|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 18, 2017 22:58:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 18, 2017 22:59:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 19, 2017 12:05:29 GMT
I scored 0 out of 11.
Did anyone get a decent score?
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on May 19, 2017 22:14:41 GMT
Le voyage dans la lune (1902) reminds me of some Futurist paintings, from a few years later.
A popular saying on the old IMDb boards was "that was two hours of my life I won't get back". Shulman has enabled us to view every single frame of any lousy two-hour movie in two seconds, so we can now say: "That was two seconds of my life I won't get back."
Did he make one for "The Last of Sheila" by any chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by gunshotwound on May 20, 2017 2:18:32 GMT
Thanks Carl! I got a score of 0/11. I thought one of them was Citizen Kane but it was something else. |
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on May 20, 2017 2:38:57 GMT
Was the one you thought was Citizen Kane the one with the columns? I thought of Citizen Kane or some sword and sandals epic, the Robe or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on May 20, 2017 2:45:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gunshotwound on May 20, 2017 4:14:38 GMT
Was the one you thought was Citizen Kane the one with the columns? I thought of Citizen Kane or some sword and sandals epic, the Robe or something. No, I thought Citizen Kane was the third photo (black & white). |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on May 20, 2017 4:44:08 GMT
Le voyage dans la lune (1902) seems to have retained some of its details. Perhaps because it was such a short film. Carl LaFongdecent score only in that 0/11 seems to be the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on May 20, 2017 4:47:02 GMT
Did he make one for "The Last of Sheila" by any chance? Keep kicking that poor dead horse, London, it might work as artificial respiration and revive him. |
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on May 20, 2017 13:47:21 GMT
Pretty cool how the pictures seem to move as you stare at them with things like faces going in and out of focus. Or did someone put acid in my Cap'n Crunch?
I scored zero.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 14:45:30 GMT
0/11
My guess for the third one - Metropolis - wasn't correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 20, 2017 14:50:03 GMT
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre one seems kind of dubious to me. They're not in the van that long that that should dominate the final result so much. I wonder what the exact process is that he uses and just how much he tweaks the results.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on May 20, 2017 15:17:54 GMT
Did he make one for "The Last of Sheila" by any chance? Keep kicking that poor dead horse, London, it might work as artificial respiration and revive him. I intend to make it more notorious than Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966). I would rather kick the scoundrel who recommended me to acquire it when I was a trusting newbie here and assumed all frequent posters were cinephiles with impeccable taste. Every time my raggedy-ass children cry for a crust of bread I grieve for the equivalent of $2.17 it cost me to acquire a copy. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on May 20, 2017 19:46:31 GMT
Pretty cool how the pictures seem to move as you stare at them with things like faces going in and out of focus. Or did someone put acid in my Cap'n Crunch? I scored zero. Whew. So the "faces thing" wasn't just me. Whadda relief ! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 21, 2017 12:59:03 GMT
Keep kicking that poor dead horse, London, it might work as artificial respiration and revive him. I intend to make it more notorious than Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966). I would rather kick the scoundrel who recommended me to acquire it when I was a trusting newbie here and assumed all frequent posters were cinephiles with impeccable taste. Every time my raggedy-ass children cry for a crust of bread I grieve for the equivalent of $2.17 it cost me to acquire a copy. Y'know, kick me all you want, but when most of those experienced cinephiles love Sheila, I think you should start wondering if you're the problem, not the movie. |
|
Seto
Sophomore
@seto
Posts: 315
Likes: 233
 
|
Post by Seto on May 22, 2017 13:52:32 GMT
I got 1/11, lol
A Trip to the Moon stood out for me. Particularly because I saw it recently.
The rest I didn't even hazard a guess at.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 22, 2017 14:11:11 GMT
I intend to make it more notorious than Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966). I would rather kick the scoundrel who recommended me to acquire it when I was a trusting newbie here and assumed all frequent posters were cinephiles with impeccable taste. Every time my raggedy-ass children cry for a crust of bread I grieve for the equivalent of $2.17 it cost me to acquire a copy. Y'know, kick me all you want, but when most of those experienced cinephiles love Sheila, I think you should start wondering if you're the problem, not the movie. It's difficult for me to understand anyone not liking TLOS (and I even happen to live with one such person). But then, there are much-admired films for which I've never been able to generate any enthusiasm ( To Kill A Mockingbird and Raging Bull among them, for example), so I figure everyone's entitled to their individual tastes (just as I am to mine for, say, Brussels sprouts, lima beans and cauliflower). I hope, however, that I'd never question their overall tastes on the basis of one or two dislikes, and could wish only that $2.17 was the most I'd ever spent to discover one. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 22, 2017 14:19:27 GMT
Of course everyone is entitled to his own individual tastes, Doghouse6. But London's problem with me goes far beyond this: he seemed to take it as a personal offense that I like the movie and recommend it. He never explained in detail why he doesn't like the movie but just goes on these other threads and jokes about wanting to kick me, right after praising my post on the auteurs thread. I know he's just writing to get a rise out of me, which seems terribly immature, but I am annoyed. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 22, 2017 14:49:39 GMT
Of course everyone is entitled to his own individual tastes, Doghouse6 . But London's problem with me goes far beyond this: he seemed to take it as a personal offense that I like the movie and recommend it. He never explained in detail why he doesn't like the movie but just goes on these other threads and jokes about wanting to kick me, right after praising my post on the auteurs thread. I know he's just writing to get a rise out of me, which seems terribly immature, but I am annoyed. Ah, I see. I regret (or on second thought, maybe I shouldn't) not having caught all the exchanges relating to TLOS. Just to clarify, my remark about questioning others' tastes "on the basis of one or two dislikes" had to do with london's: "I was a trusting newbie here and assumed all frequent posters were cinephiles with impeccable taste." It remains to be seen whether london develops it into the sorts of regular pokes-in-the-eye engaged in on IMDB by a certain lady from the provinces over Citizen Kane. I hope not. |
|
