|
Maxwell Lord posted:Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi are still at work on the sequel to What We Do In the Shadows, called We're Wolves: Nice. Glad he's returning to something where he'll have more freedom after Thor 3. And, yeah, the shift in focus to new characters makes the idea of a sequel a lot more exciting / less worrisome.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Rochallor posted:Yeah, this is a historical event that focuses around white people, generally (which is probably why it got made!), with some black people mixed in. Later in life Knight did marry a black woman. Yeah the whole thing started because the Confederacy passed a law that exempted rich people from conscription into the army. Basically rich white people seceded and started a war so that they could stay rich and decided that poor white people who gained absolutely nothing from secession had to fight that war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
ChickenMedium posted:Yeah the whole thing started because the Confederacy passed a law that exempted rich people from conscription into the army. Basically rich white people seceded and started a war so that they could stay rich and decided that poor white people who gained absolutely nothing from secession had to fight that war. Isn't this true of all wars? The American Revolution was pretty much rich landowners convincing commoners that the taxation that only effected those same rich folks was an indignity shared by them all. Also, the whole thing about the tea tax was largely to pay for the military efforts in the French-Indian War, that was started by colonists had expanding into their territory but rarely fought themselves in and the bulk of the fighting was done by British forces conscripted and transported from England.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:20
|
|
Young Freud posted:Isn't this true of all wars? Not really. The Townshend Acts levied duties on imports as simple as paper, paint, lead, glass and tea. While merchants bore the brunt of these taxes, they obviously passed these costs along to consumers which resulted in higher prices for everyone. The people least able to bear this were commoners. Additionally it was apprentices and free blacks who were killed by British troops during the Boston Massacre. Plus merchants and aristocrats weren't the ones pushing into Amerindian land in the west, it was folks who didn't have much and decided to make it out on the frontier. There's a weirdly revisionist need to present the British Empire as a champion of lower class Americans but this just isn't true.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:Not really. The Townshend Acts levied duties on imports as simple as paper, paint, lead, glass and tea. While merchants bore the brunt of these taxes, they obviously passed these costs along to consumers which resulted in higher prices for everyone. The people least able to bear this were commoners. Additionally it was apprentices and free blacks who were killed by British troops during the Boston Massacre. Plus merchants and aristocrats weren't the ones pushing into Amerindian land in the west, it was folks who didn't have much and decided to make it out on the frontier. There's a weirdly revisionist need to present the British Empire as a champion of lower class Americans but this just isn't true. The end of Amistad is a classic case of this. I wanted to salute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
ChickenMedium posted:Yeah the whole thing started because the Confederacy passed a law that exempted rich people from conscription into the army. Basically rich white people seceded and started a war so that they could stay rich and decided that poor white people who gained absolutely nothing from secession had to fight that war. It's considerably more complicated than that. Secession from the Union wasn't a universally popular thing in the south and there were many areas that remained staunchly Unionist, with the current state of West Virginia is the best example of this. There were other other areas such as eastern Tennessee and Jones County, which typically were relatively poor and weren't major contributors to the plantation economy of the deep south. The tensions came to a head as the war went on and the south was faced with a major manpower crunch. Southern armies would conscript soldiers from those areas who were decidedly not pro-Confederacy and those soldiers would predictably desert and end up in places like Jones County. As far as the rich man's war, poor man's fight thing, that's not really true at least in terms of how we think of it in a modern sense. I don't really know of any good books or literature that really delves into the topic, but the way nations raised armies in the latter half of the 19th century was completely different than the industrial process of the 20th century. There was a definite expectation that rich people would join the fight, but if you were rich you were expected to gather, equip and train a group of men, then you would be commissioned an officer and march your merry little band off to war. If you were really rich you would raise a regiment of maybe a 1000 men and receive a commission of Colonel and could reasonably expect to quickly gain a promotion to General early in the war. The military leadership for the Confederacy during the war is basically a roll call of prominent southern families. Once again though, problems arose when the south faced a manpower shortage. Southerners were deathly afraid of a slave rebellion, so they didn't really want to strip the land of all able-bodied men, because then the slaves could rise up and there would be nobody around to prevent it. I'm pretty interested in the movie, because there are some interesting issues with the southern nationalist movement that I'm curious how the movie addresses. Yeah, ideally this wouldn't be a movie about a white guy, but from a wikipedia glance Newt Knight is a pretty interesting character, and I doubt that there is much material to work with for the black people who were around him in that time period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Federal Conscription basically was the opposite of 'states rights' and that irony was not lost on quite a few confederate soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
This might've been posted already, but it's one of my favorite books I read as a kid so I'm hoping the adaptation can do it justice. There's a lot of content stuffed in the book across a lot of years, even for 2 films. The cast of the two-part It film adaptation is coming together. The Losers:  Henry Bowers:  Pennywise: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Electromax posted:This might've been posted already, but it's one of my favorite books I read as a kid so I'm hoping the adaptation can do it justice. There's a lot of content stuffed in the book across a lot of years, even for 2 films. Pennywise already looks menacing as gently caress there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Now that we have rebelled from the Confederacy, we shall be our own union. From now on, we will be known as "Jonestown!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Electromax posted:This might've been posted already, but it's one of my favorite books I read as a kid so I'm hoping the adaptation can do it justice. There's a lot of content stuffed in the book across a lot of years, even for 2 films. I really hope this works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Kids today and their damned Ipods
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Ollies offa yo face
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Electromax posted:This might've been posted already, but it's one of my favorite books I read as a kid so I'm hoping the adaptation can do it justice. There's a lot of content stuffed in the book across a lot of years, even for 2 films. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Robert Langdon is back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH2BD49sEZI
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Tom Hanks' skin texture is slowly moving toward "old salami" and I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Electromax posted:This might've been posted already, but it's one of my favorite books I read as a kid so I'm hoping the adaptation can do it justice. There's a lot of content stuffed in the book across a lot of years, even for 2 films. As much as I hate to say it, I hope this fares better than the TV movie that was made - I love me some Tim Curry as Pennywise, but the rest (especially the ending) left a lot to be desired. I just hope it's not a 2 part movie where both parts are like 3 hours long, had enough of that with past movies like LOTR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:I just hope it's not a 2 part movie where both parts are like 3 hours long, had enough of that with past movies like LOTR. Yeah. It doesn't have such a deep and complex story than you can't tell it in two hours on screen. There aren't big movements in the plot that necessitate breathing room. Splitting the book into two movies sounds like it's going to drag a ton. Imagine if they made the first LotR trilogy these days. It would be five movies long, but at least the nerds would shut up about not having Tom Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Imagine if they made the first LotR trilogy these days. It would be five movies long, but at least the nerds would shut up about not having Tom Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire. No we won't and yes we will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Robert Langdon is back. It's funny how they're jumping all over the place in this series. They started with the second book, used the first book for the sequel and now the third movie is the fourth book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:It's funny how they're jumping all over the place in this series. They started with the second book, used the first book for the sequel and now the third movie is the fourth book. You read those books? Dad? Is that you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Yeah. It doesn't have such a deep and complex story than you can't tell it in two hours on screen. There aren't big movements in the plot that necessitate breathing room. Splitting the book into two movies sounds like it's going to drag a ton. Scouring of the shire would be its own movie. I'd bet money on that
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Robert Langdon is back. Tom Hanks looks so tired of this poo poo. Random Stranger posted:Imagine if they made the first LotR trilogy these days. It would be five movies long, but at least the nerds would shut up about not having Tom Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire. Alhazred fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:The ironic thing is that when Jackson first pitched the LotR movies everyone wanted him to make it in to one movie. As I recall, Jackson had been pitching it as two movies but every studio he went to wanted it to be one. Until New Line went, "Why isn't this three movies?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:The ironic thing is that when Jackson first pitched the LotR movies everyone wanted him to make it in to one movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:Scouring of the shire would be its own movie. I'd bet money on that Pretty sure this will happen and I'd fill a seat to watch it. Fat Jackson may retire from a fat attack, the Tolkien estate may throw a fit, but it will be made. I just hope they'll keep employing Elijah Wood as he grows increasingly haggard. So tired of these shire wars
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:As I recall, Jackson had been pitching it as two movies but every studio he went to wanted it to be one. Until New Line went, "Why isn't this three movies?" It went through most of pre as two movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:I'm a little surprised he got the job at all. Not that he didn't do a good job, but his work to that point didn't exactly scream blockbuster. It's not like the studios were throwing money at him. Bob and Harvey Weinstein for example offered him a budget of 75 million dollars. Then after the production went over budget they wanted to make one two hour movie instead
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:I'm a little surprised he got the job at all. Not that he didn't do a good job, but his work to that point didn't exactly scream blockbuster. The Hobbit and King Kong are more in line with what I expected of Jackson. LOTR was the anomaly. Also that Inferno trailer looks so boring. The lines are delivered in such a bland lifeless way that it makes me suspect it has poor direction. It's Ron Howard though so 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
joylessdivision posted:Pennywise already looks menacing as gently caress there. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Trump posted:It went through most of pre as two movies. That would explain the weird break between movies 2/3, and the scenes and pacing feeling padded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Electromax posted:The Losers: Wait, is it set in modern times? Are we gonna have a scene where a Wikipedia article comes to life and Pennywise menaces them from inside a Creative Commons jpeg?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
So that mean the jump in time is going to be set in the far future now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
kiimo posted:The Hobbit and King Kong are more in line with what I expected of Jackson. LOTR was the anomaly. The Hobbit featured less puppet sex than I expect from Jackson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Rirse posted:So that mean the jump in time is going to be set in the far future now? They could be ditching the framing story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:Wait, is it set in modern times? Are we gonna have a scene where a Wikipedia article comes to life and Pennywise menaces them from inside a Creative Commons jpeg? I thought the past took place in 1986 and the present was now in this version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Pennywise is a kid now? Wtf, he's supposed to be a crazy multidimensional alien spider manifested as a clown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I thought the past took place in 1986 and the present was now in this version. I definitely remember some nostalgic 50s type stuff from the book, but it has been a while since I've read it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:I definitely remember some nostalgic 50s type stuff from the book, but it has been a while since I've read it. No, the book takes place in 1957-1958/1984-1985. The new movie, from what I'd heard, has been updated to 1986/2016.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Rochallor posted:I definitely remember some nostalgic 50s type stuff from the book, but it has been a while since I've read it. I wouldn't quite say nostalgic, a big part of IT (and The Body/Stand By Me) is that the idyllic 50s were actually terrible and that people were just so repressed and/or damaged that they were willing to pretend problems didn't exist rather than confront it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:36
|
|