|
Post by Lore on Nov 21, 2007 0:40:55 GMT -5
Wow. Has anyone seen this movie yet? Erika and I went to see it the other night. It was pretty hilarious, though I don't think it was suppose to be.
Warning: Spoilers below
Yeah, the naked scene where his junk was covered by all sorts of strategic placements. Sword. Table. Arm. Smoke. Lacky? Freaking hilarious. They went so out of their way to hide any and all penis, and then they do a close up shot of Angelina Jolie's entire naked body with nothing but dripping gold to hide any specific details.
I find this double standard fairly offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Whitehawke on Nov 21, 2007 17:03:27 GMT -5
Yeah, the naked scene where his junk was covered by all sorts of strategic placements. Sword. Table. Arm. Smoke. Lacky? Freaking hilarious. They went so out of their way to hide any and all penis, and then they do a close up shot of Angelina Jolie's entire naked body with nothing but dripping gold to hide any specific details. I find this double standard fairly offensive. I'm trying to make a humorous comment on the lines of "ah, but that's because naked-man parts are wrinkly and ugly while naked-woman parts are curvy and sexy" but it just keeps coming out kinda dumb and sexist. Ah well, maybe I'll fall back on weak meta-humor. That's always good.
|
|
|
Post by MalkavianMarine on Nov 21, 2007 18:05:32 GMT -5
I'm gonna go ahead and make a cheavanistic quote from Seinfeld . . .
Elane: "Mens bodies are like Jeeps, they are built for use, women's bodies are built like Lamborginis, sleek and sexy"
|
|
|
Post by Lore on Nov 21, 2007 20:02:50 GMT -5
Granted, I didn't WANT to see penis, but in that case, naked CG-Angelina shouldn't have been shown either.
Blah, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Nov 21, 2007 21:28:46 GMT -5
I agree that if they avoided the full frontal on one, they should have done it on the other. If there had been CGI manbits I would have giggled all through the fight, because manbits are (sorry guys) very silly-looking in my opinion.
As it was, I giggled all through the fight because of the hilarity of the strategically placed objects. I think it was the bestest part.
It makes me all nostalgic for the days when everything I drew was either dressed, or strategically covered, like mermaids with flowing bits of hair or ropes of pearls. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that style, per se. Sometimes it can be very elegant. But I'm glad that I learned that showing a little nudity is not the end of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Masoob on Nov 22, 2007 0:12:58 GMT -5
The whole double standard is kind of weird. I kind of get it though- for example everyone in my life drawing class prefers to draw female nudes, including the female members of my class.
But about the movie- I have no intention of seeing it as it looks like a messy dump. (to me) Its up to you guys to convince me to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Lore on Nov 22, 2007 1:42:49 GMT -5
But about the movie- I have no intention of seeing it as it looks like a messy dump. (to me) Its up to you guys to convince me to see it. I will not convince you to see it. Messy dump is a good description for it in my opinion. Save your money and your time.
|
|
|
Post by MalkavianMarine on Nov 22, 2007 8:13:13 GMT -5
awwww, but I liked the book
|
|
|
Post by Masoob on Nov 22, 2007 16:53:44 GMT -5
I figured it was crap, but for what reasons other then the nude scene?
|
|
|
Post by Lore on Nov 22, 2007 17:22:31 GMT -5
Well I personally don't find entirely CGed movies very impressive because I've been playing Final Fantasy for years and Squenix had better graphics five years ago anyway.
Otherwise, I had a problem feeling like the movie had actually started. The whole thing felt like it was GETTING to the meat of the movie and then somehow never got there. The dragon was neat though.
|
|
|
Post by Whitehawke on Nov 22, 2007 18:20:35 GMT -5
Well I personally don't find entirely CGed movies very impressive because I've been playing Final Fantasy for years and Squenix had better graphics five years ago anyway. Otherwise, I had a problem feeling like the movie had actually started. The whole thing felt like it was GETTING to the meat of the movie and then somehow never got there. The dragon was neat though. There's a dragon in Beowulf? Wtf? Neither Grendel nor his Mom was a dragon. They were both humanoid.
|
|
|
Post by Lore on Nov 22, 2007 20:53:05 GMT -5
There's a dragon in Beowulf? Wtf? Neither Grendel nor his Mom was a dragon. They were both humanoid. Mmmmmmyeah. Dragons are big and flashy and way cooler than humanoids. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Mr. K on Nov 22, 2007 22:47:12 GMT -5
There's a dragon in Beowulf? Wtf? Neither Grendel nor his Mom was a dragon. They were both humanoid. it seems rather obvious from the commercials that there is a dragon in Beowulf. In the commercial he was shown riding on its back when he stabbed it.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Nov 23, 2007 12:52:03 GMT -5
IIRC Beowulf in the story was eventually killed by a dragon, though not in the same context as the movie. It's been a long time since I've read it, but it seemed to me that the movie was fairly accurrate up until beowulf went to the cave to hack up grendel's mum, then it took a sharp turn.
|
|
|
Post by leggedfish on Nov 23, 2007 21:34:51 GMT -5
If you see it, see it in 3-D. It makes the whole thing worth it. The movie contains most of the elements from the poem, but are rearranged quite a bit to fit the somewhat different story they wanted to tell. Also all of the boring drunken bragging in the mead hall is not included. (The projector broke, so I didn't see the last 10 minutes and don't know how it ended.)
|
|