• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

MyNameIsJonas said:
What a miserable person you are.
Click to expand...
Don't blame me for the royal family's racism.

And if I'm being told that this is a movie about an historical figure I want at least some measure of or attempt at historical accuracy. I want that accuracy more than I want "diversity". I love Idris Elba but if he had been cast to play Winston Churchill in "Darkest Hour" instead of Gary Oldman I would not have bothered going to see it. I can buy into Denzel Washington playing Macbeth but I don't want to see him playing Napoleon.

And I wonder what the diversity people would have to say if a director were to cast a pasty-faced ginger to play Othello. Actually, I don't wonder...

"THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT!"
 
Montana said:
completely agree…..she can be downright bad, but then in Dopesick was pretty fantastic.
Click to expand...
I think in the past she wasn't getting the right scripts for her wheelhouse.

I don't know how good she'll as a lead but I'll give it a try that's for sure.
 
Montana said:
Man, I pity you guys.....the idea of losing my suspension of disbelief in a film, because the background city wasn't perfectly portraying the one in the movie, is a mortifying concept to me.

I dont think I could keep watching movies if I was that easily pulled out.....that's bordering on just thinking about how the actors are pretending the whole time, and never buying into them being the characters they portray.
Click to expand...
Hah... I'm glad you said that. I'm sitting here thinking about how dumb I must be for never noticing that the location isn't accurate.
 
Habsy said:
There were indeed African courtiers and courtesans. He's not just miserable he's ignorant.
Click to expand...
There were black servants in the Tudor and Elizabethan eras but none were a part of the nobility in the way some recent movies portray them. They weren't slaves. They were free people. But they weren't having cocktails in the palace, only serving them.

In the case of the Mary Queen of Scots movie, this casting decision was done deliberately by the film's director, who knew damn well that the real people these actors were portraying had been white.

In the case of "The Favorite", all the hippity-hop dance number achieved was to make a farce of the entire film. Olivia Colman was her usual brilliant self (and if you've not yet seen "Empire of Light" do yourself a favor and make time for it) but the movie itself is not one I'd be anxious to revisit.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
I fucking can't stand when they do shit like that. Sorry, but people in the 18th century weren't woke so tell the director to just deal with it and stop casting black people to play courtiers to the Queen of England because I'm not buying it.

Shit, even today the idea of black people in the House of Windsor is practically unthinkable. Just ask Megan Markle.
Click to expand...

I think there was a time I might have agreed, caring about historical accuracy all the way down, but in 2023 I think the value of having as much representation on screen as possible, particularly with a disregard to oppressive/caste roles in a given society supersedes that.

I don’t want minorities having to think about their peoples oppression or lack of upward mobility in every single period piece they watch…..I’m glad if there are roles filled by people who they can identify with, and see themselves in on screen. That outweighs any value “historical accuracy” might provide me.

End of the day, none of these actors look identical to the historical figures they’re portraying….Olivia Coleman looks nothing like Queen Elizabeth….and Claire Foy looks like neither of them. Their nose, eyes, voice, lips, forehead are all different….but we can easily suspend disbelief and believe they are the Queen when we watch the Crown.

….if I can do that, I can go one step further and also ignore skin colour. Especially if we’re talking about who were/weren’t courtiers, courtesans, etc.
 
Last edited:
Montana said:
Argument can be made Banshees is the superior film……but I’ll only watch that one more time in my lifetime, at most.

‘In Bruges’ is the kind of rewatchable you could throw on every couple years and always enjoy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I liked Banshees, but I don't see watching it again. I really need to check out In Bruges again.
 
JackBurton said:
Seeing a lot of 30 th anniversary stories about the Fugitive. That's one really great action film.
Click to expand...

what is it that creates that very specific 90’s aesthetic…there’s something about the film stock, or processing in post production that make movies like The Fugitive, Patriot Games, The Firm, In the Line of Fire, Air Force One, etc etc all look so distinctly similar, and of a time…..that no films in 20 years have ever looked like since.

They all used the same colour palette, or an identical amount of over saturation….can’t quite pinpoint what, but they all look & feel identical.

Whatever it is, I can throw on any of those 90’s movies that have that very specific look, and it doesn’t matter if they’re any good….it’s just a warm bath of nostalgia.
 
Montana said:
what is it that creates that very specific 90’s aesthetic…there’s something about the film stock, or processing in post production that make movies like The Fugitive, Patriot Games, The Firm, In the Line of Fire, Air Force One, etc etc all look so distinctly similar, and of a time…..that no films in 20 years have ever looked like since.

They all used the same colour palette, or an identical amount of over saturation….can’t quite pinpoint what, but they all look & feel identical.

Whatever it is, I can throw on any of those 90’s movies that have that very specific look, and it doesn’t even matter if they’re any good….it’s just a warm bath of nostalgia.
Click to expand...
Very true. Not even just the action films. Two Cruise pics off the top of my head would be The Firm and A Few Good Men. Good Will Hunting, Rounders. Fight Club.

The aesthetic was definitely different, and probably with the advent and widespread use of digital recording (rather than old school film), and the technology getting better and better each year, it's gotten to the point where it looks like you're in the same room with the actors, and that just doesn't feel or look the same as back in the good old days.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Very true. Not even just the action films. Two Cruise pics off the top of my head would be The Firm and A Few Good Men. Good Will Hunting, Rounders. Fight Club.

The aesthetic was definitely different, and probably with the advent and widespread use of digital recording (rather than old school film), and the technology getting better and better each year, it's gotten to the point where it looks like you're in the same room with the actors, and that just doesn't feel or look the same as back in the good old days.
Click to expand...
Here's a short thread from another forum that I *think* discusses the issue a bit:

cinematography.com

Classic 90s Film Look

Ive been looking into exactly how to achieve that classic 90's film look of any big budget feature. I have shot on a good mount of stock from that era (though expired) and also EXR, Vision 1, 2 3 ect and it never really seems to capture "that look". I am leaning less towards film stock and more t...
cinematography.com cinematography.com
 
oscarheyman said:
Here's a short thread from another forum that I *think* discusses the issue a bit:

cinematography.com

Classic 90s Film Look

Ive been looking into exactly how to achieve that classic 90's film look of any big budget feature. I have shot on a good mount of stock from that era (though expired) and also EXR, Vision 1, 2 3 ect and it never really seems to capture "that look". I am leaning less towards film stock and more t...
cinematography.com cinematography.com
Click to expand...

that’s a riveting thread…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top