MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff

FilmBuff (2366)


Still Watching Watching Speculation and Spoilers - Character Lineages Ep. 6 Looks Like Fun Sounds Good Disappointing [Spoilers] Have We Ranked the Godzilla Films Yet? Gotta Wait for the Next Episode Disney+ View all posts >


Who said anything about hearing a film? Movies sound fine in theaters, it's the lighting that is the issue. Did you read the article? Permit me to quote a salient passage: "The filmmaker told The Daily Beast that 14 is the quality control spec the Marvel film should be running at but the theater was running the movie at a 6.2 spec. 'That means it was literally running at less than half the light that was supposed to be on there,' Norton said." The article explains that "more than 60 percent of American theaters are running their projector at almost half the luminosity that they’re required by contract to run it at." So no, I don't want to build a theater in my house, and neither would my wife. I want to *see* a film being shown at the correct 14 brightness level. As an aside, while I never knew there were such specs, or that theaters were missing the mark by so much, I definitely notice that movies seem far less bright than they used to. Now I know why. It was digitally restored. Now I am trying to come up with a ranked Top 5 for '19. I hate ranking things, but here goes: 1.Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood 2. Spider-Man: Far From Home 3. Midsommar 4. The Irishman 5. Parasite Rise of Skywalker, Joker, and Uncut Gems are up there as well. My guilty pleasure is the Godzilla film. It didn't have the engrossing human story the first one did, but boy did my inner 7-year-old get a kick out of how real Godzilla and Ghidorah looked. I just watched it today, and am in awe of how great it is. It's almost certainly in my top 5, probably top 2 or 3, of 2019 films. Pugh was incredible, as was just about everything else. I went in knowing basically nothing, which made it all the more effective and entertaining. Agreed. It requires a thinking viewer who has paid attention, but it is in no way rushed. I think a lesser film would have spelled it all out, or even done a series of flashbacks to carefully show even the most obtuse of viewers exactly who was where and how they got there. So let me get this straight... You posted asking not-you where he's from, 15 minutes later you replied to your own post, telling yourself where you are from, then immediately deleted it, and precisely 1 minute later not-you signed in and replied telling where he's from, and asked why the delete. That's your story and you're sticking to it? Okie doke. He deleted because he responded with his Bripod75 response, forgetting first to log out of his JimmyFishCakes account, as you well know, since you're both the same guy. :) I think NBK has been singled out because it was a movie the killers were especially fond of watching. And no, I don't think a violent film or video game will turn an otherwise normal kid into a killer, but I do think they have an effect on people. People are basically the same as they ever have been, so something in our environment has made it acceptable to go on teen shooting rampages. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that as kids become numbed to violence, it becomes easier for them to feel okay about committing violent acts. When you watch movie after movie where the hero is killing for fun, and shown violently murdering innocent people, and torturing and killing those who annoy or disagree with him, it has an effect. We emulate our idols. I do it, you probably do, too. When you spend hours a day shooting realistic guns at realistic people and watching their heads realistically explode, it probably makes it less of a stretch to actually shoot another person in the head. Again, I'm not arguing that a normal kid will watch NBK and shoot up his school tomorrow. What I wonder is, why did the maladjusted, bullied, depressed kids of 1975 never shoot up their schools? What changed in the '90s that resulted in a generation coming of age that felt it was totally normal, acceptable behavior to go on a shooting spree in the classroom? If not the drastic changes in film, music, tv, and video games, then what? Let's examine this. Children have been bullied at school since the beginning of time; certainly in the past 100+ years. Guns have become increasingly more difficult to get over time. We could blame Prozac, or other antidepressant drugs, but Prozac had been in use for 12 years, and antidepressant drugs have been around since the 1950s. Maybe the internet is to blame, but it was still quite rudimentary in 1999, and not the anything-goes platform where one can find anything always. Yet, Columbine was the first of what has become a never-ending string of school massacres committed by students. Why? Maybe you can think of other changes that could be to blame, but it's undeniably true that in the decade or so leading up to the shootings, i.e. the formative years for the shooters, movies, television, music, and video games became far, far, far, far, far more violent, and violence in general went from being seen as extreme and to be shunned to something that you were ridiculed for as a prude if you wanted to limit its presence in media. Was Natural Born Killers to blame? Probably not outright, but it's silly to believe that if it was among their favorite films, it didn't play a part. We all emulate role models, and if their role models were two people who became beloved celebrities by massacring people, it's far from a stretch to assume that influenced their behavior. I'd say it's pure gullibility to assume it didn't. So you admit your entire belief that the new Star Wars films are "political" is due to casting women and non-white males. You couch it by saying the casting was done for political reasons, but that's speculation on your part, and immaterial to boot. Again I'll ask-- offer at least one specific example of a political statement or political slant in any of the three recent Star Wars films. Simply saying "they cast a woman as the leader of the fleet!" or "one of the main characters is black!" is not an example of politics. Those are arbitrary casting choices. By stone age gender roles, I mean exactly that. Do you believe that women should not be cast as main characters in action films, or in roles as leaders? If so, that's only a political statement in the same way that casting a black actor in a non-slave role is. What does Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lawrence, or anyone else's asking price to make a film have to do with any of this. Hollywood is like any other business. Actors are paid based on an expected return. How does this apply to this topic? View all replies >