| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 12/09/2013 : 23:17:55
|
Let's start talkin about them! Who could be on this list in a couple short months?
http://oscar.go.com/nominees
|
Edited by - randall on 12/09/2013 23:20:46 |
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/17/2013 : 22:24:36
|
Many Oscar voters are watching "screeners" just about now. Meaning home-video versions, usually in DVD form at present [one day they'll be streaming, but only for big shots]. Most are so anti-piratic that you have to watch a crawl every few minutes telling you that this is a screener. In a small ensemble flick, that's ok. In a horror entry, or anything else that truly attempts to take you away, fuggedaboudit.
Of course, the process isn't fair to some particular flix. Here, suggested by Variety, are five movies Academy voters really should see on the big screen instead.
|
Edited by - randall on 12/18/2013 09:56:01 |
 |
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 14:29:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
They're set to announce the nominees, right...NOW.
Sorry, doll, can't see the list on your link. But here's a complete list courtesy of the BBC website:
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 15:15:54
|
Predictions? Or in my case, wild guesses...
Best picture
12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Nebraska
Philomena
The Wolf of Wall Street
Best director
Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity
Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave
Alexander Payne, Nebraska
David O Russell, American Hustle
Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street
Best actor
Christian Bale, American Hustle
Bruce Dern, Nebraska
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave
Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club
Best actress
Amy Adams, American Hustle
Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine
Sandra Bullock, Gravity
Judi Dench, Philomena
Meryl Streep, August: Osage County
Best supporting actor
Barkhad Abdi, Captain Phillips
Bradley Cooper, American Hustle
Michael Fassbender, 12 Years a Slave
Jonah Hill, The Wolf of Wall Street
Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club
Best supporting actress
Sally Hawkins, Blue Jasmine
Jennifer Lawrence, American Hustle
Lupita Nyong'o, 12 Years a Slave
Julia Roberts, August: Osage County
June Squibb, Nebraska
Best adapted screenplay
12 Years a Slave
Before Midnight
Captain Phillips
Philomena
The Wolf of Wall Street
Best original screenplay
American Hustle
Blue Jasmine
Dallas Buyers Club
Her
Nebraska
Best animated feature
The Croods
Despicable Me 2
Ernest and Celestine
Frozen
Best visual effects
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Iron Man 3
The Lone Ranger
Star Trek Into Darkness |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 19:04:48
|
My thoughts ...
Best Picture:
Which Should Win: 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Her
Which Was Snubbed: Ernest & Celestine
Best Actress:
Which Should Win: CATE BLANCHETT
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Sandra Bullock
Which Was Snubbed: Hadas Yaron in Fill the Void
Best Supporting Actor:
Which Should Win: Michael Fassbender, 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Barkhad Abdi
Which Was Snubbed: Benedict Cumberbatch in 12 Years a Slave
Best Director:
Which Should Win: Alfonso Cuaron, GRAVITY
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: David O. Russell Alexander Payne
Which Was Snubbed: Paul Greengrass, Captain Phillips
Best Original Screenplay:
Which Should Win: BLUE JASMINE
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: American Hustle
Which Was Snubbed: 42
Best Film Editing:
Which Should Win: 12 Years a Slave
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: American Hustle
Which Was Snubbed: WOLF OF WALL STREET
Best Score:
Which Should Win: Gravity
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Saving Mr. Banks
Which Was Snubbed: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Best Production Design:
Which Should Win: American Hustle
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Gravity
Which Was Snubbed: THE HOBBIT 2 and Star Trek
There really was only one movie for me this year: 12 Years a Slave. The rest is gravy, but I was hoping that Star Trek would have been more recognized. I'm glad that Ernest & Celestine got a nomination for Best Animated Feature.
Although I enjoyed the movie, I don't think Nebraska deserves all of the praise it is receiving. It certainly wasn't the best picture of the year. It has some good performances and a good script, but nothing remarkable. Alexander Payne's About Schmidt deals with similar themes and is a film that stands up remarkably well. I don't think Nebraska is as memorable, powerful, or noteworthy. |
Edited by - GHcool on 02/25/2014 10:56:26 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 19:22:13
|
Interesting selection (and much more insightful than mine).
I'm curious when talking about WoWS for best editing... can a film that's been accused of being too long by many be justifiably thought to have been truly well edited? Surely a good editor should be able to get a film down to a reasonably short amount of time without losing the story (say 2h30m at the absolute tops)? Obviously, I know little of the art of film editing but 3hours seems rather excessive (or is that the point, given the film's subject?) |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 22:17:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm curious when talking about WoWS for best editing... can a film that's been accused of being too long by many be justifiably thought to have been truly well edited? Surely a good editor should be able to get a film down to a reasonably short amount of time without losing the story (say 2h30m at the absolute tops)? Obviously, I know little of the art of film editing but 3hours seems rather excessive (or is that the point, given the film's subject?)
There are whole books written about the art of film editing so I won't go into it here (at least not in this post), but "cutting out the bad parts" is arguably the least of the film editor's duties.
When people say that a movie is too long, what they really mean is that it didn't interest them throughout most of the running time. That might be the movie's problem for being a boring or it might be the audience's problem for not engaging with the movie as the artist intended. I've heard people say that WoWS was long, but never that it was boring, which leads me to believe that the problem lies with the critics who call it long, not with Scorsese or his editor, Thelma Schoonmaker.
I don't know how long the rough cut or the screenplay of WoWS was, but I can guarantee that it was probably at least 20 minutes longer than the final cut. The cut that made it to the cinemas is probably the cut that trimmed the fat out as much as possible. |
Edited by - GHcool on 01/16/2014 22:17:41 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 22:37:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by randall
They're set to announce the nominees, right...NOW.
Sorry, doll, can't see the list on your link. But here's a complete list courtesy of the BBC website:
All you had to do was click on the "86th Oscars Nominations" panel on the upper left, honey. Trying to keep things neat. |
Edited by - randall on 01/16/2014 22:39:46 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 22:43:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
My thoughts ...
Best Picture:
Which Should Win: 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Her
Which Was Snubbed: Ernest & Celestine
Best Actress:
Which Should Win: CATE BLANCHETT
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Sandra Bullock
Which Was Snubbed: Hadas Yaron in Fill the Void
Best Supporting Actor:
Which Should Win: Michael Fassbender, 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Barkhad Abdi
Which Was Snubbed: Benedict Cumberbatch in 12 Years a Slave
Best Director:
Which Should Win: Alfonso Cuaron, GRAVITY
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: David O. Russell
Which Was Snubbed: Paul Greengrass, Captain Phillips
Best Original Screenplay:
Which Should Win: BLUE JASMINE
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: American Hustle
Which Was Snubbed: 42
Best Film Editing:
Which Should Win: 12 Years a Slave
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: American Hustle
Which Was Snubbed: WOLF OF WALL STREET
Best Score:
Which Should Win: Gravity
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Saving Mr. Banks
Which Was Snubbed: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Best Production Design:
Which Should Win: American Hustle
Which Shouldn't Have Been Nominated: Gravity
Which Was Snubbed: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
There really was only one movie for me this year: 12 Years a Slave. The rest is gravy, but I was hoping that Star Trek would have been more recognized. I'm glad that Ernest & Celestine got a nomination for Best Animated Feature.
You might be disappointed, cool. My spider sense tells me that HUSTLE is getting a lot of latter-cycle buzz [i.e., they watched screeners at home, and this one works so much better than, say, GRAVITY at that screen size -- Redford took a mild swipe at ALL IS LOST distribber Lionsgate at the Sundance opening today for a similar reason].
Keep in mind, though, that NOBODY has yet voted, and the persuasion campaign continues over the next few weeks, while everything is still dynamic. [Watch the chat-show bookings!] |
Edited by - randall on 01/16/2014 22:45:50 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/16/2014 : 22:55:19
|
Do you not think there is a point when a film is too long though? No matter how good or interesting it is, there has to be a point where you say either this should have been two films or something should have been taken out. For me, that point is around the 2h30m mark. Especially so given we no longer have intermissions and we're sat there guzzling massive drinks.
I can't truly comment on TWoWS as I've not seen it yet, but one example of criticism about its length came from noted UK movie critic Mark Kermode (himself often citing Roger Corman as as an example of someone who knew how to cut a tight film). He didn't merely say it was long- he said it was too long, largely due to effectively repeating itself by returning to the scenes of excess time after time. That does sound like there's a fair amount in there that could have been lost and still kept the film down to a less arse-numbing running time. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 00:47:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I can't truly comment on TWoWS as I've not seen it yet, but one example of criticism about its length came from noted UK movie critic Mark Kermode (himself often citing Roger Corman as as an example of someone who knew how to cut a tight film). He didn't merely say it was long- he said it was too long, largely due to effectively repeating itself by returning to the scenes of excess time after time. That does sound like there's a fair amount in there that could have been lost and still kept the film down to a less arse-numbing running time.
"Too long" is not a real criticism. Is The Brothers Karamazov too long? Someone who criticizes a film by citing one of its empirical statistics (such as its running time) isn't really doing film criticism. Roger Ebert says, "No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."
Mr. Kermode's other criticism you bring up is at least a well articulated opinion: multiple scenes are about the same thing or make the same point. My arse wasn't numb and I was engaged the entire time, so I guess the multiple scenes of excess didn't detract from the overall experience for me.
Is the Empire State Building too tall? It would still hold a lot of offices if it were half as tall, right? |
Edited by - GHcool on 01/17/2014 00:57:19 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 01:08:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I can't truly comment on TWoWS as I've not seen it yet, but one example of criticism about its length came from noted UK movie critic Mark Kermode (himself often citing Roger Corman as as an example of someone who knew how to cut a tight film). He didn't merely say it was long- he said it was too long, largely due to effectively repeating itself by returning to the scenes of excess time after time. That does sound like there's a fair amount in there that could have been lost and still kept the film down to a less arse-numbing running time.
"Too long" is not a real criticism. Is The Brothers Karamazov too long? Someone who criticizes a film by citing one of its empirical statistics (such as its running time) isn't really doing film criticism. Roger Ebert says, "No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."
Mr. Kermode's other criticism you bring up is at least a well articulated opinion: multiple scenes are about the same thing or make the same point. My arse wasn't numb and I was engaged the entire time, so I guess the multiple scenes of excess didn't detract from the overall experience for me.
Is the Empire State Building too tall? It would still hold a lot of offices if it were half as tall, right?
"Too long" is as serious a bit of criticism as Emperor Joseph's "too many notes" was to Mozart. [Unfortunately, Wolfie was composing for just one audience member.] Just so long as you explain yourself: it stands for something else.
Did your arse run numb? Did your mind wander? Why? Was the running time over-devoted to a repetitive point that made you weary? Did witnessing such unrelenting villainy sicken you? I maintain that "too long" is shorthand for "something else bothered me to the point of tedium," but it's still a valid gripe, so long as it's explicated. |
Edited by - randall on 01/17/2014 01:12:41 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 01:37:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
"Too long" is not a real criticism. Is The Brothers Karamazov too long? Someone who criticizes a film by citing one of its empirical statistics (such as its running time) isn't really doing film criticism. Roger Ebert says, "No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."
Of course "too long" by itself isn't real criticism- that was just part of the overview before getting into the meat of why he felt the film was too long (and even then I'm certain I'm not doing Kermode justice).
As for that quote, it's cute and all but obviously not meant as a genuine guideline for filmmakers. No-one would (or, indeed, *could*) sit through, say, a 500 hour film even if it were The Godfather.
quote:
Is the Empire State Building too tall? It would still hold a lot of offices if it were half as tall, right?
Not really the same thing though. It doesn't matter to me if it were a million floors high- I could still marvel at it for a while and be on my way. The height of it doesn't mean I have to take any longer to appreciate it than if it were 2 stories high. And even if I wanted to examine every floor individually, nobody is saying I have to do it all in one sitting.
Also, the more offices you have in a building the better, but the same doesn't necessarily hold true for the quantity of content in a film. Surely a large part of editing is creating the shortest, most effective telling of the tale, not seeing how much stuff you can cram in? Don't bore us- get to the chorus, as songwriters say.
It's a little weird to be criticising a film I've not yet seen. I'll certainly go and see it to decide for myself but the fact does remain there are some noteworthy voices out there with what sounds like justifiable reasons for why it could have done with a bit of a trim.
And regardless of anything else, I still have that naggy feeling 3 hours is too long for any film but maybe that's just from my growing up with 80s movies  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 03:57:07
|
I think 'too long' is shorthand for 'boring' or 'repetitive', i.e., it contained unnecessary scenes or 'necessary' scenes that were essentially repeated.
Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler (1922) - 4h45m - a silent movie - wasn't too long.
LOTR 3: Extended Cut - 4h15m - wasn't too long.
Once Upon a Time in America: Extended Cut - 4h20m - wasn't too long.
Sunshine (1999) - 3h - wasn't too long.
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
For me, that point is around the 2h30m mark. Especially so given we no longer have intermissions and we're sat there guzzling massive drinks.
Is the pause button on your remote broken? 
Edit: BTW, I don't watch live TV, but watch the occasional series that is worthwhile (Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad are in that category). I watch a series (or two or three) in one hit. Normally I'll watch three or four 50-minute episodes on the trot, but if I start early enough (7pm or so) then perhaps five. So that's 2h30m - 4h+ on end. I never feel the need to take a break, I always try to fit another one in, the only reason I stop is if it's midnight and I need sleep.
So, that tells me that length is not the issue (other than whether or not I have time to squeeze it in). If I start thinking that I'd rather be doing something other than watching more of it then I can only conclude that there's something wrong with the subject matter; it'll come down to the material itself (screenplay, acting, direction, editing, score etc) rather than the length of it. If the food's good enough, I'll eat 'til I pop.
|
Edited by - Sean on 01/17/2014 04:34:35 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 07:45:47
|
The Empire State Building was an imperfect metaphor. The Brothers Karamazov was a better one.
"It takes too long for me to watch it" is a statement about the critic's priorities in his day, not a criticism of the merits of the film.
A 500-hour film would have the same problem as a 1-second film: no cohesive story can be told at that length. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2014 Academy Awards
