Film forum off topic/random chat thread

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It does feel like a logical step for Cloverfield of all series.

I've always wondered why stealth launches aren't done more for stuff with some buzz or name recognition already behind them. I've especially thought that should be the case with video games, where digital platforms are well established as a means of distribution.

The quicker you release something, the quicker people consume it and forget about it. It hurts its longevity. Even Radiohead after doing it once decided against doing it again.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

So, are none of the Cloverfield film related to each other? If I haven't seen any of the others I can watch this new one?

Sad Professor

If what I’m reading on twitter is anything to go by there’s a reason why the film went straight to Netflix. It’s not very good. Possible franchise killer even.

RocketRaccoon

Sad Professor wrote: »

If what I’m reading on twitter is anything to go by there’s a reason why the film went straight to Netflix. It’s not very good. Possible franchise killer even.

Its great.

RocketRaccoon

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

So, are none of the Cloverfield film related to each other? If I haven't seen any of the others I can watch this new one?

Watch the first 2 before this one.

pixelburp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

So, are none of the Cloverfield film related to each other? If I haven't seen any of the others I can watch this new one?

The 'Cloverfield' franchise, such as it is, is a series of broadly disconnected films, so there's no need to watch them in any order. There's some vaguely connective tissue between the first & second films, but it's so below the surface as to be effectively invisible. I think there's a general intention that the franchise be more anthological in nature, connected by some ideas or tropes than actual narrative continuity. No idea (yet) about this new film and if that concept continues mind you.

IMO, 10 Cloverfield Lane is the vastly superior film, and a legitimately great thriller in its own right (IIRC, it was only at the last minute the script was amended to give it some genetic link to the original Cloverfield film). John Goodman gives one of his better performances of recent years, and both the script and execution is pretty effortlessly done.

RocketRaccoon

pixelburp wrote: »

The 'Cloverfield' franchise, such as it is, is a series of broadly disconnected films, so there's no need to watch them in any order. There's some vaguely connective tissue between the first & second films, but it's so below the surface as to be effectively invisible. I think there's a general intention that the franchise be more anthological in nature, connected by some ideas or tropes than actual narrative continuity. No idea (yet) about this new film and if that concept continues mind you.

IMO, 10 Cloverfield Lane is the vastly superior film, and a legitimately great thriller in its own right (IIRC, it was only at the last minute the script was amended to give it some genetic link to the original Cloverfield film). John Goodman gives one of his better performances of recent years, and both the script and execution is pretty effortlessly done.

As I said, watch the first 2 before watching the 3rd one.

Sad Professor

I was having an awkward get-to-know-you type conversation with someone recently. We were talking movies, music, that kind of thing. He asked who my favourite band was. When I told him he said they were "terrible" and then asked "why?" but in a way that suggested he didn't really want to know and was just expressing condescension at my taste in music. When I proceeded to explain in brief but passionate terms why I liked them, he responded with variations of "no, they are terrible… really bad", and "why" even though I just explained why. I just shrugged. There was nothing else to say and the guy's negativity was annoying me.

It felt like the real life equivalent of a message board conversation where every expression of passion for something you don't like is treated like a chess match where the goal is to overwhelm your opponent by stating the same thing over and over again until they give up and you win the "game". Or maybe it was like a social media conversation and he was telling me I was wrong but didn’t have enough characters to say anything else of interest.

Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just thought I share this because I thought it was weird and I'm not sure why.

johnny_ultimate

Belongs in Last Jedi thread TBH

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ I notice that a lot online in general. People don't want to have conversations about differing opinions, they just want to "win" the argument.

Sad Professor

Thankfully the conversation didn't turn to Star Wars.

I thought it was strange, especially in the context of a IRL conversation, for someone to say the equivalent of "you're wrong to like your favourite band". But yeah, online it would seem totally normal.

johnny_ultimate

The only review of the Fifty Shades films you’ll ever need:

https://twitter.com/theonion/status/962052693760999425

Arne_Saknussem

Sad Professor wrote: »

I was having an awkward get-to-know-you type conversation with someone recently. We were talking movies, music, that kind of thing. He asked who my favourite band was. When I told him he said they were "terrible" and then asked "why?" but in a way that suggested he didn't really want to know and was just expressing condescension at my taste in music. When I proceeded to explain in brief but passionate terms why I liked them, he responded with variations of "no, they are terrible… really bad", and "why" even though I just explained why. I just shrugged. There was nothing else to say and the guy's negativity was annoying me.

It felt like the real life equivalent of a message board conversation where every expression of passion for something you don't like is treated like a chess match where the goal is to overwhelm your opponent by stating the same thing over and over again until they give up and you win the "game". Or maybe it was like a social media conversation and he was telling me I was wrong but didn’t have enough characters to say anything else of interest.

Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just thought I share this because I thought it was weird and I'm not sure why.

Who is your favourite band??

Sad Professor

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Who is your favourite band??

Suffice to say they are a much loved and critically acclaimed alternative rock band. Not everyone likes them, which is cool, but it's not like I pulled the "if you don't like them you mustn't like music" card on the guy, though I certainly know people who would have reacted that way. But maybe I should have.

johnny_ultimate

This is my new favourite head-scratcher of a quote from a director. Even if it’s in partial jest.

James Mangold Talks ‘Logan’: “I Tried To Make An Ozu Film With Mutants” dlvr.it/QG2thB

Sad Professor

Whatever you do don't look up the films he claimed inspired The Wolverine.

I assume he means it in a thematic sense. Old age and loss, the responsibility toward family, and the gap between generations are big themes in Ozu. If you excise all the comic book stuff, Logan is basically about a three-generation mutant family going on a road trip. I wouldn't call it an Ozu film, but I think "tried" is the key word here. It makes sense that a director who largely makes pulpy-type movies despite having a certain distaste for them would look to other directors who did the same but managed to make great films.

The Black Oil

I only noticed The Darkest Hour's PG certificate when I was standing in line to buy a ticket for The Post. I see Brian Cox's Churchill was also a PG. I was trying to think about what sort of war films are suitable for children, if they were in the 8-12 age range. Wonder what a primary school teacher (I'm not one) would get away showing if teaching a history lesson. Alone In Berlin, Dunkirk, etc, all 12A and up. On Wittertainment they sometimes refer to 'top end' 12A which I think is where the violence might be a little more on the nose, but not graphic and one use of the f-word - whilst staying within 12A overall. Haven't seen The Darkest Hour, btw.

I could do with looking up the definition of PG, anyway. So yeah, what's a good war film for kids?

Mickeroo

Boy in the Striped Pyjamas maybe? Or Warhorse? Life is Beautiful?

FunLover18

The Black Oil wrote: »

I only noticed The Darkest Hour's PG certificate when I was standing in line to buy a ticket for The Post. I see Brian Cox's Churchill was also a PG. I was trying to think about what sort of war films are suitable for children, if they were in the 8-12 age range. Wonder what a primary school teacher (I'm not one) would get away showing if teaching a history lesson. Alone In Berlin, Dunkirk, etc, all 12A and up. On Wittertainment they sometimes refer to 'top end' 12A which I think is where the violence might be a little more on the nose, but not graphic and one use of the f-word - whilst staying within 12A overall. Haven't seen The Darkest Hour, btw.

I could do with looking up the definition of PG, anyway. So yeah, what's a good war film for kids?

War Of The Buttons

johnny_ultimate

Grave of the Fireflies? Harrowing account of war but non-graphic.

pixelburp

Happy Friday everyone; here's 4 minutes of Jeff Goldblum making his signature, random grunts & noises

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEJKQI_ht1I

Tony EH

The Black Oil wrote: »

I only noticed The Darkest Hour's PG certificate when I was standing in line to buy a ticket for The Post. I see Brian Cox's Churchill was also a PG. I was trying to think about what sort of war films are suitable for children, if they were in the 8-12 age range. Wonder what a primary school teacher (I'm not one) would get away showing if teaching a history lesson. Alone In Berlin, Dunkirk, etc, all 12A and up. On Wittertainment they sometimes refer to 'top end' 12A which I think is where the violence might be a little more on the nose, but not graphic and one use of the f-word - whilst staying within 12A overall. Haven't seen The Darkest Hour, btw.

I could do with looking up the definition of PG, anyway. So yeah, what's a good war film for kids?

Most of the war films I've seen, I saw around that age. But, my parents were very lenient on me regarding films. I saw 'Deliverance' around 12 too. :pac:

I think most of the older war films are fine to let a 12 year old watch. Good war films to show them are another thing entirely, as most of them are rubbish. 'The Battle of Britain', 'Where Eagles Dare',' 12 O'Clock High', 'The Longest Day', 'The Bridge on the River Kwai', 'The Great Escape', 'A bridge too Far', 'Tora, Tora, Tora', 'Hell is for Heroes', 'The Dam Busters', 'The Enemy Below', 'Battleground', 'Empire of the Sun', 'The Long, The Short and The Tall', 'Patton', 'Letters from Iwo Jima', 'Operation Crossbow', 'Ice Cold in Alex', 'Hell in the Pacific', 'The Bridge at Remagen' are all good. They are also sexless and not too gritty when it comes to violence.

The best war film ever made, 'Das Boot, will probably be too "boring" for them, especially in its 6 hour version, likewise, I'd wait until I show them something like 'Downfall'. Some other great war films like 'Cross of Iron' and 'Stalingrad' contain scenes that would be considered too much for kids, although 'Cross of Iron' was another one of my faves from my childhood.

Friedkin may have spent most of the past few decades making schlock that his wife has gotten him but the man comes across really well and has no tolerance for ego massaging bull****.

Cantona's Collars

The list of complaints that IFCO have received is out and it's entertaining in it's own way.
One person complained about a movie they didn't even see.

http://www.thejournal.ie/films-complaints-2017-3987541-May2018/



IFCO received complaints about 16 films in 2017.


CHILDREN’S ANIMATION THE Jungle Bunch and Oscar-winning musical comedy La La Land were among 16 movies that prompted complaints to the Irish Film Classification Office (IFCO) last year.

Some 25 complaints were received during 2017, which included objections to “subliminal advertising” of a beer brand in Kong: Skull Island, and a request to ban superhero spin-off Logan “to protect the flagging morals that are left in our country”.
Another complainant had concerns about alcoholic product placement in Kong: Skull Island. “I suspect it is a form of subliminal advertising,” they wrote. “How can I protect my son from these sophisticated ‘association marketing’ techniques?”

Power explained in his reply that the scenes mentioned were not sufficiently explicit in terms of instruction or encouragement to constitute subliminal marketing. “James Bond has been ordering vodka martinis in each of his many adventures for over 50 years,” he noted.

pixelburp

What was the beer brand in Kong: Skull Island? I quite enjoyed that film tbh, but I'm absolutely struggling to think of any scene that might have involved a beer. There was one in a nightclub but don't recall any heavy product placement.

The reply from the IFCO is quite on point though, in mentioning the Bond franchise.

For some reason the video I linked before is no longer showing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jPWGEoyJHY

Stone Deaf 4evr

pixelburp wrote: »

What was the beer brand in Kong: Skull Island? I quite enjoyed that film tbh, but I'm absolutely struggling to think of any scene that might have involved a beer. There was one in a nightclub but don't recall any heavy product placement.

The reply from the IFCO is quite on point though, in mentioning the Bond franchise.

Didnt John C Reillys charachter who was stranded on the island for years keep saying that all he wanted was to finally get home and have a beer, and then over the credits it showed him reunited with his family having one.

The Black Oil

Some bloke, Jim Cameron, talks to fellas with beards.

pixelburp

I dunno, the first clip lost me the moment Cameron and Scott lamented that 'de young folk don't read anymore & wouldn't know 1984. I call bullhockey on that, especially on a series about Science Fiction. The genre's never been in a healthier literary state, nor been at such the forefront of mainstream storytelling. The darlings of critically successful TV at the moment are predominantly adaptations of Sci-Fi & Fantasy, while the e-reader alone exploded readers' potential exposure to all sorts of great fiction.

Though I'm still astonished Ridley Scott's energy and ability to continue making flicks at 80; most us would look to have started winding down long ago, while Scott jumped at the chance to reshoot half of All the Money in the World on a whim (and did it brilliantly at that).

johnny_ultimate

John Lasseter soon to be gone from Disney / Pixar for good: https://nyti.ms/2MccrpO

Extraordinary fall from grace for someone who, it’s no exaggeration to say, helped change a medium. But then there was never going to be any coming back after six months and pretending everything was normal.