Jump to content

Deadlines? What Deadlines?

Members
  • Posts

    5,881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

  1. 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

    Nope… in the first film you see a ship passing through a Highliner with a blue planet seen through the hole in the ship in the background.

    You see the ship come out of the highliner with a blue planet in the background. The highliner is in both places at the same time. 

    Holtzman effect oooOOOOOOoooOooo scary ghost. 

  2. 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

    Then why do the Highliners look like fixed portals that smaller ships pass through instead of starships?

    Is it? I don't know. The only time you see the highliner is when they have ships pouring out of them. I don't know what folding space is supposed to look like but seeing the other system out the ass end of the ship would be consistent with the highliner being in two places at the same time (folded space).

    On balance, I'm glad the film didn't waste screen time explaining it. 

  3. 1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

    I agree.  But the movie is definitely long enough, and we don't need any more body horror than we already got. 

    I read the Alan Dean Foster novelization and it was funny to come across the deleted scenes in there.  I have never actually seen them in the context of the film, just a few youtube clips.  Did they include other scenes of the crew talking?


    Not really for time. The scene doesn't make the film overly long. But for pacing. That scene might work better if they put it right after the scene where she discovers Parker and Lamberts bodies; instead of before she tries to cancel the self destruct. 

    The 2003 director's cut (which I saw in a theater) includes the restored egg morphing scene. It also features several alternate/extended takes on specific scenes. Some scenes are trimmed slightly for time. I can't recall if the scene where Ripley asks Lambert if she'd ever slept with Ash is in there but it rings a bell. I know I've seen it somewhere. 

    There's a scene later in both cuts where Ripley has what looks like an obvious bruise on her cheek (just before her violent encounter with Ash). I think this has to do with Lambert slapping her outside of the medical bay in the director's cut. 

  4. 4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

    In contrast the Alien is also hidden for virtually the entire movie, if I had to guess it's screen time is probably about a minute for the whole film.  

    I've thought about this. Why is the alien absent for most of the film? I think the answer is the deleted scene and what it suggests for the original life cycle of the alien.

    • It's "born", escapes and hides to mature.
    • The mature alien goes hunting. It doesn't attempt to overpower the group, which it could do easily. It waits until one of them is isolated (Brett) and stalks/kills him.
    • Then it disappears while we focus on the crew dealing with Bretts abduction. What's the Alien doing? Cocooning Brett. This seems to involve mutating Brett into an egg (according to the deleted scene). 
    • It waits until a second crew member is isolated (Dallas) and grabs him. It disappears to cocoon Dallas while the crew has their own drama. 
    • The alien now has two eggs: and heir and a spare. Now it goes after the crew. The attack on Parker and Lambert is the first time the creature risks being in the same room with two humans at once. It kills both of them and leaves their bodies. Because it doesn't need them.

    Although I like that deleted scene, I think Ridley was right the first time. The movie works better without it.

    30 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

    Overall I wouldn't say Dallas is a bad man, or even makes any particularly stupid decisions, but he is a very poor leader in this situation.

    A situation that is completely unprecedented in the universe of this film. And the most consequential decision is one he shares the blame for with Ash when he allows them on board. Ripley was right.

    It might also go some way to explain the unsentimental nature of Kane's funeral. Dallas kind of fucked up and he knows it. 

    Still one of my favorite films. I revisit it about once a year or so. 

  5. 2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

    Basically the answer to the first one is 'they know there are people there, they just don't realise how many'. It's a genuine important part of the theme really- the Harkonnens were just so uninterested in the people they were exploiting, they dismissed them. The 'Oh shit there's millions of them'  moment is quite prominent in the book, but there just wasn't one here.

    It's also politically taboo to use nukes against another house. Paul justifies this by claiming to have just blown up some rocks.

    I don't think it's that big a deal. 

  6. 36 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

    For some reason Hollywood loves The Rock and are willing to pay him bags of money, so his films are always overinflated budget wise, relative to how they look. Probably explains Red Notice.

    It was reported that Gadot and Johnson both got $20 million. Reynolds was likely up there as well. And supposedly the reshoots were substantial as well. 

    Still, until the day comes when ticket price is indexed to production budget, it's nothing more than mildly interesting trivia. 

    I dunno, I'd just like to Cavill get a win these days. 

  7. 5 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

    I just found out today that Argyll had a budget of 10 Million more than Dune at 200 Mn USD…yet it looked 50 times cheaper when I saw it… What a difference the filmmaker can make man…

    Wow, you really don’t like Argylle. The majority of critics agree with you but I saw Kermode’s review and he seemed to really enjoy it. I don’t always agree with him but when he goes against the consensus that piques my interest. 

    I noted at the time that Red Notice had a budget substantially higher than Dune part 1. Put that down to reshoots and actors salaries. 

  8. 51 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

    I don't get to go 'till Saturday (70mm IMAX, though :D) but can someone reassure me that Alia is not an adult in this film?

    Somebody told me she's played by Anna Taylor-Joy and I'm left hoping that's only in Usul's visions and that she doesn't experience some freaky rapid-growth nonsense to get an adult in the role. That would be stupid.

    You might be on to something...

  9. On 3/3/2024 at 6:18 AM, Loge said:

    Meanwhile, Jos Verstappen has openly called for Horner's removal.

    It would take all of 5 seconds for Horner to get hired by another team. 

  10. The Marvels.

    The good:

    The Khan's were charming. There were some interesting moments. Some scenes that were genuinely funny. I laughed at the insanity of the evacuation scene. Some good visuals. 

    The bad:

    Even making allowances for a chaotic production process (given this film was made during the pandemic) it's a fucking mess. This isn't one movie; it's three movies smashed together. And one of the three is boring as shit. 

    If there was ever an argument against the MCU approach of "Shoot the damn thing, test it, and fix it with reshoots, it's on full display here. There's no possible universe where this thing hangs together.

    Some of the visuals are great, some of the visuals barely rise to the level of prestige cable TV, and some of the visuals aren't finished. I didn't realize the statue of liberty looked like that. Someone forgot to tell their overseas VFX team that the copper has a patina. 

    And dear God I felt every second of that runtime. It's utterly baffling reading some of the positive reviews on RT. 

  11. 8 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

    I mentioned this before in my spoiler review, but I wish they would have shown the intersection of a laser with a shield...

    ...and it could have included the line, "Welcome... to flavor town."

    Quote

    I wonder if people who haven't read the books are wondering why so many people are using las guns (and there way more this time than in Part 1) but at the same time they still fight more often with swords and knives.

    Excellent point. I think Keynes mentions the dangers of shields in the desert in the first film. Also ditching the shield generators during the harvester rescue in the first film because they were basically useless. So no shields in the desert is established. 

    But the whole shields/lasers thing is unknown to non-book readers. 

  12. Look pal, All I'm saying is no one went to Godzilla vs. Kong to listen to Alexander Skarsgård yodel about some hollow earth mambo jambo. They went to see giant-monkey-giant-lizard smashy smashy. Is that so bad?

    And I'm really not a fan of Casablanca. Look, I get it. Exotic locale, Nazis, Bogart mumbling his lines; yeah, box office gold. Maybe the problem is that film's been around so long that it's been strip mined of all its pop cultural references.

    Maybe if I saw it without having any prior awareness of it I would have liked it better. I dunno. It left me flat.

    These were my initial comments from the previous thread that I had under a spoiler tag.

    Quote

    On balance, I liked the movie a lot and there were scenes I absolutely loved. It's definitely a much bigger film than part 1. But man, if Part 1 was like, an 8 or 9/10, Part 2 scores considerably lower for me. I don't know where.

    I liked the way the film opened but the editing in the first hour was really scatter shot. It improves from then on but not much. And where the first film was really efficient with exposition and dialogue (to a fault in some cases) this one went way overboard. Quite a bit of it was clunky as hell. There were one or two scenes (off the top of my head) that would have benefited greatly from removing the dialogue altogether.

    Part 1 flowed whereas Part 2 kind of lurched from one moment to the next.   

    Rebecca Ferguson was great. I loved the films take on the character. I'm not sure I like Walken as the emperor. Anyone who has a bad thing to say about Florence Pugh can meet me on the beach with a blade at dawn.

    To be clear, this is not a negative review, you bastards

    On the editing/pacing: It's entirely possible that's just a limitation in me. It's entirely probable that I'll shift on this during rewatches. As it was, the rhythm of the thing didn't suit me and it affected my enjoyment of the film. I didn't have the same experience leaving the theater as when I saw part 1.  

    Regarding the dialogue, I shall not yield. This film would have benefited greatly from the economy of the first film. There were scenes where the dialogue should have been pared down or eliminated altogether and the film would have benefitted. 

  13. 1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

    So... Trump wins Super Tuesday this month. His trial for insurrection gets underway in June. He claims the Republican nomination in July - and then gets convicted of insurrection in September. This could be a can of worms..

    Or what if he or Biden suffer some health issue that prevents them from serving. Let's face it, Biden is looking pretty feeble these days and Trump isn't in great shape either. He's older now than Biden was at the same date back in 2020 (by about 6 months).

    What would probably happen is one or the other will get elected and the Electoral college would negotiate a compromise candidate. Remember that they don't actually have to follow what the electorate says. 

    Or.

    They'll remain vertical long enough to get sworn in and the immediately step aside for their running mate. 

  14. 1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

    The problems isn't with the idea that some movies could stand to have less or no dialogue. It's that what he actually said was that dialogue is for TV and shouldn't be a big deal in movies.

     

    The idea that dialogue heavy movies are a post-golden-age-TV thing is pretty wild too tbh, athough that was an interviewer insert that Villeneuve just agreed with. Like Quentin Tarantino doesn't exist. Hell, like Casablanca doesn't exist. 

    And when Tarantino compiled his list of favorite films of the 2010's, He put Dunkirk and Mad Max: Fury Road in the top five. The latter is pretty economical with the speechifying and the former barely has enough dialogue to fill a sheet of foolscap (double spaced).

    Casablanca is shit.  

  15. I said at the time (and I still believe) Godzilla vs Kong should have been a near-silent film. It would have been brilliant. You keep the little girl's sign language, and you allow each character only one line in the entire movie. That line could be something as innocuous as, "Hey, pass me that bottled water." 

    And then clear a shelf, Sunshine; because awards season is coming! It would have been amazing.

    Tell me that wouldn't have been more interesting (and coherent) than what they actually released. I dares ya.

  16. 5 hours ago, Ramsay B. said:

    One of my favorite gangster movies ever is Animal Kingdom and that’s from Australia. Not a typical gangster film but it is about a crime family.

    Yeah Animal Kingdom is great. I think that was the first film I saw Ben Mendelsohn in, and he plays a total bastard. It's also remarkable for how little Guy Pearce is actually in it. He featured prominently in the marketing.

    The Hard Word is also pretty good, if you need more Aussie crime film and Guy Pearce in your life. Though it's been a while since I've seen it. They used to have it on HBO but that was ages ago.

  17. 11 minutes ago, Ramsay B. said:

    I’m a dumb American. Give me some great British gangster films. Love Sexy Beast and like Lock,Stock…

    Sexy Beast isn't a mafia movie. It's a movie about how Ben Kingsley will come to your house and fuck up your shit if you don't "Do de jowb."
     

    ETA: Oh, also he has a crush on your wife. 

  18. 52 minutes ago, DMC said:

    I can totally get not liking the whole mafia genre that's spawned since Godfather.  People have different tastes, and if aliens came to the US I could definitely see them wondering "hey, whey'd y'all get so into visual media depicting organized crime?"  (I have it on good authority that's how aliens talk, btw.)

    Actually, anecdotal of course, but it's kinda funny thinking about ex-girlfriends and whether or not they liked mafia movies.  About half of them did, about half of them couldn't stand them.  The former, literally to a woman IIRC, were from the tri-state area.

    I look on the genre as a kind of historical fiction about a very important facet of American history. People today have a really hard time understanding just how big American organized crime was at its peak.

    Today; these guys are more or less what's portrayed in the Sopranos. Fat, dumb assholes in back rooms doing stuff that's relatively small time. Back in the day; these guys literally got a piece of everything.  Hell, the legitimate business fronts alone would be worth billions in today's money.

    One of my favorite scenes from The Sopranos:

     

×
×
  • Create New...