| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 01/19/2014 : 16:37:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Sure, I admire the dedication to detail but there comes a point when you've gotta say why not just go read the book? I'm actually tempted to say the Harry Potter books were a better adaption than LOTR simply because the screenwriter was brave enough to drop the elements that killed the pace when the story became projected.
It seems here that you're saying that the Harry Potter movies were better than the books (I don't know as I haven't read them), not that Harry Potter (the movies) were better than LOTR (the movies).
Not quite- I'm just trying to say that some stuff worked fine in the books and didn't bog the pace down (because they were in a dip-in/dip-out medium) whereas had it been carried over the film would have dragged. I'm not qualified to say one is better than the other though since I haven't read the books either- I just know from several sources whole subplots and the like didn't make it into the films... which I think is to be applauded.
The Tom Bombadil sub-plot from LOTR was skipped entirely (it didn't relate to the main story at all), but that was all there was to skip without wrecking the story. The Scourge of the Shire omission arguably did affect the story, and not in a good way. Skipping anything else would be like telling the story of WW2 while forgetting to mention the invasion of North Africa.
So there was stuff in the book that could be skipped without the story losing anything and there was other stuff in the book that arguably affected the story in a 'not good' way. That almost sounds like you're saying the book is not, in fact, perfect 
quote:
quote:
Audiences don't know what they want, and die-hard fans especially so being so blinded by the sanctity of the source (so bringing onboard uber-fan Peter Jackson as director strikes me as a bad idea in terms of making a good adaption to film).
The masses have spoken, and the LOTR movies score a minimum of 8.7 at IMDb, the Harry Potter movies are more like mid-7's. It seems clear that Jackson didn't make LOTR for you though. 
The box office says otherwise. And unlike IMDB (which is based purely on people being arsed to go to IMDB and score the film) box office is a rating mechanism people can't opt out of voting upon (aside from sneaking into the cinema by the lav window). Sure there's more HP films so that slants the grand total for the series somewhat, but the last HP film made considerably more than the last LOTR.
No, Jackson didn't make LOTR for me (although, confusingly, I quite enjoyed the first Hobbit film) but if he's actually dropped stuff from the books and is now actively making stuff up to turn a short book into an 11 hour epic, I'm not sure exactly who he *is* making them for. Maybe just himself?  |
 |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/19/2014 : 17:00:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by randall
To me, no filmmaker could possibly top the extended editions of the three films. Not the length-based arbitrary cuts exhibited in cinemas, mind: I'm talking about the entire nine-hour-plus journey.
That's the cinematic length, the extended cuts were over 11 hours. I'd like to see another half hour (for the Scourge of the Shire), but that didn't stop me giving the trilogy 10/10.quote:
Book fans will wail about the shuffling of events to and fro [true Tolkies even decry the omission of Tom Bombadil, to whom I say, don't let the screenplay hit your hairy ass as you walk out the door!], but, absent that, and a re-placed Shelob, this is the best representation of that epic you can ever hope to see.
I agree. Sure, with better technology you could make it look even better, but could it be as good? I doubt it. To be better you'd need to find someone to play Gollum better than Andy Serkis did, and someone better than Ian McKellen to play Gandalf. Good luck...
Or someone better than Borelando Broom? Or someone better than Sean Astin? There's always room for improvement.
Again, yeah... history is filled with short-sighted predictions about the future or the expected longevity of something. None of us know what's coming but you can guarantee the technology to depict fantastical locations and characters will improve and actors will continue to grow.
I refuse to believe there will never be another actor of McKellen's calibre (or better, or, more likely, incredible in a whole new direction)- heck we have the likes of Patrick Stewart right now (I'm sure someone with better thespian knowledge than I could name a great many more too)... who knows who we have coming down the pipe?
Of course, those with fond memories of these LOTR films will always refuse to accept anyone else could play Gandalf with the same gravitas and the new blood will never be able to win them over regardless of how incredible their performance. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/19/2014 : 21:27:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
The Tom Bombadil sub-plot from LOTR was skipped entirely (it didn't relate to the main story at all), but that was all there was to skip without wrecking the story. The Scourge of the Shire omission arguably did affect the story, and not in a good way. Skipping anything else would be like telling the story of WW2 while forgetting to mention the invasion of North Africa.
So there was stuff in the book that could be skipped without the story losing anything and there was other stuff in the book that arguably affected the story in a 'not good' way. That almost sounds like you're saying the book is not, in fact, perfect
I guess so.  The Tom Bombadil subplot was superfluous, so I'm not surprised at all it got skipped. If it was up to me, I'd also have skipped it. But that was it, one chapter could be safely cut, any other compromising doesn't benefit the story.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Audiences don't know what they want, and die-hard fans especially so being so blinded by the sanctity of the source (so bringing onboard uber-fan Peter Jackson as director strikes me as a bad idea in terms of making a good adaption to film).
The masses have spoken, and the LOTR movies score a minimum of 8.7 at IMDb, the Harry Potter movies are more like mid-7's. It seems clear that Jackson didn't make LOTR for you though.
The box office says otherwise. And unlike IMDB (which is based purely on people being arsed to go to IMDB and score the film) box office is a rating mechanism people can't opt out of voting upon (aside from sneaking into the cinema by the lav window). Sure there's more HP films so that slants the grand total for the series somewhat, but the last HP film made considerably more than the last LOTR.
20% more, and that was eight years later. With inflation adjustment it would be considerably lower. This doesn't tell me anything about quality though - the highest-grossing list (non-inflation adjusted) is jammed with popcorn movies (Transformers, Iron Man sequel, POTC sequel etc) - it simply says that some demographics are easy to get into the cinema, you feed them what you already know they want. Revenue and 'quality' are not the same thing.
It raises an interesting question though... did people refuse to see LOTR because of the length of the movies? It appears not, the inflation-adjusted-highest-grossing list is topped by Gone With The Wind at almost four hours with Titanic (3h15m) in fourth place. Epic movie length doesn't seem detrimental to bums-on-seats.quote:
No, Jackson didn't make LOTR for me (although, confusingly, I quite enjoyed the first Hobbit film) but if he's actually dropped stuff from the books and is now actively making stuff up to turn a short book into an 11 hour epic, I'm not sure exactly who he *is* making them for. Maybe just himself?
Turning a two-movie project into three may have been a commercial decision (can you hear my tongue is in my cheek here?) I'm wondering what's going to be in Hobbit 3, there's not much of the story left.  I'm not sure anything's been dropped from the Hobbit, there wasn't a need to drop anything, it's only a short book. I've enjoyed the Hobbit so far, but it's not in the same league as LOTR (the story simply isn't as great). |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/20/2014 : 02:32:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
The box office says otherwise. And unlike IMDB (which is based purely on people being arsed to go to IMDB and score the film) box office is a rating mechanism people can't opt out of voting upon (aside from sneaking into the cinema by the lav window). Sure there's more HP films so that slants the grand total for the series somewhat, but the last HP film made considerably more than the last LOTR.
20% more, and that was eight years later. With inflation adjustment it would be considerably lower. This doesn't tell me anything about quality though - the highest-grossing list (non-inflation adjusted) is jammed with popcorn movies (Transformers, Iron Man sequel, POTC sequel etc) - it simply says that some demographics are easy to get into the cinema, you feed them what you already know they want. Revenue and 'quality' are not the same thing.
And the IMDB score doesn't accurately indicate quality either. For example, Transformers is as good as The Kings of Summer and Vicki Christina Barcelona (apparently). I guess the problem is that you're dependant on just the vocal people, rather than everyone, which is no indication of what everyone thinks.
At least with box office it's not just restricted to the select few who rate things on websites. I'd say any film making over, say, $1b is, whilst not an indication of quality, at least customer satisfaction since I don't believe you get that kind of box office without good word of mouth and return viewings.
quote:
It raises an interesting question though... did people refuse to see LOTR because of the length of the movies? It appears not, the inflation-adjusted-highest-grossing list is topped by Gone With The Wind at almost four hours with Titanic (3h15m) in fourth place. Epic movie length doesn't seem detrimental to bums-on-seats.
Once again, Gone With the Wind had an intermission as I understand it. There were also less films being made, so films had a longer run in cinemas, not to mention a much bigger slice of the cinema-going public's purse.
A few other factors to consider with long running films though: Did the audience going in know how long the film was? (They seldom mention on trailers or movie posters that it'll take 3 hours to watch this film) What percentage of the sales were DVD? (Where running time isn't such a concern- in fact it seems to be a selling point) And how many of those paying punters were there purely out of loyalty to the second best selling book of all time? |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/20/2014 : 04:01:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
The box office says otherwise. And unlike IMDB (which is based purely on people being arsed to go to IMDB and score the film) box office is a rating mechanism people can't opt out of voting upon (aside from sneaking into the cinema by the lav window). Sure there's more HP films so that slants the grand total for the series somewhat, but the last HP film made considerably more than the last LOTR.
20% more, and that was eight years later. With inflation adjustment it would be considerably lower. This doesn't tell me anything about quality though - the highest-grossing list (non-inflation adjusted) is jammed with popcorn movies (Transformers, Iron Man sequel, POTC sequel etc) - it simply says that some demographics are easy to get into the cinema, you feed them what you already know they want. Revenue and 'quality' are not the same thing.
And the IMDB score doesn't accurately indicate quality either. For example, Transformers is as good as The Kings of Summer and Vicki Christina Barcelona (apparently). I guess the problem is that you're dependant on just the vocal people, rather than everyone, which is no indication of what everyone thinks.
The IMDb score accurately indicates average perception of quality from the vocal viewers amongst those who saw it. Basically it's a satisfaction level, if a lot of people who saw it didn't get what they wanted or expected, then this will be refelcted in the score. So if Transformers gets a moderately high score, then this tells me that the movie generally gives the target demographic what they want (it certainly doesn't tell me that I'll like it); the vocal people amongst those who've seen it will score it whether they liked it or not. Same with Vicky Cristina Barcelona. And same with LOTR, the score reflects a very high satisfaction level amongst those who saw it, the Ringnuts and the masses.
BTW I use the IMDb score as my prime criteria for movie watching, but always take into account who is likely to have scored it. E.g., those who've scored Transformers or LOTR or Dersu Uzala or Strangers on a Train will be very different people. The number isn't an absolute indicator of whether I'll like it or not, but combined with genre and era I've found in invaluable (I get it right about 99% of the time, only 1% of what I watch wasn't worth the bother).
quote:
At least with box office it's not just restricted to the select few who rate things on websites. I'd say any film making over, say, $1b is, whilst not an indication of quality, at least customer satisfaction since I don't believe you get that kind of box office without good word of mouth and return viewings.
I'd say you're right. If something's disappointing, people will hear about it and stop going (or wait for the DVD).quote:
quote:
It raises an interesting question though... did people refuse to see LOTR because of the length of the movies? It appears not, the inflation-adjusted-highest-grossing list is topped by Gone With The Wind at almost four hours with Titanic (3h15m) in fourth place. Epic movie length doesn't seem detrimental to bums-on-seats.
Once again, Gone With the Wind had an intermission as I understand it. There were also less films being made, so films had a longer run in cinemas, not to mention a much bigger slice of the cinema-going public's purse.
A few other factors to consider with long running films though: Did the audience going in know how long the film was? (They seldom mention on trailers or movie posters that it'll take 3 hours to watch this film)
I'd imagine after a few days they would know it's very long (reviews, and word of mouth etc.)quote:
What percentage of the sales were DVD?
Those numbers on the Wikipedia links are cinema take. Once you get into home video and video games and paraphernalia it gets a lot muddier. E.g., most of Star Wars' income didn't come from the movies themselves.quote:
And how many of those paying punters were there purely out of loyalty to the second best selling book of all time?
Quite a few I'd imagine (and same for HP). But I'm unsure what percentage of viewers had read the book. I know some diehard ringnuts didn't like it as they wanted the plot to follow the book exactly. And the actors to look exactly like what they'd imagined when they read it.
|
Edited by - Sean on 01/20/2014 04:55:23 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/20/2014 : 04:49:35
|
BTW I'd say with box office takings there are a number of factors involved other than satisfaction level with the movie. E.g., dollars spent on marketing, a kick-arse trailer, A-list actors, or a pre-existing market (due to a popular book/comic or movie that you're making a sequel for). Those alone will probably get you your first $200 million or so (just guessing at the number). But sure, to get a $ billion you're obviously going to need word-of-mouth and positive reviews.
BTW sorry for hijacking the Oscars thread and going off on a tangent. Actually, I'm not sorry, it's benj's site and he can do what he likes.  |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/21/2014 : 18:10:02
|
Whaddya know! The New York Times has an article on the immortal Thelma Schoonmaker and why Wolf of Wall St is so long. Some of the key quotations:
"'It�s hard for people to understand editing, I think,' [Schoonmaker] said. 'It�s absolutely like sculpture. You get a big lump of clay, and you have to form it � this raw, unedited, very long footage.'"
"Mr. Scorsese might be able to get away with a three-hour film, but apparently not a four-hour film. Ms. Schoonmaker said that a cut of 'Wolf' at that length performed very well in test screenings, 'but it�s just not feasible to distribute that.'"
"Regardless of format or release strategy, what�s essential for some will always seem excessive to others. 'Some people feel it�s long,' Ms. Schoonmaker said about her latest. 'Some people want more.'" |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/21/2014 : 20:12:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Whaddya know! The New York Times has an article on the immortal Thelma Schoonmaker and why Wolf of Wall St is so long. Some of the key quotations:
"'It�s hard for people to understand editing, I think,' [Schoonmaker] said. 'It�s absolutely like sculpture. You get a big lump of clay, and you have to form it � this raw, unedited, very long footage.'"
"Mr. Scorsese might be able to get away with a three-hour film, but apparently not a four-hour film. Ms. Schoonmaker said that a cut of 'Wolf' at that length performed very well in test screenings, 'but it�s just not feasible to distribute that.'"
"Regardless of format or release strategy, what�s essential for some will always seem excessive to others. 'Some people feel it�s long,' Ms. Schoonmaker said about her latest. 'Some people want more.'"
Thanks for this, GHcool ---- looks like I wasn't far off the mark in my earlier comment about why it needs to be the length it is. 
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/21/2014 : 23:15:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Whaddya know! The New York Times has an article on the immortal Thelma Schoonmaker and why Wolf of Wall St is so long.
Interesting article. I haven't seen WoWS yet, but I'm going to assume that I'll have no problem with the length at all.
"A shorter film might have a quicker pace, but when it�s trimmed back too much, he said, �you don�t have the time to rest, to get into the characters in the same way.� "
This is probably what was wrong with the cinematic cut of LOTR: The Two Towers. The Extended Cut was so much better as you got to take a breather now and again.
"Mr. Scorsese might be able to get away with a three-hour film, but apparently not a four-hour film. Ms. Schoonmaker said that a cut of �Wolf� at that length performed very well in test screenings, �but it�s just not feasible to distribute that.� "
I hope they release the four-hour version on DVD. If so I'll see that one and skip the three-hour version altogether.
"What might feel like too much movie in the theater could feel just right for compulsive binge-watching at home. "
For me this is the key point here. Whatever compromising may be required for cinematic release does not apply for the home-video version. Whenever I have a DVD with cinematic cut and 'director's' cut I watch the longer one. If producers/directors/editors/test-audiences think that 'more is better' and that a longer version is justified, then I'll probably agree with them. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/26/2014 : 11:22:22
|
| 2014 Oscar balloting closes at 5pm PST today. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/03/2014 : 11:04:33
|
And the winnahs:
BEST PICTURE
�12 Years a Slave�
�American Hustle�
�Captain Phillips�
�Dallas Buyers Club�
�Gravity�
�Her�
�Nebraska�
�Philomena�
�The Wolf of Wall Street�
BEST DIRECTOR
David O. Russell, �American Hustle�
Alfonso Cuaron, �Gravity�
Alexander Payne, �Nebraska�
Steve McQueen, �12 Years a Slave�
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 ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
�American Hustle� � Written by Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell
�Blue Jasmine� � Written by Woody Allen
�Her� � Written by Spike Jonze
�Nebraska� � Written by Bob Nelson
�Dallas Buyers Club� � Written by Craig Borten & Melisa Wallack
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
�Before Midnight� � Written by Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke
�Captain Phillips� � Screenplay by Billy Ray
�Philomena� � Screenplay by Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope
�12 Years a Slave� � Screenplay by John Ridley
�The Wolf of Wall Street� � Screenplay by Terence Winter
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Lupita Nyong�o, �12 Years a Slave�
Jennifer Lawrence, �American Hustle�
June Squibb, �Nebraska�
Julia Roberts, �August: Osage County�
Sally Hawkins, �Blue Jasmine�
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 ANIMATED FILM
�The Croods�
�Despicable Me 2�
�Ernest & Celestine�
�Frozen�
�The Wind Rises�
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
�The Grandmaster�
�Gravity�
�Inside Llewyn Davis�
�Nebraska�
�Prisoners�
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Michael Wilkinson, �American Hustle�
William Chang Suk Ping, �The Grandmaster�
Catherine Martin, �The Great Gatsby�
Michael O�Connor, �The Invisible Woman�
Patricia Norris, �12 Years a Slave�
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
�The Act of Killing�Joshua Oppenheimer and Signe Byrge S�rensen
�Cutie and the Boxer� Zachary Heinzerling and Lydia Dean Pilcher
�Dirty Wars� Richard Rowley and Jeremy Scahill
�The Square� Jehane Noujaim and Karim Amer
�20 Feet from Stardom� Morgan Neville
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
�CaveDigger� Jeffrey Karoff
�Facing Fear� Jason Cohen
�Karama Has No Walls� Sara Ishaq
�The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life� Malcolm Clarke and Nicholas Reed
�Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall� Edgar Barens
BEST FILM EDITING
�American Hustle� Jay Cassidy, Crispin Struthers and Alan Baumgarten
�Captain Phillips� Christopher Rouse
�Dallas Buyers Club� John Mac McMurphy and Martin Pensa
�Gravity� Alfonso Cuar�n and Mark Sanger
�12 Years a Slave� Joe Walker
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
�The Broken Circle Breakdown� Belgium
�The Great Beauty� Italy
�The Hunt� Denmark
�The Missing Picture� Cambodia
�Omar� Palestine
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
�Dallas Buyers Club� Adruitha Lee and Robin Mathews
�Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa� Stephen Prouty
�The Lone Ranger� Joel Harlow and Gloria Pasqua-Casny
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
John Williams, �The Book Thief�
Steven Price, �Gravity�
William Butler and Owen Pallett, �Her�
Alexandre Desplat, �Philomena�
Thomas Newman, �Saving Mr. Banks�
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
�Alone Yet Not Alone� from �Alone Yet Not Alone�
Music by Bruce Broughton; Lyric by Dennis Spiegel
�Happy� from �Despicable Me 2�
Music and Lyric by Pharrell Williams
�Let It Go� from �Frozen�
Music and Lyric by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
�The Moon Song� from �Her�
Music by Karen O; Lyric by Karen O and Spike Jonze
�Ordinary Love� from �Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom�
Music by Paul Hewson, Dave Evans, Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen; Lyric by Paul Hewson
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
�American Hustle�
Production Design: Judy Becker; Set Decoration: Heather Loeffler
�Gravity�
Production Design: Andy Nicholson; Set Decoration: Rosie Goodwin and Joanne Woollard
�The Great Gatsby�
Production Design: Catherine Martin; Set Decoration: Beverley Dunn
�Her�
Production Design: K.K. Barrett; Set Decoration: Gene Serdena
�12 Years a Slave�
Production Design: Adam Stockhausen; Set Decoration: Alice Baker
BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
�Feral� Daniel Sousa and Dan Golden
�Get a Horse!� Lauren MacMullan and Dorothy McKim
�Mr. Hublot� Laurent Witz and Alexandre Espigares
�Possessions� Shuhei Morita
�Room on the Broom� Max Lang and Jan Lachauer
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
�Aquel No Era Yo (That Wasn�t Me)� Esteban Crespo
�Avant Que De Tout Perdre (Just before Losing Everything)� Xavier Legrand and Alexandre Gavras
�Helium� Anders Walter and Kim Magnusson
�Pit��k� Mun Kaikki Hoitaa? (Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?)� Selma Vilhunen and Kirsikka Saari
�The Voorman Problem� Mark Gill and Baldwin Li
BEST SOUND EDITING
�All Is Lost� Steve Boeddeker and Richard Hymns
�Captain Phillips� Oliver Tarney
�Gravity� Glenn Freemantle
�The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug� Brent Burge
�Lone Survivor� Wylie Stateman
BEST SOUND MIXING
�Captain Phillips� Chris Burdon, Mark Taylor, Mike Prestwood Smith and Chris Munro
�Gravity� Skip Lievsay, Niv Adiri, Christopher Benstead and Chris Munro
�The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug� Christopher Boyes, Michael Hedges, Michael Semanick and Tony Johnson
�Inside Llewyn Davis� Skip Lievsay, Greg Orloff and Peter F. Kurland
�Lone Survivor� Andy Koyama, Beau Borders and David Brownlow
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
"Gravity� Tim Webber, Chris Lawrence, Dave Shirk and Neil Corbould
�The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug� Joe Letteri, Eric Saindon, David Clayton and Eric Reynolds
�Iron Man 3� Christopher Townsend, Guy Williams, Erik Nash and Dan Sudick
�The Lone Ranger� Tim Alexander, Gary Brozenich, Edson Williams and John Frazier
�Star Trek Into Darkness� Roger Guyett, Patrick Tubach, Ben Grossmann and Burt Dalton
Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award
Angelina Jolie
*****************************************************
SCORECARD
�Gravity� 7
�12 Years a Slave� 3
�Dallas Buyers Club� 3
�Frozen� 2
�The Great Gatsby� 2
�Blue Jasmine� 1
�Her� 1
|
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/07/2014 : 00:29:50
|
| I'm very surprised to belatedly report that I guessed 23/24 this year - about ten more than usual (missed out on Animated Short - who wouldn't bet on Mickey Mouse?). I think that says a lot about how predictable and rather dull the Oscars were this year. I think the right film won in the end though, no complaints on that front. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/31/2014 : 12:06:16
|
OK, so I just watched The Wolf of Wall Street. Keeping this conversation about movie-length in mind when watching it, no, I want none of it cut. It was the right length.
9/10 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/31/2014 : 17:58:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
OK, so I just watched The Wolf of Wall Street. Keeping this conversation about movie-length in mind when watching it, no, I want none of it cut. It was the right length.
9/10
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2014 Academy Awards
