| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 01/08/2014 : 11:29:00
This link takes you to a list of the key categories. Don't shoot the messenger! 
|
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/15/2014 : 22:56:54
I haven't heard it so much lately, but if someone asks:
Do you want me to knock you up in the morning?
It only means to WAKE you up!!
|
| randall |
Posted - 02/15/2014 : 14:07:50
Not to mention the Yank term "fanny pack," which scandalizes certain Brits! [As we saw on the Brit OFFICE.] |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 02/13/2014 : 17:20:47
It's the same language ...kind of
It works the other way too. I was a bit alarmed when I read a headline in a US paper
"MAN IN KNICKERS WINS GOLF TOURNAMENT "
It was refering to a US Golfer who wore "Plus Fours" as his Trademark.
Thankfully he wasnt wearing Braces as he would then be wearing " Knickers and Suspenders " ( US Panties and Garter Belt )
Also US listeners will chortle like 12 year olds when they hear that " the Prime Minister beat off the Leader of the opposition! ( UK Gave him a Hand job ) :) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/13/2014 : 16:53:57
quote:
Originally posted by randall
From Variety, a slideshow: five reasons the BAFTAs differ from the Oscars.
quote:
What the heck are �jumpers,� �bun fights,� �chavs,� �knickers,� �crisps,� �brollies,� �tossers,� �windscreens� and �plonk?� What are you to do when someone asks you for a �fag?� Should you call for emergency help when someone complains of being �knackered?� Do you need to back up when someone announces they're �taking the piss?�
BaftaBabe's helpful English-to-English translation:
> jumpers = sweaters, the kind you pull over your head, also called pullovers, distinguished from cardigans which you button up
> bun fights - any jolly, good-hearted mini-competition; not necessarily involving throwing buns at each other; sometimes used ironically to poke fun at more serious conflicts
> chavs = low life people, quite derogatory
> knickers = underpants, usually but not exclusively female
> crisps = potato chips [chips = french fries]
> brollies = umbrellas
> tossers = waste of space people, aka wankers; for emphasis = complete tossers!
> windscreens = windshields
> plonk = a really rank wine, but also used for any vino - let's order a bottle of plonk
> fag = cigarette, also called ciggie
> knackered = REALLY tired - too pooped to pop!
> taking the piss - making fun of as in "are you taking the piss, mate?" also "are you having a laugh?"
BTW, speaking of piss - to be pissed is to be drunk; to be pissed off is to be angry; mad means crazy.
Great link, thanks randall!
|
| randall |
Posted - 02/13/2014 : 15:25:30
From Variety, a slideshow: five reasons the BAFTAs differ from the Oscars. |
| randall |
Posted - 01/11/2014 : 00:54:56
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Wow. I had no idea that type of scorn was visited upon the British film industry by us Yanks. After all, lots of blockbusters are shot in Britain, from STAR WARS to Bond, and British films have won dozens of Academy Awards, including Best Picture. When did the industry decide Great Britain was a territory?
Like everywhere else on the planet that isn't America, Hollywood has always regarded the UK as a "territory". The irony seems completely to escape them. The term itself has been around for many decades and is freely used [without irony] by execs attending trade conferences and journos writing for trade dailies and monthlies. Crikey, I've interviewed plenty such execs.
Where studio "product" is shot is largely dependent on currency exchange rates, tax periods, and other such non-cinema criteria. As I mentioned, this is really a complex subject and there's a lot of bullshit batted about re admiration of UK personnel [well, ok, some of it's genuine] - but increasingly it's accountants & their ilk and acolytes who make fundamental production decisions. Sad, but true. Sigh.
Uh-huh. I guess. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 01/10/2014 : 23:52:09
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Wow. I had no idea that type of scorn was visited upon the British film industry by us Yanks. After all, lots of blockbusters are shot in Britain, from STAR WARS to Bond, and British films have won dozens of Academy Awards, including Best Picture. When did the industry decide Great Britain was a territory?
Like everywhere else on the planet that isn't America, Hollywood has always regarded the UK as a "territory". The irony seems completely to escape them. The term itself has been around for many decades and is freely used [without irony] by execs attending trade conferences and journos writing for trade dailies and monthlies. Crikey, I've interviewed plenty such execs.
Where studio "product" is shot is largely dependent on currency exchange rates, tax periods, and other such non-cinema criteria. As I mentioned, this is really a complex subject and there's a lot of bullshit batted about re admiration of UK personnel [well, ok, some of it's genuine] - but increasingly it's accountants & their ilk and acolytes who make fundamental production decisions. Sad, but true. Sigh.
|
| randall |
Posted - 01/10/2014 : 22:03:48
Wow. I had no idea that type of scorn was visited upon the British film industry by us Yanks. After all, lots of blockbusters are shot in Britain, from STAR WARS to Bond, and British films have won dozens of Academy Awards, including Best Picture. When did the industry decide Great Britain was a territory? |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 01/09/2014 : 13:47:03
quote:
Originally posted by randall
A "symptom of the pandering to US studios" how?
Not much time, and it's quite a complex subject ... but there's been a steady increase of BAFTA committee lack of challenge to some US studio tactics [mirroring those they use on Academy members for Oscar] - including but not limited to, extra bombardment of near-identical publicity notices; catered screenings [but only in London]; prioritising screeners for films they're promoting over others; ditto with streamed films; only offering streamed films compatible with certain monitors; claiming screeners aren't available when Academy members have already been sent them in the US ... I know from many years experience the power of P&A on the industry and the absurd amounts of money spent by the studios - much to the disadvantage of more independent British films. When the studio monopolies were legally challenged in the US, their global network remained in tact. Only the French vigorously protect their domestic industry. The UK film industry, readily acknowledged by the studios as just another territory, has increasingly been a plaything of successive and contradictory government policies.
Sorry, really gotta go do stuff. But willing to continue discussion when I have more time.
xx
|
| randall |
Posted - 01/09/2014 : 11:01:34
A "symptom of the pandering to US studios" how? |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 01/08/2014 : 23:39:49
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Yes, Variety hipped us Yanks live, but I thought it would be courteous to wait for your thread.
I agree; more deservings were left out than were nominated. At least AMPAS has extended Best Picture to ten, which switch would have helped Baffites in this [anomalous?] fecund year.
Absolutely agree! [& thanks for your courtesy! ] In fact, I'm quietly furious at the creepy and creeping changes in the BAFTA firmament. This means the long-list isn't open to every member and the noms I posted have already been whittled. But not in every category. It's very unfair and a symptom of the pandering to US studios. Yuch! Perhaps BAFTA should include US films in the "Best Foreign Film" category 
|
| randall |
Posted - 01/08/2014 : 21:06:00
Yes, Variety hipped us Yanks live, but I thought it would be courteous to wait for your thread.
I agree; more deservings were left out than were nominated. At least AMPAS has extended Best Picture to ten, which switch would have helped Baffites in this [anomalous?] fecund year. |
|
|
