• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

Random movie thoughts

Duragizer

Well-known member
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
63
Trophy Points
63
jrWHAG42 said:
I had no idea there were two different cuts. Now I wonder which one I watched.

If it had the Tangerine Dream score, it's the American cut. If Jerry Goldsmith, director's cut.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,003
Reaction score
1,021
Trophy Points
138
I'm thinking about marathoning every movie where Keanu Reeves plays a character named John (or a variation of it) this weekend. There's at least 7.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
I keep hearing/reading people say things like "How come the 1993 CG in Jurassic Park looks better than films today?". The answer is of course that there is hardly any CG in JP, it's mostly all practical in-camera FX. Full-size animatronic dinosaurs and large puppets. The reason why CG can look bad in blockbusters these days is because almost every shot is CG in some way, and many shots are entirely CG, where as the JP team only had to concentrate on inserting dinos into a few minutes of real footage. I've always wondered exactly how much CG was in JP, so for my own satisfaction I did an analysis. There is:

- 6 minutes and 37 seconds of complete shots involving CG somewhere in the frame. Not just CG dinos but shots with simple wire-removals, digital compositing and face replacement.
or,
- 5 minutes and 40 seconds of just the footage that has CG dinosaurs placed somewhere in the frame.

The other 120 minutes is just Spielberg pointing the camera at what was in front of him on set and cutting it into the finished film.

I can sleep easy now with that question answered :D .
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
Random Movie Thought: I've never seen any of the Divergent movies (the Hunger Games knockoff series with Shaileene Woodley), nor do I ever intend to, but I nevertheless recall on a bafflingly frequent basis that, after joining the Potter/Twilight/Hunger Games bandwagon of splitting the source novel's final installment into two flicks, they then canceled the final movie due to the first half's adaptation underperforming. And, even though I care nothing at all for this series, this factoid somehow pisses me off every time. How could they have not filmed the flicks back-to-back, if not all at once?! And, once it became clear the proper final movie wouldn't be made, how could they not at the very freaking least have produced an anime conclusion?! The three-movie blu-ray collection now sells for a mere $10, while both the Twilight and Hunger Games sets retail for ~$35. Well, crikey, of course it does! Who the hell wants 3/4ths of a film set?! :mad: 

I really have no idea why all this pisses me off so much, perhaps even more so than the fact that New Line/WB has never released the cut (but filmed, and largely if not completely post-produced!) ending to their botched The Golden Compass flick. But, somehow, it does. :-/
 

suspiciouscoffee

Well-known member
Messages
631
Reaction score
16
Trophy Points
33
I remember hearing it was pretty much cancelled before the first one even came out.  There were vague plans for a TV movie to finish it out, but all the actors turned it down.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,645
Reaction score
2,417
Trophy Points
148
TM2YC said:
I keep hearing/reading people say things like "How come the 1993 CG in Jurassic Park looks better than films today?"

This is quite interesting. They talk about Jurassic Park at 3:18 and later compare it to Jurassic World.

 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,003
Reaction score
1,021
Trophy Points
138
I just accidentally found old texts where I was super excited for Xmen Apocalypse. Flash forward 3 years, I still haven't watched it, and I hardly have any interest in doing so knowing how disappointed I'll be.
 

Duragizer

Well-known member
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
63
Trophy Points
63
That's how I feel about absolutely every X-Men film ever made, and it's all thanks to Bryan Singer and his contempt for the source material.
 

suspiciouscoffee

Well-known member
Messages
631
Reaction score
16
Trophy Points
33
Duragizer said:
That's how I feel about absolutely every X-Men film made thus far. Every superhero Bryan Singer touches turns to shit.


I hear the regular people he touches don’t turn out so well either.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,003
Reaction score
1,021
Trophy Points
138
In other news,
I didn't watch any Keanu Reeves John films yesterday, so now I have around 12 hours to watch today. I think I'm going to shift this marathon to not just be the weekend, but allow it to bleed into the week as well.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
1,165
Trophy Points
118
We all know about George’s love of “rhyming” with the Star Wars Saga. Has anyone ever used a “reverse rhyming” naming scheme for the prequels?

Ep1: Return of the Sith
 Ep2: The Republic Strikes Back
Ep3: A New Threat
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,003
Reaction score
1,021
Trophy Points
138
Return of the Sith is the title of a Phantom Menace edit, though I have no idea if they followed it up with other titles similar to what you suggested. I do think those titles are much better (I love Attack of the Clones, but the title is horrible).

As far as naming consistency, I considered that I should edit the whole saga, and that each film would have Hope in the title. 
1. The First Hope
2.
3. The Fall of Hope
4. A New Hope 
5.
6. A Hope Persists

Of course the names aren't final, but it was just a brief idea I had.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
2. Hoping for More Hope
5. Hopping for Hope
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,896
Reaction score
1,508
Trophy Points
163
2. Now that's what I call Hope.

5. Hope on a rope.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,003
Reaction score
1,021
Trophy Points
138
That's not bad, though I'd change it to Hope on the Line. 
As for 2, I really can't think of a good title.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
jrWHAG42 said:
(I love Attack of the Clones, but the title is horrible).

Somehow I missed this part of the post originally.

The title is the best thing about the movie.  Which is really just sad, since it's a bad title.
 

Handman

Well-known member
Messages
657
Reaction score
38
Trophy Points
33
So, a new trailer has come out for Toy Story 4, and it has this shot:

0NqE4Er.png


Insinuating Woody's head is made of plastic and filled with air.  This completely contradicts Toy Story 2, in which it is established Woody is a vintage toy from the 50s, and uh, made of wood.  Hence the name... Woody.

kqwPw4s.png


The fact that they haven't bothered to pay attention to detail for the sake of a cheap joke has me very worried for this film.
 
Top Bottom