Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

oscar bust?

Brandon Fraley

Brandon Fraley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
Bay Area, Ca.
considering it's now over 3 hours since the show ended an I'm the first to start a thread about (outside the relatively quite cinematography thread), could this mean others agree with me that this was not a terribly exciting oscar year?

2008 was a great movie year for me, with Benjamin Button, Synecdoche New York, Milk, The Wrestler, and others. But as far as the awards circuit goes, I just can't get really into it.

While I loved Benjamin Button, and personally think it was the best flick I saw this year, I'm kinda glad it didn't win Picture. For some reason I feel more comfortable recommending it to others as another sweet Fincher flick, than as the movie that won best picture last year.

I just wish it didn't have to lose to Slumdog millionaire which I now believe is the most over rated movie in the history of film. I know it's obviously me because everyone loves it so much, but I just cannot understand the fascination. I'm obviously missing something.

I was equally supportive of Penn and Rourke so while I expected Mickey to win, I still felt the decision satisfying.

Anyone find it odd that Winslet won Best actress at both the Globes and the Oscars for different films, neither of which were nominated in the other's show?

Any other thoughts about the show itself? The staging, the host, the numbers? I personally thought it was a little weird with the tiny stage extended into the audience, and in general thought it looked very dark. I usually think of the oscars as pretty bright, with lots of creams, golds, and reds, but this was all back and blue most of the time. Jackson was fine, but forgettable. Am I the only one that thought Ellen actually did a really good job?
 
I thought the opening was fantastic. I loved the low tech look of it. It reminded me if Be Kind, Rewind. I thought all the jokes were pretty funny (for the Oscars), and as a fanboy, I loved when Jackman yelled out "I'm Wolverine!"

I also thought the Pineapple Express guys part was hilarious.

However, I hated the 5 former best actor/actress winners presenting to the new winner. That took forever to present the awards.
 
I agree with you about Slumdog. So overrated. Western Hollywood cashing in on a Bollywood if you ask me.
 
the pineapple express bit was definitely the comedic highlight for me, very funny, and how about getting Janus in there? that was a coup, very well done. The rest of the gags kinda fell flat for me, I mean on par with most oscars stuff. I did get a kick out of Ben Stiller's Phoenix, though. I think Phoenix really blew it on Letterman. Pre Late Show, we all suspected he was Kaufman-ing it up, but no one was sure. After Letterman though, everyone's onto the gag to the point of being spoofed at the Oscars. Dude really had a good thing and blew it.

shit, back on topic.
 
Overall, I liked Slumdog, but think that the movie`s second half felt quite forced.
And I really wonder if this film deserved 8 Oscars. I mean, is it really on the same level as Gandhi (also 8 Oscars), Schindler`s List (7 Oscars) or nearly on par with Titanic (11 Oscars)???
 
The great thing about art is that it is a matter of personal taste.

I grew up in New York City, and in the late 1970s a young guy used to sell his child-like paintings and hand-made postcards on the quiet streets of Soho. Some pieces he sold to people passing by for $5 and $10. Occasionally he was even known to give away his work. Many people passed him by and thought that his work was nothing more than scrawl on a piece of canvas.

I'm sure that many of you know, that young artist was Jean-Michel Basquiat.

In the late 1990s, I was Production Managing a small job at Julian Schnabel’s house. During the first shoot day I had to tell the grips that they might not want to lean the C-stands against a large SAMO piece in Julian's stairwell.

I guess I am saying that one person's trash is another person's treasure.

I liked Slumdog because I thought it had a great visual look. Since 85% of it was shot with a digital camera, I would have thought that there would be more support for it here.

However, for me, its real strength of SM was its story and structure. Its central message of love over money is especially important these days.

It is hard to not see the technical achievement in Benjamin Button and Dark Knight. Both are well worth the price of admission.

I see your point of comparing these films to those of the past. Do these really deserve to be on the same playing field as the classics?

I am not sure we will ever see another Laurence of Arabia.
Will the studios ever take a chance on another Citizen Kane?
I am not even sure we will see anything like JAWS or Close Encounters again.

Lets just hope they try to steer clear of the "Glitters" out there.

Each year the Oscars are a yardstick for that given year. One year's yield can and will always be better than that of another. The same could be said of the Olympics. However, that does not take away the importance of the race.

Perhaps it will be someone on this board that takes Oscar home next year.
 
Slumdog was a vert good film... also it is a recent success story of an "independent" film... done for only 15 million, with unknown actors (at least to the West), with no theatrical distribution in place (due to the Warner Independent shoutdown) that had a fantastic festival run and won the hearts and minds of both critics and the audience.

The only problem for me was the ending: So Hollywood-esque... he gets the girl and he gets the money! After all this fascinating tour de force, I expected something better, stronger, on par with the rest of the film. I remember having the same feeling after Danny Boyle's previous film "Sunshine"...

Nevertheless, for all the awards, well deserved.
 
I agreed with most of the choices. I would have liked to have seen Rourke win, but Penn did a fantastic job in Milk, no doubt. BTW, I liked Hugh Jackman. It was very refreshing that they hired a host that didn't spend his jokes or time insulting the guests. The "roasts" format that awards shows have taken on with "comics" like Sarah Silverman or Chris Rock make me cringe.
 
"This is a historic moment and living testament to the fact that Hollywood and Bollywood
can come together," said Vijay Singh, CEO of "Slumdog's" Indian distributor Fox Star Studios.

72134-mumbai_oscars_341.jpg

Neighbors of a "Slumdog Millionaire" child actor watch the Oscars. (Getty Images photo).

Video report>>>
 
I think Randy succinctly summed up "Its not about ability its all Politics" ... Objectivity is a Candy Coated Myth that does not nor ever has existed.


DogDay.

P.S.

Mickey Rules.
 
The scene in Slumdog with the unconscious boy and the hot spoon, what was that about? Was it just to increase his earning chances as a beggar?

Damn, I was eating too..
 
kidrobot said:
The scene in Slumdog with the unconscious boy and the hot spoon, what was that about? Was it just to increase his earning chances as a beggar?

Damn, I was eating too..
Click to expand...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...s-deliberately-crippling-children-profit.html

"Yet the truth, as I discovered during a chilling week-long investigation, is more disturbing than anything dreamt up by the creators of Slumdog Millionaire.

For in Mumbai, as well as in other major Indian cities, hundreds of young children have had their arms and legs chopped off; scores of others have been blinded. The gangs also pour acid on to the children’s bodies, leaving them with suppurating wounds.

Their suffering comes down to one thing: money. In a country of 1.2 billion people, where the gulf between rich and poor is vast, there are an estimated 300,000 child beggars."
 
Their suffering comes down to one thing: money. In a country of 1.2 billion people, where the gulf between rich and poor is vast, there are an estimated 300,000 child beggars."

Lets see how that can be spun to blame the Usual-Suspects/Scape-Goats, or is it that humans are pretty creepy no matter which culture or ideology they come from?

DogDay.
 
Brandon said:
considering it's now over 3 hours since the show ended an I'm the first to start a thread about (outside the relatively quite cinematography thread), could this mean others agree with me that this was not a terribly exciting oscar year?

2008 was a great movie year for me, with Benjamin Button, Synecdoche New York, Milk, The Wrestler, and others. But as far as the awards circuit goes, I just can't get really into it.

While I loved Benjamin Button, and personally think it was the best flick I saw this year,
Click to expand...

Benjamin Button? Are you serious?

SHould be called Forrest Gump part 2. did you not see the viral hit on Youtube?

Slumdog Overrated? It was an indie film with NO STARS and was a smash hit in the US. That is every indie filmmakers dream that cant bank a star.
The film deserved best cinematography IMO, and was SHOT ON DIGITAL...

the look into another culture was fantastic and it was anything but an upbeat film... and I found the children non-actors, especially amazing to watch.

to each his own I guess... but the Curious Case of Forrest Gump revisited?

That is the quintessential Hollywood "hammer you over the head with recycled material" film... sure it looked cool, and deserved FX awards I guess (although Peter Jackson shrunk actors digitally 10 years ago)

its all opinion I guess, but I absolutely loved the premise and story of Slumdog, i.e using the explanation of answers serve as a template
for flashbacks... wish I had thought of that clever premise... and
I thought it was an indie masterpiece. to each his own, but come on.

It sure beat Forrest Gump 2: The Quickening

WATCH THIS: http://www.blinkx.com/video/forest-...two-men-the-same-story/r-o12KqGJxx9rogk_ES4AQ

ROFLMAO

BEST ACTOR

Mickey or Sean... I didnt care, so long as we didnt have another Jim Broadbent moment like when Ben Kingsley was robbed for Sexy Beast.
I also liked the format of actors introducing the 5 niminees, makes being
nominated more worthwhile and winning, seemed, less important.
 
I thought Slumdog was good enough for a nomination, but . . .

In the end it really doesn't matter. It's just an award, and the idea that there is a "best" film out there has always struck me as a bit silly. (I once asked Arthur Knight why "Citizen Cane" was the very best film ever, and of course, he didn't have an answer.)

Still, I'm delighted Slumdog Millionaire won. It's the spirit of the film community, the excitement, and all that. At the end of the day, the Oscars are as much about the celebration of film itself, rather than who actually won.
 
...and for the docs...

...and for the docs...

...I really like that Man On Wire made it! Great story meets great craftsmanship. That's what a good film is made of. 3rd Oscar within a few years for BBC Storyville? Nick Fraser will freak out :biggrin:

Cheers to all the winners and nominees!

Fritz

www.blueandgreen.info
 
let me step in before the flames get bad. I wanted to start the thread to discuss the decisions and the show in context, not necessarily to discuss the why a movie is good or flawed. We have individual threads available for that.

Plus, I was trying to keep it it light. Yes, Benjamin Button entertained me and moved me more than any other film I saw this year, including slumdog. That's me. If Slumdog worked better for you, that's totally cool. I'm not looking to convince you are wrong or anything. To each his own, it's all good.

And yes, Tim, everyone who has seen both Forrest Gump and Benjamin Button is retarded if they don't see the similarities, however, Button worked better for me. Retread or not, Button affected me far more than Gump, and so I find the comparisons irrelevant.

...and of course, Button was shot 100% digitally :)
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
sure it looked cool, and deserved FX awards I guess (although Peter Jackson shrunk actors digitally 10 years ago)
Click to expand...

Brad Pitt was not shrunk.

"It has been reported some months ago that David Fincher decided to employ a new facial performance capturing system called "Contour". Explaining their technical setup is quite complicated (and thank goodness there's a very comprehensive video introduction to the technology!), but what it basically allows you to do is track an actors facial movement in three-dimensional space -- and in much greater detail!

And while I am not an expert for the cutting edge in visual effects but merely a devoted visualist, this very technology explains why THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON just might look breathtaking: Where BEOWULF could extract the motions for maybe 70 to 100 reference points of the actors face, "Contour" can gather as many as 100 000 motions and details. And in my opinion it's this very amount of detail and micro-movements that make a face look real and believable."


http://www.d2.com/benjamin_button_behind_the_scenes/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top