longshot24fps
longshot24fps OP t1_jcvzg84 wrote
Reply to comment by Designer-Insect-6398 in The Ides of March: an insight into the history, significance and relevance of the infamous day by longshot24fps
He should’ve called in sick they day.
In the Shakespeare play, he goes because he’s afraid he’ll look weak. Maybe he went because he thought the Ides meant good things for him, and the assassins chose the Ides for the same reason?
The irony is they all ended up dead.
longshot24fps OP t1_jcvlvru wrote
Reply to 1,800-year-old Roman vase — filled with remains — tells story of gladiators in Britain by longshot24fps
Sword poised to strike the winning blow, a gladiator looms over his opponent. The opponent raises his hand in a signal of defeat, seemingly at the last second. The dramatic moment is captured in 1,800-year-old clay on a vase unearthed in the U.K.
Known as The Colchester Vase, the bronze-colored piece of Roman pottery was uncovered in 1853 at a grave in Colchester. Although the vase has been admired for the last century, the Colchester Vase had never been studied in depth until recently.
Analysis revealed a story of gladiators in Roman Britain — a multilayered story encapsulated by a 9-inch tall vase.
longshot24fps OP t1_jcvkrpr wrote
Reply to The Ides of March: an insight into the history, significance and relevance of the infamous day by longshot24fps
The Ides of March, known as Idus Martii in Latin, refers to the 15th day of March in the Roman calendar. In ancient Rome, the Ides were considered an important marker for certain religious observances and political activities. Each of the Ides was sacred to Jupiter, the Roman’s supreme deity.
The Ides were also used as markers for certain religious observances and political activities, including the settling of debts and the payment of taxes. They were also important dates for the performance of public ceremonies, such as the opening of the gladiatorial games. But the Ides of March gained notoriety due to one fateful event - the assassination of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC.
longshot24fps t1_jaene8d wrote
Reply to Disney and market fatigue by TechnicalTrash95
Love him or hate him or both, Lucasfilm was George Lucas: the final decision maker. Without George Lucas, Lucasfilm is is a committee of people who only exist together because of the deal. Kathleen Kennedy is a legendary producer, but it’s obvious now she has no feel for Star Wars and nobody is in charge. The sequels are case in point.
-
They spend a fortune on the JJ reboot to set up their new franchise. Corporately, a safe move as he did it twice bedorw: make it quick, slick, fun, imitate the originals, being back old favorites, intro some new faces, do a few mystery boxes (who are Rey’s parents??!), end on the Luke cliffhanger, enjoy your popcorn and go home. Fine. They’ve got their franchise
-
For the first time in the history of the movie business, a major studio green lights a sequel to a billion dollar franchise that completely undermines the franchise they just spent a fortune setting. It would be like making Chris Columbus making Harry Potter 1, then green lighting HP 2 where Harry’s mother didn’t die to save her son, the scar on his head means nothing, and the entire student body is killed off at the end.
3, they bring back JJ Abrams to get them back to 1, but it’s way too late for that. Meanwhile, they make two spinoff movies; change their minds about what they wanted; fire the directors and reshoot the movies.
There hasn’t been a movie since, a pretty clear indication that nobody knows what to do. The Disney+ shows are giving them a chance to try out different things and see what works.
longshot24fps t1_j9ipqt4 wrote
Better for them to have done this as a standalone movie with a new character at a lower budget. I Ben if it failed, they would have lost a lot less $$ and not punched a hole in their Toy Story franchise.
“We asked too much of the audience” reeks of condescension: it’s not our fault you didn’t want to buy tickets to our movie. Toy story is the gold standard of Pixar and Disney animated franchises. Lightyear was an ok movie, but they chose to cut ties with Buzz Lightyear, a character they’d spent decades building. For a beloved animated character, altering the look and replacing the voice is guaranteed to throw an audience. Nothing against Chris Evans, but imagine replacing Tom Hanks with him for Woody with similar changes. It’s just not Woody any more. Yes, Pixar says this is the movie Andy watched, but they’re not fooling anyone.
Pixar has made some of the best animated films ever. I hope they get their mojo back.
longshot24fps t1_je23rpo wrote
Reply to Movie scenes that show many emotions with little dialogue... by bejeweled_sky
Old silent films are 100% facial expressions and body language.