Recent comments in /f/movies

MrFoxManBoy OP t1_jaa3hzb wrote

Exactly. Thats what I am referring to. Fixing mistakes and issues. Not so much going through and updating the feature. Jedi used to be my favorite as a kid and its the worst one now because of the Special Editions. But the HP example is probably the most extreme version.

1

MrFoxManBoy OP t1_jaa30ng wrote

Oh for sure. Which is why I said up front there were a lot of really bad changes. But thinks like fixing costume issues of the wampa in Empire, and the way they incorporated just a few more shots that showed more of it, and in the same aesthetic as the original version.

1

MrFoxManBoy OP t1_jaa2j30 wrote

Yea thats true. That is a caveat I would argue is a must if they ever actually do this. You have to keep the original theatrical versions available. This is an unpopular opinion, but I prefer the theatrical versions of TLotR trilogy over the extended cuts. I know its not exactly the same thing I am talking about, but at least they make both versions available.

1

highdefrex t1_jaa2fgq wrote

> it's not that the show predicted the future, it's just that we still have the same problems we had in the 80s because we haven't fixed any of them.

Spot on. It's wild that "Homer's Enemy" aired in 1997, almost 26 years ago this May, where Frank Grimes hated Homer for the latter's ability to coast through life and still have it all -- a wife, multiple kids, a nice house, a stable job -- while Grimes, despite working hard in all aspects of his life, still struggled to make ends meet.

Flash forward 25 years later to the season 33 episode "Poorhouse Rock," which aired last May, and the show straight up confronts Bart with the reality that he'll never have what Homer has even if he works hard -- that the dream of owning a home and having a stable job and multiple kids that was at least possibly attainable when the show started has now evaporated for newer generations. Even though he obviously wasn't in the episode, it essentially proves Frank Grimes was right in the long-term, that even if he existed now, still did everything he was told he was supposed to do by society -- go to college, work hard, etc. -- he'd still be just as pissed, if not more so, at Homer for having such (what is now) miraculous luck.

16

beefcat_ t1_jaa28e1 wrote

I think they would be a lot less controversial if they stuck purely to technical upgrades, rather than making major changes to the editing, tone, and environments.

This is why I think Empire Strikes Back is the least controversial special edition (and it's the only one I actually prefer over watching the Despecialized version). It didn't get a bunch of ugly CGI additions like the other two films. Most of the changes were centered around cleaning up '80s effects work, not replacing it. The entire Battle of Hoth looks so much better than it used to since they were able to digitally re-composite all the original film elements that were originally assembled photochemically.

Star Wars (1977) got done the dirtiest by the "Special Edition treatment. It changed some minor plot points, re-introduced a scene that was deleted because it was redundent (everything we need to know about Han and Jabba's relationship was already conveyed by Greedo in the cantina), and all the CGI additions feel extremely out of place in a film that otherwise looks like it was made in the '70s.

I think Blade Runner: The Final Cut is the gold standard for how these kinds of remasters should be handled. The new version itself looks and sounds great, without any added nonsense. It feels like a version Ridley Scott could have released in 1982 if given the power. But even if it was bad, they still had the good sense to include multiple original cuts of the film in the Blu-Ray set.

5

Deckard_Red t1_jaa2879 wrote

Tombstone
Incredible cast, incredible dialogue, incredible performances, if I see it in tv it doesn’t matter what point I join I’ll want to watch the rest of it.

1

TimidPanther t1_jaa1zxk wrote

I disagree. I think it does the movies a disservice by cleaning up and adding CGI to what was released in 1977. Anyone who's interested in movies has heard of what a technological leap Star Wars was when it released, which is something that just isn't clear anymore. It's not the same movie it was, which is a shame.

3

Filmfan-2022 OP t1_jaa1ypr wrote

I felt it was trying to balance both.

when it did the dramatic stuff it did it well.

comedy was hit and miss.

Nice to see I not only one that thought the Jacob plot being played for laughs was wierd .

but the guy who made this did daddy's home 1 and 2 and I havnt seen second one but apoerntly there is a scene that depicts sexual assault and is played for laughs.

but then they are alot of movies that play off sexual assault of men for laughs.

get hard wedding crashers this is the end

just to name some

so maybe product of the times ??

when Juan kept saying how,sorry he was for minor things. I thought the film at one point was going to reveal he was abused badly.

also when octivia Spencers character said she loves pie I couldn't help but laugh. due her character in the help

0

CyrJ2265 t1_jaa1akc wrote

Leaving to the side the various obvious Arnie and Stallone and Lundgren picks:

The infamous skull-crushing scene in the original Blade Runner. In fact the movie is replete with scenes that demonstrate the unearthly physical power of the NEXUS-6 Replicants, but that one is the most terrifying and memorable and Rutger Hauer and Joe Turkel work together to sell the emotional freight of that horrific moment to perfection.

Highlander, the original film. Clancy Brown's Kurgan is frightfully strong, as he particularly demonstrates when he runs a man through the gut with his sword, lifts him up by it like he was a feather, and casually tosses him aside.

Fezzik in The Princess Bride for a more comedic and light-hearted version. He tosses boulders around like baseballs, can knock an oak door down with a single blow of his fist, can haul a group of people up a cliff face with raw power, and even knocks a guy out cold when he's just trying to gently tap him.

Khan in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. Yes, Montalban's incredible physique in that movie is authentic, and helps to sell moments when he lifts fallen bulkheads off of downed comrades or effortlessly holds Chekov aloft with a single hand in a moment on Ceti Alpha V right before he does something much more horrible to him.

Unbreakable. I see that the weightlifting scene has already come up, but for me the more awe-inspiring moment is when he attacks and chokes out an absolute massive beast of a man (who is hammering him with elbows and slamming him into walls all the while) through sheer persistence. Honestly, for all its simplicity, this is actually one of my favorite movie action scenes, and sells the movie's premise all on its own.

Achilles in Troy. The power of Achilles clearly derives as much from extensive skill, practice and talent as much as raw power: but he has raw power aplenty. The spear-throwing scene when he's taken the beach and Hector is riding in on him is especially convincing and impressive (although it's obviously FX), and Brad Pitt equally convincingly sells the godlike power of Achilles every time he's in combat, as he both out-skills and overpowers his opponents.

Daniel Craig in Casino Royale. The chase scene where he pursues Sebastien Foucan's parkour-master antagonist through a construction site, specifically. There haven't been many Bonds (perhaps any other Bonds) who could sell the raw power that Craig's Bond brings to that sequence, which pits finesse against sheer brute persistence. One of the very finest action sequences of all time.

7

misterfriend t1_jaa0xzt wrote

Reply to comment by hideandsink in Must-watch movies? by hideandsink

I don't like modern movies because they at some point switched both the format and the formula. They're hard for me to sit through, much less enjoy, and I admit that if it's made after 2012, they largely become background noise while I do housecleaning. They totally fail to pull me in, and if that goes beyond ten minutes, I'm pulling my hair out.

They just don't engage me as a person because they rely on me to automatically assume to know the characters without any exposition. A little heads-up to understand what they're all about really helps me to have any concern for them in the film's events. Instead, there is this idea that I am going to follow these vague people for an hour before some important revelation is given very late in the story. Not going to happen, sorry. Maybe that makes them more "real" to the audience, but reality is what I am trying to get away from when I watch movies. I'll enjoy an hour of character development if that makes the stakes in the action more palpable.

And you're definitely onto something with "memorable = good." John Williams' music is the secret weapon for both Spielberg and Lucas, because his themes are so recognizable and play in your head for days after. Movies scored by Jerry Goldsmith have a similar quality, but most people would agree that Williams is king. Pick up as many of their soundtracks as you can. When I was younger, just listening to them with my eyes closed was like watching a different movie every time.

2