Nice, I just did a double feature of Candyman (1992) and Candyman (2021) last night. The original definitely holds up and is one of the best horror films of all time IMO, probably my favorite of the 90s.
AlicePraxis
joined 1 year ago
The sand should be orange! Why isn't the sand orange?
Most of the exterior desert scenes look so. fucking. boring. These scenes are so devoid of color because they were shot in the most beige landscape imaginable. The sand is white, the sky is white, Timothée Chalamet is white. There is no saturation, no contrast. It looks so dull and flat and lifeless.
The landscapes themselves look pretty cool but imagine how much cooler they'd look with even a little bit of color instead of this shit:
It's especially confusing because many of the other scenes in the film make excellent use of the monochromatic color scheme. The interior and nighttime shots have this stunning contrast with predominantly vibrant yellow-orange hues which really stand out. So having orange sand would have visually tied the whole film together. But instead we're stuck with beige for the majority of Part 2.
I had assumed they shot where they did due to logistical restrictions (it probably wouldn't have been practical to shoot in the Sahara desert) but I looked up Wadi Rum, the desert in Jordan where they filmed, and it's orange as hell!
This place looks like fucking Mars, so how did they mess this up? They found the most boring section in the whole desert and filmed there instead?
My best explanation is that this was a very intentional and deliberate choice, so that when the film actually does use color it's more impactful. But... I still don't like it, I think it sucks. The sand should be orange.
holy shit lmao. the choice to put cans of Campbell soup because the movie stars Bruce Campbell is truly inspired
I like how people on TV will order pizza for a sizeable group of friends and then the pizza delivery guy shows up with one (1) pizza.
the global south is just a playground to rich white kids. of course they're not actually moving there, if they did they might actually have to interact with locals instead of just treating them like servants at the fancy resorts they stay at
IMO there's nothing inherently wrong with two-day-old posts being on the front page. It's always bothered me that on reddit/lemmy it can often feel like there's no point of commenting on a post if it's over ~12 hours old because nobody will see it. It's one of the reasons I don't like news aggregators, the hyper-focus on constant new content is bad for community building and facilitating discussion.
Contrast this with BBS-style forums where threads can stay active for days, weeks, or even months if people are still engaged in a particular subject. You can get this same behavior on lemmy with the "new comments" sort mode, which I find preferable to these nebulous sorting algorithms. You get a mix of new posts as well as old ones that people are still discussing.
But really I think the best sort mode to use depends on the specific community. It makes sense for a news comm to prioritize new posts, but a meme comm should maybe prioritize upvotes more. More niche and discussion-based comms should prioritize engagement. IMO lemmy should allow for community-specific default sort modes.
(btw I don't disagree with your point that 'active' and 'hot' could be improved, I just don't think any particular sort mode is going to be best for all situations)
This is possibly tangential but the forced-outing thing makes me think of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2. The lead actor, Mark Patton, was a young closeted gay man who was essentially outed because the straight writer of the film altered the script to be a not-so-subtle allegory for homosexuality when he realized Patton was gay. It ruined the guys acting career because it was the 80s and being openly gay was still not acceptable in Hollywood. Quite a sad story but there's a pretty good documentary about the whole thing.
the whole "only queer actors should take queer parts" issue
John Early put it best: straight actors should play gay characters because it's hot
But seriously, I find it odd that anyone thinks that gay cis characters should only be played by gay actors. As long as gay actors also play straight characters, which they can and have done for the entire history of the performing arts, then why does it matter? Generally I'd say it's more important to have queer stories that are written/directed by queer people. If those queer writers and directors are comfortable with casting straight actors in their work then that's cool. If they think a queer actor is better suited for that particular project then that's cool too.
Of course it's quite a different issue when it comes to trans characters, as openly trans actors have historically not been given opportunities in the film/TV industry. There certainly isn't much precedent for openly trans actors playing cis roles in the same way that gay actors have played straight roles. But I think that is starting to change, and we will see more trans actors taking on roles that are not necessarily trans (really the majority of characters in media are not even explicitly stated to be cis or trans, if it's not relevant to the story). For the present time I think it makes sense that most trans characters should be played by trans actors but there's still some grey area. Are there times when it might make sense to cast a cis actor for a trans character, especially if the character is closeted/pre-transition? Yeah maybe, if it's handled respectfully and there are trans people working on the project behind the scenes.
[sorry I haven't seen Sarah Z's video yet so I dunno if these same points were brought up. I'll watch it later]
what is it illegal to have a party on labor day weekend now?
a swastika is just the letter x with each of the ends extruded at a 90 degree angle
what's a good affordable VPN service? mine is expiring soon
I remember when google blog search was the best way to find music to pirate
view more: next ›
yeha that's why I "rent" movies from 1337x and torrentgalaxy