[quote=“Chris_Casey, post:260, topic:2027”]I am neither pleased, nor am I horrified by this news. I am simply depressed and saddened.
Because, all this means is we will be seeing more and more of this computer generated Sci-Fi shit being cranked out over the next ten years and we will be seeing less and less of what I consider real films.
Mark my words, folks, this is a sad time for cinema as we know it. Make that “as we knew it”.[/quote]I’m not a big sci-fi fan myself, i hate Star Trek, Dr.Who, Stargate and the like although i don’t mind the original Star Wars films. My favourite sci-fi film is probably Outland.
I despise CGI. The entire aesthetic of making action scenes with multiple cuts per second, dark, making it impossible to tell whats going on. What’s the point? (I guess, partially, to mix the CGI cartoons in with the real film). I’d rather see a real stunt than a cartoon. I’d rather see a real handmade miniature than a cartoon.
To heck with it. I gave up on Hollywood action films years ago. For decades they have all had to end with a 30 minute action sequence that goes so far over the top as to be a complete parody of itself. That’s one thid of the run time for one chase/fight scene.
I don’t despise Si-Fi. Some Si-Fi films like Star Wars, Solaris (original) and 2001: A Space Odyssey are brilliant; the last two are among the most perfect examples of filmmaking ever, I think. I also enjoy 1950’s science fiction, but I don’t really like Sc-Fi that just uses CGI as an excuse to not have a narritive.
I don’t mind CGI if it makes the film better, but I really hate fast cutting. You can’t even see what the fuck is going on. Why can’t filmmakers just fucking film a single long take of fucking punch into the guy’s face and the dude falling down from it instead of seeing 12 different different angles over the course of that same punch and another 12 cuts of the guy falling down?
I shudder to think, imagine how shitty the duel scene between mifune and the other guy in Throne of Blood would be if it was just all one jumbled pile of jumpy fast cutting?
I don’t think we need to see 12 different fast cut angles of Fernando Sancho jabbing his pistol forward while he shoots? LOL
Fast cutting has ruined the modern day action film. Since when did anybody get the bright idea that fast cutting makes for better actions sequences?
Depends on the film.
I like the fast cutting in many films, and if it’s done good, it’s simply fascinating.
The new Bond Quantum of Solace has absolutely stunning, brilliantly filmed and conceived action scenes. I don’t have to see everything, these scenes are amazing in their fragmented way.
The new Coen brothers film.
A Serious Man - a funny tragedy - a tragic comedy - a Jewish odyssey
ACCEPT MYSTERY
Yeah, I am with you, amigo. My favorite Sci-Fi film is BLADE RUNNER (and I actually prefer the original US theatrical cut to the various Director’s Cuts that have come out since then). I liked the very first STAR WARS film and sort of like THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. But, that about does it for me when it comes to the Science Fiction realm.
True, it does depend on the film, but nowadays directors use it for all action squences. It’s alright for one or two scenes, but all? It makes your head goes dizzy, especially when handled by a less than compertant director.
Finally got around to watching Sherlock Holmes. I didn’t really like it that much.
The positives:
- The film has a great “look” to it.
- Jude Law was fantastic as Watson. He played Watson the way Conan Doyle would’ve wanted it.
- I applaud the effort to make it into a more action oriented film, while still keeping the murder mystery part of it intact.
The negatives:
- Rachel McAdams was awful as Irene Adler. She could not do British accent. And it pains me to say this cause McAdams is a fellow Torontonian who grew up just down the street from where I live.
- I hated the fast cutting during the action scenes. I don’t think any cut during the actions sequences was longer than half a second.
- The biggest weakness was Downey himself. Try as he might, he just isn’t Holmes. The role is not for him.
- The actual writing and look of the Holmes character was not very in tune to Conan Doyle’s vision.
Overall, 6 out of 10.
This year’s Oscar Nominees:
[size=12pt]Best Motion Picture of the Year:
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009)
The Blind Side (2009)
District 9 (2009)
An Education (2009)
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
A Serious Man (2009)
Up (2009)
Up in the Air (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (2009)
George Clooney for Up in the Air (2009)
Colin Firth for A Single Man (2009)
Morgan Freeman for Invictus (2009)
Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker (2008)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (2009)
Helen Mirren for The Last Station (2009)
Carey Mulligan for An Education (2009)
Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Meryl Streep for Julie & Julia (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Matt Damon for Invictus (2009)
Woody Harrelson for The Messenger (2009)
Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (2009)
Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones (2009)
Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Penélope Cruz for Nine (2009)
Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air (2009)
Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart (2009)
Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air (2009)
Mo’Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Directing
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)
James Cameron for Avatar (2009)
Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (2009)
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]The Hurt Locker (2008): Mark Boal
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Quentin Tarantino
The Messenger (2009): Oren Moverman, Alessandro Camon
A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Up (2009): Bob Peterson, Pete Docter[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Nominees:[/size]
[b]District 9 (2009): Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell
An Education (2009): Nick Hornby
In the Loop (2009): Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Geoffrey Fletcher
Up in the Air (2009): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Cinematography
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009): Mauro Fiore
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009): Christian Berger
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Bruno Delbonnel
The Hurt Locker (2008): Barry Ackroyd
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Robert Richardson[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Editing
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009): Stephen E. Rivkin, John Refoua, James Cameron
District 9 (2009): Julian Clarke
The Hurt Locker (2008): Bob Murawski, Chris Innis
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Sally Menke
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Joe Klotz[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Art Direction
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009): Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): Anastasia Masaro
Nine (2009): John Myhre
Sherlock Holmes (2009): Sarah Greenwood
The Young Victoria (2009): Patrice Vermette[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Costume Design
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Nominees:Bright Star (2009): Janet Patterson
Coco avant Chanel (2009): Catherine Leterrier
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): Monique Prudhomme
Nine (2009): Colleen Atwood
The Young Victoria (2009): Sandy Powell[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Makeup
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Il divo (2008)
Star Trek (2009)
The Young Victoria (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009): James Horner
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Alexandre Desplat
The Hurt Locker (2008): Marco Beltrami, Buck Sanders
Sherlock Holmes (2009): Hans Zimmer
Up (2009): Michael Giacchino[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Crazy Heart (2009): T-Bone Burnett, Ryan Bingham(“The Weary Kind”)
Faubourg 36 (2008): Reinhardt Wagner, Frank Thomas(“Loin de Paname”)
Nine (2009): Maury Yeston(“Take It All”)
The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman(“Down in New Orleans”)
The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman(“Almost There”)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Sound
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009)
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Star Trek (2009)
Up (2009)
Inglourious Basterds (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009)
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Star Trek (2009)
Up (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Avatar (2009)
District 9 (2009)
Star Trek (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Nominees:
[/size]
[b]Coraline (2009)
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
The Secret of Kells (2009)
Up (2009)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Ajami (2009): Scandar Copti, Yaron Shani (Israel)
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009): Michael Haneke(Germany)
El secreto de sus ojos (2009): Juan José Campanella (Argentina)
Un prophète (2009): Jacques Audiard (France)
La teta asustada (2009): Claudia Llosa (Peru)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Documentary, Features
Nominees:[/size]
[b]Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land (2008): Anders Østergaard
The Cove (2009): Louie Psihoyos
Food, Inc. (2008): Robert Kenner
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009): Judith Ehrlich, Rick Goldsmith
Which Way Home (2009): Rebecca Cammisa[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Nominees:[/size]
[b]China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province (2009) (TV)
The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner (2009)
The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant (2009) (TV)
Królik po berlinsku (2009)
Music by Prudence (2010)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Short Film, Animated
Nominees:[/size]
[b]French Roast (2008)
Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty (2008)
La dama y la muerte (2009)
Logorama (2009)
Wallace and Gromit in ‘A Matter of Loaf and Death’ (2008) (TV)[/b]
[size=12pt]Best Short Film, Live Action
Nominees:[/size]
[b]The Door (2008)
Istället för abrakadabra (2008)
Kavi (2009)
Miracle Fish (2009)
The New Tenants (2009)[/b]
The Top Oscar Nominees are:
Avatar with 9
The Hurt Locker with 9
Inglorious Basterds with 8
Up in the Air with 6
Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire with 5
Up with 5
The Oscars, like most entertainment related awards, are meaningless.
I know a gentleman that served as a “judge” for the panel on the Golden Globe Awards and he frankly and sincerely told me that most of the winners are selected as to which of them (or their management team, more accurately) gave the panelists the best free food, champagne, or even “monetary incentives”.
He also suggested that is the same way that the Academy works.
And I believe him.
He also stated that there are some awards that are still granted to those who have actually achieved something via their talents; but, that they are usually technical awards or supporting actor/actress awards–and they are usually selected just to placate “the masses” (his words).
So, I have no interest in these awards shows and their results.
Besides, AVATAR will likely win everything anyway because it had (and has) the most money behind it.
And since I feel that film is the end of movies as we once knew them, I could care even less than usual.
PS= If INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS wins much of anything beyond a best supporting actor award…I will well and truly be shocked!
What you say is true Chris, but remember, the Goldern Globes have been know to be open to bribes as opposed to the Oscars, which is why critics don’t think as much of them as they do of the Academy Awards.
I’ve read an article about the Golden Globes, and it seems to be a pretty obscure bunch of people who vote for them.
Yep, it’s the “Hollywood Foreign Press”, whoever they are. The Oscars are voted for by (just about) everybody who works in films in America.
The sad thing is that only big-budget productions get the chance.
Amen to Chris’ post.
Not true, at all.
There are massive amounts of people who work in films in America that do not vote for the Oscars.
Where on earth did you ever hear such a bogus tale, amigo? Most likely from the Oscars promotional staff themselves.
The Academy that votes on the Oscars is just as obscure a group as the Hollywood Foreign Press. They are equally open to bribes and “lobbying”.
There is no difference in how any of these awards functions are run, no matter what hype you wish to believe.
They are all meaningless.
Precisely what I was saying. It is only the big films …the ones that have the most money behind them… that even get the chance to compete (especially in the Oscars). And why do you think that is? Because these productions are the ones that have the most money available to throw to the judges!
I am telling you guys all of these award shows… The Oscars, The Grammys, The Golden Globes, The Emmys, and so on…are simply all about the money, nothing else.
The only awards functions I even remotely trust are the ones that are much more low profile such as the Screen Actors Guild Awards.
The rest of them are utter bullshit.
It is really too bad, too, because it didn’t use to be that way as far as the Academy Awards was concerned.
Those awards truly meant something until the latter part of the '70’s.
Since then, though…not so much.
Hey, JW! I am seriously not trying to attack you or pick on you in any way, amigo! I respect you and your views a great deal.
But, I wanted to share this response to “Who votes for the Oscars?” just for your consideration.
"The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), a professional honorary organization, maintains a voting membership of 5,835 as of 2007.
Actors constitute the largest voting bloc, numbering 1,311 members (22 percent) of the Academy’s composition. Votes have been certified by the auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (and its predecessor Price Waterhouse) for the past 73 annual awards ceremonies.
All AMPAS members must be invited to join by the Board of Governors, on behalf of Academy Branch Executive Committees. Membership eligibility may be achieved by a competitive nomination or a member may submit a name based on other significant contribution to the field of motion pictures.
New membership proposals are considered annually. The Academy does not publicly disclose its membership, although as recently as 2007 press releases have announced the names of those who have been invited to join. The 2007 release also stated that it has just under 6,000 voting members. While the membership had been growing, stricter policies have kept its size steady since then."
If anything, I think this set-up lends itself to the possibility of as many, if not more, shady dealings and unethical practices as are inherent in any other awards. The voters are invited by the Board of Governors----but, what is the criteria for this mysterious Board of Governors? Insiders I have met say it is the same as with other awards: MONEY!