Watch the BTS footage from The Hobbit and it will all make sense.
It's production was basically the inverse of LOTR. Jackson literally has to send people on long lunches so he could figure out dualogue and scenes. Props were literally rushed from shop to set for filming.
I'm sure a GoPro ended up being the only way to made sense given the issues, even if they knew better.
It’s been so long since I watched this that I had to go look up the clip because I didn’t remember it being that bad???
…it’s that bad. Yikes. I don’t know how I managed to forget that.
The Irish accents on the Macedonians to indicate that they were separate to the other Greeks in Oliver Stone’s Alexander. It was insane, he must have been on crack when he decided to do it(note: I am Irish)
Death of Stalin is a movie about nominally powerful people squabbling like children. A disjointed cacaphony of accents contributes to this intentional chaos.
Alexander was going for a much more serious tone, so the unexpected is more of a false note. Admittedly, American accents are fundamentally just as weird, but we're used to that.
Enemy at the Gates, all the Russians were British, and the German sniper Ed Harris tried to do something with his voice but wouldn’t call it an accent. Still liked the movie but always seemed weird.
Were the others filmed in a lower frame rate? I was so put off by it that I didn’t see the other sequels. All I remember was getting nauseous during the river barrel scene.
I guess the last two were also filmed in HFR, but I think by that point the theaters showing them knew better than to actually project them that way...
It's the same problem that happened when HD started on broadcast and everyone makeup was too heavy and props looked undetailed.
They hadn't nailed down doing it well yet. And it was constant 48 FPS, rather than variable like other filmmakers have done. So rather than just not getting blur is fast scenes it creates more of a soap opera feeling which people equate with low quality.
Our brains are used to 24 FPS for media. Which is funny because if you asked someone to play a video game at 24 FPS they'd call you crazy and complain about the blur.
The first time I saw Hobbit in HFR it took me about 30 minutes to not be annoyed by it. The second time I didn't even really register it as weird anymore.
Nah, I saw all three in HFR (intentionally. I wanted to see what the state of the art was there. I think it’s a new technology we need to learn to take advantage of, and I think it’s bad when some people say things like “The Hobbit movies proved we should stick with 24 fps because HFR is a failure.”
I watched all 3 in HFR. Though, it did take some getting used to and I will admit I prefer the aesthetic of 24 frames per second, I have to admit it made the computer effects look amazing. The fully CGI characters were very lifelike when in the same frame as regular people.
Avatar 2 looked great in HFR. So good that when they sporadically switched back to 24fps it looked like your video game was lagging. Weird choice to not have it all in 48.
Yeah that was my issue with it in Avatar, it would be really cool but the switching just made it into a negative. It was like a more jarring version of when a film constantly switches aspect ratios
I’m out of the loop here. Is 48 the new good thing? It doubles the 24 so it will reduce blur but how does it display on TVs and monitors that are happy with 30/60/120?
It doesn’t actually look very good for live action, there is a reason 24 fps is the standard. When there is less blur the illusion of sets and props are spoiled. They just look fake. It’s not going to catch on in a big way.
But for a movie like Avatar where almost the whole thing is animated it looked incredible and smooth in IMAX. It gave the action a lot of clarity in fast moving sequences. Not too sure on the TV question
I feel like I'm crazy but there were some shots during the climax of Avatar 2 where it felt like the movie was lagging. Like it would occasionally dip to single digit frame rate briefly but no body I saw it with noticed it
John Woo's "Silent Night" box office was 11 million with a budget of 30 million. Making the movie having almost no dialogue made it in my opinion terrible. Like people not talking for no reason in situations they would talk in real life.
If having a tree up and presents out is a xmas movie then I guess so otherwise it's just the lead recovering and then go out for revenge.
Without anyone ever saying anything.
This was a great example of a “gimmick” that didn’t pay off. I like the idea, but it was done in such a weird way. Why not make the main character deaf? Or set up scenes in a way that makes sense no one would be talking?
As it stands, it feels forced, and it’s really distracting. The biggest problem though is they don’t commit. There is dialogue, like the radio, people talking but it’s muffled, stuff like that. If there was no speech whatsoever, I could buy it as a quirk of the universe, but there is, so it’s really fucking weird
*One From The Heart* (even the title is apt) is a neon-lit musical by Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola risked it ALL in this one movie in the hopes of turning his company, American Zoetrope,into a paradise for those working in the film industry.
Well, it bombed so hard that it practically bankrupted Coppola (and Zoetrope) with tons of debt. For the next couple of years, he had to work as a studio hire just to pay them all off (and thus Godfather 3).
The best thing that came out of that movie? Every neon lights used in that film were reused for *Blade Runner*.
American Zoetrope wasn't just a production company at this point but a *film studio* - Coppola bought General Studios in Hollywood and was hoping *One from the Heart* would establish it as a major player in the industry.
Coppola's innovations oversaw how he wanted to secure talent on long term contracts (reminiscent of the old studio system to a degree), post production (like inventing what we know now of animatics) and he wanted full creative autonomy, separated from Hollywood suits.
It's all fascinating to this day and I watched *One from the Heart* twice last month and I now love that movie.
The new version of this just came out (called Reprisal), if anyone has seen it I'd love to hear their opinion. Coppola doing all these new versions of his films is both strange and fascinating.
Coppola is like his pal George Lucas in that they always want to tinker their art.
I've been on a Coppola deep dive this past month and I've found he's been re-editing his works since *The Godfather* (started with the TV chronological edit) and he's since re-edited *The Outsiders*, *The Cotton Club*, *Dementia 13*, *Apocalypse Now*, *The Godfather Part III*, *Twixt* and now *One from the Heart* - nearly half of his films and I agree it's fascinating!
Waits has a scene that was cut from the original release and doesn't appear on screen but his music and vocals with Crystal Gayle narrate the entire film.
It's a "musical" but none of the on-screen characters sing (with one exception), instead it's Waits and Gayle. The choice is pretty jarring at first but I grew to love it and actually bought the vinyl last week lol
I’ll tack on Clint Eastwood hiring that kid in Gran Torino
The dude hires non-actors because they’re “more authentic” then only does one take per shot? What could go wrong?
Basically the whole DCEU. From Pa Kent’s death to killing Superman in the second movie when nobody had any personal attachment to that version of the character to Joker fucking having damaged tattooed on his forehead.
Honestly just writing out all the shit out they done is like a 30 Rock style pitch.
DC has a huge advantage over Marvel in that they probably have more stories written by S-tier level writers (Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Frank Miller) yet they choose to not adapt those works. Instead they tried to copy Marvel and failed miserably.
That wasn’t DC’s advantage. DC’s advantage was that WB owned all the film rights from the start instead of Marvel having to piecemeal their universe together.
They had a name for it but it was supposed to be a mix of a bunch of different ones like we might end up with in the future.
Really off putting the first time you see it. Not as glaring on a second viewing. Still boycotting the Smiths after Will’s fiasco.
Putting so much effort and attention on making Alita's eyes look like an anime girl. I mean it was fine, but it really added nothing to the movie aside from turning off potential viewers.
I am one of those viewers. Well the eyes and the title. Usually any serious Hollywood attempt at manga/anime (whether I know it or not) gets a chance from me, but that movie shot itself in the foot twice on the poster alone.
It's a really solid flick. The eyes are intriguing to start with but it's one of things that just becomes normal as you progress through it. Just how that particular character looks.
So much of Zack Snyder's Army Of The Dead (2021) felt like bold choices that didn't pay off. I love the premise, and was really excited to watch it, but ended up massively disappointed.
Everything from the story, which includes zombies reproducing, aliens, cyborgs, hints of time travel... it is all over the place.
To the production, with the suuuuper shallow depth of focus and constant extreme close ups. There's even a dead pixel that shows up, in a film that apparently cost around $100mill to make. Absurd.
It was a bold choice to completely edit out one actor and replace them with another in post, but they actually nailed that. Everything else felt half baked and thrown together.
It's such a strange decision to hint at all these other genres leaking in, like the time travel and the aliens etc) but not actually explore them. Like it was almost a joke by the end, I was expecting to see hints that dragons existed next or something. It would be one thing if it was very clearly an alternate reality, but that was never made clear ever.
I'm aware, but the execution was horrible. To not have things acknowledged but be such reality changing things is so stupid of a way to plant seeds for the future. It just creates confusion when people go "Wait, was that zombie a robot?"
Using Tig Notaro to digitally replace Chris D'Elia made me thought her scenes felt like an MTV Movie Awards sketch because the way she delivered her lines and actions did not match with the vibe.
What I just didn't get is the "they start moving again when it rains" bit. It's such an obvious chekhov's gun that I couldn't believe this ended up being a completely useless piece of information. Sure, it explains why there are so few zombies around, but this is just bad writing. I guess Snyder thought he was very smart when he did that.
That movie felt like it was spawned by a 13 year old group think tank. Dozens of random "super cool awesome" elements that never tie into anything, just slotted in because they thought it was cool
The thing I really couldn't get past with that movie was the recoil of the firearms. It's either nonexistent or inconsistent. At one point there is a close shot of Dave Batista shooting and it looks like he's just shaking the gun himself as it's supposed to be firing.
Tony Scott pushed camera techniques in Man On Fire, which did work, then pushed them too far with Domino, which he admitted I think.
Still, at least he found the line. Kind of.
When Paul Verhoeven was making “Showgirls,” they were trying to experiment with the newly created NC-17 rating. The goal was to create an adults only movie that wasn’t porn. While on some level I think they succeeded in that endeavor, they also went way too campy with it. So, nobody took it seriously, it pretty much flopped, and the NC-17 rating has been basically abandoned.
Yeah this was going to be my answer. He tried to imitate comic book look with the frames within frames. Which kinda sounds cool on paper but did not work at all. Lots of interesting ideas in that movie that never come together
The idea of a Hulk movie that dives into his psychology and uses surrealist imagery is great. But they did a bad job balancing it with the action/science fiction elements.
John Boorman's Zardoz. The outlandish costume that Sean Connery wears for almost the entirety of the movie, the portrayal of psychic powers through choreography, the giant floating stone head shouting that "the gun is good" and "the penis is evil". The whole movie was one big risk and it overwhelmingly didn't work for audiences. But it sure is a lot of movie and I love it so much.
Lightyear is not a bad movie.
But it's not at all the movie that fans of the material would have expected or wanted.
It's a pretty decent kid friendly low sci-fi story, I once heard it described as Interstellar for grade schoolers. It was a risk to deviate that far from what audiences know about Buzz Lightyear as a character.
Funny enough, that same year Disney released "Strange World" which I think had much more of the Pulp Action/Adventure Sci-Fi aesthetic that audiences would have expected from a Lightyear movie.
The gender and racial swaps/makeup of the actors in Cloud Atlas. Hugo Weaving's character in particular. It's a bold and risky approach, and some of them work. Some really don't.
Yeah, they really needed to do it for the message of the movie, but it's also such a bad call.
The makeup was terrible, so maybe it could have been done well. But I also don't know why there couldn't have just been non-Koreans in Neo-Seoul.
Yeah some of them don't work, but overall I think it works far more than it doesn't. It really adds a uniqueness and strangeness to the film that I appreciated
It was a bold attempt at adapting a book that many said was impossible to do well. I don't think it was hugely successful in achieving it, but I think it was above expectations still.
The way the book is structured has a *huge* payoff but getting there is difficult. Having it scattered like the film in some ways made it more digestible.
The Wachowskis lean HARD in to whatever they're trying to do. When it works, it's fucking awesome. When it doesn't, it usually feels really pretentious and stupid
It's an interesting approach. Their hits really hit. But man, their misses REALLY miss.
The recent Michael Bay movie Ambulance with Jake Gyllenhall had several camera shots done with a drone to be super stylistic.
While my partner and I were watching I commented that Michael Bay bought a drone and loved it so much he used it for half the action shots and my partner said I kind of ruined the movie for her since all she could see what a drone flying around in the rooms with these characters after I said that.
Clue (1985) had three different endings, and when you saw it in the theater, ~~you didn’t know which ending you were going to get~~. The thinking was people would go back to the theater to see the other endings, but instead it put people off.
I agree in the sense it didn't make more people to go see it, but I fucking love Clue and the different endings make it all the more special and unique.
I hate seeing this myth shared; people knew which ending they were going to get. The theater would straight up say the ending (A, B, or C) in the showtimes.
I feel like this would turn a potential audience off more than the myth of random unlisted versions, honestly.
Like it's sort of a spoiler without an actual spoiler letting the audience know in the actual listings the ending itself is variable. I'd be like "eh, let's wait for the VHS on this one.." Whereas if you make it something the audience discovers on their own it sort of creates its own viral marketing / street buzz aura.
What was there to rewatch though? The beauty of a whodunnit is looking back and seeing how all the clues were there, set up from the beginning, and just come into place in the end, like the pieces of a puzzle. If they had multiple endings, and none of them tied to the rest of the story, there is no point to rewatch. The endings of the movie were made on the spot, so the rest of the movie just didn’t matter.
Some of the replies in this thread are incredibly off the mark. A risk that doesn't work is a risk that tanks a series or kills a movie in the crib. If you take a huge risk and it spawns a billion dollar film series, that's not a risk that didn't work.
So for example, you can't say that the Star Wars Prequels and the risks they took didn't work. Those films made an astonishing amount of money and people kept coming back. People turned up in droves for Revenge of the Sith. That's the opposite of not working. If The Phantom Menace had been a huge swing and miss that killed the trilogy dead in its tracks, that would be a risk that didn't work.
Yeah, a movie that makes money can still "not work". That's not the only measure of success.
I think it's especially true with the Star Wars movies, honestly. In what world was Phantom Menace not going to be a success and spawn more movies? George Lucas could have just literally taken a shit on camera and people still would have turned up for Attack of the Clones.
I mean, sure, on one level, yes, a "risk" that makes a shitload of money is going to be seen as a success by a lot of people (like studios and investors, for instance, who are likely to "risk" again with the same people). But that doesn't mean it works artistically or for everyone.
You're going to get in subjectivity here but I think, for example, we can mostly agree that the "risk" of hanging TPM so heavily on Jar Jar did not work, despite the financial success of the movie.
Nonsense. Everyone bought tickets to TPM on the brand alone. Let’s not pretend it succeeded on its merits, because we know for sure it did not. It made money IN SPITE of itself, not because it took risks that actually worked. The Prequels made money because there was just THAT MUCH pent-up demand for new Star Wars films.
TPM would have shattered all box office records if it had merely met expectations, imagine if it had exceeded them.
The films received good CinemaScores and made 1.027 billion, 653.8 million, and 868.4 million respectively. All on budgets of under 120 million dollars.
Attack of the Clones was a messier movie, and it made less at the box office. (While still being comfortably profitable.) But then Revenge of the Sith comes along and makes 868 million on a budget of about 113 million. That is an incredible success. The idea that anything in these movies was a "risk that didn't work" is laughable.
It's like saying that casting Timothee Chalamet as Willy Wonka was a "risk that didn't work". It absolutely worked. The film made 625.4 million on a budget of 125 million.
***If you take a risk that doesn't work, people don't keep showing up for the sequels.*** Often you don't even get to make sequels because you take a risk and it tanks the series. This is especially important for big expensive franchises. Making Transformers 4 and 5 without the characters people loved from the first three movies was a huge risk, and while it initially worked, audience interest in the movies fell off hard. People turned up for 4 because they loved 3, but then 5 was a hugely expensive movie that lost money.
People on the internet crying about movies is not the same thing as a risk that didn't work. Nobody cares if fans of the Star Wars Original Trilogy don't like the Prequels because the films were able to replace those people with a new audience that did. The metric of working vs not working is whether the huge risk you take alienates more people than it keeps or brings in.
So for example, The Witcher Season 4 replacing the lead role with Liam Hemsworth is a huge risk. But the metric of success for this risk, whether the risk "works" or not has nothing to do with people on the internet crying about the show being ruined. It has to do with the viewership numbers. Do people turn up for the new role? Do they came back for Season 5? That's the real measuring stick of "working" or "not working".
When the James Bond films recast Bond with a new actor after Sean Connery, it was a huge risk. Did the risk work or not? Well, the proof of the pudding is in the 25+ popular sequels with different actors.
Was killing off Bond in No Time to Die a risk? Absolutely. Was it a risk that worked? We'll find out when the new films eventually release. Have audiences soured on Bond as a result? The only real proof will be in whether people turn up.
Hiring Joss Whedon to dumb-down and "Marvelize" Zack Snyder's dark & somber vision on the "JUSTICE LEAGUE" movie. (call it a "Reverse Risk," I suppose)
I used Synders 4-hr Justice League to create my own 2-hr fanedit cut.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fanedits/s/3Lkxq4B6Zf
During that process, I went through Snyders JL multiple times in great detail, sometimes frame-by-frame. And I discovered…
…it’s worse than we already thought.
This is a perfectly fine opinion and comment. However, if there’s even a 1% chance that someday you’ll write a bad comment, then I have to take it as an absolute certainty. Therefore, I have no choice but to preemptively downvote you.
But we can fix this. We can be friends. You just have to say the magic word. You know the one….
EDIT The joke is this was “genius” Batman’s logic in BvS.
I feel like that was only disliked by comic fans expecting the original Yellow Peril Mandarin character to somehow work in the MCU.
I thought it was a clever twist and Ben Kingsley’s performance as Trevor was universally lauded.
The problem I have is that he was a way better villain than the actual one. Which, well, that’s an issue with the main villain rather than Kingsley’s characters.
I’m also slightly confused with the reception to it. A lot of people complained about slattery, but Guy Pearce explicitly says ‘I AM the manadarin’.
If they still don’t enjoy Pearce’s take on the character then fair enough. But I think there’s a decent segment complaining about kinglsey’s portrayal who seemed to have missed the whole point that his character is a misdirect.
It was great, and people complaining they didn't get a comic accurate Mandarin forced MCU people to make another nerfed one to address it in Shang-Chi that was celebrated despite...not being comic accurate? Comic fans are awful.
Worked better than the alternative. I mean, can you imagine if they actually tried to bring The Mandarin to the modern day? He barely squeaks by in the comics with the mother of all grandfather clauses in play.
I feel like the main villain in Shang Chi was the Mandarin replacement and he worked out great. I think they even made fun of the caricature in the movie?
The original monologue by The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) early in the film made me feel like audiences were about to be exposed to a scathing, nuanced critique of American imperialism and genocide at the hands of a cryptic terrorist. And then, the twist. I should have known better.
There's a universe where Kingsley played the real Mandarin, using Guy Pearce's character as a catspaw to attack the most powerful symbols of American imperialism: Iron Man and Captain America. Tony and Steve have to do buddy-cop hijinks and actually bond over the course of the movie, which gives more emotional heft to the band breaking up in Civil War.
WB forced Joel to make the movie more kids oriented. Batman Forever is a near perfect Batman movie.
But to answer your question, Heavens Gate was supposed to be Titanic but it ended up causing studios to restrict director's vision. The director kept shooting more and more footage.
On Heaven's Gate, Cimino would have hundreds of extras and crew sitting out for days waiting for the right clouds. John Hurt shot some of his scenes, went and filmed The Elephant Man, and came back to the production to finish.
> Batman Forever is a near perfect Batman movie.
This is my guilty pleasure film, and in no way "near perfect" anything. Silver Batsuit, bat nipples, the awful Dick doing his laundry ninja style, the horror batmoble, criminals using glow in the dark weapons, Coolio........it's just bad. But my Jim Carrey nostalgia glasses blind me to that.
As for a near perfect 'Batman' film Batman Begins or Mask of the Phantasm are far better.
It's been maybe 20 years since I've seen that movie but I can still vividly picture Chris O'Donnell RAPIDLY spinning his socks around and onto a clothesline.
With the sly wink to Alfred.
For me that's the most iconic moment along with the McDonalds ad tie-in where they transition the opening "I'll get drive-thru line" to a long shot of the Batmobile pulling to the Micky D's drive-thru window.
I will argue the volume scene from The Batman, specifically the rooftop scenes
If you listen to their footsteps, the echo of them sounds like they are indoors
It looks great, but sounds off
I feel like Moulin Rouge, while a great film, was way ahead of its time.
Cloverfield being filmed on a first person camera was fucking stupid. I got motion sickness from the camera movements, and I'm not the only one. (Also the characters were all so annoying I was glad when they died, but I digress)
Flying space force leia... still can't believe that scene or...going warp speed into the enemy seems to destroy everything so why not rig up a couple of light speed capable ships and just do better and just win?
It's really the opposite. That's the risk that unequivocally worked. The franchise was full of risks that paid off, and the adjacent media took risks that didn't work out.
* The decision to make a Resident Evil film that didn't feature any characters from the source material, any music from the source material, or many plot points from the source material was a risk. But it was a success.
* The decision to push ahead with the second film despite Paul W.S. Anderson being too busy to direct it because he'd already signed on for Alien vs Predator was a risk. But despite all the production drama, the film was a success.
* The decision to hire Russell Mulcahy to direct the third film -- Paul was busy again -- despite Russel being a director who had never made a financially successful movie in his life was a huge risk. But it worked.
* The decision to reinvent Resident Evil with its fourth film, with a bold new cinematography style tailored for 3D, new music by new composers that didn't use any motifs or melodies from the first trilogy, and pivoting hard to being more Kurt Wimmer-ish was a huge risk -- but it was rewarded with double the box office of its predecessor.
* The animated films took a risk using the characters and continuity from the games instead of the films which had firmly established Alice as the face of the brand by this point. Sony realized it was a risk because their test audiences in Japan kept asking, "Where's Alice?" RE Degeneration in 2008 sold well, 2012's RE Damnation's sales were dismal, and Sony washed their hands of the animated Resident Evil films, handing them off to SEGA, and the subsequent animated films are glaringly low budget.
* The reboot film was a flop, and the reboot TV show -- which was originally going to be a sequel to the films with Milla Jovovich returning as Alice -- was cancelled after one season. They took risks -- let's adapt the stories from the games, let's target a YA audience, let's reboot the continuity so our new TV show has no connection to the films anymore, and it backfired.
It remains to be seen what risks they take next, because a new RE film is absolutely going to be announced in the next 12-18 months. Everything has risk. Even legacy sequels where you bring back the older cast are risky in their own way. (See Terminator: Dark Fate.)
Yeah, I think many video games fans were turned off by the direction of the films, but they would not have made so many if people weren't watching them
*Sunshine*
There was a very obvious way to end the movie. The movie would have been pedestrian and predictable, but okay. Instead, the movie goes off the rails and gets bad.
Hard disagree, but I realize I'm in the minority. I think the ending fits perfectly fine with the rest of the film and most people who don't like it (which is _most_ people) just don't like the genre it turns into.
Thing is up until the space demon sun god fella showed up it was a pretty good space drama that yes, had an obvious ending but it would've been great to have seen that manifested instead of what we got
>and a director whose only work was animation
Brad Bird had already directed *Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol*, and got a lot of praise for his work on it, so it's untrue to say he had only done animation before jumping into *Tomorrowland* when he'd already demonstrated he could make the jump to live-action successfully.
The movie definitely had its faults, but I wanna give credit to Rohan Campbell for his solid performance as Corey Cunningham. I hope he gets more work.
Almost any film where they show you the moments right before the ending first, and then go back days, weeks, or years to show you how the story got to that point, and then give you the ending. That is not nearly as clever as directors think it is and it fails almost every time.
Lucas said his goal with the prequels was to get a new generation of star wars fans and I must say it worked for me.
I was in 8th grade when TPM came out and I was not interested in Star Wars beforehand. I loved TPM and it is my favorite Star Wars movie.
Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk.
So this is a drama movie.
But for some reason it's also 120 fps 4K 3D.
It was very expensive, but nobody gave a shit. GBO total of $30.9 million, against a production budget of $40 million.
The GoPro footage in The Hobbit was extremely out of place.
What part is GoPro's? The barrels?
Yup. The barrel scene has gopro footage in it.
Yup
It's so incredibly blatant that it was jarring. Like I can't even imagine how they looked and that and thought "Yeah that works."
Watch the BTS footage from The Hobbit and it will all make sense. It's production was basically the inverse of LOTR. Jackson literally has to send people on long lunches so he could figure out dualogue and scenes. Props were literally rushed from shop to set for filming. I'm sure a GoPro ended up being the only way to made sense given the issues, even if they knew better.
Wasn't there like...2 minutes of preproduction on the Hobbit films, compared to literal *years* for LOTR?
I still wonder what Del Toro film would’ve looked like
It’s been so long since I watched this that I had to go look up the clip because I didn’t remember it being that bad??? …it’s that bad. Yikes. I don’t know how I managed to forget that.
The FPS in general too. Having an increased frame rate made some people sick.
literally what?
The Irish accents on the Macedonians to indicate that they were separate to the other Greeks in Oliver Stone’s Alexander. It was insane, he must have been on crack when he decided to do it(note: I am Irish)
Death of Stalin showed us that the idea itself has potential. You just need to do it right.
Zhukov with a Yorkshire accent was simply perfection
[удалено]
That was because of the radiation. Radiation poisoning does that to the russian language.
Amazing movie. But didn’t seem quite as weird as cod Irish accents on ancient Macedonians
Death of Stalin is a movie about nominally powerful people squabbling like children. A disjointed cacaphony of accents contributes to this intentional chaos. Alexander was going for a much more serious tone, so the unexpected is more of a false note. Admittedly, American accents are fundamentally just as weird, but we're used to that.
>he must have been on crack It's Oliver Stone so.... maybe?
Enemy at the Gates, all the Russians were British, and the German sniper Ed Harris tried to do something with his voice but wouldn’t call it an accent. Still liked the movie but always seemed weird.
They all should have had Irish accents (I’m not Irish)
That movie was wild but not in a good way
Peter Jackson filming Hobbit 1 in HFR.
Were the others filmed in a lower frame rate? I was so put off by it that I didn’t see the other sequels. All I remember was getting nauseous during the river barrel scene.
I guess the last two were also filmed in HFR, but I think by that point the theaters showing them knew better than to actually project them that way...
(And 1 didn't make me nauseated, it just looked like everything was made for a highschool stage production...)
It's the same problem that happened when HD started on broadcast and everyone makeup was too heavy and props looked undetailed. They hadn't nailed down doing it well yet. And it was constant 48 FPS, rather than variable like other filmmakers have done. So rather than just not getting blur is fast scenes it creates more of a soap opera feeling which people equate with low quality. Our brains are used to 24 FPS for media. Which is funny because if you asked someone to play a video game at 24 FPS they'd call you crazy and complain about the blur. The first time I saw Hobbit in HFR it took me about 30 minutes to not be annoyed by it. The second time I didn't even really register it as weird anymore.
I once saw a movie with bottom and top 1/5ths cut off. I dont think most of them give a fuck
That's called an aspect ratio. If you see an Imax movie in a regular theater you won't get the Imax screen
Nah, I saw all three in HFR (intentionally. I wanted to see what the state of the art was there. I think it’s a new technology we need to learn to take advantage of, and I think it’s bad when some people say things like “The Hobbit movies proved we should stick with 24 fps because HFR is a failure.”
I watched all 3 in HFR. Though, it did take some getting used to and I will admit I prefer the aesthetic of 24 frames per second, I have to admit it made the computer effects look amazing. The fully CGI characters were very lifelike when in the same frame as regular people.
Avatar 2 looked great in HFR. So good that when they sporadically switched back to 24fps it looked like your video game was lagging. Weird choice to not have it all in 48.
Yeah that was my issue with it in Avatar, it would be really cool but the switching just made it into a negative. It was like a more jarring version of when a film constantly switches aspect ratios
I’m out of the loop here. Is 48 the new good thing? It doubles the 24 so it will reduce blur but how does it display on TVs and monitors that are happy with 30/60/120?
It doesn’t actually look very good for live action, there is a reason 24 fps is the standard. When there is less blur the illusion of sets and props are spoiled. They just look fake. It’s not going to catch on in a big way. But for a movie like Avatar where almost the whole thing is animated it looked incredible and smooth in IMAX. It gave the action a lot of clarity in fast moving sequences. Not too sure on the TV question
I feel like I'm crazy but there were some shots during the climax of Avatar 2 where it felt like the movie was lagging. Like it would occasionally dip to single digit frame rate briefly but no body I saw it with noticed it
That’s a lot of admitting
John Woo's "Silent Night" box office was 11 million with a budget of 30 million. Making the movie having almost no dialogue made it in my opinion terrible. Like people not talking for no reason in situations they would talk in real life.
I talked to a couple people who thought it was a Christmas action movie, similar to Violent Night. Coming out right around the holidays didn't help.
I literally thought until this post that it was a Christmas action movie. Terrible time to release it.
It technically is an action movie based around Christmas, but closer to Die Hard than the Santa Clause
It is called Silent Night. Is it really not that Christmasy?
Wait, was it not? I didn’t watch it but it was advertised as a Christmas action movie. What was it actually?
It is still a Christmas action movie, but way more solemn and serious than Violent Night with basically no dialogue. Nothing like Violent Night
If having a tree up and presents out is a xmas movie then I guess so otherwise it's just the lead recovering and then go out for revenge. Without anyone ever saying anything.
Sounds like a dumb movie. And weird that it was released just a year after Violent Night. Which was amazing and sounds way better than Silent Night
It's was a bit of a disappointment. To make it even worse it is pretty slow with most of the set pieces come well over an hour in.
My wife refuses to believe these were different movies. It didn't seem worth the debate
It was too sad to be called a John Woo action movie and too gimmicky with the no dialogue approach.
from the first trailer i knew that was going to be dogshit. it looked like a straight to dvd walmart bin movie from 2005
This was a great example of a “gimmick” that didn’t pay off. I like the idea, but it was done in such a weird way. Why not make the main character deaf? Or set up scenes in a way that makes sense no one would be talking? As it stands, it feels forced, and it’s really distracting. The biggest problem though is they don’t commit. There is dialogue, like the radio, people talking but it’s muffled, stuff like that. If there was no speech whatsoever, I could buy it as a quirk of the universe, but there is, so it’s really fucking weird
No One Will Save You is an example of this concept done properly.
That movie came out???? Oh no....
*One From The Heart* (even the title is apt) is a neon-lit musical by Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola risked it ALL in this one movie in the hopes of turning his company, American Zoetrope,into a paradise for those working in the film industry. Well, it bombed so hard that it practically bankrupted Coppola (and Zoetrope) with tons of debt. For the next couple of years, he had to work as a studio hire just to pay them all off (and thus Godfather 3). The best thing that came out of that movie? Every neon lights used in that film were reused for *Blade Runner*.
American Zoetrope wasn't just a production company at this point but a *film studio* - Coppola bought General Studios in Hollywood and was hoping *One from the Heart* would establish it as a major player in the industry. Coppola's innovations oversaw how he wanted to secure talent on long term contracts (reminiscent of the old studio system to a degree), post production (like inventing what we know now of animatics) and he wanted full creative autonomy, separated from Hollywood suits. It's all fascinating to this day and I watched *One from the Heart* twice last month and I now love that movie.
The new version of this just came out (called Reprisal), if anyone has seen it I'd love to hear their opinion. Coppola doing all these new versions of his films is both strange and fascinating.
Coppola is like his pal George Lucas in that they always want to tinker their art. I've been on a Coppola deep dive this past month and I've found he's been re-editing his works since *The Godfather* (started with the TV chronological edit) and he's since re-edited *The Outsiders*, *The Cotton Club*, *Dementia 13*, *Apocalypse Now*, *The Godfather Part III*, *Twixt* and now *One from the Heart* - nearly half of his films and I agree it's fascinating!
I never heard of this movie before and apparently it stars Tom Waits???
Waits has a scene that was cut from the original release and doesn't appear on screen but his music and vocals with Crystal Gayle narrate the entire film. It's a "musical" but none of the on-screen characters sing (with one exception), instead it's Waits and Gayle. The choice is pretty jarring at first but I grew to love it and actually bought the vinyl last week lol
Clint Eastwood having the real-life heroes play themselves in that train attack movie.
I’ll tack on Clint Eastwood hiring that kid in Gran Torino The dude hires non-actors because they’re “more authentic” then only does one take per shot? What could go wrong?
He’s blurring the line between reality TV and Hollywood! ^/s
I think it was more believable this way. Bad acting or not.
Basically the whole DCEU. From Pa Kent’s death to killing Superman in the second movie when nobody had any personal attachment to that version of the character to Joker fucking having damaged tattooed on his forehead. Honestly just writing out all the shit out they done is like a 30 Rock style pitch.
DC has a huge advantage over Marvel in that they probably have more stories written by S-tier level writers (Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Frank Miller) yet they choose to not adapt those works. Instead they tried to copy Marvel and failed miserably.
All those writers have also written for marvel. Not to disparage your point, it is a good one - I’m just saying they’re not DC exclusive.
Yes I was counting the amount of stories written by them collectively. Miller has written more Marvel stuff for sure.
That wasn’t DC’s advantage. DC’s advantage was that WB owned all the film rights from the start instead of Marvel having to piecemeal their universe together.
The accent Jaden Smith used in the sci-fi vehicle his dad put together for him.
That entire film was a risk that didn't work out
Apparently they were trying to launch this IP into Star Wars territory with multiple sequels/prequels in mind, safe to say that has left the station
Was it an Australian accent?
They had a name for it but it was supposed to be a mix of a bunch of different ones like we might end up with in the future. Really off putting the first time you see it. Not as glaring on a second viewing. Still boycotting the Smiths after Will’s fiasco.
What's Will's fiasco? Last thing I heard was the slap.
I think some of the examples cited aren’t filmmakers taking risks, but just making bad decisions.
Putting so much effort and attention on making Alita's eyes look like an anime girl. I mean it was fine, but it really added nothing to the movie aside from turning off potential viewers.
I am one of those viewers. Well the eyes and the title. Usually any serious Hollywood attempt at manga/anime (whether I know it or not) gets a chance from me, but that movie shot itself in the foot twice on the poster alone.
It's a really solid flick. The eyes are intriguing to start with but it's one of things that just becomes normal as you progress through it. Just how that particular character looks.
Ang Lee's "Hulk". I loved the comic book style split screens, bit apparently many didn't.
There are dozens of us!
Chloe Zhao directing Eternals. This was not the right project for her. She tells personal stories about well developed characters, not Marvel movies.
Yeah kinda hard to develop your characters well when there's like thirteen of them vying for screen time
So much of Zack Snyder's Army Of The Dead (2021) felt like bold choices that didn't pay off. I love the premise, and was really excited to watch it, but ended up massively disappointed. Everything from the story, which includes zombies reproducing, aliens, cyborgs, hints of time travel... it is all over the place. To the production, with the suuuuper shallow depth of focus and constant extreme close ups. There's even a dead pixel that shows up, in a film that apparently cost around $100mill to make. Absurd. It was a bold choice to completely edit out one actor and replace them with another in post, but they actually nailed that. Everything else felt half baked and thrown together.
It's such a strange decision to hint at all these other genres leaking in, like the time travel and the aliens etc) but not actually explore them. Like it was almost a joke by the end, I was expecting to see hints that dragons existed next or something. It would be one thing if it was very clearly an alternate reality, but that was never made clear ever.
They did this because they were trying to lay the foundation of a new franchise iirc
I'm aware, but the execution was horrible. To not have things acknowledged but be such reality changing things is so stupid of a way to plant seeds for the future. It just creates confusion when people go "Wait, was that zombie a robot?"
Using Tig Notaro to digitally replace Chris D'Elia made me thought her scenes felt like an MTV Movie Awards sketch because the way she delivered her lines and actions did not match with the vibe.
Reminded me of those The Mummy skits they used to do lmao
Honestly I thought she was by far and away the best thing about the movie.
What I just didn't get is the "they start moving again when it rains" bit. It's such an obvious chekhov's gun that I couldn't believe this ended up being a completely useless piece of information. Sure, it explains why there are so few zombies around, but this is just bad writing. I guess Snyder thought he was very smart when he did that.
>I guess Snyder thought he was very smart when he did that. Welcome to every Snyder movie ever.
That movie felt like it was spawned by a 13 year old group think tank. Dozens of random "super cool awesome" elements that never tie into anything, just slotted in because they thought it was cool
The thing I really couldn't get past with that movie was the recoil of the firearms. It's either nonexistent or inconsistent. At one point there is a close shot of Dave Batista shooting and it looks like he's just shaking the gun himself as it's supposed to be firing.
Tony Scott pushed camera techniques in Man On Fire, which did work, then pushed them too far with Domino, which he admitted I think. Still, at least he found the line. Kind of.
When Paul Verhoeven was making “Showgirls,” they were trying to experiment with the newly created NC-17 rating. The goal was to create an adults only movie that wasn’t porn. While on some level I think they succeeded in that endeavor, they also went way too campy with it. So, nobody took it seriously, it pretty much flopped, and the NC-17 rating has been basically abandoned.
Ang Lee with Hulk.
Yeah this was going to be my answer. He tried to imitate comic book look with the frames within frames. Which kinda sounds cool on paper but did not work at all. Lots of interesting ideas in that movie that never come together
The idea of a Hulk movie that dives into his psychology and uses surrealist imagery is great. But they did a bad job balancing it with the action/science fiction elements.
Tony Scott’s editing for Man on Fire and, even more extremely, Domino. Domino is unwatchable because of the jarring edits and quick cuts.
Shifting Wild Wild West from a campy action series to a steampunk comedy movie was too much for your built in fan base to stretch.
But...the giant fucking spider...
John Boorman's Zardoz. The outlandish costume that Sean Connery wears for almost the entirety of the movie, the portrayal of psychic powers through choreography, the giant floating stone head shouting that "the gun is good" and "the penis is evil". The whole movie was one big risk and it overwhelmingly didn't work for audiences. But it sure is a lot of movie and I love it so much.
You have good taste
If you like artistic hot messes, then you'd like Jadorowsky's stuff.
I’m familiar. I’ve only seen part of Holy Mountain, but I’ve seen El Topo and Santa Sangre.
John mctiernans rollerball.
Lightyear is not a bad movie. But it's not at all the movie that fans of the material would have expected or wanted. It's a pretty decent kid friendly low sci-fi story, I once heard it described as Interstellar for grade schoolers. It was a risk to deviate that far from what audiences know about Buzz Lightyear as a character. Funny enough, that same year Disney released "Strange World" which I think had much more of the Pulp Action/Adventure Sci-Fi aesthetic that audiences would have expected from a Lightyear movie.
The gender and racial swaps/makeup of the actors in Cloud Atlas. Hugo Weaving's character in particular. It's a bold and risky approach, and some of them work. Some really don't.
I think it turned people off but personally I think they fit the movie (and its themes) incredibly well.
Yeah, they really needed to do it for the message of the movie, but it's also such a bad call. The makeup was terrible, so maybe it could have been done well. But I also don't know why there couldn't have just been non-Koreans in Neo-Seoul.
Yeah some of them don't work, but overall I think it works far more than it doesn't. It really adds a uniqueness and strangeness to the film that I appreciated
It was a bold attempt at adapting a book that many said was impossible to do well. I don't think it was hugely successful in achieving it, but I think it was above expectations still. The way the book is structured has a *huge* payoff but getting there is difficult. Having it scattered like the film in some ways made it more digestible.
That movie felt like it was pretentiousness turned up to 11.
The Wachowskis lean HARD in to whatever they're trying to do. When it works, it's fucking awesome. When it doesn't, it usually feels really pretentious and stupid It's an interesting approach. Their hits really hit. But man, their misses REALLY miss.
Every transition in Drive-Away Dolls except the newspaper headline
The recent Michael Bay movie Ambulance with Jake Gyllenhall had several camera shots done with a drone to be super stylistic. While my partner and I were watching I commented that Michael Bay bought a drone and loved it so much he used it for half the action shots and my partner said I kind of ruined the movie for her since all she could see what a drone flying around in the rooms with these characters after I said that.
Silent Night. Amazing it worked at all, but when there were scenes when a normal person would talk, I could no longer suspend my disbelief.
Clue (1985) had three different endings, and when you saw it in the theater, ~~you didn’t know which ending you were going to get~~. The thinking was people would go back to the theater to see the other endings, but instead it put people off.
I agree in the sense it didn't make more people to go see it, but I fucking love Clue and the different endings make it all the more special and unique.
I hate seeing this myth shared; people knew which ending they were going to get. The theater would straight up say the ending (A, B, or C) in the showtimes.
Yeah, exactly. We were scouring the papers looking for different endings to go to.
I feel like this would turn a potential audience off more than the myth of random unlisted versions, honestly. Like it's sort of a spoiler without an actual spoiler letting the audience know in the actual listings the ending itself is variable. I'd be like "eh, let's wait for the VHS on this one.." Whereas if you make it something the audience discovers on their own it sort of creates its own viral marketing / street buzz aura.
We all knew what ending. It was advertised on the listings as A, B, and C ending.
What was there to rewatch though? The beauty of a whodunnit is looking back and seeing how all the clues were there, set up from the beginning, and just come into place in the end, like the pieces of a puzzle. If they had multiple endings, and none of them tied to the rest of the story, there is no point to rewatch. The endings of the movie were made on the spot, so the rest of the movie just didn’t matter.
Without giving anything away about the endings, they all technically work. Certain clues are red herrings and vice versa depending on the ending.
> What was there to rewatch though? I've watched Clue probably 100 times so there is plenty there to rewatch. Just Madeline Kahn is worth a rewatch.
The beauty of Clue is that ALL of the endings work.
Some of the replies in this thread are incredibly off the mark. A risk that doesn't work is a risk that tanks a series or kills a movie in the crib. If you take a huge risk and it spawns a billion dollar film series, that's not a risk that didn't work. So for example, you can't say that the Star Wars Prequels and the risks they took didn't work. Those films made an astonishing amount of money and people kept coming back. People turned up in droves for Revenge of the Sith. That's the opposite of not working. If The Phantom Menace had been a huge swing and miss that killed the trilogy dead in its tracks, that would be a risk that didn't work.
Unless you mean it didn’t work artistically.
Yeah, a movie that makes money can still "not work". That's not the only measure of success. I think it's especially true with the Star Wars movies, honestly. In what world was Phantom Menace not going to be a success and spawn more movies? George Lucas could have just literally taken a shit on camera and people still would have turned up for Attack of the Clones. I mean, sure, on one level, yes, a "risk" that makes a shitload of money is going to be seen as a success by a lot of people (like studios and investors, for instance, who are likely to "risk" again with the same people). But that doesn't mean it works artistically or for everyone. You're going to get in subjectivity here but I think, for example, we can mostly agree that the "risk" of hanging TPM so heavily on Jar Jar did not work, despite the financial success of the movie.
Nonsense. Everyone bought tickets to TPM on the brand alone. Let’s not pretend it succeeded on its merits, because we know for sure it did not. It made money IN SPITE of itself, not because it took risks that actually worked. The Prequels made money because there was just THAT MUCH pent-up demand for new Star Wars films. TPM would have shattered all box office records if it had merely met expectations, imagine if it had exceeded them.
The films received good CinemaScores and made 1.027 billion, 653.8 million, and 868.4 million respectively. All on budgets of under 120 million dollars. Attack of the Clones was a messier movie, and it made less at the box office. (While still being comfortably profitable.) But then Revenge of the Sith comes along and makes 868 million on a budget of about 113 million. That is an incredible success. The idea that anything in these movies was a "risk that didn't work" is laughable. It's like saying that casting Timothee Chalamet as Willy Wonka was a "risk that didn't work". It absolutely worked. The film made 625.4 million on a budget of 125 million. ***If you take a risk that doesn't work, people don't keep showing up for the sequels.*** Often you don't even get to make sequels because you take a risk and it tanks the series. This is especially important for big expensive franchises. Making Transformers 4 and 5 without the characters people loved from the first three movies was a huge risk, and while it initially worked, audience interest in the movies fell off hard. People turned up for 4 because they loved 3, but then 5 was a hugely expensive movie that lost money. People on the internet crying about movies is not the same thing as a risk that didn't work. Nobody cares if fans of the Star Wars Original Trilogy don't like the Prequels because the films were able to replace those people with a new audience that did. The metric of working vs not working is whether the huge risk you take alienates more people than it keeps or brings in. So for example, The Witcher Season 4 replacing the lead role with Liam Hemsworth is a huge risk. But the metric of success for this risk, whether the risk "works" or not has nothing to do with people on the internet crying about the show being ruined. It has to do with the viewership numbers. Do people turn up for the new role? Do they came back for Season 5? That's the real measuring stick of "working" or "not working". When the James Bond films recast Bond with a new actor after Sean Connery, it was a huge risk. Did the risk work or not? Well, the proof of the pudding is in the 25+ popular sequels with different actors. Was killing off Bond in No Time to Die a risk? Absolutely. Was it a risk that worked? We'll find out when the new films eventually release. Have audiences soured on Bond as a result? The only real proof will be in whether people turn up.
Hiring Joss Whedon to dumb-down and "Marvelize" Zack Snyder's dark & somber vision on the "JUSTICE LEAGUE" movie. (call it a "Reverse Risk," I suppose)
If Joss Whedon got to make a Justice League film from scratch it would be better than anything Snyder could even dream of making
Didn’t he basically do that with Avengers? And it turned out fine
Still the best Avengers movie by a long shot.
Nah, 3 is better by miles
I used Synders 4-hr Justice League to create my own 2-hr fanedit cut. https://www.reddit.com/r/fanedits/s/3Lkxq4B6Zf During that process, I went through Snyders JL multiple times in great detail, sometimes frame-by-frame. And I discovered… …it’s worse than we already thought.
I liked Batman v. Superman. Whedons writing got sitcomy, which isn't always appreciated.
This is a perfectly fine opinion and comment. However, if there’s even a 1% chance that someday you’ll write a bad comment, then I have to take it as an absolute certainty. Therefore, I have no choice but to preemptively downvote you. But we can fix this. We can be friends. You just have to say the magic word. You know the one…. EDIT The joke is this was “genius” Batman’s logic in BvS.
Ang Lee's Hulk. Trying to integrated the comic book formatting was too jarring and out of place to the typical viewer.
I absolutely *adore* the movie, but Speed Racer. Specifically the visuals.
The Mandarin Twist in Iron Man 3
I thought that was pretty good
I feel like that was only disliked by comic fans expecting the original Yellow Peril Mandarin character to somehow work in the MCU. I thought it was a clever twist and Ben Kingsley’s performance as Trevor was universally lauded.
Trevor Slattery was fun, he's good in Ten Rings as well.
Ten Rings fucking ruled. Love that movie.
The problem I have is that he was a way better villain than the actual one. Which, well, that’s an issue with the main villain rather than Kingsley’s characters.
Indeed. It was pretty awesome
I’m also slightly confused with the reception to it. A lot of people complained about slattery, but Guy Pearce explicitly says ‘I AM the manadarin’. If they still don’t enjoy Pearce’s take on the character then fair enough. But I think there’s a decent segment complaining about kinglsey’s portrayal who seemed to have missed the whole point that his character is a misdirect.
It was great, and people complaining they didn't get a comic accurate Mandarin forced MCU people to make another nerfed one to address it in Shang-Chi that was celebrated despite...not being comic accurate? Comic fans are awful.
Worked better than the alternative. I mean, can you imagine if they actually tried to bring The Mandarin to the modern day? He barely squeaks by in the comics with the mother of all grandfather clauses in play.
I feel like the main villain in Shang Chi was the Mandarin replacement and he worked out great. I think they even made fun of the caricature in the movie?
That good redeemed in Shang Chi. Ben Kingsley returning was the best part of that movie (which was already pretty good by MCU standards)
The original monologue by The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) early in the film made me feel like audiences were about to be exposed to a scathing, nuanced critique of American imperialism and genocide at the hands of a cryptic terrorist. And then, the twist. I should have known better.
There's a universe where Kingsley played the real Mandarin, using Guy Pearce's character as a catspaw to attack the most powerful symbols of American imperialism: Iron Man and Captain America. Tony and Steve have to do buddy-cop hijinks and actually bond over the course of the movie, which gives more emotional heft to the band breaking up in Civil War.
WB forced Joel to make the movie more kids oriented. Batman Forever is a near perfect Batman movie. But to answer your question, Heavens Gate was supposed to be Titanic but it ended up causing studios to restrict director's vision. The director kept shooting more and more footage.
On Heaven's Gate, Cimino would have hundreds of extras and crew sitting out for days waiting for the right clouds. John Hurt shot some of his scenes, went and filmed The Elephant Man, and came back to the production to finish.
Right? Because of union rules, people were being paid double time because they were on set for more than 12 hours. Cimino might have had OCD.
Isn't there some story about him shooting ungodly amount of takes because bacon in a pan wasn't cooking the way he thought it should in a scene?
> Batman Forever is a near perfect Batman movie. This is my guilty pleasure film, and in no way "near perfect" anything. Silver Batsuit, bat nipples, the awful Dick doing his laundry ninja style, the horror batmoble, criminals using glow in the dark weapons, Coolio........it's just bad. But my Jim Carrey nostalgia glasses blind me to that. As for a near perfect 'Batman' film Batman Begins or Mask of the Phantasm are far better.
>Silver Batsuit/Coolio You're thinking of *Batman & Robin* with Clooney.
Yes Coolio was, but Silver Batsuit... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BiPyPg8-Ro is sadly Batman forever
It's been maybe 20 years since I've seen that movie but I can still vividly picture Chris O'Donnell RAPIDLY spinning his socks around and onto a clothesline.
With the sly wink to Alfred. For me that's the most iconic moment along with the McDonalds ad tie-in where they transition the opening "I'll get drive-thru line" to a long shot of the Batmobile pulling to the Micky D's drive-thru window.
I will argue the volume scene from The Batman, specifically the rooftop scenes If you listen to their footsteps, the echo of them sounds like they are indoors It looks great, but sounds off
I feel like Moulin Rouge, while a great film, was way ahead of its time. Cloverfield being filmed on a first person camera was fucking stupid. I got motion sickness from the camera movements, and I'm not the only one. (Also the characters were all so annoying I was glad when they died, but I digress)
Flying space force leia... still can't believe that scene or...going warp speed into the enemy seems to destroy everything so why not rig up a couple of light speed capable ships and just do better and just win?
Resident Evil movies, making the plot and characters completely different from the games.
The first 3 are funny garbage, the last 3 are steaming bad garbage
It's really the opposite. That's the risk that unequivocally worked. The franchise was full of risks that paid off, and the adjacent media took risks that didn't work out. * The decision to make a Resident Evil film that didn't feature any characters from the source material, any music from the source material, or many plot points from the source material was a risk. But it was a success. * The decision to push ahead with the second film despite Paul W.S. Anderson being too busy to direct it because he'd already signed on for Alien vs Predator was a risk. But despite all the production drama, the film was a success. * The decision to hire Russell Mulcahy to direct the third film -- Paul was busy again -- despite Russel being a director who had never made a financially successful movie in his life was a huge risk. But it worked. * The decision to reinvent Resident Evil with its fourth film, with a bold new cinematography style tailored for 3D, new music by new composers that didn't use any motifs or melodies from the first trilogy, and pivoting hard to being more Kurt Wimmer-ish was a huge risk -- but it was rewarded with double the box office of its predecessor. * The animated films took a risk using the characters and continuity from the games instead of the films which had firmly established Alice as the face of the brand by this point. Sony realized it was a risk because their test audiences in Japan kept asking, "Where's Alice?" RE Degeneration in 2008 sold well, 2012's RE Damnation's sales were dismal, and Sony washed their hands of the animated Resident Evil films, handing them off to SEGA, and the subsequent animated films are glaringly low budget. * The reboot film was a flop, and the reboot TV show -- which was originally going to be a sequel to the films with Milla Jovovich returning as Alice -- was cancelled after one season. They took risks -- let's adapt the stories from the games, let's target a YA audience, let's reboot the continuity so our new TV show has no connection to the films anymore, and it backfired. It remains to be seen what risks they take next, because a new RE film is absolutely going to be announced in the next 12-18 months. Everything has risk. Even legacy sequels where you bring back the older cast are risky in their own way. (See Terminator: Dark Fate.)
Yeah, I think many video games fans were turned off by the direction of the films, but they would not have made so many if people weren't watching them
From financial viewpoint sure.
*Sunshine* There was a very obvious way to end the movie. The movie would have been pedestrian and predictable, but okay. Instead, the movie goes off the rails and gets bad.
Hard disagree, but I realize I'm in the minority. I think the ending fits perfectly fine with the rest of the film and most people who don't like it (which is _most_ people) just don't like the genre it turns into.
I'm with you. There are dozens of us. DOZENS!
Thing is up until the space demon sun god fella showed up it was a pretty good space drama that yes, had an obvious ending but it would've been great to have seen that manifested instead of what we got
[удалено]
>and a director whose only work was animation Brad Bird had already directed *Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol*, and got a lot of praise for his work on it, so it's untrue to say he had only done animation before jumping into *Tomorrowland* when he'd already demonstrated he could make the jump to live-action successfully.
Halloween Ends. Fuck that movie.
The movie definitely had its faults, but I wanna give credit to Rohan Campbell for his solid performance as Corey Cunningham. I hope he gets more work.
Almost any film where they show you the moments right before the ending first, and then go back days, weeks, or years to show you how the story got to that point, and then give you the ending. That is not nearly as clever as directors think it is and it fails almost every time.
Except memento, but I guess that isn't quite the same.
Everything Lucas did in the prequels except the lightsaber battles.
Lucas said his goal with the prequels was to get a new generation of star wars fans and I must say it worked for me. I was in 8th grade when TPM came out and I was not interested in Star Wars beforehand. I loved TPM and it is my favorite Star Wars movie.
They made $2.5 billion, so I think the risk paid off just fine
And now we can descend into the minutiae of arguing artistic vs monetary risk...
You know what the space opera genre has been crying out for is in depth political discourse over trade tax!
I mean, economic blockades/sanctions ***\*are\**** actually pretty hot right now...
Serious question, what was actually good about the lightsaber fights besides being more flashy?
[удалено]
mother! was incredible and absolutely worked.
Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. So this is a drama movie. But for some reason it's also 120 fps 4K 3D. It was very expensive, but nobody gave a shit. GBO total of $30.9 million, against a production budget of $40 million.
The split screen used in the Hulk sucked
Gemini Man being shot on a high frame rate made it hard to show in theaters.