As opposed to the very real science of time travel? Marty fading was an excellent visualisation of how Marty’s altering the past, and hinted that there’s a level of housekeeping the timeline does to keep the world consistent. It’s just one of many theories about time travel that have been depicted in film, even if it’s not your personal favourite theory.
Spoilers if you don’t really know some basic but important FNAF lore.
The scream knife wipe Easter egg was fun, other than that, I was a bit disappointed overall. It felt like only two of the nights were scary, nights three and four were just thrown away. I was disappointed the most by the reveal of the suits being haunted by the kids, what could have been a scary reveal was a throw away scene where one character says “of course I know it’s this, duh” and they move on.
The entire point of the movie was that they didn’t knew who started the pandemic and were travelling back in time to try and figure it out. The scientists on the plane next to the guy who created the virus means that they did figure it out now, right? Or was is supposed to just be a huge coincidence?
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen 12 Monkeys. My impression has always been that the end was meant to be tragic. That they were so close to being able to figure it out (the one person having actually been there at the time), but ultimately they never did, and never prevented it because it always happened. The scientists in the future are so focused on the 12 Monkeys group that the person that actually released the virus sits comfortably in their blind spot.
I (same as the other user) thought that Bruce Willis manages to send a message saying that it’s not 12 Monkeys and that’s how they figure out it’s the guy on the plane.
Also, the scientists in the future wait for a message on the answering machine. The message on the machine changes based on what Bruce does in the past so it’s clearly not a perfect loop. Actions in the past influence the future so you’re back to paradoxes.
Oh, my interpretation was that after what we see in the movie, they now know the 12 monkeys is not the cause and get to the real terrorist to stop him.
Iirc, the future government (? I guess) weren’t trying to find the source to stop the release, but to get a pure sample to study so as to cure the disease in the future. The lady on the plane was there to get the sample.
I’m gen x and find that this transition started happening earlier. Once online smut was accessible in early 90’s, what little sex shown on the silver screen became less sought after and just became something we had to sit through awkwardly with family.
This is definitely a cultural prudishness emerging. But that’s only part of it. There has also been a shift away from artistic filmmaking and toward high-grossing tentpole movies. Because nudity is a taboo in our society, you need an artistic purpose to the nudity (or sex scene) in the film or it won’t serve any purpose to the film, and people will notice that it’s out of place. If most of the movies you have are cookie-cutter concept movies with little to no artistic expression, you just can’t make anything taboo work in them.
Obviously everyone has different taste in movies, but some films that made on-screen sex work really well are Basic Instinct, Blue Velvet, and Eyes Wide Shut. It also adds a lot to really campy movies. Nightmare on Elm Street comes to mind. Species became a cult classic because of its use of nudity and sex. For just plain nudity, It Follows used it well in the briefest of glimpses of the antagonist. It also added a lot to Ex Machina.
Those are just the movies off the top of my head that were made more impactful by sex and nudity.
Oh! Airplane also has a big laugh thanks to a scene of gratuitous nudity. Let’s not forget the comedies!
Original Sin comes to the forefront of my mind when I think of gratuitous sex scenes in movies, yet the movie still worked, since it was pretty much all about sex.
Every time I see a discussion on the topic of intermissions or movies being too long, I have to recommend the RunPee app. Been using it for years and I never worry about missing anything when I have to go.
The app has a timer that you start at the beginning of the movie and there are “peetimes” where you can either be notified or keep an eye out for key words to remind you it’s a good time to go. Then while you’re doing your business, you can can read a short synopsis of what you missed. The devs try to find the best times where you won’t miss much and they even tell you what times are the best out of the few they pick. They are very spoiler conscience so you don’t have to worry about getting spoiled.
The app also tells you if there’s anything during or after the credits so you know whether you should wait or not. I’m not affiliated with them in any way. It’s just one of my most used apps and I want to spread the word.
I remembered there was a website that provided similar information, and meant to check it out before I saw FLOWER MOON this week–but then spaced on it and never got around to it.
I did–only half joking–offer the ticket-taker $20 if she’d sneak up to the projection booth and hit the off button for 5 minutes to give us all a break.
I would have loved an intermission–as it was I got up around the 1 hour mark and went to the back of the theater and stretched a bit, etc. Turns out tho that my pre-screening hydration schedule worked out perfectly: I didn’t need to leave to pee during the screening.
Since using that app, I don’t mind having to go, even multiple times. For whatever reason I kept having to go during Flower Moon but it was nice not worrying about what I missed.
The only reason I wouldn’t want an actual intermission is having to deal with a bunch of people going all at once. I hate dealing with crowds and I like just being by myself most of the time. I usually go to matinees on Fridays when I can while most people are at work but the movie is still new. But a lot of times I end up waiting til the middle of the next week so I have an almost empty theater. I know not everyone can do that, but I’m grateful I can.
It depends on the movie though. I love going to see the opening of MCU movies or something that I know will be fun to watch with a crowd. My favorite theater memory is when I saw Endgame and there was this girl a few seats down from me that was bawling her eyes out when the “on your left” portal scene happened. She had to be around 10 and it was just amazing seeing such emotion and investment from a child. It instantly made me feel like a kid again.
Ugh, always one. Was waiting for this comment to come.
No, I do not have my phone out throughout the movie. Sometimes, I check the dark lock screen for a notification occasionally when I feel a vibration, which not a single person notices except for me. But I usually just pay attention for the key words to a peetime that I preplanned to take before the movie started.
Not a movie, so maybe not a counter point, but I rather liked the show Dark on Netflix. I think they handled the subject matter well, without getting spoiler-y.
Everyone is saying sex scenes aren’t needed. I present my evidence that sex scenes are needed: Office Space
The sex scene shows that Peter is paranoid and deeply uncomfortable with the fact that his girlfriend, Joanna had sex with his boss. A fact that Peter heard as a rumour from a horny co-worker. Lumbergh would never talk about their sex life at work as that would inappropriate as a manager.
The scene also shows how Peter see Lumbergh as a person. It also sets up for the conflict between Peter and Joanna as Peter acts on his nightmare like a child.
Granted the scene is extremely soft core and played for laughs. However, I think the movie would be a little weaker if Peter had gone to to the office the next day and told everyone about the nightmare without showing it. Yes, you could cut out the scene as the party scene sets everything up for the future conflict. The sex scene shows how deeply uncomfortable Peter is with the situation. It’s truly a scene that does “Show, Don’t Tell”.
I think they mean scenes that are in earnest. The one in office space is used to intentionally make us uncomfortable, just as Peter is. So it works great here for us to connect more with the main character. But yeah I basically agree. They can work when used with intent.
There are three things that should never be shown in media because it’s completely unnecessary and all three can be directly implied without showing any real detail of them.
These three things are: Sex, vomiting, going to the bathroom.
All three of these can be relayed to the viewer without actually showing them but it seems like they’re shown all the time and it’s infuriating.
I’m sure there’s some real person out there who would argue that a particular shitting scene is necessary because it shows the authors mindset on the constipation of the world in the sense of some kind of moral ambiguity or some bs like that
The person you responded to doesn’t understand statistics. As long as your sample is random and unbiased, you don’t need to sample the whole population.
Think of someone cooking. They just taste a little bit of the food to adjust the spices. If they mixed it up evenly, they don’t need to eat the whole thing to get an idea of how it tastes. That is the basis of random sampling.
There’s a weird online phenomena of people with no knowledge of statistics criticizing the sample size of studies they disagree with. Of course that criticism never comes up when it backs up their world view.
This reminded me of when I saw Lotr rotk and had to piss sooo bad for like the last 45 minutes. It was finally ending and wrapping up after the last battle and I was so happy to finally be able to go soon and then so sad when I realized there was still the whole part where they go back to the shire and have to fight Saruman. Thankfully they didn’t include that and I made it in time bit that’s always what I think of when long ass movies don’t have an intermission.
movies
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.