Ecstasy of Gold scene and something is blowing my mind that I never noticed before. Tuco is running and he's hauling ass such that the entire background is a blur while he's perfectly in focus in a side shot. If I saw that in a movie released today, I'd assume it was VFX.
I have the extended version that's got something like 30 more minutes of extra and extended scenes. There's a long funny scene where Tuco gets his gang back together before going after Blondie, for example.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Violence whenever someone says something we don't like is good.
Yeah, your point of disoriented hero brings up the interesting question about how protagonists are presented. Lots of "the one" in the past 20 years, where the background bends to them
Still, that first shot of the cemetery and the headstones and the fact that all of them are real
Oh yea I saw those headstones (and the dirt dug up to make it look like it was fresh) and was like “goddamn that budget”
I know, right? But there wasn't a union in the Italian day laborer film industry then. Leone threw some bills and guys said "fuck it, sure"
The bridge scene was worse - they legit got the Spanish army to be the extras for that scene, and someone accidentally gave the signal for the bridge to explode before the cameras were rolling.
So they got the army extras to rebuild the whole bridge so they could shoot it again.
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
I still like Few Dollars more over GBU. I think because despite the title its not really about the money and Indio is way more hateable than Angel Eyes.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
This whole thing just goes to show something I said earlier, and I will now make the convoluted and unconvincing case why.
Just watched The Bad Guys with the family. It was good. Not great, but good. It avoided the pitfall of regular actors doing bad voice work. Sam Rockwell and Marc Maron in particular did well. It’s predictable, but it’s a well worn story told well. It’s not at the level of Lord and Miller/Pixar/Disney when it’s really good, but not everything needs to be. I was worried it would be Emoji Movie bad, or try hard, Seth-Rogen’s-laugh-is-peak-comedy bad, like Rescue Rangers appears to be, but it’s not. That may sound like damning with faint praise, but I think it’s easy for something to become slop like that. Success is always challenging so even modest success is worthy of praise, IMO.
If you have kids and they say they want to see The Bad Guys, I think you’ll likely have a good time.
I still like Few Dollars more over GBU. I think because despite the title its not really about the money and Indio is way more hateable than Angel Eyes.
It's very close but I just like the team of Blondie and Mortimer just a bit more than Angel Eyes.
GBU has better single shots and music, but A Few Dollars More is a tighter movie.
+1
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Violence whenever someone says something we don't like is good.
The fact that the lip sync is un-sync'd more often than not detracts a lot of enjoyment I would otherwise have from the spaghetti westerns.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I still like Few Dollars more over GBU. I think because despite the title its not really about the money and Indio is way more hateable than Angel Eyes.
My friends said that Indio had "Big Vampire Energy". And its definitely true.
As for the title. Its referring to Indio, i think. Who in addition to being very hateable; self destructs his crew for a few dollars more.
We watched The Lost City last night and it was pretty good. Just a nice, light adventure movie, Channing Tatum plays the naif perfectly, the dialogue is good and keeps things moving and doesn't make it seem like the movie is just action sequences strung together by setups for action sequences.
Also, whoever managed to convince Sandra Bullock to wear a sequined onesie in the jungle for months to film it should be sent to negotiate peace treaties.
I was actually really impressed by how fucking funny Sandra Bullock was in this whole thing. She could've easily been overshadowed by Tatum but she seriously stole the entire show.
Funny thing about "The Man with No Name" is that it's a post-hoc marketing ploy to group the three movies together. In them, Eastwood's characters are credited as: 'Joe, 'Manco, and 'Blondie.
(Which are all nicknames, I suppose, but it's not like it's standard practice to list out characters' full names anyway...)
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
For me its all on Lee Van Cleef's facial acting in the showdown at the end for why I prefer Few Dollars More. He acts the hell out of his showdown with Indio. Plus I love the watch chime theme.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
We watched The Lost City last night and it was pretty good. Just a nice, light adventure movie, Channing Tatum plays the naif perfectly, the dialogue is good and keeps things moving and doesn't make it seem like the movie is just action sequences strung together by setups for action sequences.
Also, whoever managed to convince Sandra Bullock to wear a sequined onesie in the jungle for months to film it should be sent to negotiate peace treaties.
I was actually really impressed by how fucking funny Sandra Bullock was in this whole thing. She could've easily been overshadowed by Tatum but she seriously stole the entire show.
I'm not the biggest Melissa McCarthy fan, but her playing off with Sandra Bullock in the Heat is the most I've ever enjoyed a film she was in.
This whole thing just goes to show something I said earlier, and I will now make the convoluted and unconvincing case why.
Sandra Bullock stars in a lot of garbage, but she's really charismatic and has great comedic timing when you give her a decent script.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I read a story someone posted in a favorite celebrity encounter thread years ago, who had been an extra on The Blind Side. They said anytime there was a really early morning call she would show up with boxes of donuts and coffee for them because they didn't have access to craft services. She also insisted everyone call her Sandy.
"Sandra Bullock insists you call her Sandy" is a downright pornographic sentence.
This whole thing just goes to show something I said earlier, and I will now make the convoluted and unconvincing case why.
I was into her as of Speed, and I figured she would be going places, I just wish those places hadn't mostly been cookie cutter rom-coms.
But she has enough personality to make even something like While You Were Sleeping watchable, even in spite of the Lesser Bill.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If I was married to Phoebe Cates, you'd never see me, either. Maybe bump into me at the 7-11 grabbing a lot of Gatorade, but that's it.
+24
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
So the latest Harry Potter movie seems to have barely made double its budget back after over a month or whatever in Cinemas. How many more of these things did they have left to fart out and will anyone bother with them at this point?
Also on the topic of Sandra Bullock, . Don't have much more to contribute than that.
So the latest Harry Potter movie seems to have barely made double its budget back after over a month or whatever in Cinemas. How many more of these things did they have left to fart out and will anyone bother with them at this point.
If it was at least an actual Harry Potter film, they’d have characters that the core audience has come to care about. With Fantastic Beasts, they’ve managed the particular magic where the characters become more and more vague and undefined with each film.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
So the latest Harry Potter movie seems to have barely made double its budget back after over a month or whatever in Cinemas. How many more of these things did they have left to fart out and will anyone bother with them at this point?
Also on the topic of Sandra Bullock, . Don't have much more to contribute than that.
It's not just the gross, it's the trajectory as well.
HP: Deathly Hallows Part 2 : $1,341M
Fantastic Beasts : $814M
Crimes of Grindelwald : $655M
Dumbledore : $379M (probably has another $20M or so left in the tank)
Double budget is breakeven territory for non-franchise flicks, and being the 3rd in the series it probably has decent participation clauses for Rowling, Redmayne and (likely) Jude Law (Depp would almost certainly had a gross participation clause too if he was kept around). Generally speaking, the contracts tend to reflect step-ups in compensation for keeping key people attached the longer the franchise goes.
It's almost certain that Dumbledore will lose money for Warners at this point, and given revenues are dropping by about 1/3 each time there's going to be some serious discussions as to whether they'll keep going or pull a Divergent.
Posts
Time to watch "Cast a Deadly Spell" again.
Also, whoever managed to convince Sandra Bullock to wear a sequined onesie in the jungle for months to film it should be sent to negotiate peace treaties.
🎥 🟩 ⬛ ⬛ ⬛ ⬛ ⬛
https://framed.wtf
One of those movies I liked a lot but only watched once.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Edit - honestly it's probably my favorite dark comedy
I just rewatched the Ecstasy of Gold scene and something is blowing my mind that I never noticed before. Tuco is running and he's hauling ass such that the entire background is a blur while he's perfectly in focus in a side shot. If I saw that in a movie released today, I'd assume it was VFX.
Same, got it in one shockingly.
It’s a pretty easy and common shot in older movies. You have a long lens and a tight focus and so as the camera tracks the parallax makes the background blur hugely. So long as your actor runs on the focus line (which might even be drawn on the ground) you keep focus. It makes it easy to create movement and confusion even if the actor isn’t moving a lot. (“Boom bayhem!” is the logical conclusion of this; the camera moves rather than the actor making even static shots feel huge and dynamic)
It’s been largely replaced by wide shots because there tends to actually be more things happening on screen and directors want to show those things. (But also I think because you have fewer disoriented heroes in forefront cinema and so you have fewer people aping those style choices)
🎥 🟩 ⬛ ⬛ ⬛ ⬛ ⬛
https://framed.wtf
Still, that first shot of the cemetery and the headstones and the fact that all of them are real
Oh yea I saw those headstones (and the dirt dug up to make it look like it was fresh) and was like “goddamn that budget”
I know, right? But there wasn't a union in the Italian day laborer film industry then. Leone threw some bills and guys said "fuck it, sure"
I have the extended version that's got something like 30 more minutes of extra and extended scenes. There's a long funny scene where Tuco gets his gang back together before going after Blondie, for example.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Finding out that the scores were written in advance and were piped through the set during to establish the mood
It really sells it
So they got the army extras to rebuild the whole bridge so they could shoot it again.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If you have kids and they say they want to see The Bad Guys, I think you’ll likely have a good time.
It's very close but I just like the team of Blondie and Mortimer just a bit more than Angel Eyes.
GBU has better single shots and music, but A Few Dollars More is a tighter movie.
My friends said that Indio had "Big Vampire Energy". And its definitely true.
As for the title. Its referring to Indio, i think. Who in addition to being very hateable; self destructs his crew for a few dollars more.
I was actually really impressed by how fucking funny Sandra Bullock was in this whole thing. She could've easily been overshadowed by Tatum but she seriously stole the entire show.
(Which are all nicknames, I suppose, but it's not like it's standard practice to list out characters' full names anyway...)
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not the biggest Melissa McCarthy fan, but her playing off with Sandra Bullock in the Heat is the most I've ever enjoyed a film she was in.
"Sandra Bullock insists you call her Sandy" is a downright pornographic sentence.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I really do want world peace.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
But she has enough personality to make even something like While You Were Sleeping watchable, even in spite of the Lesser Bill.
The lesser bill? How fucking dare you.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He's also not Jeff Daniels though he kind of looks like him if you squint
He was in Spaceballs like a million years ago
...
You know who I haven't seen much of in forever?
Kevin Kline
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
He's living his best life after cashing in that Wild Wild West check.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also on the topic of Sandra Bullock,
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
HP: Deathly Hallows Part 2 : $1,341M
Fantastic Beasts : $814M
Crimes of Grindelwald : $655M
Dumbledore : $379M (probably has another $20M or so left in the tank)
Double budget is breakeven territory for non-franchise flicks, and being the 3rd in the series it probably has decent participation clauses for Rowling, Redmayne and (likely) Jude Law (Depp would almost certainly had a gross participation clause too if he was kept around). Generally speaking, the contracts tend to reflect step-ups in compensation for keeping key people attached the longer the franchise goes.
It's almost certain that Dumbledore will lose money for Warners at this point, and given revenues are dropping by about 1/3 each time there's going to be some serious discussions as to whether they'll keep going or pull a Divergent.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3