Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[RStar]

They filmed Pirates 2 and 3 as a single production, how'd they split costs?

I would emagine they have a work order for each scene they shoot, and which film it was for. I'm sure costs were very carefully monitered for for each work order and script, and if something like catering were shared, the cost could be split (by head perhaps). Just a guess.

[Alex]

Oh, I'm sure Disney has an internal method of determining how to split costs. I just highly doubt that was shared since such things are rarely announced or publicly confirmed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Finally saw Inglorious N-word Django Unchained

Pretty much exactly the same reaction I had with Tarrantino's previous historical fiction revenge porn fantasy. Well put together movie and all, but in the end, so much of the emotional impact it's supposed to have relies on the, "F yeah! Those sons of bitches got what they deserved!" factor. And I can't help but be immediately crushed with the followon thought of, "Oh..wait...they totally DIDN'T get what they deserved. That's a bummer."

I'm sure for most people it's just a cathartic fantasy, and certainly I am on board with other impossible fantasies...but something about the historical certainty that, no, this did not happen just ruins it for me.

[Strangler Lewis]

Loved Gravity.

A side note: The previews were the usual special effects dominant yuk that one would expect to see prior to a movie full of special effects. Which this was. Except this truly was not that kind of movie, so it seemed a bit tin ear-ish to run those previews

[RStar]

Did you see it in Imax 3D? I'm planning to see it in that format on Friday. It looks like it will be good.

[Alex]

Quite like it. Have to be willing to ignore the liberties taken with delta-v, but otherwise compelling without too much physics issues.

[Strangler Lewis]

That's exactly what I was thinking during the combined Alien/Barbarella homage.

[Moonliner]

Had an interesting discussion about "Gravity" this weekend, despite no one involved having seen the actual movie.....

What film genre would you put "Gravity" in? I think it's a Historical Drama. A period picture.

[alphabassettgrrl]

What film genre would you put "Gravity" in? I think it's a Historical Drama. A period picture.

Popcorn flick. Though to be fair, I haven't seen it yet, either. But looking at the trailer, it looks like an exciting action flick but check your brain at the door because the physics will make your brain hurt.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Ok, I stand corrected. Turns out the science errors aren't quite as egregious as I'd feared they would be.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

He does give spoilers, though, so be warned.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think "Gravity" has moments of novel and unexpected beauty, which is what one goes to the movies for.

[Alex]

The big problem (and I haven't read the science nitpicking spoilers) are, and I could easily be wrong:

Items in the same orbit are going the same speed or they wouldn't be in the same orbit. So that cloud of debris shouldn't hit them multiple times.

In the real world Hubble, ISS, and the Chinese station would not be both in the same orbit as each other and within a hundred miles of each other.

Communications satellites are in geosynchronous orbit at 22,000 miles. ISS and and Hubble are in low earth orbit of just a couple hundred miles. The same "chain reaction" couldn't have taken out both them and communication satellites. And again it isn't like all the communication satellites are holding hands, one debris cloud up there wouldn't take them all out in a couple of minutes, especially if it then had to descend into a new orbit 21,500 miles lower two minutes after that.

Why was the Chinese station losing altitude?

But I've seen Cuaron quoted as essentially saying "I had a story I wanted to tell and it could be told with real world orbital placements. So I put everything in unreal orbits and told the story."

I'm ok with that.

[innerSpaceman]

I enjoyed it despite that lack of physical truth. On that particular note, more troubling to most people seems to be that Sandra Bullock's hair stays flatly in place in zero gravity environments when they took so much trouble to establish zero gravity with other effects.

I think movies can establish their own laws, even physical ones. So having her body be in Zero-G, but not her hair seems indeed a mistake. But the orbiting debris and chain-reaction failure of most com satellites is a movie McGuffin which I was happy to accept.

My problem with the film was how shallow it was - though it serves well its own purpose as a space disaster thriller told practically in real time. It was indeed thrilling, and absolutely stunningly beautiful. But it was empty of anything but the battle for survival against the elements and constantly upping ante.

So I enjoyed it, but it's not super memorable or impressive. Even the beauty results from it being practically an animated film. I think there are a few actual live-action shots in the third act, but the movie is basically a cartoon - and somehow I give less points to a gorgeous cartoon than I do to a gorgeous live-action film.

Alas then, I also have to give less points to the fantastical 17-minute shot that opens the movie. It's fantastically choreographed, but how hard is that in an animated film? Ironically, the director, Alfonso Cuaron, achieved some truly spectacular, exceedingly lengthy live-action shots in his last movie, Children of Men.

This all being said, I'm planning on paying to see Gravity again at the Chinese IMAX next weekend - and I can't even think of when I last paid to see a movie twice. But this film simply will not be a 10th the film it is once it's reduced to home video size.

So go see Gravity, see it Big, be entertained, and then be prepared to forget it.

[Strangler Lewis]

I enjoyed it despite that lack of physical truth. On that particular note, more troubling to most people seems to be that Sandra Bullock's hair stays flatly in place in zero gravity environments when they took so much trouble to establish zero gravity with other effects.

I think movies can establish their own laws, even physical ones. So having her body be in Zero-G, but not her hair seems indeed a mistake. But the orbiting debris and chain-reaction failure of most com satellites is a movie McGuffin which I was happy to accept.

My problem with the film was how shallow it was - though it serves well its own purpose as a space disaster thriller told practically in real time. It was indeed thrilling, and absolutely stunningly beautiful. But it was empty of anything but the battle for survival against the elements and constantly upping ante.

So I enjoyed it, but it's not super memorable or impressive. Even the beauty results from it being practically an animated film. I think there are a few actual live-action shots in the third act, but the movie is basically a cartoon - and somehow I give less points to a gorgeous cartoon than I do to a gorgeous live-action film.

Alas then, I also have to give less points to the fantastical 17-minute shot that opens the movie. It's fantastically choreographed, but how hard is that in an animated film? Ironically, the director, Alfonso Cuaron, achieved some truly spectacular, exceedingly lengthy live-action shots in his last movie, Children of Men.

This all being said, I'm planning on paying to see Gravity again at the Chinese IMAX next weekend - and I can't even think of when I last paid to see a movie twice. But this film simply will not be a 10th the film it is once it's reduced to home video size.

So go see Gravity, see it Big, be entertained, and then be prepared to forget it.

Dude:

The death scene where she's plugged into the Chinese cell phone call and decides to check out to the Chinese lullaby was sad, awesome and, well, unforgettable. I also thought the last Darwin fish image of her crawling out of the muck to pull herself upright was a powerful symbol of personal and planetary evolution. I haven't read what Cuaron meant to say, but there seems to be an equivocation about whether we're here by chance, design or a combination of both.

So there.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, that was the one scene in the movie, including the bit that took me by surprise but was supposedly a deadgiveaway to anyone with a pulse ... that was the only scene in the movie that seemed like there was any sort of anything to this movie. I really really liked that scene. I cannot expect a movie that was doing what this movie did to have any more scenes than that which made it seem more like a movie, but nonetheless I felt like it was a pretty empty exercise at the end - except for that one really good scene. Everything else was super tense rad fun beautifulness, but empty. Empty as space. :p

[SzczerbiakManiac]

We saw Gravity at the Chinese last night. We both loved it. It's worth the drive to see it in true IMAX (not this "IMAX Experience" BS).

If you have not been to the Chinese in a while, you'll be in for a surprise. The seats are no longer raked, it's stadium seating now. The interior has been spruced up well http://instagram.com/p/fRrIOQBT0K/# and the screen is gigantic and wonderful. http://instagram.com/p/fRrKyyBT0O/#

[Ghoulish Delight]

BACK UP






We?

[Alex]

Yes, it is a movie directed by Madonna.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Just a heterosexual friend. Sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Aw shucks, got me all twtterpated fer nuthin' :)

[Moonliner]

Just made it back from seeing "Saving Mr. Banks."

If that movie does not get a nod for best picture it will be a P.L. Travesty!

[Alex]

As time has gone by I've thought less and less of it. It entertained me while I was in the theater but whenever I think about it ever since I like it less, it's just so trite in its psychobabble.

[Moonliner]

I'm still working my way through my extended Netflix queue. Today they are shipping me:

"Lady and the Tramp" and "Kill Bill vol. 1"

Says a lot about my life right there.

[Alex]

Yesterday I saw The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden, a documentary in pretty limited release (I think it is in 8 theaters).

Found it very interesting and recommend it if it is in your area (or when it is eventually streamed somewhere).

Primarily it is a documentary about the story told here (http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/20thcenturylatinamerica/a/09galaffair.htm), supported with lots of great home movie footage. But it also touches a lot on what it is to remove yourself from society (these are people who moved to an uninhabited island in the Galapagos specifically to get away from all society and authority) and how that trickles down into the next generation.

[katiesue]

I'll have to look for it, the story looks really interesting.

[Moonliner]

I was guessing it was about an invasive species, I was wrong.

[Alex]

Well, you could argue you were still right.

[Snowflake]

Well, I finally got around to screening Saving Mr. Banks. On the home big-O-vision, which is less than optimal than the big screen.

I was a little bothered by some of the glitchy modern things, like the security door lock in the hotel room for P.L. Travers. Back in the day it would have been a chain people, nto the sliding hinge! Also, I realize they could not CGI the Carousel in Fantasyland to the original location, still bugged me. That's all minor crapola caveats.

I loved Thompson (as always) and thought Hanks was good but he just did not really try to sound like Walt at all. Or is that just me and a faulty aural memory? Just sounded like Tom Hanks.

Other than that, I adored the movie. Wept like an 8 year old.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So apparently JJ Abrams have tapped a writing team from within the unwashed ranks of Bad Robot writers to write the script for the next Star Trek movie. They have no produced credits to their name (though apparently they've also been asked to write an upcoming new Flash Gordon movie being produced by Fox).

Briefly met one of them at a party this weekend. Unfortunately didn't have much of a chance to talk to him (and he was a little embarrassed that the host made a point of announcing those two facts to those within earshot). But I had 2 observations. 1) Dude appeared younger than me. Weird. 2) I overheard him talking positively about the influence of Bob Odenkirk on his sensibilities, so I have some faith that I like this guy's style.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

My version of that story:

Yes, you can take a 4 year old to a party by the beach with nothing but adults in attendance.
Yes, you might meet a person who is co-writing the next Star Trek film.
No, you won't be able to talk to him.

[Alex]

Cool. But after the last movie I have no faith that JJ Abrams has any sense of what a good Star Trek movie would be so even if they write one I doubt he'd make it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If it makes you feel better Abrams is only producing this one, not directing.

I liked both of his, but can see why someone would not like them.

[Alex]

It doesn't make me feel any better since I assume as producer he is picking the script. But Star Trek is so ingrained in me from childhood (I was much more into it than Star Wars) that I'm sure I'll see whatever BS he continues to spew out and then slap a "Star Trek" brand on.

(And I was moderately ok with the first one. The second was was just awful, stupid, awful some more, and so far down the path of being a comic book movie that it couldn't see the Star Trek universe with the viewscreen on full magnification.)

[Kevy Baby]

1) Dude appeared younger than me. Weird.Get used to it: the feeling will hit you more and more as time goes on. For the firs time in my life, I am working for someone younger than me.

Sorry for getting off topic… Movies, writing, plots, etc.

[RStar]

I just wish Abrams would quit the stupid lense flare crap. It's in his movies and TV, and it's awfull. And awfully annoying. It use to be called bad filming, now he thinks it's artsy fartsy or something.....

[alphabassettgrrl]

I agree- if you absolutely have to have the lens flare, do it once, and then QUIT IT. Ditto for the spinny-camera-pulling-back thing.

[Moonliner]

Raiders of the Lost Ark is finally out on Blu-ray. However it looks like you can only get it by purchasing the "Complete Adventures" set including all four movies for $64,999.00

Yeah, I get it. Two and Four were so stinking bad few people in their right mind would ever purchase them so you are trying to force feed them on people. Sorry, but I'm not going for it. I'll just keep waiting until I can add 1 and 3 by themselves.




* OK, I might have fudged the price a bit to make my point but still... This is BS.

Good things come to those who wait. I was able to pick up Raiders Of The Lost Ark plus Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade from Amazon today.

[RStar]

That price wouldn't be too bad if it came with a solid gold idol....

[alphabassettgrrl]

Just saw "Million Dollar Arm" - somewhat predictable, but still a fun movie. Based on a true story, and they give some snippets of reality at the end (which I really like).

[Alex]

Just not snippets about the interesting part of the story (you have no idea what happened to the ballplayers).

For as purely formulaic movie as it was it was well enough done. But I walked away feeling they took a very interesting story and focused on the least interesting part (the personal growth of the savior white guy figure).

[Snowflake]

Just saw The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.

UGH, what an utter waste of time. A movie created to bridge the furtherance of the plot. Truly, a bridge to nowhere.

It was a movie to further increase Peter Jackson's paycheck.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Just not snippets about the interesting part of the story (you have no idea what happened to the ballplayers).

For as purely formulaic movie as it was it was well enough done. But I walked away feeling they took a very interesting story and focused on the least interesting part (the personal growth of the savior white guy figure).

Good points, Alex, and I agree. But I still enjoyed the movie.

[Moonliner]

Disney is making a movie from "Into the Woods"

Rapunzel is in into the woods.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121002150252/disney/images/archive/7/78/20130713112606!Rapunzel.jpg


In "Into the Woods" Rapunzel dies.


http://temp_thoughts_resize.s3.amazonaws.com/5c/4f0e4197c2b2e15cde4eaa8d285561/sad-.jpg

[RStar]

She is chased through the woods by a wolf. But she comes to a cabin made of candy, and takes refuge. She is quickly confronted by an old hag that runs a house of ill repute and an Appple Store with seven dwarfs. She is killed by the old hag, and eaten.

But fear not! She has her revenge as a huntsman on the back of a dragon fly in and set fire to the cabin and surrounding woods, causing all of the animals to flee! I love happy endings!

;) :evil:

[Moonliner]

Have any of you been to see a movie mixed for Dolby Atmos (http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/ears-on-with-dolby-atmos-first-impressions-of-the-next-generation-of-surround-sound/#!2BQ3F) in a theater with Atmos (AMC seems to call it "ETX")

I noticed there are now a couple of theaters in my area that carry it and I'm wondering if it's worth the cost/travel time.

[Alex]

I have seen the Regal, AMC, and Cinemark versions of these premium screenings. No idea as to what supposedly is involved.

Other than being louder I've not noticed anything worth the extra money. I've not paid for the even more premium service of sitting in one of the special seats with build in speakers and whatnot.

But I'm nowhere close to an audio snob (we'll leave out the part where I'm convinced 99.99% of audio snobs can tell the difference either, they just like thinking they can).

[RStar]

I usually go to the AMC downtown Disney, and they don't have it. But the AMC 30 at the block does. I may have to give it a try, it sounds interesting (pun intended). I enjoy the IMAX 3D, but at $19 a ticket it's getting expensive!

Which brings me to the point that I think that to gauge a movies' success, they should also publish the number of tickets sold, not just the dollar figure.

[Moonliner]

I'd like to give it a try this weekend, but having to see transformers 4 is a heavy price to pay for trying out a new audio format.



But I'm nowhere close to an audio snob (we'll leave out the part where I'm convinced 99.99% of audio snobs can tell the difference either, they just like thinking they can).

I generally agree, but that's about speaker qualities like tone and timber. Simply adding more speakers is a difference that's easy to spot no matter how un snob-ish you might be. Speakers overhead give a different sound stage than just the typical wall mounted speakers or at least that's the theory of Atmos.

[Alex]

Oh, I can tell it is different. I can't discern any improvement.

[Moonliner]

Oh, I can tell it is different. I can't discern any improvement.

From what I have seen:

Not all special/enhanced/whatever they call it theaters have Atmos.
(For example "Imax" theaters don't seem to have it)
If it is an Atmos theater, only a few movies are mixed for it.
If it is an Atmos theater, and the movie is mixed for it, the locals don't always remember to turn it on.

So it's possible (probable?) you have not seen a movie with Atmos yet.

[Strangler Lewis]

Rocky Balboa: [noticing Mickey's hearing aid] What's that in your ear there?
Mickey: What it is, is I hear stupid things better.