| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 11/24/2008 : 16:03:16
I saw Quarantine last night, knowing nothing about it. It turned out that it is a scene-for-scene remake of [Rec]. It is so close that I suspected so within seconds of the start.
So, how should I score it? Had I not seen [Rec], I would have enjoyed it quite a lot. As it is, I found it watchable but pointless. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 12/05/2008 : 13:07:08
Things I have learnt from this thread:
- Quarantine is a remake of [Rec]
- Remakes are always pointless
- Some films steal Oscars from other films and should be punished
- Being pro-Bush is a crime in the court of film
- A play or film is always best on the first viewing regardless of whether you enjoy it or get more out of it on a subsequent viewing
- Star Wars is better than The Empire Strikes Back because the latter couldn't have existed without the former and to think (if you can call it that) otherwise is not only absurd but also most tedious
- Metaphors that include millionaires and their sons should include factors such as interest and inflation rates to be considered worthwhile
- Ad nauseam if often spelt wrong, even by those who never make spelling mistakes
- Logic can be personal and, therefore, incorrect.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 00:31:07
If you are trying to induce me into saying something bad or spiteful (and obvious), well, you've got the wrong guy! 
|
| demonic |
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 00:28:33
Yeah. That's what I thought. |
| bife |
Posted - 12/01/2008 : 23:28:47
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I'm reminded of the tedious and absurd statement that people are fond of repeating ad nauseum
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Boys, boys. Let's settle this right here and now: just so you both understand, it's ad nauseam.
Randall, Randall, Randall, I fear you are mistaken. Sal doesn't make spelling mistakes, so you must be wrong. |
| Sean |
Posted - 12/01/2008 : 02:53:21
'nausea' + 'm' = nauseam
That should be easy enough to remember.  |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 12/01/2008 : 02:37:06
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Yes, most non-French humans do indeed err on this particular phrase, which is why I'm trying to gently guide my fellow fwiffers into the light.
Spend a week in France and you are a cunning linguist!  |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 12/01/2008 : 02:35:25
It's enough to make you puke. |
| randall |
Posted - 12/01/2008 : 00:35:09
Yes, most non-French humans do indeed err on this particular phrase, which is why I'm trying to gently guide my fellow fwiffers into the light. |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 22:19:04
Holy crap, 65% get this wrong.
Ad nauseum = 1,630,000 hits
Ad nauseam = 867,000 hits
|
| demonic |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 21:47:08
I was just copying his homework, sir. He's to blame.   |
| randall |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 21:30:38
Boys, boys. Let's settle this right here and now: just so you both understand, it's ad nauseam.
But, then, who's counting? |
| demonic |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 15:46:36
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
(1) Every play is best the first time one sees it, unless it's a particularly bad version, even though one may pick up on some new things in subsequent performances. (This applies less to musical forms with little interesting plot, but as we are not talking about a musical film it's fairer to compare to non-musical plays.) The same goes with watching the same film again.
No, I don't agree with this at all. I go to the theatre a lot, and after about 15 years of regular theatre going I can say I've seen a lot of plays done a lot of ways. One example of many that come to mind: I've seen probably a dozen stage Hamlets and although the first was excellent it was in no way "the best".
quote:
(3) I didn't say that I didn't enjoy it at all, but that it is of no value. I would have enjoyed watching the original film again at least as much and probably more.
This is in direct contradiction to what you've already written. You just wrote the first time you watch a film is the best.
Again I can think of a lot of examples where this isn't the case for me either- first time I saw "The Thin Red Line" I actually hated it. Now with a little more maturity and a wider film viewing experience I think it's pretty brilliant.
quote:
I'm reminded of the tedious and absurd statement that people are fond of repeating ad nauseum that The Empire Strikes Back is better than Star Wars.
There's a reason it's repeated ad nauseum Sal, because it is a better film than "Star Wars". Regardless of what was set up in the first film - the script is better, the set-pieces are better, the acting, the effects, the direction are better. You can disagree (and will) but you can't arrogantly state that everyone else is wrong based on your preference and just because you say so. Your millionaire analogy is peculiar, because it has nothing to do with an art form which is objective and designed to be experienced. That experience can be judged according to how much you enjoyed it; more people enjoy "Empire" than "Star Wars". |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 05:33:31
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Think of it as a performance. No one gets mad at theater directors for staging Madame Butterfly in a way that's too similar to previous stagings of Madame Butterfly.
I hate that 'logic'.
(1) Every play is best the first time one sees it, unless it's a particularly bad version, even though one may pick up on some new things in subsequent performances. (This applies less to musical forms with little interesting plot, but as we are not talking about a musical film it's fairer to compare to non-musical plays.) The same goes with watching the same film again.
(2) That is not equivalent anyway. It's equivalent to two films made from the same source material, not one film that is the copy of another.
(3) I didn't say that I didn't enjoy it at all, but that it is of no value. I would have enjoyed watching the original film again at least as much and probably more.
(4) Films of this type (ones containing surprises) are obviously not equally enjoyable on every occasion and it's inane in the extreme to state that the viewing with the lowest enjoyment level cancels out any previous greater level.
Think of it not as a different but equal performance of the same material, on account of the fact that it's not, and instead a counterfeit version.
I'm reminded of the tedious and absurd statement that people are fond of repeating ad nauseum that The Empire Strikes Back is better than Star Wars. No. No. No. No. No. The sequel only deserves the credit for everything it adds, not its totality. Everything that is common to both should be credited only to the original film. It's like saying that if a millionaire entrepreneur's heir increases the fortune by �1 then they are the better businessperson. Going by your lunatic thinking, you would presumably even go so far as to say that if the heir just keeps the same amount of money lying around then they are as good at business as their parent, and if they squander half of it then they are half as good (i.e. still better than almost everyone else)! |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 04:43:30
quote:
I have no idea what the 'script' involved other than translation. The actors were fine but no better than those in the original. The new film adds no value at all.
I hate hate hate hate hate hate this logic. If it's good once, it's good a second time. If you didn't like it the second time, then the original's no good.
Think of it as a performance. No one gets mad at theater directors for staging Madame Butterfly in a way that's too similar to previous stagings of Madame Butterfly. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 18:10:24
No, as I've said, 0/5 for me is nothing to do with liking or disliking a film. It's about objecting to it in principle.
I have no idea what the 'script' involved other than translation. The actors were fine but no better than those in the original. The new film adds no value at all. |
