Author Topic: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007  (Read 4568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2007, 03:31:31 AM »
Do you mean Narnia?

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2007, 03:45:47 AM »
 :lol

FUCK I'm distinguished mentally-challenged. Narnia
010

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2007, 03:55:35 AM »
Read Narnia in middle school, saw the movie last year and that's what I remember the story from, it was pretty good but cheesy.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2007, 03:56:13 AM »
So you think the Narnia movie was cheesy yet good...but LOTR was shit? :lol
010

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2007, 04:07:16 AM »
Parts with the lion were cheesy, the metaphors were good though.  LOTR isn't about anything, I don't get why it even got published.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2007, 04:14:05 AM »
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is a brilliant metaphor. It's a perfect balance between not being too preachy and being religiously themed enough to notice if you look. This cannot be said of some of the later books, especially The Last Battle.

The Silver Chair was able to find a perfect balance as well. I can't freaking wait for the movie version of it; I prefer The Silver Chair over the more classic Lion, Witch and Wardrobe.
010

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2007, 04:17:19 AM »
You had to look for the religious theme?

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2007, 04:20:10 AM »
Some of them, yeah. There's the obvious Aslan theme, but there's far more subtle references like the horse they chase shortly before leaving Narnia
010

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2007, 04:30:00 AM »
which meant?

Solo

  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2007, 08:57:10 AM »
Hey Shakie! This seems to be as good a place as any to say this. So I finally bought and watched the Miami Vice Unrated Director's Edition on DVD. And I have to say: it's a VASTLY superior version to the theatrical cut. I actually really love this now. This is the version they should have released in theatres. In fact, I don't know why they didn't. It's only 7 minutes longer, and such a more complete film. The only noticeable cut was the scene where Yero tells them to wait for his call (then they wait, get the call, go to meet him, he is not there, they go back to the hotel and get ambushed, and Isabella sets them up with Montoya). That scene was about 10 minutes long, and completely pointless. In the DC, we jump from Yero telling them to wait, to them getting the call, to them meeting Montoya. Much more efficient. As for additions, there were three big ones. The opening go-fast boat sequence is obviously back. This sequence shouldn't have been cut. Not because of the race, but because it sets up the pimp that Crockett and Tubbs were inexplicably tracking to start the theatrical cut. The next fairly big scene involved Trudy getting flowers from Yero (to let her and Tubbs know he can get to them), them both getting freaked out, and having a chat in a restaurant. Another scene that should never have been cut, as it foreshadows later events, and actually adds some depth to their relationship. The final big change is in the final shootout. As much as I dont like the cover on it's own, it works perfectly in the film and I must say: sorry, Shake, but you are wrong. Nonpoint's "In The Air Tonight" cover totally elevates the final shootout. Mann should have NEVER put another piece of music there in the first place (it's only THE quintessential Miami Vice song, after all). Anways, where the theatrical cut was decent but extremely flawed, I would say that the unrated director's cut transforms the film into a damn good film with signicantly less flaws.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2007, 08:59:06 AM by Solo »

demi

  • cooler than willco
  • Administrator
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2007, 09:02:54 AM »


8.7
fat

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2007, 09:35:33 AM »
LOTR isn't about anything, I don't get why it even got published.
It's considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century and you are confused why it got published?

About nothing? It's a epic adventure story about destroying a ring to break it down bluntly.

Solo

  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2007, 09:45:46 AM »
It's also a nice little allegory for the World Wars.

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2007, 09:57:13 AM »
I just watched the theatrical cut last night (Miami Vice) and I thought it was a pile of shit.  It also had no dialogue.
PSP

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2007, 11:53:05 AM »
It's also a nice little allegory for the World Wars.
Tolkien would hate you.  :lol

spoiler (click to show/hide)
though I agree
[close]

Solo

  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #75 on: January 21, 2007, 11:54:44 AM »
? Tolkein hated RELIGOUS allegory. I don't think he had a problem with this sort of allegory. If he did, then whoops, looks like he hates his own writing!

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #76 on: January 21, 2007, 11:57:11 AM »
? Tolkein hated RELIGOUS allegory. I don't think he had a problem with this sort of allegory. If he did, then whoops, looks like he hates his own writing!
He said he hated all allegory and got all pissed off when someone mentioned that it was an allegory for WWII.

I love that Tolkien openly hated the Narnia books even though his best friend wrote them due to the religious allegory when Tolkien himself was the one who converted CS Lewis to Christianity.   :lol
« Last Edit: January 21, 2007, 11:59:22 AM by Cheebs »

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2007, 02:03:23 PM »
Where'd you get that LOTR has anything to do with WW2?  And if a fantasy story doesn't try to have any symbolism, it's worthless.

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2007, 02:07:27 PM »
Where'd you get that LOTR has anything to do with WW2?  And if a fantasy story doesn't try to have any symbolism, it's worthless.
Tolkien hated anything with overt symbolism and allegory lol.

There is WWII allegory if you look for it but Tolkien denied having any symbolism of any kind in his work till the day he died.

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #79 on: January 21, 2007, 02:15:19 PM »
And that's why I hate the books/movies.

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2007, 02:21:03 PM »
And that's why I hate the books/movies.
I guess you love star wars then. Star Wars is filled to the brim with symbolism.

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2007, 02:38:35 PM »
Do you really want to hear the message of somebody who took his very imaginative ideas and hid under the table with them instead of making them very obvious?

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2007, 03:22:10 PM »
Do you really want to hear the message of somebody who took his very imaginative ideas and hid under the table with them instead of making them very obvious?
huh?

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2007, 04:34:46 PM »
It was just a kiddy movie instead of a kiddy movie with messages adults can understand.

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2007, 05:39:06 PM »
Star Wars is a kiddie movie?

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2007, 05:56:32 PM »
Yes.

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2007, 06:01:43 PM »
I had no idea family friendly means its kiddie

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2007, 07:26:58 PM »
It was marketed as a kiddy movie by Fox, I believe they even delayed it further to match the timeline of a more mature movie that they released so you could drop your kids off in it.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment

  • Can he only eat just one?
  • The Walking Dead
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2007, 08:05:48 PM »
Solo, wtf?! Miami Vice UR > TC?! :o

I own both. :-[

IN OTHER NEWS: I finally picked up Shogun Assassin today.
BKO

Cheebs

  • How's my posting? Call 1-866-MAF-BANS to report flame bait.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2007, 08:55:50 PM »
It was marketed as a kiddy movie by Fox, I believe they even delayed it further to match the timeline of a more mature movie that they released so you could drop your kids off in it.
Using ANH marketing as basing what the film was? Read what was going on during the production of ANH. Fox just plain didn't get the film at all. They had absolutely no clue what it is. The trailers and initial marketing material was so off it wasn't funny.

It was amazing the film was a success when Fox completely fucked up any sort of well done marketing campaign. Do not use Fox's horrid understanding of ANH before it became a hit to judge what kind of film it was made as.

Lucas did not think Fox "got" ANH and was very hesitant at first to go back to them for the sequels due his initial problems with them.

Fox's handling of star wars was what made him go to Paramount with Indiana Jones.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2007, 08:57:26 PM by Cheebs »

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #90 on: January 21, 2007, 10:57:46 PM »
I understand Fox was incompetent and Lucas hated them, but Star Wars didn't have mature themes so it's a kiddy movie.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #91 on: January 21, 2007, 11:07:33 PM »
I understand Fox was incompetent and Lucas hated them, but Star Wars didn't have mature themes so it's a kiddy movie.

Jesus Christ dude.


With respect to Tolkien and allegory he constantly denied the notion that his work was purposefully allegoric. Of course the book has many themes that many feel are definitely allegoric such as the "industry of war" and it's effect on nature to the WWII themes. Tolkien fought in WWI and actually was writing his works while his son was involved in WWII.


The Star Wars/FOX/Lucas story has always been interesting to me. Lucas basically had one ally in Fox's head office but when the movies blew up that changed (for a while). I'll always consider Lucas a genius for his foresight on the copyright issue with respect to merchandise. No one at Fox had a second thought about letting him have those rights before the movie came out; today people consider him a "sellout" for some of the merchandise, but it was a brilliant business decision at the time.

010

Solo

  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #92 on: January 22, 2007, 08:07:37 AM »
Solo, wtf?! Miami Vice UR > TC?! :o

I own both. :-[

IN OTHER NEWS: I finally picked up Shogun Assassin today.

And you STILL prefer the TC? Ew. DC owns.

Where'd you get that LOTR has anything to do with WW2?  And if a fantasy story doesn't try to have any symbolism, it's worthless.

Are you kidding me? Tolkien fought in WW1, and wrote through WW2. LOTR absolutely encompasses Tolkien's war experiences and views. The most simple connection is that Mordor and the evil "east" is Germany.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2007, 08:10:55 AM by Solo »

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #93 on: January 22, 2007, 01:40:52 PM »
Very, very little to do with the war.

Absolutely meaningless as a fantasy because it doesn't try to have any major symbolism.

It's just good guys against bad, with some bunch of midgets with rings.

I'd be glad if I'm wrong though.

Solo

  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #94 on: January 22, 2007, 02:40:31 PM »
Youll lead a very happy life then, based on many of your posts.

APF

  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #95 on: January 22, 2007, 03:16:40 PM »
I thought LOTR was more about the burden of doing good, but that may be my interpretation from watching the movies more recently than I've read the books.  There's a difference between zOMG TEH SYMBOLISM and dealing with universal and powerful themes; on this I agree with what folks are suggesting was Tolkien's position here--allegory is more often than not a cheap rhetorical device, even when employed well.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2007, 03:38:34 PM by APF »
***

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2007, 03:55:04 PM »
APF basically agreed!  There's nearly no symbolism that has to do with the real world and the good-guy and bad-guy theme is weak and basically worthless.

At the end, it's basically a fantasy that you watch because you want to see big battles and monsters and whatever the fuck "meaning" you could get out of it.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment

  • Can he only eat just one?
  • The Walking Dead
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2007, 06:40:10 PM »
lolz, check the tag
BKO

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2007, 06:42:11 PM »
what, you're gay for me?  Awesome but I don't swing that way.