• 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. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Fan Edit Of The Year (FEOTY) 2021: and the WINNERS are...! here Congratulations!

Random movie thoughts

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
637
Trophy Points
138
I wasn't the biggest fan of Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 when I watched it for the first time a few months ago. I did love the lore aspects though, with Leviathan and whatnot. I've already forgotten most of it, but I remember being really interested. With the brief knowledge I have of the sequels, it seems that none of them add to the lore at all or do anything interesting. I wonder if the later comics by Clive Barker or his sequel novel to The Hellbound Heart will scratch this particular itch. I started listening to an audiobook of The Hellbound Heart the other day, I need to finish it. I just wanna know more about this world...
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,972
Reaction score
1,357
Trophy Points
228
If you type in the title of a movie into this Cinetrii site: https://www.cinetrii.com/ it will instantly tell you all the films influenced by it and ones that were an influence on it. I think it's based on an AI analysing reviews for mentions of comparisons, or something. You can select results to be Older/Newer/Both. It's pretty good but does come back with many aberrations. e.g. ET was not an influence on Mac & Me :D.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,631
Reaction score
164
Trophy Points
103
I've not yet gotten into 3D blu-rays, but I've never said I wouldn't. And I was appalled to discover, last night, that the Terminator 2 3D remastering never got a North American release. The best I could find was a region-free import from Asia, but with shipping, it'd cost $60.

I guess the best solution, therefore, is to get the European Region 2 disc for a sane $22 or so, then play it on a computer blu-ray drive with region-bypassing software... assuming, of course, one even has a computer blu-ray drive to begin with. Hmph. :dodgy:
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,631
Reaction score
164
Trophy Points
103
The perhaps 4K/HDR scam strikes again? The 4K transfer of Apocalypse Now seems to have an inappropriate and ugly yellow-and-teal gloss throughout, blowing out natural hues and muddying detail, compared to the "Full Disclosure" release from years ago:


And yet, disc review sites have nothing but gushing praise for the transfer. If I were a suspicious sort, I'd wonder if they were dependent on free copies from studios to furnish their content... :dodgy:
 

Handman

Well-known member
Messages
657
Reaction score
37
Trophy Points
33
I'm going to have to disagree with you.  The earlier disc looks like a lot of early Blu-rays with all those filters to make it pop more to justify the existence of Blu-ray to people.  The new one looks more natural and filmic to me.

As for "blowing out natural hues", look at the lights at 6:23.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,972
Reaction score
1,357
Trophy Points
228
I watched this little video about the miniatures used in 'Memphis Belle':


Which mentions some of the taxi shots in this sequence were in camera models. I've seen it loads of times before but just assumed the B-17's were all real. I cannot tell which are models now I know, mind blowing.

 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
540
Trophy Points
113
I very much dislike the “arty” trend of making movies in 4:3. I understand black bars for a movie made for widescreen that has to be adapted to the old 4:3 small screen. I don’t understand making a movie that will never utilize the full screen space of 99.9% of the audience’s viewing experiences. Yes, there are artistic reasons I can support such as the Lighthouse’s usage making the proceedings feel more claustrophobic. But please, can we stop this trend for faux sake (sorry for the pun).
 

DigModiFicaTion

DᴉმWoqᴉԷᴉcɑꓕᴉou
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
1,789
Trophy Points
168
Is it really art driven or is it more about the money? Isn't the whole point of different aspect ratios to force people into theatres to experience a new format? If I can buy a projector or nice tv and watch something in my home with a customized experience, why would I shell out the money to see it in a theatre........I feel seen.😶
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,972
Reaction score
1,357
Trophy Points
228
I very much dislike the “arty” trend of making movies in 4:3... I don’t understand making a movie that will never utilize the full screen space
So you don't like scope movies (like Star Wars for example) for the same reason? 4:3 uses 75% of your standard 16:9 widescreen. A movie like Star Wars only uses 74% of your screen.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,631
Reaction score
164
Trophy Points
103
Of the "big three" aspect ratios (4:3, 16:9, 2.35:1), I think 16:9 is the most ordinary/versatile, because, while our eyes are spheres, we tend to look side to side a bit more than up and down. Ergo, it works just as well for quiet dramas, documentaries, and everyday comedies (such as most new TV programs) as it does awesome blockbusters (such as Jurassic Park or Ant-Man). 4:3 is the next-most "normal," as we often tend to focus on people's faces, which are roughly square in proportion, so it's is particularly well suited to talky dramas, including most TV made before 2001. Being the widest of the Big Three, 2.35:1 is ideally suited to showing off epic landscapes (such as The Lord of the Rings).

This isn't to say that talky dramas can't make excellent use of 2:35:1, or that action epics can't use 4:3. Proper framing does about 90% of the work, with the aspect ratio choice counting for 10% (IMHO).

In the case of Zack Snyder's Justice League, however, I think it's pretty clear that the original intention was to shoot in 4:3, but crop down to 16:9 for regular theatrical versions, as discussed by the RLM gang at 52:30:

 

Murikamir

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
72
Reaction score
73
Trophy Points
28
We need more tragedy movies. Movies where the good guys loose in the end. I think this is what makes Revenge of the Sith so memorable, it is one of the few modern tragedies we have.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,972
Reaction score
1,357
Trophy Points
228
Just realised that although Doc Brown in Back to the Future III looks about a decade older than Clara in 1885, he had actually had that face lift thing in 2015 to make him appear much younger. He was really in his early 70s, while Clara was in her late 30s. Maybe he needed to build that time travel train so he could go into the future and bring back some Viagra?
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,631
Reaction score
164
Trophy Points
103
^ Talk about the "Power of Love"... :p
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
637
Trophy Points
138
How is it that throughout the 30 years that Biff had the almanac and was betting and changing history, none of the outcomes of the sports ever changed? Also, since the future where the almanac came from no longer exists, shouldn't the book start fading away like Marty in BttF 1? Also also, in BttF 3, is there ever any fear about changing the future? I haven't actually seen it in its entirety, but from what I have seen it doesn't seem to be a concern. Also also also, if Marty's son and ancestor look identical to him, why doesn't his dad?
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,631
Reaction score
164
Trophy Points
103
How is it that throughout the 30 years that Biff had the almanac and was betting and changing history, none of the outcomes of the sports ever changed?

They probably did. We see newspapers change with timeline swerves, so why not the almanac?

Also, since the future where the almanac came from no longer exists, shouldn't the book start fading away like Marty in BttF 1?


Only if its publishers went out of business or were never assembled, and Bad Biff would know who they were, so he'd be in a position to ensure that they'd be around. The series makes clear there's only one timeline at any given point, so it doesn't really matter who wrote or published the thing, as long as someone does, and the antique shop is around in 2015.

Actually, wait, you're saying since Marty wouldn't have picked it up in 2015 in this changed timeline, it shouldn't have had a return to 1955 mechanism, and thus should no longer be in the past. That's true, I guess. Oh, well! :p

Also also, in BttF 3, is there ever any fear about changing the future? I haven't actually seen it in its entirety, but from what I have seen it doesn't seem to be a concern.


This is perhaps the biggest logical inconsistency with the series - Doc learns that Clara should have died, so her sticking around to possibly marry and have kids with a local endangers the whole timeline. What if she marries someone who was supposed to Doc's father or grandfather, and Doc himself is never born, causing a massive paradox? But, if the only alternative is removing her from the timeline, either by inviting her to the future or abducting her, maybe it's a risk Doc decides is unavoidable. From an IRL perspective, however, the Bobs were probably just tired of stressing about temporal mechanics at that point.

Also also also, if Marty's son and ancestor look identical to him, why doesn't his dad?

Recessive genes?
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
637
Trophy Points
138
Thank you for answering, @Gaith, I don't think I was expecting a serious response, I appreciate it.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,972
Reaction score
1,357
Trophy Points
228
FYI for UK users: Lots of film channels on Amazon Prime are 99p/3-months today only (6th Jan). I've treated myself to 3-months of Shudder and BFIPlayer for only £5.94.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,972
Reaction score
1,357
Trophy Points
228
I had a thought about a big plot hole in Back to the Future 3.

1885 Doc bricks up the time-machine in a mine to leave it for trapped 1955 Marty, after it had been struck by lightning in the second 2nd-trip to 1955, apparently forever disabling the flying ability. Then 1955-trapped Marty takes this time-machine back to 1885, with repairs by Doc using 1955 tech which appears to make it a fully functional road vehicle again (if not a flying car). Marty then arrives in 1885, where the time-machine takes an arrow hit to the fuel line, making it incapable of flying and driving because there is no gasoline in 1885, or the tech to effect repairs (I think?) thus instigating the steam train robbery plot in BttF3, however...

...isn't there still a second time-machine bricked up in a mine in 1885 which has been damaged by the lightning but with an undamaged fuel line and a full tank of fuel. So couldn't 1885 Doc not just of dug it back out again, cannibalised the fuel line and siphoned the fuel to repair the other time-machine, which 1955 Doc had already made road worthy and send Marty back to 1985. Then simply brick the cannibalised time-machine back up, safe in the knowledge that 1955 Doc will be able to repair it's fuel line and refuel the tank using 1955 tech, to still allow trapped 1955 Marty to take it back to 1885 again.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,631
Reaction score
164
Trophy Points
103
I forget if it's the default or the official explanation, but the answer is, that since Marty already used that version of the car in 1955, to then remove it from his past would risk one of those awful paradoxes Doc is always banging on about.

No, the real plot hole of the movie is why Doc (or Marty, for that matter), even need to run an experiment to know that no, no horse, or team of horses, can reach anywhere near 90 MPH. :p

(Or why Doc doesn't simply pay Griff off.)
 
Top Bottom