Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a tv |
Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:Yeah, they should have gone with a better set.On 12/21/2024 3:22 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:They actually shot Batman and Robin (possibly stunt doubles) running downArthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:>On 12/20/2024 5:29 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:On 12/19/2024 7:50 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:>Finished grading the final for the first of my two sections, and then>
did a little bit of finish up work on the lab class... With that, I got
through:
>
soaps: Y&R - Mon's ep. Billy tells Filis[sic!] his Revenge! plot against
Victor; Filis balks at getting involved because of her kids - I wasn't
sure if she agreed to participate or not. Sharon gets hypnotized by
Traci's boyfriend, and remembers that she didn't run Filis off the road.
Ian Ward eavesdrops on a conversation between Claire and Mariah & Tessa,
while Aunt Jordan remembers back to when Ian Ward reeled her in on his
Revenge! plot.
GH - Tue's ep. Bitch Carly wants Revenge!! on Drew (and Willow), but
Jason tries to talk her down from that. Willow is working some public
charity thing for Jordan, and of course Drew stops by to see her,
witnessed by both a visibly displeased Jordan, and by Felicia. Nina,
with Ava present, discusses Willow's upcoming potential divorce and
custody case with lawyer Martin Gray. Curtis and Michael implement their
plan to eject Drew from Aurora co., but Curtis gets it in writing from
Michael up front. Despondent Josslyn discusses her grief with Trina, who
understands the situation intimately because of Spencer's death.
DOOL - Tue's ep. Mostly stuff about Cat and her family, or Chad with
Jack and Jennifer, and I really don't care much. NuGabi is already
starting to work on seducing JJ - this girl's libido won't quit!!
>
Broken Innocence (Tubi) - This 2024 effort is one of those flicks that
gets you to wonder - if this film had had a budget, a better script, and
better actors and better direction, would it have been a "good film"?
I think that question applies to just about every bad movie, and the
answer is yes.
>
I’m not so sure about that. I love Batman 1966 but it’s full of cheap shots
that you would think would benefit from a reshoot. But I’ve had discussions
with people and we pretty much agree that if you made Batman 1966 into it
technically better movie, it would probably not be as much fun to watch.
>
I re-watched it tonight. There’s less to be fixed than I would have
thought. The main thing is, I would like them to use New York for all the
shots of the city. It’s kind of embarrassing when they keep cutting
back-and-forth from stock footage of New York footage of LA which hardly
had any skyscrapers at the time.
>
>
But the Gotham City on the TV show felt like a small town with hardly
any skyscrapers. Weren't the New York shots supposed to be the UN in
New York? Or was it some Batversion of the UN?
>
>
the streets of New York through the crowds. And they used the real United
Nations building although just stock footage we didn’t see anybody with it.
But even in the show at least early on the establishing shots of Gotham
were always New York.
Another change I’d like to see although I’m more ambivalent about it is
instead of just a cheap office set with a table being the United Nations
world Council. I want to see the fancy round wood covered council chamber
from voyage to the bottom of the Sea ((The movie) or when worlds collide.
The cheap set ads to the cheesiness, but a little grandeur would add to the
threat level.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_60/voyage_to_the_bottom_of_the_sea_blu-ray_/large/large_voyage_bottom_sea_blu-ray_subs.jpgThis guys complains they are wearing masks while committing crimes? They're criminals. Of course they are wearing masks! LOL
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/batman/images/5/56/United_World_Security_Council.png/revision/latest?cb=20240628045936
Here’s a review of the 1966 movie although he gets a lot of stuff wrong
https://www.cbr.com/things-never-made-sense-about-1966-batman-movie/
Since 2011, it's been 2011 then 1982. I've never owned the 1951 version in any format so watching it has never been a consideration. Prior to that I probably just treated it as a standalone movie. I don't recall ever really pairing it with anything.Do you ever watch 1951, then 1982, then 2011?>>>
But don't forget, "better script." I'm thinking Plan 9 Outer Space
redone as "Ed Wood" or "The Room" redone as "The Disaster Artist." Two
examples of bad movies that mocked because they were so bad, yet given a
new *everything* it becomes entertaining. Not a mock it level, but a
good actors with a good script level.
>
Then there are the straight remakes like "Little Shop of Horrors"or
"The Thing." Not that the originals were necessarily bad movies, but
between the originals and the remakes, I'll take the remakes.
I think the 1951 version of THE THING (from another world) is one of the
best movies ever made. Classic Howard Hawks.
>
I like the 1982 version as well. But from a rewatch viewpoint, the 1951
version has it beat.
>
I think I've only watched the 1951 version all the way through once,
maybe twice. It's interesting as compared to the far superior John
Carpenter version. But other than as a curiosity I have no real use for
it. ;-)
>
I don't think I could even force myself to watch it if I wasn't going to
watch the remake next.
Or possibly 1951, 2011, 1982?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.