|
|
Post by blah on Nov 23, 2014 16:26:08 GMT -6
That chili closeup was actually 30 seconds. Very excessive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Prime on Nov 23, 2014 16:26:13 GMT -6
Sometimes that's all you need.
Also... lest we not forget that the TV version has those added scenes because they also had to take out a few. So I am willing to bet the running time is the same.
Of course it would be nice if we got this on DVD so we can have a complete uncut edition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Prime on Nov 23, 2014 16:28:58 GMT -6
That chili closeup was actually 30 seconds. Very excessive. I was watching this at my 2013 Halloween Party and I was kind of pulling a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" on that scene. I commented to my best friend, who thinks Chucky is absolutely stupid, and I said "enjoy this Hitchcock-esque close up shot of chili" and he said I make films like this more fun to watch. Lol. That was such a good party. |
|
|
|
Post by sweetface on Nov 23, 2014 16:42:01 GMT -6
The only thing that bothers me about the chili scene are the close ups on their mouths while they're eating, not the timing for it. Like that is nasty I do not need to see that ew. Other than that I liked the scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 23, 2014 16:45:08 GMT -6
I loved Father Frank during this scene. THIS IS JUST THE WAY MY MAMA USED TO MAKE IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Prime on Nov 23, 2014 16:57:27 GMT -6
I almost yaked during the close up of the mouth chewing. I will either fast forward... or look down when that scene comes up.
I can watch bodies explode... but not that. Then again that is something I am more likely to run into.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Nov 23, 2014 17:03:31 GMT -6
Man I am with sweetface on this one. I feel like I am one of the few who is not bothered at all by the scene, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by blah on Nov 23, 2014 17:06:18 GMT -6
The random closeups of Chucky's doll face were hilariously random.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee on Nov 23, 2014 17:46:12 GMT -6
The only thing that bothers me about the chili scene are the close ups on their mouths while they're eating, not the timing for it. Like that is nasty I do not need to see that ew. Other than that I liked the scene. THANK YOU I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE |
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Nov 23, 2014 17:53:33 GMT -6
That chili was bunk as fuck anyway. Vegetarian chili? Heh, what do they think this is? Vegetarian Chili-Land...ville?
|
|
|
|
Post by Metal Matt on Nov 23, 2014 17:54:03 GMT -6
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS DIED TO MAKE THAT CHILI?? DO YOU??  |
|
|
|
Post by bgb805 on Apr 3, 2015 16:43:43 GMT -6
At least we did get 80 minutes of story material. There are some live-action films that are only like 70-something minutes. That just isn't enough time for proper story development - at least for a feature film. 80 minutes is like the bare minimum.
Even with good movies, if a film goes over 2 hrs, I lose the feel to re-watch it again. 90 minutes is perfect because you can get a solid-developed story in that time, that satiates you to want more.
With a 3 hour film like Titanic - that is SO long, I've only seen the film ONCE in it's entirety. It just doesn't take THAT long to give a good sufficient screen story. However, if it was a mini-series that would be one thing. But to have one big long feature, not for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Metal Matt on Apr 3, 2015 17:28:52 GMT -6
Yeah, totally agree, I can't really watch a lot of three hour movies, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Apr 3, 2015 17:52:42 GMT -6
There's a handful I can watch, but a few movies it seems like they do it just for the sake of doing it *cough*Lord of the Rings*cough*
|
|
|
|
Post by Metal Matt on Apr 3, 2015 17:54:25 GMT -6
Yeah, but I guess LOTR had an excuse since it was 3 books getting adaptations each, though they could have been a bit shorter. Now, The Hobbit movies have no excuse to each be three hours long, that should just be one long three hour movie, lol.
|
|
Jul 19, 2020 17:45:08 GMT -6
Jul 19, 2020 17:45:08 GMT -6
