Guess I must have misread your post, sorry. I think we can all agree that the whole Scott Pilgrim thing has gone at least a tad too far.itf cho said:
And the Nominees Are...
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.SpaceSpork said:
Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me
Actually, it got one nomination, for sound editing. I don't see why this is so ludicrous anyways. Besides decent special effects what category should it be nominated in?PlasmaCow said:
None of the actors really stood out, the screen play was pretty sloppy, the direction was terrible (tons of quick cuts and close ups, give me a light cycle fight with a wide angle where you can see all the action) and the movie itself was moderately entertaining.
EDIT: It did deserve a soundtrack nomination. That I am upset about.
The only movie I saw this year was 'The Fighter,' and I wish that Melissa Leo would win over that Amy Adams. I thought Melissa Leo did a much better job as the ruthless mother than Amy did as the hot, headstrong, and kinda formulaic girl-friend. Amy had almost no important scenes, all she did was prance around in a see-through bra. Melissa on the other hand had her job cut out for her. She had to strike a balance between being a cold-hearted and yet very human and redeemable character that we simply cannot file under bad or good. Her character was much more dynamic as she had to show exploitative vicarious ambition as well as tender motherly love. She and Bale form what can be considered the antagonist of the story so she has a negativity associated with her performance. However I find that to be the interesting part about her character.
I must say I'm surprised, following the hatred Bob received for naming it as one of his three films of the year only a month ago, at the support Scott Pilgrim's receiving.
(And delighted too, cause I love it, it was just never going to win an Oscar)
Frankly there are several potential surprises this year but the main categories are pretty easy to call.
(And delighted too, cause I love it, it was just never going to win an Oscar)
Frankly there are several potential surprises this year but the main categories are pretty easy to call.
Isn't it about time for a director of a Pixar movie to get a nomination for it? If there's one word that can best describe the majority of Pixar's films, it's this: whiplash.
The movies are all about rapid changes in tone and atmosphere: one minute you're laughing, then you're crying, then you're on the edge of your seat. In the wrong hands, that could be disastrous. And with the exception of Cars, Pixar has always done it right.
The movies are all about rapid changes in tone and atmosphere: one minute you're laughing, then you're crying, then you're on the edge of your seat. In the wrong hands, that could be disastrous. And with the exception of Cars, Pixar has always done it right.
Yeah, I didn't think Tron: Legacy was all that incredible of a film as a whole, but I agree that it probably deserves an oscar for costuming, and Daft Punk possibly deserves a nomination for score; personally, I'm not the biggest fan of that score, but I get where people are coming from.
I really hope How to Train your Dragon gets score, though. John Powell's work for it is just mind-blowingly good.
I really hope How to Train your Dragon gets score, though. John Powell's work for it is just mind-blowingly good.
Go animal kingdom, the best Australian film for years.
Based on the true story of the slaying of two police officers.
Gives an insight into the corruption of the armed offenders squad...
Has a special guest appearence by Zara Garde-Wilson?
Brilliant acting and script?
Somebody?
bloody yanks
Based on the true story of the slaying of two police officers.
Gives an insight into the corruption of the armed offenders squad...
Has a special guest appearence by Zara Garde-Wilson?
Brilliant acting and script?
Somebody?
bloody yanks
I am glad that I am not the only one who feels this way. That is pretty much my exact problem with "the social network."Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.
Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me
Oh great some arse made more money than the Vatican and continues to do so by selling peoples privacy in an inventive way. And now he has a movie lauding him for it. Yay.
The King's Speech was a fantastic movie, very human and quite moving.
Edgar Wright should've gotten a nom for Director and at the very least Scott Pilgrim should have gotten a nom for Special Effects or Art Direction. Nolan also keeps getting snubbed for some bizarre reason despite him getting commendations from the Director's Guild THREE FUCKING TIMES (though considering how the Academy voters love pretentiousness, I suppose Nolan is too lacking in that category). I will go as far to say that Inception and Scott Pilgrim are JUST as good as True Grit, The Fighter, and The Social Network, if not better.
As for the King's Speech, it's director shouldn't even be nominated. There are TONS of directors who could've done that job and probably done it better. The King's Speech is the very example of an Oscar Bait film like Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Milk, An Education, and Up in the Air. All of them are straightforward narratives taking place in the "real world" whose quality hinges on their actors' performances. Criminy, we need some young blood in voting.
As for the King's Speech, it's director shouldn't even be nominated. There are TONS of directors who could've done that job and probably done it better. The King's Speech is the very example of an Oscar Bait film like Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Milk, An Education, and Up in the Air. All of them are straightforward narratives taking place in the "real world" whose quality hinges on their actors' performances. Criminy, we need some young blood in voting.
I'm glad you agree with me on the soundtrack! Daft Punk has been my favorite band for as long as I've liked music. Having them be in a big hollywood movie was FANTASTIC, but being shut out of the most obvious award is just a shit-cherry on top of an otherwise delicious sunday.
But not being nominated for best effects? Now, they're just trying to be stupid. Alice in Wonderland got nominated instead? That movie looked like ass. Oh sure, it has all the cool and "spooky" and "quirky" designs and stuff, but when you really take a step back and look at the big picture, there's nothing original or immersive about that movie's look. I haven't seen all of his movies yet, but so far, I can say that Tim Burton is not--and has never been--a good filmmaker.
But not being nominated for best effects? Now, they're just trying to be stupid. Alice in Wonderland got nominated instead? That movie looked like ass. Oh sure, it has all the cool and "spooky" and "quirky" designs and stuff, but when you really take a step back and look at the big picture, there's nothing original or immersive about that movie's look. I haven't seen all of his movies yet, but so far, I can say that Tim Burton is not--and has never been--a good filmmaker.
I was a bit disappointed about no Daft Punk and no Tron: Legacy for visual effects. But it was to be expected, I guess.
I'm super excited that Black Swan is getting all of these nominations, though. I would love it if it won best picture, but that seems extremely unlikely. Everyone writing articles like yours doesn't even mention the movie, except for best actress.
I thought it was one of, if not the best film I have ever seen. It's perfect in every way. It's original, it's captivating, it's extremely well acted, everything has a purpose without being pretentious (even the "lesbian sex scene"), and I haven't gone a day without thinking about it at least once since I saw it exactly one week ago.
I'm super excited that Black Swan is getting all of these nominations, though. I would love it if it won best picture, but that seems extremely unlikely. Everyone writing articles like yours doesn't even mention the movie, except for best actress.
I thought it was one of, if not the best film I have ever seen. It's perfect in every way. It's original, it's captivating, it's extremely well acted, everything has a purpose without being pretentious (even the "lesbian sex scene"), and I haven't gone a day without thinking about it at least once since I saw it exactly one week ago.
Enough with Scott Pilgrim, Bob.
Was it a little different? Sure. Was it geek-tastic? Sure. Was it an exceptional example of cinema?
Fuck No!
I'm sorry that so many geeks feel like it was somehow transcendent. The truth is that it actually didn't introduce anything new-- it only exchanged old '60s Batman 'action balloons' (BIFF! BAM!) for higher rez events like coin drops.
Not anywhere near as revolutionary as you would seem to want to make it out to be.
Michael Cera can only play a twerp. The plot was straight out of geek fapping-fantasies, and you think it deserves any sort of credit?
Bob? It's time to get out of your mom's basement, put on 'big boy' pants, and realize that, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to stop evangelizing for Geek fanservice crap like 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World'
Was it a little different? Sure. Was it geek-tastic? Sure. Was it an exceptional example of cinema?
Fuck No!
I'm sorry that so many geeks feel like it was somehow transcendent. The truth is that it actually didn't introduce anything new-- it only exchanged old '60s Batman 'action balloons' (BIFF! BAM!) for higher rez events like coin drops.
Not anywhere near as revolutionary as you would seem to want to make it out to be.
Michael Cera can only play a twerp. The plot was straight out of geek fapping-fantasies, and you think it deserves any sort of credit?
Bob? It's time to get out of your mom's basement, put on 'big boy' pants, and realize that, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to stop evangelizing for Geek fanservice crap like 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World'
RE: "Oscar Bait" - if you haven't yet watched this, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhrz1-4hN4sosolidshoe said:Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.
Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me
As regards the specific films in question... Naturally, it can't be seriously argued that the story in TKS - monarchs, royal sucession, World War II, overcoming disability, etc - is on it's face more interesting, human and even "important" than TSN's story of a handful of Harvard brats suing eachother over who invented what part of a website. But, to borrow a quote from Roger Ebert: Movies are not about what they are about but HOW they are about it. It's "in the telling," in other words.
Speaking only for myself, I thought TKS was a perfectly adequate movie; but also a decidedly unambitious and "boilerplate" one. No, not everything needs to reinvent the wheel - but by the same token not every wheel that comes off the assembly line is getting displayed in the Smithsonian. From the moment I first became aware of the film (and I mean prior to seeing even a trailer) I already knew more-or-less the exact movie to expect: Firth all clipped and mannered, Rush "zany" with private pain, constant hammering on British! Class! Differences!, the obligatory "ho-ho! That's so funny now!" jabs at hilariously-incorrect old-time medical advice, comic-relief "funny therapy" sequence ("LOLZ! He is cursing awkwardly!") the mandatory family structure (stern disapproving dad, cool-yet-callous brother, quietly-strong wife, unknowingly-insightful moppet children, etc) the poor-guy-oversteps/rich-guy-overreacts "breakup" scene, "b-b-but y-your majesty... he is... A POOR!" "Silence! He is my bestest buddy, class differences be damned!", the autumnal/washed-out contrasting color palette cinematography; right down to the impressively pretzel the narrative twists itself into in order to add dramatic-heft by making it seem as though "The Speech" is Bertie Versus Hitler: SHOWDOWN!!!" There's not really a single moment in it that breaks out of Historical Biopic 101. Again, IMHO.
On the flipside, TSN uses a slew of unexpected and/or unconventional narrative and visual techniques in order to tell it's story. The multi-layered lawsuit-upon-lawsuit flashback-structure most obviously; but also the editing, composition of scenes and even use of color. Most "techie" stories use heavy-lighting and "digital-looking" colors; this one goes for deep shadows and rich, aged tones to convey the "bigness" of what's actually going on - it's a movie about making a website that "looks" like a movie about building a Mafia Empire. Or the sequence with the boat race, using the "miniaturization-focus" camera trick to emphasize the idea of the "Old Money World" of the Winklevoss Twins being reduced in the face of the enroaching "New Money World" represented by Zuckerberg etc. There's more narrative/visual invention in the way Fincher executes the "simple" first-act scene of Jesse Eisenberg copy-pasting JPGs into Facesmash than there is in almost any of the other nominated films this year. For me, that's the difference.
I agree with you that Pixar movies are fantastic, but a lot of that is writing. I'm not sure how much say a director has in animated films.RTR said:
OT: I too am disappointed in the snub of Daft Punk and Christopher Nolan for Best Director. When I was reading the nominee lists and didn't see him on there for Best Director, my thought was "Oh, this has to be a projections list. Right? RIGHT?"
Also, I loved Scott Pilgrim, and Edgar Wright did deserve a nom for Best Director. I don't think Bob mentioning that is too much. I particularly enjoy how a lot of you lambasting him for continuing to promote it didn't actually see it.
Jumping into this fray, I'd like to defend Bob's attention to Pilgrim by saying that, despite not being a perfect movie or (admittedly itf cho) a popular movie, it was an important movie. Future audiences, for action movies particularly, will become used to seeing faster cuts, comic book and video game iconography, unapologetic graphical embellishments and other flourishes that, either poorly or (for the most part) well, were tried first in Pilgrim. The people, including Bob, who are pumping this film up are both acknowledging the likely upcoming shift in the zeitgeist and, as fans, encouraging studios to start getting behind this trend sooner rather than later. I don't think of this as "whining"; it's active advocacy of the medium.itf cho said: