Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

grudlian.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2122

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by grudlian.

  4. Posted

    If you've been following Musical Mondays, you'll find I've already told everyone my choice.

    Spoiler
    On 12/23/2019 at 2:41 PM, grudlian. said:

    I guess my next pick will have to be Fame.

    I wasn't even considering this until I threw out that dumb joke. Then I thought that would be kind of funny. So, we're watching Fame which I've never seen and I don't think is even a proper musical. But, whatever. We're watching Fame.
    image.png.d5ab5956d9bdc9ff8ec00d703bc10c15.png

    • Like 4

  6. Posted

    On 10/24/2019 at 10:36 AM, taylor anne photo said:

    New casting development for Fast 9

    I'm gonna see this shit no matter what at this point but I love this??? Hopefully she's gonna do more than what Igloo Australia and Rita Ora did when they got roles.

    I'm going to see this but I'm not feeling this casting. I don't have quite the problem with her being in this that I did with her in Hustlers but ugh. I'm just not a fan of Cardi B.

  7. Posted

    2 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    I wish I could have my turning moment on Chaplin that Paul seems to have had with silent films in general, but I think I might just not like Chaplin's style.

    This is caveated with realizing it's unclear how much Chaplin I've seen. Within the last decade it's been City Lights, twice, and now The Gold Rush. Comedy can be rough if you just aren't laughing.  I found The Gold Rush to be sprawling (in a bad, unfocused way).

    Which is to say, I am echoing @sycasey 2.0's surprise Paul and Amy swooned over this one. At least in terms of wasn't expecting it. 

    Speaking of other acclaimed 1925 silent films (mentioned in the podcast) - I also did not like Battleship Potemkin.  It's the only Eisenstein I've seen and it was only once, so it's possible I can be swayed. 

    I am admittedly not that well versed in early silent films, but I've found at least some that I like.

     

    I like The Gold Rush quite a bit and it's probably my favorite Chaplin movie. I think a lot of his movies are more ambitious (or, doing more emotionally) but Gold Rush is just funnier. It makes me laugh way more than any of his other movies (which often don't work for me on the intended emotional level). If pressed, I would probably say Modern Times or The Kid are "better" movies but I'd rather watch The Gold Rush.

    For Eisenstein, I can see his importance but I'm not super into his work. All the movies of his that I've seen are very much a reaction to the Soviet Russia Eisenstein lived in which isn't meaningless today but significantly less interesting for me. Alexander Nevsky is probably the one I enjoy most but it's not something you haven't seen done many times since. I wouldn't push anyone really hard to watch it unless they really wanted to see where Braveheart came from.

  10. Posted

    25 minutes ago, JammerLea said:

    Thanks to your comment I just spent the last 15-20 minutes comparing the songs from both stereo Sgt Pepper and Yellow Sub albums, the Songtrack, and a bit of the mono Sgt Pepper's on youtube lol. I feel like the mono is the most striking version. The stereo Sgt Pepper's, and even the Yellow Sub soundtrack just feel like they have some odd balance choices. While the Yellow Submarine Songtrack IS still stereo, I feel like they fixed a lot of the balance issues so it's closer to the mono version. Not quite there, but it has a much better sound than the other stereo releases. Bless whoever remastered the Songtrack.

    I'm not sure if that remaster is what's used on the blu-ray. Our TV sound system isn't really good enough for me to tell anyway.

     

    Also side note, was disappointed in the captions on the blu-ray. A few errors, plus anytime something like "I think I burnt me finger." came up they wrote "me" as "my", and no attempt to caption Old Fred's frantic yelling until he got to the "blue meanies!" part, even though you clearly hear "submarine" and "explosions" before that EACH TIME. 

    People say more knowledgeable than me have made lists detailing all the differences between mono and stereo Pepper and White Album of you want to Google them. The weirdest is Helter Skelter where the stereo version has an extra coda on the end. I've always loved the idea of someone owning the mono version and getting the stereo version on CD after 20 years and being blown away by that.

    If I can "well, actually..." myself, a mono version of the Yellow Submarine soundtrack doesn't exist but the songs original to it were eventually released in mono on the mono version of Past Masters a few years ago. The orchestral songs have never been released in mono.

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    I found an article about the Sgt. Pepper's album that said people weren't hearing it as intended until a recent anniversary box set.  Since it had been recorded in mono special tricks were used to enhance the sound.  All the stereo mixes most people heard lost a lot of the special audio.  I'm wondering if the movie is a similar way.  We might not be hearing the movie the way it was mixed for at the time?

    Movies were mono at this time (maybe the are exceptions?)). I would summe virtually any streaming or DVD version would be mixed to stereo or 5.1. Maybe mono is an option but I doubt it's the default. So, we probably aren't hearing it as intended for theatres. The Yellow Submarine album was released only in stereo.

    There was a Yellow Submarine songtrack (not soundtrack) released around 2001 that was remastered and remixed that a lot of people liked. I, being a purist and snob, never listened to it. I would assume modern mixes of the movie utilize this?

    For Sgt. Pepper (and all the early Beatle albums and even a lot of albums at the time) were definitely mixed differently for mono and stereo. Sgt. Pepper and the white album definitely have notable differences for many songs. Some are even at very different speeds. Some have different sound effects entirely. The main reason for the differences are that more people had mono systems at home in 1967 and more care was put into mono mixing (at least for The Beatles). I don't know why they didn't mix in stereo and simply fold it into a single channel but I assume they had a reason. The mono version of Sgt. Pepper was released in 1967 but stopped being available as stereo became the standard. I don't think it was officially released again until the Beatles remasters in 2010 (or so, I don't remember the exact year).

    • Like 4

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Jaws

    I never followed up in our conversation in the Star Wars thread (short of time/etc) - but with that question I was just toying with the idea of someone going, "Here's a list of the greatest 100 American Movies of All Time.  Included: A comedy that I do not find funny."  Admittedly, Strangelove is that odd case where I can imagine a case being argued ("While I found the intended comedy too flat and calculated, I did find the American deterrence strategy terrifying and absurd when thought about.  And no other movie I can think of conveyed the stupidity of it, and possible all human extinction, as aggressively as it did."  But still, it is odd to see someone say a movie, that to them effectively failed in one of its key presentations - to make the viewer laugh - is better than possibly some other political commentary movies that did not fail in its genre (to the viewer making the list).

    I didn't vote because my feelings are mixed. It will never go on my top 100 list of personal favorites. But I realize I'm an anomaly in this and my personal enjoyment may not necessarily outweigh what literally every other person has told me who has seen it. Because, again, I can see the quality even if I don't laugh at it.

    Also, yes to Jaws.

  14. Posted

    On 1/12/2020 at 2:05 AM, bleary said:

    I don't recall this "one film per director" line of thinking being bandied around as heavily during any of the Spielberg episodes.  And in my mind, asking which belongs between Jaws, Schindler's List, and E.T. is just as silly as considering only one Kubrick film.  For my money, I'd also put The Shining on the list.  I'm in agreement with Amy that I could leave off Clockwork Orange and Spartacus (particularly since I had Clockwork ranked much lower on my list than Amy did on her's), but Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and The Shining are all vastly different types of films, and all are among the best examples of their respective genres, so I'd go with those three Kubricks on the list.

    I think it's because they covered them earlier in their run. Then they did two Marx Brothers movies and argued if that was really necessary. That kind of morphed into should anyone be represented twice. I personally think the idea is silly because I don't think it's the AFI's aim to represent every aspect of American film.

    11 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Do you feel you understand its comic greatness?

    I guess so or maybe I don't and that's why I'm not actually amused by it. I don't particularly care either way. I've seen it multiple times and never cared much for it except in a purely analytical way. But analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog and all that. 

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    3 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Oof! My bad! I still haven’t seen it. I just remember all the hullabaloo. It’s just crazy—Cauron makes a Netflix movie (“This isn’t cinema!”), Scorsese makes a Netflix movie...crickets.

    I think we have to give him a bit more time to say something dumb about the future of movies. He didn't come out anti-Roma the same day the nominees were announced last year.

    Now if Ford V. Ferrari somehow wins best picture...

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    20 hours ago, RyanHorn said:

    Oof. Master of Disguise is horrible. And I’m a big Carvey fan. Opportunity Knocks and Clean Slate are a couple of guilty pleasures. 

    I loved Opportunity Knocks as a kid. I still work in the "he says you're number one" joke in real life if flipping someone off ever comes up.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

    This is something you and Cameron can speak to more but it felt like four hits and four b-sides to me. Not that the ones I was unfamiliar with were bad but it seemed like a majority of them were like "Oh, curious never heard this one before" or "This sounds oddly familiar..."

    Most of the soundtrack was either previously released hits, orchestra music by George Martin and a handful of songs that were recorded but unreleased. I want to say All Together Now or Hey Bulldog might have been recorded for the movie but maybe they weren't (not positive either way).

    The Beatles were not interested in doing the movie since they didn't like the Beatles cartoon show. So, they didn't do much of anything for this until they happened to watch the movie and liked it. That's the only reason the All Together Now sequence even exists.

    • Like 4

  19. Posted

    7 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

    Every single one of the best actress and best supporting actress nominees are women!!!!! What more do you want?!?!?!?!?

    Harriet was directed by a woman as well but it was merely nominated for acting.

    If we're talking purely on direction and nothing else, I think Joker is at least in the conversation for best direction. I'd put it in over One Upon A Time In Hollywood. I'd put Little Women above both on directing though.

    3 minutes ago, taylor anne photo said:

    Ah I haven't seen Harret yet so I genuinely had no idea.

    I wanted Awkwafina and JLo to get acting nominations this year, and they were both directed by women as well. In fact I'm FLOORED that The Farewell didn't receive A SINGLE FUCKING NOMINATION!

    Ugh. I hadn't even noticed. That's bullshit.

    1 minute ago, Cam Bert said:

    Also, is it just me or is it odd Ford v Ferrari is best picture nominated? I haven't seen it yet (just opened here) but it has no directing, writing or acting nominations. Normally best picture nominees are represented in the main categories.

    Ford V Ferrari is perfectly fine. Nothing stands out about it but it's maybe better than the sum of its parts. I definitely wouldn't have nominated it for best picture. But it's worth watching.

    • Like 1

  20. Posted

    2 minutes ago, taylor anne photo said:

    Oh I knew we wouldn't. I'm just shocked that Little Women is the only female directed movie recognized at all.

    ETA: Oh oops I did accidentally overlook Tom Hanks who was in a female directed movie, but that is the only other one to be recognized this year.

    Every single one of the best actress and best supporting actress nominees are women!!!!! What more do you want?!?!?!?!?

    Harriet was directed by a woman as well but it was merely nominated for acting.

  25. Posted

    14 minutes ago, taylor anne photo said:

    People in my movie loving circle usually suggest 2010 was a better year for Jeff Bridges, but I disagree with that because I didn't actually enjoy True Grit as much as everyone else did... although I had a terrible movie going experience when I went to see that movie so it could have heavily effected my thoughts.

    Despite the fact that Christian Bale probably still would've won (another giant transformation win for him that year) I am still angry that Andrew Garfield was denied even a nomination for The Social Network. His performance was truly the stand out in my opinion.

    Yeah. I don't have anyone I was pushing for that year. I was probably rooting for Javier Bardem just to be a contrarian. But I'm honestly good with anyone that got nominated winning.

    • Like 1
×