For the academy awards, to its defense, it was competing against Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, Four Weddings and a Funeral, or the Madness of King George. I can barely name one good movie a year these days, and certainly none that makes it to the oscars. The contrast with the 90s is brutal.
Original Star Wars trilogy. Lord of the Rings American Psycho Total Recall (1990) Blade Runner Love Actually The Fifth Element Unbreakable Pulp Fiction Four Weddings and a Funeral Guardians of the Galaxy X-Men X-Men the Last Stand Showing my age here, but I started to lose interest in movies after the 2000s. No I do not want to watch a remake of [Blade Runner, X-Men, etc...]. Also X-Men was great, but my interest didn't stretch to Captain America and Iron Man, so the MCU was a loss for me.
What's disappeared isn't the small independent super-low budget movie... as you said, that market is more active than ever. It's the >$10 million movie that everyone in the country can enjoy, has a name brand actor or two, but isn't just some recycled comic book tripe. Forrest Gump. The Big Sleep. Kramer vs. Kramer. Three Men and a Baby. Four Weddings and a Funeral. Terms of Endearment. etc.
> "If you listen to, say, 'Four Weddings and a Funeral,' you'll hear every word ... the sound was cut on film back then, and with limited time, track count, and budget, these are the results you got."
Can somebody translate this, what is meant by “cut on film” in this context?
I found [0] via web search, but it seems to be about distribution and not production. It seems unlikely to me that a 1994 movie’s sound was initially recorded in an optical format. But I can see how if it was planned to be distributed with sound-on-film, that could influence the production. Is that what was meant by the quote above? What do movie sound people mean by the word “cut” in this context, or does it have no specific meaning?
> My pet theory is that English proficiency is much better in countries where movies are subtitled, not dubbed.
That is how I learned the basics of the english language when I was a kid. Here in Portugal movies are subtitled.
Incidentally, I went to Milan once to participate in this thing, and neither Italians, Spanish, French, Polish and Russian people could understand each other. I speak a little bit of everything (almost, had to use pseudo-english with the polish and russian) so I had to do the translations. Talk abou information assimetry: I knew everything that happened because I was the unnoficial translator.
The "best" part of that trip was to have to watch Four weddings and a Funeral dubbed in Italian! It went some months before I was able to tolerate italian language again..
Mozilla trusts eight "government" CA roots, associated with 5 countries in this list, China (Hong Kong), Spain, Taiwan, The Netherlands, and Turkey.
The Turkish CA is constrained by Mozilla (and so in Firefox, but may not be constrained in your downstream software that wasn't written by Mozilla and just uses their trust lists wholesale) to just Turkish official sites, government, education, that sort of thing. The others are not subject to any notable constraints for a global CA.
If you don't run Firefox or a Free Unix you probably trust a lot more government CAs. For example Microsoft's list includes 35 root CAs from Australia to Uruguay. It's hard to do a cursory up-to-the-minute examination of Apple's status because they provide a summary of information from the certificate itself which will often have been written by some nerd twenty years ago, leading to descriptions like "Government Root Certification Authority" and "CA Root" (those are both real examples from Apple's actual list) which don't tell a reader anything of value.
I don't regard it as useful morally to try to count a company owned by the government as "the government". Consider the film production company Film 4. This is wholly owned by Channel 4, which is in turn wholly owned by the British government. So we could say the British government made "Four weddings and a funeral". OK, delightful English romantic comedy, sure, maybe drives tourism. "Trainspotting". Maybe it's a warning about how dangerous heroin is? "A Field In England" - Um, now we're struggling, I guess it is set in Britain at least. But wait, "The Motorcycle Diaries" is about the early life of Che Guevara, and "12 Years a Slave" is about a guy who was enslaved, in America. No, Film 4 is just a Film Prodution company, it happens to be owned by the British government, but that's even less relevant than which billionaire owns your favourite hockey team.
Assuming the ratings have been made since the launch of the site, there's also a massive systematic error introduced by people being inclined to forget films they considered to be pretty rubbish a decade ago, whilst being determined to challenge popular opinion on the stuff they wished they hadn't watched last year.
Whilst people feel the need to use ranking systems to express their dismay at Avatar not being the experience they'd hoped for and correct their teenage daughter's friends' belief that the Twilight Saga is deep and insightful, it's mostly the people that actually consider themselves fans of Adam Sandler and Hugh Grant's stock characters that bother to go and rate Happy Gilmore and Four Weddings and a Funeral.
Hacker Cinema
8 comments on Hacker News
For the academy awards, to its defense, it was competing against Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, Four Weddings and a Funeral, or the Madness of King George. I can barely name one good movie a year these days, and certainly none that makes it to the oscars. The contrast with the 90s is brutal.
https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&release_date=1994-01-01,1994-12-31
Pulp Fiction
Lion King
The Mask
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Dumb and Dumber
The Crow
Speed
True Lies
Interview with the Vampire
Natural Born Killers
Ace Ventura
Stargate
Clerks
The list goes on. Lot's of movies that turned out to be classics or cult classics, or the start of some great careers.
Original Star Wars trilogy. Lord of the Rings American Psycho Total Recall (1990) Blade Runner Love Actually The Fifth Element Unbreakable Pulp Fiction Four Weddings and a Funeral Guardians of the Galaxy X-Men X-Men the Last Stand Showing my age here, but I started to lose interest in movies after the 2000s. No I do not want to watch a remake of [Blade Runner, X-Men, etc...]. Also X-Men was great, but my interest didn't stretch to Captain America and Iron Man, so the MCU was a loss for me.
What's disappeared isn't the small independent super-low budget movie... as you said, that market is more active than ever. It's the >$10 million movie that everyone in the country can enjoy, has a name brand actor or two, but isn't just some recycled comic book tripe. Forrest Gump. The Big Sleep. Kramer vs. Kramer. Three Men and a Baby. Four Weddings and a Funeral. Terms of Endearment. etc.
> "If you listen to, say, 'Four Weddings and a Funeral,' you'll hear every word ... the sound was cut on film back then, and with limited time, track count, and budget, these are the results you got."
Can somebody translate this, what is meant by “cut on film” in this context?
I found [0] via web search, but it seems to be about distribution and not production. It seems unlikely to me that a 1994 movie’s sound was initially recorded in an optical format. But I can see how if it was planned to be distributed with sound-on-film, that could influence the production. Is that what was meant by the quote above? What do movie sound people mean by the word “cut” in this context, or does it have no specific meaning?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-on-film
> My pet theory is that English proficiency is much better in countries where movies are subtitled, not dubbed.
That is how I learned the basics of the english language when I was a kid. Here in Portugal movies are subtitled.
Incidentally, I went to Milan once to participate in this thing, and neither Italians, Spanish, French, Polish and Russian people could understand each other. I speak a little bit of everything (almost, had to use pseudo-english with the polish and russian) so I had to do the translations. Talk abou information assimetry: I knew everything that happened because I was the unnoficial translator.
The "best" part of that trip was to have to watch Four weddings and a Funeral dubbed in Italian! It went some months before I was able to tolerate italian language again..
Mozilla trusts eight "government" CA roots, associated with 5 countries in this list, China (Hong Kong), Spain, Taiwan, The Netherlands, and Turkey.
The Turkish CA is constrained by Mozilla (and so in Firefox, but may not be constrained in your downstream software that wasn't written by Mozilla and just uses their trust lists wholesale) to just Turkish official sites, government, education, that sort of thing. The others are not subject to any notable constraints for a global CA.
If you don't run Firefox or a Free Unix you probably trust a lot more government CAs. For example Microsoft's list includes 35 root CAs from Australia to Uruguay. It's hard to do a cursory up-to-the-minute examination of Apple's status because they provide a summary of information from the certificate itself which will often have been written by some nerd twenty years ago, leading to descriptions like "Government Root Certification Authority" and "CA Root" (those are both real examples from Apple's actual list) which don't tell a reader anything of value.
I don't regard it as useful morally to try to count a company owned by the government as "the government". Consider the film production company Film 4. This is wholly owned by Channel 4, which is in turn wholly owned by the British government. So we could say the British government made "Four weddings and a funeral". OK, delightful English romantic comedy, sure, maybe drives tourism. "Trainspotting". Maybe it's a warning about how dangerous heroin is? "A Field In England" - Um, now we're struggling, I guess it is set in Britain at least. But wait, "The Motorcycle Diaries" is about the early life of Che Guevara, and "12 Years a Slave" is about a guy who was enslaved, in America. No, Film 4 is just a Film Prodution company, it happens to be owned by the British government, but that's even less relevant than which billionaire owns your favourite hockey team.
Assuming the ratings have been made since the launch of the site, there's also a massive systematic error introduced by people being inclined to forget films they considered to be pretty rubbish a decade ago, whilst being determined to challenge popular opinion on the stuff they wished they hadn't watched last year.
Whilst people feel the need to use ranking systems to express their dismay at Avatar not being the experience they'd hoped for and correct their teenage daughter's friends' belief that the Twilight Saga is deep and insightful, it's mostly the people that actually consider themselves fans of Adam Sandler and Hugh Grant's stock characters that bother to go and rate Happy Gilmore and Four Weddings and a Funeral.