D
Darkness
Guest
someone deleted my "scary movie had good sick humor" comment? Why???/
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
chowderhead
Guest
Best movies?
1. Empire Strikes Back
2. The Cowboys (with John Wayne)
3. Star Wars (ANH)
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark
5. Blade Runner (surprised that one hasn't shown up...)
6. Lawrence of Arabia
7. The Road Warrior
8. The Patriot
9. Twice Upon a Time (with ralph-the-all-purpose-animal)
Bad Movies?
1. Anything with Barbara Striesand
Darkness: Beats me? Board still does weird things sometimes...
1. Empire Strikes Back
2. The Cowboys (with John Wayne)
3. Star Wars (ANH)
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark
5. Blade Runner (surprised that one hasn't shown up...)
6. Lawrence of Arabia
7. The Road Warrior
8. The Patriot
9. Twice Upon a Time (with ralph-the-all-purpose-animal)
Bad Movies?
1. Anything with Barbara Striesand
Darkness: Beats me? Board still does weird things sometimes...
D
Darkness
Guest
yeah, it probably wasnt a person. sometimes when i click submit i get a 'page cannot be displayed' error.
J
Jedimark
Guest
Well the top 50 were shown last night snd Star Wars Episdoe 4 and 5 came out top as usual!
D
dagsverre
Guest
About your eight pick...The Patriot...I wonder how they managed to get up with that title on it? BACK THEN THERE WAS NO USA! They were *rebels*, not patriots, it was the englishmen that were the patriots. Not that I'm saying not being a patriot is necisarrily wrong, and being a rebel can be the right thing ("Star Wars"), but it's a horrible abuse of a word just so that they could perhaps appeal to more americans (kind of like movies being named "I", "II", "III", and then 4, 5...)
It's just sad. I haven't seen the movie so I can't really comment on the movie itself.
[EDIT: This might seem like nitpicking. Well I think there's more to it. Freud could probably have come up with lots of stuff on american mentality from that movie title alone...and of course PR and advertising companies knows these techniques well...so it's really *science* (the science of advertising), not nitpicking...]
[edited] 15 2001-11-26 13:15
It's just sad. I haven't seen the movie so I can't really comment on the movie itself.
[EDIT: This might seem like nitpicking. Well I think there's more to it. Freud could probably have come up with lots of stuff on american mentality from that movie title alone...and of course PR and advertising companies knows these techniques well...so it's really *science* (the science of advertising), not nitpicking...]
[edited] 15 2001-11-26 13:15
M
M0T
Guest
One thing about the Star Wars movies. Since the rebels won how do we know their version of what happened is correct? What makes us so sure that the empire were big and mean and the rebels werent just evil. They say that history is written by the victors.
F
ficedula
Guest
It's hardly unusual for Hollywood studios to "interpret" (*cough*rewrite*cough*) history to make it more appealing to US audiences. Not surprising, but it is a bit sad.
M0T: Because it's not told in the style of something written by the rebels? Titanic, for instance, was written as showing you the memories of a survivor so you could say it was one persons interpretation ... most films are produced as being a kind of "live TV" approach, ie. showing you "what happened" if you can apply that to a fictional film :wink:
M0T: Because it's not told in the style of something written by the rebels? Titanic, for instance, was written as showing you the memories of a survivor so you could say it was one persons interpretation ... most films are produced as being a kind of "live TV" approach, ie. showing you "what happened" if you can apply that to a fictional film :wink:
J
Jedimark
Guest
Well Episode 2 and 3 are going to show the rise of the Empire so maybe we will see the reasons why the Alliance do Rebel. But don't you think the Empire destroying an entire planet is reason enough?
C
chowderhead
Guest
Dag: Some of it comes from perspective, as well. Patriots to the cause, maybe? Calling yourself a patriot sounds a lot better than calling yourself a rebel (at least then-maybe not now). And the PR of a war-even then-was as important as the war itself.
There were factions under Samuel Adams who called themselves "Whigs" -or even worse- "Patriots" as early as 1763. This was before anyone ever considered revolting militarily against England. This was during political wrangling over various stamp acts (read: taxes) proposed and imposed, not during discussions of separating the colonies from the homeland.
And didn't Old Ben Kenobi say that it all depended on a certain point of view?
Anyways, nobody abuses a language as well as the native speaker thereof.
There were factions under Samuel Adams who called themselves "Whigs" -or even worse- "Patriots" as early as 1763. This was before anyone ever considered revolting militarily against England. This was during political wrangling over various stamp acts (read: taxes) proposed and imposed, not during discussions of separating the colonies from the homeland.
And didn't Old Ben Kenobi say that it all depended on a certain point of view?
Anyways, nobody abuses a language as well as the native speaker thereof.
D
dagsverre
Guest
Ficedula: Too true. I can remember this film U-571 that was based on a true story about a BRITISH submarine. Changing it to an american one kind of removed the thruth element but why bother about such unsignificant details...
T
Trilinear
Guest
Partially true.
Both British AND American subs recovered Enigma machines from multiple German U-Boats.
If you watched the end of the movie they give credit to 3 Naval crews (two British, one American) that recovered the machines.
...but why bother about such insignificant details?
:smile:
Both British AND American subs recovered Enigma machines from multiple German U-Boats.
If you watched the end of the movie they give credit to 3 Naval crews (two British, one American) that recovered the machines.
...but why bother about such insignificant details?
:smile:
F
ficedula
Guest
The first machine that was recovered was retrieved by a British crew ... and the code was cracked by a British crew.
That doesn't mean that the US didn't do anything ... of course not, they performed very significant part in WW2 ... but in the Enigma code breaking, that was performed pretty much totally by a British team. The movie ignores that simply because it sells better if they present it as a US effort.
Frankly, it *may* seem insignificant, but the fact is: it's wrong. If you start presenting films that are set in real-life times (WW2) but are in fact based on totally imaginary events, most people will accept what the films tell them; because more people (unfortunately) watch films than actually go out and find out what *really* happened. If a director is going to make a film based on a real-life event, then I'd expect them to at least get the basic facts (that can actually be determined from historically recorded details) correct. If they're making a film that's nothing to do with real life events fine! make things up! But if they make a film based on something that actually happened, you'd think it was common courtesy to get it *right*.
The point we're making here is that the movie is *not* accurate - the first Enigma data used was retrieved by a British sub, and the code was cracked by a British team at Bletchley.If you watched the end of the movie they give credit to 3 Naval crews (two British, one American) that recovered the machines.
...but why bother about such insignificant details?
That doesn't mean that the US didn't do anything ... of course not, they performed very significant part in WW2 ... but in the Enigma code breaking, that was performed pretty much totally by a British team. The movie ignores that simply because it sells better if they present it as a US effort.
Frankly, it *may* seem insignificant, but the fact is: it's wrong. If you start presenting films that are set in real-life times (WW2) but are in fact based on totally imaginary events, most people will accept what the films tell them; because more people (unfortunately) watch films than actually go out and find out what *really* happened. If a director is going to make a film based on a real-life event, then I'd expect them to at least get the basic facts (that can actually be determined from historically recorded details) correct. If they're making a film that's nothing to do with real life events fine! make things up! But if they make a film based on something that actually happened, you'd think it was common courtesy to get it *right*.
T
Trilinear
Guest
Of course the movie's not accurate. It's fiction. The whole thing. It's very very loosely based around a generalized event. Soldiers capturing a U-boat and securing an Enigma machine for the Allies.
Of course they're going to use an American Naval crew for the film. They most likely felt that an American audience would probably relate better to a boat full of Americans. Hollywood is out to make money, not documentarys.
You're absolutely right. It's quite unfortunate that people are so ignorant as to believe a movie instead of going out and finding multi-documented proof. But then again, I thought it was no big mystery that the movie was fiction. "Based on actual events" in no way means "historically accurate". At least everyone I know seems to have understood that.
That's why the statement, "I can remember this film U-571 that was based on a true story about a BRITISH submarine..." was silly to me. The point I'm making here is how do you know the author based it solely on the first British crew? How do you not know that he was basing it on the American crew that captured a U-boat and Enigma? It seemes to me that he was making a fiction from the generality of the three captures that were cited at the end of the movie.
ADDED: Incidently, in case you didn't tell by the smiley at the end - I wasn't arguing the fact that Hollywood tends to change things to make money off of it - I was merely joking around.
[edited] 9 2001-11-27 01:31
Of course they're going to use an American Naval crew for the film. They most likely felt that an American audience would probably relate better to a boat full of Americans. Hollywood is out to make money, not documentarys.
You're absolutely right. It's quite unfortunate that people are so ignorant as to believe a movie instead of going out and finding multi-documented proof. But then again, I thought it was no big mystery that the movie was fiction. "Based on actual events" in no way means "historically accurate". At least everyone I know seems to have understood that.
That's why the statement, "I can remember this film U-571 that was based on a true story about a BRITISH submarine..." was silly to me. The point I'm making here is how do you know the author based it solely on the first British crew? How do you not know that he was basing it on the American crew that captured a U-boat and Enigma? It seemes to me that he was making a fiction from the generality of the three captures that were cited at the end of the movie.
ADDED: Incidently, in case you didn't tell by the smiley at the end - I wasn't arguing the fact that Hollywood tends to change things to make money off of it - I was merely joking around.
[edited] 9 2001-11-27 01:31
J
Joey
Guest
My favourite 5 movies
1)Phorpa(The cup)(Tibetian)
Why: Because the movie is sweet.
2)Himalaya(Tibetian)(again, yes)
Why: I sort of like tibetians since I was young
3) Cats and Dogs
Why: it's....funny!
4) La Brassire
why: It's funny, and weird
5) The Princess Diaries
Why: It's sweet
Movies that i hate
1) American beauty
Why: It's sick! A man having sex with his daughter's friend? Sick!!!!
2)Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Why: bad storyline
3)Scary Movie 2
Why: Crazy
1)Phorpa(The cup)(Tibetian)
Why: Because the movie is sweet.
2)Himalaya(Tibetian)(again, yes)
Why: I sort of like tibetians since I was young
3) Cats and Dogs
Why: it's....funny!
4) La Brassire
why: It's funny, and weird
5) The Princess Diaries
Why: It's sweet
Movies that i hate
1) American beauty
Why: It's sick! A man having sex with his daughter's friend? Sick!!!!
2)Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Why: bad storyline
3)Scary Movie 2
Why: Crazy
F
ficedula
Guest
The reason I know it was the British capture that led to Enigma being cracked was that the British capture was, IIRC, 4 years earlier than the US one and it might (I'd have to check my dates on this one) have been before US troops even entered the war.
We all know Hollywood changes reality to make it more consumer-friendly, but when it is based on a real life event, it seems somewhat rude to ignore what actually happened when some of the people who were involved in the real capture are still alive! It's not a question of "well, we don't know exactly what happened so we'll make it up" (I don't have a problem with that, of course...), the film quite simply ignores solid facts.
IIRC, some of the veterans from the sub that captured the first Enigma machine were quite offended by the film, understandably so I'd have thought.
We all know Hollywood changes reality to make it more consumer-friendly, but when it is based on a real life event, it seems somewhat rude to ignore what actually happened when some of the people who were involved in the real capture are still alive! It's not a question of "well, we don't know exactly what happened so we'll make it up" (I don't have a problem with that, of course...), the film quite simply ignores solid facts.
IIRC, some of the veterans from the sub that captured the first Enigma machine were quite offended by the film, understandably so I'd have thought.
J
Jedimark
Guest
It was just typical Hollywood garbage attempting to make America the big saviour of the world. A bit like Independance day too.
A
Ant
Guest
Scary movie was absoulutely hilarious without a doubt, I missed Scary Movie 2's showing which Im dead annoyed about but ill catch it on video. How can you (Joey) slate it, it is a work of art, possibly the funniest film I've ever seen in my life.
Saw Harry Potter last week, was good, not as good as the book however.
Saw Harry Potter last week, was good, not as good as the book however.
D
dagsverre
Guest
Hollywood first makes trainloads of money on the real scary movies. Then they produce a parody on themselves, making a trainload of money again. Both the real scary movies and the parody is for a large part playing on attractive young girls and american teenage culture (or how Hollywood thinks all the american teenagers wish their culture was like at any rate).
My real problem with Scary Movie is that it tries hard to be a parody, but all the time it just uses the same tecniques even to sell the parodies. In my opinion Scary Movie is a parody on itself (and the whole consumer age lets-put-in-the-ingredients-that-will-make-us-the-greatest-bucks-mentality), in ways the writers possibly didn't foresee, but more probably didn't care as it paid their wages.
You might be saying that I have no sense of irony, that this is how the movie is supposed be, self-ironic. Well I'm not referring to that part of it. I think I handle most forms of irony, self-irony, double and triple and sarcastic irony well enough, Norwegian culture is full of it, ten times more so than US. It's just that that movie has many levels, and I'm just seeing one more beneath the admittedly funny self-ironic one. Which makes me kind of dislike it. (For the same reasons I dislike very many of the late Hollywood flicks, I guess I'm kinda odd in the movie department though, note I'm not telling any of you people what movies you are going to like though)
My real problem with Scary Movie is that it tries hard to be a parody, but all the time it just uses the same tecniques even to sell the parodies. In my opinion Scary Movie is a parody on itself (and the whole consumer age lets-put-in-the-ingredients-that-will-make-us-the-greatest-bucks-mentality), in ways the writers possibly didn't foresee, but more probably didn't care as it paid their wages.
You might be saying that I have no sense of irony, that this is how the movie is supposed be, self-ironic. Well I'm not referring to that part of it. I think I handle most forms of irony, self-irony, double and triple and sarcastic irony well enough, Norwegian culture is full of it, ten times more so than US. It's just that that movie has many levels, and I'm just seeing one more beneath the admittedly funny self-ironic one. Which makes me kind of dislike it. (For the same reasons I dislike very many of the late Hollywood flicks, I guess I'm kinda odd in the movie department though, note I'm not telling any of you people what movies you are going to like though)
J
Jedimark
Guest
Well said.... Scarry Movie sucked... and Scary Movie 2 was just fart jokes.
D
dagsverre
Guest
No post editing possible? Strange...anyway, being a little more harsh this time:
To sum up: Scary Movie is like all the teenage-targeted commercials of the last decade, concentrated into one package, without even trying to sell you a product! (Notice BTW how Sprite "obey-your-thirst" tries to tell you how to be unique by drinking what a commercial tells you? This commercial wants us all to be unique by all drinking the same soft drink! Bill Watterson had some great fun with that aspect of modern society...anyway, that is the exact same irony and logic that I applied to Scary Movie above)
THAT should conclude my hate campaign against that movie. If you want to hurt me back, saying ugly things about the Lord of the Rings movie is bound to work...
To sum up: Scary Movie is like all the teenage-targeted commercials of the last decade, concentrated into one package, without even trying to sell you a product! (Notice BTW how Sprite "obey-your-thirst" tries to tell you how to be unique by drinking what a commercial tells you? This commercial wants us all to be unique by all drinking the same soft drink! Bill Watterson had some great fun with that aspect of modern society...anyway, that is the exact same irony and logic that I applied to Scary Movie above)
THAT should conclude my hate campaign against that movie. If you want to hurt me back, saying ugly things about the Lord of the Rings movie is bound to work...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.