 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
It couldn't have been based on merit, because they won them all... |
Indeed... it's very suspicious. When there are so many nominees (whether movies, albums, etc) in many catagories and one of those nominees wins all of them, it makes me very suspicious indeed.
quote:
It's a defacto method of him telling her how to direct. He knows whats funny and what works, since he's done thousands upon thousands of scenes. He just freeforms till they get something that they're happy with. |
So you were there and knew how they did the movie? 
You keep asking me for proof... any proof of this, other that what you hear the 'insiders' say?
quote:
Subjective... but then you can seperate out at least a couple... the music elements, since we know that the sound track was the most compelling, as sofar as being the best selling soundtrack. |
So the fact that it sold more means it is the most compelling? Does that mean Britney Spears is better music and 'more compelling' than Elvis Costello?
quote:
Given the context of an 11 or 12 hour movie... simply put, no, I disagree. |
Aren't you the biggest fanboy I've ever seen. Even the biggest LOTR fans have said the ending was waaaaaay too long. The Scouring would have been much better.
quote:
20 percent or so less. Significant. |
You ACTUALLY think that an 'A' to a 'B" is a significant jump? What is wrong with you?!
quote:
Citizen Kane had masterful direction, and a powerful narrative (abeit in parts)... both elements lacking in Lost in Translation. |
Great direction, wondering characterization, great slice of life story. The best of its kind.
quote:
LiT is viewed in the press as an also ran... certainly not loved the same way that ROTK and the other films have been. |
I did give you the Rotten Tomatoes comparision, since you find it significant.
quote:
It boild down to the fact Imran like M&C and LIT better than Return of the King |
Actually, I didn't. I found them all equally well done, just for different reasons. It all boils down to people (not you GePap) not liking their pet movie, ROTK, get spoken of badly and attributing 'jealous' and 'bitterness' to those who DARE speak out against it. Kind of like the 'you are with us or against us' of the Bush Administration.
quote:
Yes and there is a great deal of evidence that Fellowship should have won when it was up for Best Picture. That's why ROTK's win stinks of "due"ness now. |
Indeed, DD, indeed.
quote:
"Gladiator" smacked of dueness as a nod to Dreamworks SKG and a mollified "we're sorry for the Shakespeare-in-Love fiasco, we still love you Stevie" award to Spielberg. |
Don't forget Crowe's Best Actor award for "Gladiator" was probably dueness due to his great role in "The Insider".
quote:
Would it be fair what is essentially one single project released in 3 installments to win 2 best movie Oscars? Wouldn't that be like having a miniseries on TV win multipe Emmy's for different episodes, the one on monday, the one on tuesday- instead of getting one. |
Most miniseries aren't released one part in one year and the other part in another.
As to the initial question, YES, it would have been fair. If all three movies were of that quality, than all three should have won. I think FOTR should have won in 2001 (though I think ABM wasn't that bad of a choice), and I have no problems with ROTK winning now. As pointed out this smacks of 'due'ness. I'd much rather they simply judged the films every year because that is when they were released. It seems they may have done so for the first two, but not this one. The only reason FOTR didn't win is to reward Ron Howard.
I'm saying I don't like the system of 'due'ness at all. And it seemed obvious that is what was going on this year. Ming may continue to laugh, but it seems common sense when other movies are held up as very good, one movie sweeping everything it is nominated in is very sketchy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Aren't you the biggest fanboy I've ever seen. Even the biggest LOTR fans have said the ending was waaaaaay too long. The Scouring would have been much better.
|
Egads no. Speaking as a decidedly un-fanboy fan of the films, I am eternally greatful to PJ that he did not film the Scouring.
Zounds, the book was bad enough; that would have been absolute torture on film.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Do you know if the Scouring will be in the Director's cut, or did they not shoot it at all?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Didn't shoot it at all; kaloo-kalay, oh joyous day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
That's terrific. No need to take 30odd (or whatever) pages to say it, whilst turning the hobbits into action heroes.
The same thing was accomplished in the denoument of the film, thank you very much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guynemer
Didn't shoot it at all; kaloo-kalay, oh joyous day. |
Why are you so happy? You don't have to watch the Director's cut.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I love the Director's Cuts. I'd hate to have to skip over a section of one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guynemer
I love the Director's Cuts. I'd hate to have to skip over a section of one. |
huh? I thought you hated the movie and the book. Why would you get the DVD?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Love the movies. Like the books.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-03-2004 02:53
|