Movies you've recently watched

Griffith

My posts are better.
Eluvei said:
I guess Nolan deserved a nomination, but I thought Inception was as underwhelming as The King's Speech.
Did you think the directing was underwhelming, though? That's my point about separating the particular craft from the film overall. Also, keep the movies exactly as they are and swap the directors names and see if you'd still think they were equally underwhelming. I feel like any professional could have directed The King's Speech.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Griffith said:
I feel like any professional could have directed The King's Speech.
Directors are often credited with drawing out the performance of an actor. The best director award often has nothing to do with cinematography or the visual elements of the film. I think The King's Speech swept the show because the Oscars are REALLY about awarding high-brow acting ability.
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Walter said:
Directors are often credited with drawing out the performance of an actor. The best director award often has nothing to do with cinematography or the visual elements of the film. I think The King's Speech swept the show because the Oscars are REALLY about awarding high-brow acting ability.
Is that why? I stand by my point then, any decent professional could have gotten those performances out of great British actors (by the same token, he should have been disqualified for allowing Spall's characterture of Churchill to pass). I'm not trying to trash Tom Hooper, he's a good director, just not the best this year, a lot of people could have directed that movie, not a lot could have done the directing jobs Nolan and Fincher did. While we're looking at how they wrongly decide these things though, we could just point out that what has the most to do with who wins and who doesn't is hype, buzz, money, and brilliant campaigning and politicking by producers like the Weinsteins. This was Shakespeare In Love all over again.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Griffith said:
Is that why? I stand by my point then, any decent professional could have gotten those performances out of great British actors
Well, let's also not forget that the vast majority of Best Picture winners also received Best Director by default. The pageantry of it doesn't leave room for any true justification. That's just HOW IT BE.

Griffith said:
... he should have been disqualified for allowing Spall's characterture of Churchill to pass.
That guy's Churchill truly was off-putting.

This was Shakespeare In Love all over again.
Man, that was really a forgettable movie... I'm only ever reminded of its existence when looking through a list of previous Best Picture winners.
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Walter said:
Well, let's also not forget that the vast majority of Best Picture winners also received Best Director by default. The pageantry of it doesn't leave room for any true justification. That's just HOW IT BE.
True enough, though...

Walter said:
Man, that was really a forgettable movie... I'm only ever reminded of its existence when looking through a list of previous Best Picture winners.
That year Spielberg thankfully won for Saving Private Ryan. Your reference to the list of previous winners reminds me I shouldn't complain because, dating back to Citizen Kane, the award's legacy is that it rarely goes to the best, most provocative or influential film that year, but usually to something safe and ultimately forgettable.
 
Griffith said:
I don't know about Best Picture, but, drawing from the nominated films, the fact that Nolan wasn't nominated for director is a joke. When the best director nominated loses, and perhaps the best director wasn't even nominated, then your directing award is a bad joke. Why even have a separate category if it's not based on the quality and degree of difficulty of the direction itself? Just have the directors go up and collect the Best Picture award with the producers.

Compared to what though? I agree with you in a vacuum, but if it's a choice between King's Speech or Inception for example, I'm giving it to Inception.
That was kinda why I raised the question because as a director, compared to everything else that was nominated except the 2 movies I haven't seen yet, Inception was a lot better. Then again it could be argued that on technical grounds like screenplay, cinematography, etc. there are separate nominations, but it's still the director who helms the ship and overall package. I think Nolan's going to have to get used to being snubbed.

Speaking of bringing the best in an actor's performance - Nolan's The Dark Knight had Health's Joker, it got to being the 2nd highest grossing film - still no award for best movie / best director? (based on the counter-reasons posted earlier).
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
IncantatioN said:
That was kinda why I raised the question because as a director, compared to everything else that was nominated except the 2 movies I haven't seen yet, Inception was a lot better. Then again it could be argued that on technical grounds like screenplay, cinematography, etc. there are separate nominations, but it's still the director who helms the ship and overall package. I think Nolan's going to have to get used to being snubbed.
Him and Fincher alike, they can win awards for shitty Oscar bait they make on the backend of their careers instead of for their signature films because they're held to a higher standard, ya know, being the better directors and all. Call it the Scorsese Award.

IncantatioN said:
Speaking of bringing the best in an actor's performance - Nolan's The Dark Knight had Health's Joker, it got to being the 2nd highest grossing film - still no award for best movie / best director? (based on the counter-reasons posted earlier).
Dark Knight got extra screwed because that was the last year they only nominated five, but there was definitely room for it if you look at some of the nominees, and now it would be guaranteed. I wouldn't be surprised if the backlash from that snub partly inspired nominating ten, money talks after all and they want to recognize those movies too. Still, I hate it now, it just dilutes the nominees and meaning of a nomination (both for those that get it or get snubbed), and you're only going to pick one anyway so narrow it down to the real contenders already. Hell, even when there was five there was a clear pecking order and the fourth and fifth films had little to no shot; now there's like seven of those! It's just a ridiculous and cowardly move to cover every base without actually doing anything better (like releasing the vote count).
 
I just realized I have no idea what the difference really is between the awards for best director and best movie. The director is in charge of all aspects of the movie, from deciding camera angles to directing the actors and editing; the crew is taking care of their respective responsibilities according to his direction. Isn't the best movie the one in which all aspects were the best as a whole, thus making the person that directed all of the cast and crew (to make the best movie) the best director?
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Eluvei said:
I just realized I have no idea what the difference really is between the awards for best director and best movie.
Neither does the academy! Thank you, thank you! :troll:

Eluvei said:
The director is in charge of all aspects of the movie, from deciding camera angles to directing the actors and editing; the crew is taking care of their respective responsibilities according to his direction. Isn't the best movie the one in which all aspects were the best as a whole, thus making the person that directed all of the cast and crew (to make the best movie) the best director?
That's not always the case, it can be, but more typically there's like five or six really important people that are all critical to the movie as a whole: writer(s), director, producer(s), cinematographer, editor, lead actor(s). Sometimes the director does most or all of these things, sometimes he's just the director (no small thing, but also no coincidence successful directors like to work with the same crews over and over). Still, considering how crucial they are, it's funny they don't even get the Best Picture award unless they produced too, so Best Picture = Best Producer(s).
 
Griffith said:
Neither does the academy! Thank you, thank you! :troll:
:ubik:

Griffith said:
That's not always the case, it can be, but more typically there's like five or six really important people that are all critical to the movie as a whole: writer(s), director, producer(s), cinematographer, editor, lead actor(s). Sometimes the director does most or all of these things, sometimes he's just the director (no small thing, but also no coincidence successful directors like to work with the same crews over and over). Still, considering how crucial they are, it's funny they don't even get the Best Picture award unless they produced too, so Best Picture = Best Producer(s).
Oh I know the DP and the editor and such are crucial for the movie's development, what I'm saying is that even when the director's "just" the director, he's responsible for bringing these people's works together, turning their individual contributions into the final thing. I guess what I mean is that he's more responsible for the movie's overall quality than the producer or anyone else, and that saying a director was the best of the year is basically saying his movie was the best of the year.

Is this gonna become the auteur theory discussion thread? :schnoz:
 

nomad

"Bring the light of day"
These days (and for years sadly) I don't even pay attention to the Oscars. They can mainstream all they want. They can self-congratulate themselves to all eternity, but in the end is who's in the business and who's not. Plenty of Oscar winners that can't even get a job on daytime TV. Therefor I say if you loved a movie, contribute to it in hopes they are successful enough to keep on working and make them money n shit. :void:
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Eluvei said:
Oh I know the DP and the editor and such are crucial for the movie's development, what I'm saying is that even when the director's "just" the director, he's responsible for bringing these people's works together, turning their individual contributions into the final thing. I guess what I mean is that he's more responsible for the movie's overall quality than the producer or anyone else, and that saying a director was the best of the year is basically saying his movie was the best of the year.
Yeah, it's fine line, but again, then why have two categories? Just have the producer and director accept the Best Picture award and make the directing award a more technical prize.

Eluvei said:
Is this gonna become the auteur theory discussion thread? :schnoz:
It just might, because I'm still not certain on the perception and the reality of the director/producer relationship. The same arguments you made for directors above could be made about a producer, a real producer, that oversees every aspect of a film's production from beginning to end, even hiring the director and having fire/hire power over them. I don't know, directors get too much credit for everything, and producers might be hurt most by that because they don't get enough artistic credit for anything. I'm reminded of Dustin Hoffman's bitter producer from Wag the Dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNo0BicRM8k

I hope the movie isn't as dated now as the trailer, though I've seen that Leno bit in about 200 movies from the 90's.
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
Griffith said:
Compared to what though? I agree with you in a vacuum, but if it's a choice between King's Speech or Inception for example, I'm giving it to Inception.
Well I haven't seen The King's Speech, so I can't reply to that. But I agree with Walter: Inception's cinematography and visual effects were its strong points and it won these awards. The Oscars are all about high-brow acting and being consensual, and Inception didn't fit the bill, just like True Grit didn't.

Griffith said:
While we're looking at how they wrongly decide these things though, we could just point out that what has the most to do with who wins and who doesn't is hype, buzz, money, and brilliant campaigning and politicking by producers like the Weinsteins. This was Shakespeare In Love all over again.
I'm late to the discussion here but yeah, it's nothing new and the list of injustices is rather long.
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Aazealh said:
Well I haven't seen The King's Speech, so I can't reply to that. But I agree with Walter: Inception's cinematography and visual effects were its strong points and it won these awards. The Oscars are all about high-brow acting and being consensual, and Inception didn't fit the bill, just like True Grit didn't.
True Grit apparently didn't have any strong points. :judo:

Aazealh said:
I'm late to the discussion here but yeah, it's nothing new and the list of injustices is rather long.
Speaking of which, this caught my eye on Yahoo:


Best Picture nominees that should've won

An interesting retrospective, including the aforementioned Shakespeare in Love debacle among others.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/least-deserving-oscar-winners-and-snubs/

Metacritic did a similar article last week that I liked. Didn't agree with every selection, but I felt they accurately broke down why the winners weren't deserving in most cases.
 
Walter said:
http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/least-deserving-oscar-winners-and-snubs/

Metacritic did a similar article last week that I liked. Didn't agree with every selection, but I felt they accurately broke down why the winners weren't deserving in most cases.
Pretty good article; thanks for posting, Walter. While I don't entirely agree with his opinion of The Departed (while not Scorsese's best picture, it was by no means a bad film), I do think Children of Men and Casino Royale should have at least been nominated for Best Picture that year.
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
Rhombaad said:
I do think Children of Men and Casino Royale should have at least been nominated for Best Picture that year.
Ha, what to say then about Once Upon a Time in America's absence in 1984?
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
94 was a great year for movies. Forrest Gump started the trend of Oscar-bait movies (King's Speech is just another example), Pulp Fiction redefined mainstream movies, and Shawshank Redemption is probably the most flawless American movie of the last 20 years, on every level.
This last decade has been a shame to filmmaking. Looking at those "should've won" lists, almost every nominee from the 90's shits on the 00's.

Oscars edit: I just wanted to add that i was glad that Bale won. I love Geoffrey Rush in almost everything. Exit Through the Gift Shop should've won. Winter's Bone should've won. Timberlake made the only decent joke during the whole show.

Edit 2: Directors have the vision, are the artists. Producers have the money.
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Walter said:
http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/least-deserving-oscar-winners-and-snubs/

Metacritic did a similar article last week that I liked. Didn't agree with every selection, but I felt they accurately broke down why the winners weren't deserving in most cases.
Yeah, I don't agree with everything in that one, but I liked the addition of memorable movies that weren't nominated.

NightCrawler said:
Timberlake made the only decent joke during the whole show.
If they want to be hip and were actually smart they'd have him host. Got to have someone with a comfortable stage persona, and being a song and dance man doesn't hurt.

NightCrawler said:
Edit 2: Directors have the vision, are the artists. Producers have the money.
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. :slan:

While it's probably true in many cases, it's also a romantic generalization rather than objective truth, particularly when a producer can have the idea and vision from the start themselves and shape the project accordingly, including the director and their power. It definitely wasn't true in the golden age of Hollywood, when producers had more of the hands on creative responsibility, like TV producers today.

Band analogy of respect:
Actor - Frontman/Lead Singer
Director - Lead Guitar
Writer - Drummer
Producer - Bass Player "I'm critical to the sound!" =)
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
Griffith said:
Band analogy of respect:
Actor - Frontman/Lead Singer
Director - Lead Guitar
Writer - Drummer
Producer - Bass Player "I'm critical to the sound!" =)
:ganishka:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhrz1-4hN4
 


Megamind ... it was pretty OK only, wasn't too surprised it did that well at the box office considering the other movies playing at the same time. It's not as funny as Despicable Me and is a bit headache inducing with the camera swaying a lot. What I liked about it was the plot where there's a bit we don't know about the villain.
 

Th3Branded0ne

I'll be back.
Just got back from watching Adjustment Bureau. It was alright, at least the bad guys had some weaknesses and weren't all omnipotent. It was short, and I could have used more action scenes.
 
Top Bottom