28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Adam]

Rather than have an actor, who worked with them on a previous film for which the actor wasn't nominated, not verbally felate them? Madness.

Goddamn dude, seriously? I'd rather watch a clip from the actual performance than see someone who wasn't even involved with he film in the first place talk about it for ten minutes. Are you sure you watched the ceremony closely last year? It was brutal!!

[Derek]

I'm convinced that was all about getting an Oprah moment.

Never thought of that, but that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Goddamn dude, seriously? I'd rather watch a clip from the actual performance than see someone who wasn't even involved with he film in the first place talk about it for ten minutes. Are you sure you watched the ceremony closely last year? It was brutal!!

Your sarcasm detector has failed you.

[Adam]

I was actually using you to teach MacGuffin a lesson about sarcasm

[Qrazy]

We're talking around the same thing, really. We can come to terms an classify the compelling element to be a kind of "morbid interest," or we can split hairs.

If you're interested in the splitting hairs, I'll point out that by your logic, Casablanca and Woody Allen's Radio Days are both "war movies."

No we're not really talking around, about or anywhere near the same thing actually. Most of the films I listed (in the list you asked for and then ignored) have combat scenes in them, but they are still not about soldiers being badasses. So you can set that straw man of yours on fire.

Because I find it laughable to believe that Mendes, of all people, managed to sneak some startling po-mo vision past the studios, the critics, and into theaters for you to enjoy.

The simplest explanation to a non-ending is just that; it's a letdown, it's bad, it's a narrative failure.

The biggest claim you can make is that they had no choice, they were locked into a bad ending because the source is a memoir.

It's right there in the film. It's incredibly obvious that Mendes is purposefully withholding that release for the audience just as it's withheld from the marines. It's what the entire film is about. That doesn't make it a post-mod masterpiece, but it's clearly what the film is focused upon. To acknowledge that and then deny your acknowledgement is simply baffling.

[Qrazy]

I was actually using you to teach MacGuffin a lesson about sarcasm

Brilliantly played sir, I witnessed the entire affair. It shall henceforth be known as The Adam Affair.

[Irish]

No we're not really talking around, about or anywhere near the same thing actually. Most of the films I listed (in the list you asked for and then ignored) have combat scenes in them, but they are still not about soldiers being badasses. So you can set that straw man of yours on fire.

Did you actually read any of the posts around this conversation from last night? I did address lists similar to yours in other posts.

It's incredibly obvious that Mendes is purposefully withholding that release for the audience just as it's withheld from the marines. It's what the entire film is about.

M-E-M-O-I-R, you obstinate jackass.

[soitgoes...]

M-E-M-O-I-R, you obstinate jackass.

You're turning into my favorite.

[Raiders]

ritch:

[Spun Lepton]

1929

:lol: Came here to say this.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I'd rather see clips too. Although at least put together a respectable montage for when they show the bits for east Best Pic nom. Those are even worse.

[number8]

I'd like them to work for it. Have the nominee stand up and do a brief key scene from the movie.

[Raiders]

I think it should be a contest. No winner should be voted on, only the nominees. Then, each nominee should compete in like a spelling bee or one of those Minute-to-Win-It games. Reality TV is all the rage, so let's use it!

[balmakboor]

I'd like them to work for it. Have the nominee stand up and do a brief key scene from the movie.

Every couple of years I toss something like the following out there (kinda related to your post):

I think the Oscar for film editing is bogus. It usually goes to either the film with the most film editing (you know, lots and lots of cuts and shit) or the film that wins BP. I don't think there is any way to know how impressive of a job the film editor did without seeing what he had to work with, the dailies, the mound of raw footage. The final product could mean anything. The director could've been a "John Ford" and edited in camera. He could've been a "Hitchcock" and storyboarded everthing really well. I'm not saying their editors didn't have room for some creativity and some mistakes in coverage to fix. I'm saying that editors who make a silk purse out of a sow's ear had a much greater challenge and did a more impressive job.

Editors who routinely turn a pile of who knows what into something great and compelling are documentary editors. Why aren't they ever nominated?

Maybe the Oscars should have a website where people, especially voters, can go and see examples of raw footage vs. finished scenes.

[number8]

I think it should be a contest. No winner should be voted on, only the nominees. Then, each nominee should compete in like a spelling bee or one of those Minute-to-Win-It games. Reality TV is all the rage, so let's use it!

[Qrazy]

Every couple of years I toss something like the following out there (kinda related to your post):

I think the Oscar for film editing is bogus. It usually goes to either the film with the most film editing (you know, lots and lots of cuts and shit) or the film that wins BP. I don't think there is any way to know how impressive of a job the film editor did without seeing what he had to work with, the dailies, the mound of raw footage. The final product could mean anything. The director could've been a "John Ford" and edited in camera. He could've been a "Hitchcock" and storyboarded everthing really well. I'm not saying their editors didn't have room for some creativity and some mistakes in coverage to fix. I'm saying that editors who make a silk purse out of a sow's ear had a much greater challenge and did a more impressive job.

Editors who routinely turn a pile of who knows what into something great and compelling are documentary editors. Why aren't they ever nominated?

Maybe the Oscars should have a website where people, especially voters, can go and see examples of raw footage vs. finished scenes.

Ehh but this is true of anything no? I mean same thing goes for the performer who took a flat character and turned them into something memorable... or the director who took a bunch of crappy actors and a middling script and made the film stylistically brilliant... or the cinematographer who had a shoe string budget and could only afford one light but still managed to do something amazing.

That aside I do agree with you though that the Academy frequently rewards montage editing.

[number8]

Maybe the Oscars should have a website where people, especially voters, can go and see examples of raw footage vs. finished scenes.

I think the reason they don't is that they assume since it's all editors who vote, then they should already know what they're voting for.

[number8]

I just realized after posting this that I am actually eating a pie right now, at my desk.

Woah.

[balmakboor]

Ehh but this is true of anything no? I mean same thing goes for the performer who took a flat character and turned them into something memorable... or the director who took a bunch of crappy actors and a middling script and made the film stylistically brilliant... or the cinematographer who had a shoe string budget and could only afford one light but still managed to do something amazing.

That aside I do agree with you though that the Academy frequently rewards montage editing.

Yes, I agree with you. I'd like to see what the person created compared to what s/he had to work with in all categories.

Btw, I also think that costume and art direction are bogus. Why do the darn things always go to period films? Because they contain the most and prettiest costumes and sets. Who cares if all of the prettiness expresses nothing.

[balmakboor]

I think the reason they don't is that they assume since it's all editors who vote, then they should already know what they're voting for.

Editors, of all people, should know what I'm talking about. I think they all just huddle up and decide which friend they'll honor each year.

[balmakboor]

I think the reason they don't is that they assume since it's all editors who vote, then they should already know what they're voting for.

To be fair though, I'm sure a seasoned editor can watch a movie and read between the cuts. Can actually imagine with fair accuracy what decisions were made and what challenges were faced.

[number8]

Btw, I also think that costume and art direction are bogus. Why do the darn things always go to period films? Because they contain the most and prettiest costumes and sets. Who cares if all of the prettiness expresses nothing.

And Best Screenplay often go to the one with the snappiest dialogue, rather than the most intricate story as a whole. We can go on.

[balmakboor]

And Best Screenplay often go to the one with the snappiest dialogue, rather than the most intricate story as a whole. We can go on.

Yep. I guess it all just means that the Oscars are bogus.

[Spinal]

I believe that the editors select the nominees, but then the whole Academy votes on the winner. Isn't this how it works?

[number8]

Yep. I guess it all just means that the Oscars are bogus.

"The Oscars is one fucking beauty contest after another." - Paul Dano

[DavidSeven]

I believe that the editors select the nominees, but then the whole Academy votes on the winner. Isn't this how it works?

Odd. I was always under the impression that the specific branches voted on the winners too, but it looks like you are right. Seems quite dumb. Reassuring to know that sound mixers are helping the The Academy determine Best Make-Up of the year.