Movies

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, Im having some of that.

 

[lucklucky]

Saw Shawshank Redemption. Good movie, i have no idea why some call it one of the best movies.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Watch it 2 or 3 times. It will grow on you.

 

[Yama]

I suppose the way it sets up, and wraps up things just appeals to the most people's sense of justice and provides good emotional payoff.  It's a good movie for sure, although personally I am not obsessed over it.

Meanwhile finally got around to see Indy Jones 5. It has not done well in the box office, and some people have flat out hated it. I didn't find it actively bad, though. It is too long, action scenes take forever and could have been shaved by a good 20 minutes easy. Also it felt bit humourless. On a plus side, it did return to 80s Indy grittiness, unlike 'Crystal Skull' which felt really kid friendly compared to other movies.

Plot and the characters themselves were fine, or at least certainly better than in the previous movie. But Ford is just too old for this, even though he looks quite good for his age. De-aging effect worked quite well IMO, except combination of old Ford voice and young(er) Ford face was freaky. It felt like he was redubbing scenes he had done 30 years earlier.

[Yama]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:43 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

That was a joke on being a 50 year old stereotype.

"...one book; "19-year Old Swedish Pneumatic Blond And Me (Wearing Tight Swimming Costumes)" by Stuart Galbraith...'

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, nobody would want to see me in a tight swimming costume, believe me.

 

[Sardaukar]

13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, nobody would want to see me in a tight swimming costume, believe me.

 

I want your review of Barbie!

I dare you to watch it

[Stuart Galbraith]

I probably will at length. Probably after Oppenheimer though...

 

I dont know if anyone is interested in old films, but I was watching something on Youtube last night that was quite interesting. It was about an uncompleted film version of Rupert Graves 'I claudius' filmed in 1937, starring Charles Laughton and Merle Oberon, and its narrated by Dirk Bogarde. Which on the of it, actually looks like it would have been pretty good.

It had me thinking. If the script on this survives, what are the odds that one day technology will exist to fill in the unfilmed scenes? Probably with decent actors to fill out the roles, for the AI to overlay. So you would have to have a good actor playing Charles Laughton channeling Edward VIII, playing Nero. It makes your head hurt to think about it.

Is that even a good idea? Or should we leave uncompleted or partially masterpieces alone?

[Ssnake]

Who, other than paleo-cineasts, would be the audience for this?

I mean, sure, I remember these names and recognize the face of Charles Laughton. But I'm an old fart and I am a fan of cinema.

 

Would I be willing to pay a full ticket price for such a Frankenmovie?

Mayyyyybe.

Would I expect to sit in a full theater?

Absolutely not.

 

Cinema has always been a commercial art form. There needs to be a paying audience. So, I suppose it might come to life, one day, as a piece from film school grads or hobbyists - assuming that AI becomes sufficiently sophisticated, and the needed computing power becomes sufficiently cheap so that pretty much anyone with access to the original film roll (or a digitized copy) can do it, and the threat of a lawsuit from the studio that originally made it becomes sufficiently small.

[R011]

Might be better just to film the script in an all new production, though topping the Derek Jacobi version would be hard.

BRIAN BLESSED! as Augustus: "IS THERE ANYONE IN ROME WHO HAS NOT SLEPT WITH MY DAUGHTER!"

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Who, other than paleo-cineasts, would be the audience for this?

I mean, sure, I remember these names and recognize the face of Charles Laughton. But I'm an old fart and I am a fan of cinema.

 

Would I be willing to pay a full ticket price for such a Frankenmovie?

Mayyyyybe.

Would I expect to sit in a full theater?

Absolutely not.

 

Cinema has always been a commercial art form. There needs to be a paying audience. So, I suppose it might come to life, one day, as a piece from film school grads or hobbyists - assuming that AI becomes sufficiently sophisticated, and the needed computing power becomes sufficiently cheap so that pretty much anyone with access to the original film roll (or a digitized copy) can do it, and the threat of a lawsuit from the studio that originally made it becomes sufficiently small.

Its Charles Laughton for Fricks sake! The guy was the Tom Cruise of the 1930's! Alright, perhaps more Tom Hanks. You get my point. People still watch his films. 'This Land is mine' was pretty damn good actually.

Alright,  extend the thought. We know rushes exist of Marilyn Monroes last film. Wouldnt there been a market for just one more complete Monroe film?

That is essentially my point. That AI inevitably becomes cheap enough that its going to be viable. You scan the sets (you may even have sketches or photos of the sets). You have the AI that can adapt any person to look like another. The only expense is actors, and minus a physical set and costume department, most of the expense goes away.

Im not in favour of creating new films. Say maybe Towering Inferno 2 with Steve McQueen and Eddie Murphy. But I can see a utility in finishing old films, certainly ones that are almost but not quite complete. To some extent it has already happened, as we saw with the completion of Oliver Reeds scenes in Gladiator after his untimely death.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, R011 said:

Might be better just to film the script in an all new production, though topping the Derek Jacobi version would be hard.

BRIAN BLESSED! as Augustus: "IS THERE ANYONE IN ROME WHO HAS NOT SLEPT WITH MY DAUGHTER!"

 

 

Yeah, it wouldnt be better. It might end up something akin to comparing the 2011 production of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with the original BBC production.  Both takes had something to offer, and the ended up being complimentary takes of the same novel.

Yes, this is how I found this on youtube, the BBC are screening it again, nearly 20 years after the last time it was shown (and then about 30 years after it was last shown). Blessed was saying the only thing that lets it down on HD is the makeup. Back in 14 inch TV days, nobody would have noticed.

Yeah, he was so damn good in that wasnt he? And there are so many good soundbites, Ie 'Dont eat the figs'. Its the funniest thing, they were making comparisons with it being a soap opera, even a drama about the Mafia. At which point comparisons with 'The Soprano's are probably not entirely out of the question.

 

[R011]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, it wouldnt be better. It might end up something akin to comparing the 2011 production of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with the original BBC production.  Both takes had something to offer, and the ended up being complimentary takes of the same novel.

Yes, this is how I found this on youtube, the BBC are screening it again, nearly 20 years after the last time it was shown (and then about 30 years after it was last shown). Blessed was saying the only thing that lets it down on HD is the makeup. Back in 14 inch TV days, nobody would have noticed.

Yeah, he was so damn good in that wasnt he? And there are so many good soundbites, Ie 'Dont eat the figs'. Its the funniest thing, they were making comparisons with it being a soap opera, even a drama about the Mafia. At which point comparisons with 'The Soprano's are probably not entirely out of the question.

 

You'd probably have to recast every part save Augustus assuming BRIAN BLESSED's health holds up.

[Skywalkre]

On 8/6/2023 at 1:15 PM, Sardaukar said:

I want your review of Barbie!

I dare you to watch it

I want to watch it eventually solely on the fact I saw Critical Drinker's review... and what he had to say made it sound like the story and message are deplorable.  I find it hard to believe if what he said in his review was accurate that the movie would be doing as well as it is and that there wouldn't be more controversy.

I'm starting to think CD may have gone over the edge with the anti-woke crusade and is looking too hard to find it in places it may not be.  I stopped watching his 'After Hours' clips because they were nothing more than CD clinging to the latest rumor he wanted to believe (I don't know how many of those I started where he led off with news of Kathleen Kennedy being fired...) and all he was doing was grasping for whatever he could find from sites with zero credibility because he wanted to believe it.

[bojan]

1. If you are a male and you are doing serious review of Barbie, movie made to sell dolls to a little girls, you have a problem.

2. CD does it for clicks, and he is more and more getting into "echo chamber" mode. His reviews are still good (at least stuff  reviews of the stuff I care about, I don't watch superhero crap reviews as I am totally uninterested in genre), but "podcasts" are 95% just catering to the crowd in attempt to get more clicks. Listened two or three, same shit all the time, and pointless waste of time.

3. If you are complaining about Ken being useless, here is a reminder that he is:

 

[Yama]

Meg 2 was bit worse than the previous one. Like the first movie, it couldn't quite decide if it was serious or not. Or actually, about half-way through it decided it wasn't serious anymore. It went from 'Deep Blue Sea' into 'Sharknado'.

Character cast was okay, though better in the first one. Disappointing that Li Bingbing didn't come back. Bad guys were very one-note and didn't even have particularly interesting endings.

Any way, it's a shark monster movie, so I'll watch it, and also the sequel if they make more.

[Ivanhoe]

After The Last Sharknado, Hollywood should take a long break from shark movies.

I'm still waiting for a horror movie featuring mutated giant isopods (Bathynomis giganteus).

[sunday]

8 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

After The Last Sharknado, Hollywood should take a long break from shark movies.

I'm still waiting for a horror movie featuring mutated giant isopods (Bathynomis giganteus).

Taiwanese eat isopods, so the horror movie could have the critters as the victims, fleeing from ravenous Taiwanese fishermen-consumers.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

After The Last Sharknado, Hollywood should take a long break from shark movies.

I'm still waiting for a horror movie featuring mutated giant isopods (Bathynomis giganteus).

Why about Giant Rabbits? They could call it 'When Harvey went bad'.

[Rick]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why about Giant Rabbits? They could call it 'When Harvey went bad'.

Sort of like the book "Watership Down?"

[Ssnake]

Watership Down 2

The Rabbits Strike Back

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

Sort of like the book "Watership Down?"

Well, I was thinking more 50 foot tall. 'The Rabbits that ate Paris'. Something like that.

Incidentally, over 40 years later, Ive still never seen watership down. Some trauma just cannot be endured.

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why about Giant Rabbits? They could call it 'When Harvey went bad'.

“Night of the Lepus” was done 50 years ago.

 

[Stargrunt6]

15 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Watership Down 2

The Rabbits Strike Back

There actually was a sequel! 

But to keep the joke going:

Watership Down 2: Reloaded

Speaking of animals with human voices, my priest and I just saw Strays and it was hysterical. I normally am not wild about raunch but this one did it well. Even the clean jokes were hysterical..  Jamie Foxx as the Boston Terrier stole the show. The Australian Shepherd was my other favorite.  Dog lovers have to watch it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 8/18/2023 at 12:32 PM, Tim Sielbeck said:

“Night of the Lepus” was done 50 years ago.

 

Must have been a slow year for Janet Leigh...