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

seanotron

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2128

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Posts posted by seanotron

  4. Posted

     

    Sorry to stay off topic but I wanted to reply haha. I know that it's widly diputed so I should have put that in my original comment. However, I've read statements where the parents of those children were not comfortable with the attention that Carroll was giving their children. Of course they never said no or stop but it still raises some eyebrows in my opinion. Plus just because photographs of nude children were common in that time doesn't mean that there wasn't something odd about the photographers taking them. Just means they weren't going to get into trouble for it.

     

    I am by no means trying to put myself out there as a Lewis Carroll expert or something but like I said I know it's one of those great debates. I just thought it was funny that this movie has that creepy vibe and then they mention Lewis Carroll haha.

     

    Oh it's definitely a good point, I'm sure it wasn't intentional but it is an interesting Freudian slip given the weird molester-y vibe that Gooby has.

     

    What I meant about the photos being common wasn't that it was a gross thing society tolerated, but that it was just an innocent thing that people thought was cute. Like they'd put them on greeting cards. It was sort of the equivalent of the Coppertone Girl (something that wasn't sexual at all but that we've sexualized in a modern context). That's not to say it's impossible some of the photographers were creepers, It's just that people commonly use that as evidence that Carroll must have been a weirdo, when really it was not a weird thing at the time.

  6. Posted

    I hear ya, but to be fair movie trailers usually aren't made by the actual film makers. Studios almost always outsource that stuff.

     

    And Jerry, this movie is pretty great. It actually subverts a lot of tropes associated with these kinds of movies. And when it embraces those tropes it does so with a wink and a nudge.

  8. Posted

    OMISSIONS

     

    I'm surprised you guys didn't touch on the final sequences in the tower.

    1. Why was the guy still working at the front desk of the building during this natural disaster when he tells the gang that everyone is gone... WHY WOULD HE STAY THERE IF IT WAS EVACUATED.

     

     

    Oh man, I really wanted to talk about that guy. He's featured kind of prominently in several scenes and he's SO fidgety but he seems more concerned that people are in the lobby than the fact that the streets are apparently flooded & filled with sharks.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    I think a better example might be say, Baz Luhrman's Romeo & Juliet, where the story is the same but it's presented in a radically different way. That seems much closer to what Coppola did with Dracula. He just expanded on something that's given very little detail in the book without actually changing the familiar plot.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    Oh they definitely fleshed out Dracula's backstory, though to be fair every adaptation tends to do that because Stoker just didn't provide much of one (other than implying he was Vlad). Coppola definitely went with the more romanticized notion of the vampire, but I thought it worked. Those opening scenes where he lays out that backstory interspersed with real elements of Vlad Tepes life (whose first wife did commit suicide) are a real thing to behold.

     

    But he follows the events of the novel pretty darn closely, and he includes most of the background characters like Lucy & her 3 suitors, Renfield, etc. Even just the little details, like Lucy hunting children after becoming a vampire or Dracula slowly picking off the ship crew transporting the soil from his castle. I thought he was more faithful than most.

  12. Posted

    I know that this episode is done but just in case Paul ever sees this I really need to get this out there.

     

    They mentioned a lot of super creepy molestation innuendos throughout the movie and then Eugene Levy's odd fascination with Lewis Carroll. Now they just thought that his mentioning the author was just because he wanted to be famous like him after he wrote the three children's books. But I think it ties in more with the creepy molestation crap. Lewis Carroll was a known perv. He had an odd relationship with the little girl that had inspired Alice in Wonderland that her parents were very uncomfortable with. And then he took many many pictures of children, some of them even in the nude. I have more of a feeling that Eugene Levy's character was way more into kids than they wanted us to believe.

     

    (Source: I minored in art history and studied the history of photography my last semester. So we delved into creepy photographers like Carroll.)

     

    Ok, kind of off topic but I just wanted to point out that the 'pervy' interpretation of Lewis Carroll is highly disputed. The child nudes were a completely normal thing for Victorian England, and every one he took was with a parent present. It's not like he was luring little kids into his photo studio with candy.

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    As someone who loved the book and was hugely disappointed with the movie, I think that this would be a very tough sell. I think that it's hard to convince someone who hasn't read the book how inferior the movie is. At most this movie could be considered dated. Really this movie made enough changes that it shouldn't have had "Bram Stoker's" in the title, but that alone doesn't warrant an hour long discussion.

     

    Really? I found that the movie followed the book far, far more closely than any other adaptation I've ever seen.

  15. Posted

    One of the things I noticed about this movie is that they don't really focus on the tornado aspect of the Sharknado. In the opening scene, the plane is not really affected by a giant funnel of 200-300 mph winds, just flying sharks. Then, you would think that the tornadoes would actually destroy buildings like they do in real life, but instead, they are just basically transporting sharks. If 3 tornadoes hit New York, even if they did last forever like they do in these movies, they would destroy many buildings instead of just decapitating the Statue of Liberty. Also, if those 3 tornadoes then combined to form a super-tornado, and it would leave no Empire State Building left to blow up. They just disregard the "nado" part of the Sharknado until they talk about destroying the anomaly.

     

    Honestly, I almost thought the implication with the Statue of Liberty was that the sharks had chewed her head off.

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    NedZeSP.gif

     

    HA!

     

    No I'm not actually suggesting we cover this absolutely delightful film. But I know somewhere there's a joker who will sign up for an account just to suggest it because people without souls exist and they often have internet access.

     

    CONSIDER THIS A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE

    • Like 10

  17. Posted

    gary_oldmans_changing_appearances_640_12.jpg

     

    DRACULA IS DISPLEASED WITH YOU

     

    Seriously though, no, the only thing wrong with this movie is Keanu Reeves, and he actually kind of works anyway because his part is supposed to be that of a bumbling idiot. The effects are deliberately low-grade because Coppola insisted on only using techniques available at the dawn of cinema to give the movie an eerie and unsettling vibe. It's a lot like Hugo, in that it's a kind of love letter to that early era of film making.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    This movie was a Canadian co-production, and as we've learned over the years with HDTGM, that's usually a sure sign of problems (sorry Canada).

     

    This movie stars Lexa Doig, who has not aged a day since 2001. Seriously. Look her up. SHE DOES NOT AGE.

  23. Posted

    I sat down and watched the original three TMNT films and I still sort of chuckled throughout #2. While the first movie seemed to try to invest some time in actual character development, #2 is just a straight-up vehicle for product endorsements and one-liners but some I still find a bit funny ("...a little too Raph").

     

    #3 is the one I cannot sit through. It's boring but good god the animatronics took a massive nose-dive from the first two movies, and it has these moments of weird sexual shit.

     

    I guess I still sort of like #2, if just for the production value and nostalgia (the animatronics and costumes were pretty legit).

     

    I agree, I caught them on TV recently and realized that first one is actually kind of trying too hard to be gritty and 'real'. The 3rd one is definitely the most awful and unwatchable (they went from the Henson Creature Shop to some 3rd-tier company and it really showed). The 2nd one seemed like they were embracing the absurdity of it all. Plus it had David Warner, who much like John Hurt is a wonderful actor that will show up to any paying gig, regardless of quality.

×