Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: 11 oscars = overrated  (Read 1905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mikeymike

11 oscars = overrated
« on: March 01, 2004, 11:25:30 AM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/film/3429373.stm

Ben Hur and Titanic also got 11 oscars.  Oooookay :-)

Offline shIva

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2004, 12:19:05 PM »
ahem, so 11 oscars - doesn't matter. the oscar thing seems to be a publicity act, so it won't touch me. even really bad films got oscars (or lets say films i don't like) :-)

btw : ben hur was (is) a great movie.
shIva
the answer is [color=CC3300]42[/color] Support  Distributed Amiga - moo ;)
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2004, 12:48:47 PM »
It's all a matter of taste

These oscars are totally bullocks. :whack:
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline mikeymike

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2004, 01:10:46 PM »
And for anyone who thinks Titanic deserves 11 oscars has BAD[/i][/u] taste! :-)

(yes I pulled out all the formatting stops for the emphasis it deserves :-D)

Offline restore2003

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2004, 03:12:08 PM »
How about "The Deer Hunter"? One of the greatest movies of all time, it should have gotten 11 oscars instead  :-)
If you need music for games, demos or are in a need of a studio mastering engineer, just contact me :-)
Check out my project homepages: www.galaxee.no   www.restore.no
 

Offline whabang

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2004, 04:15:50 PM »
Quote

mikeymike wrote:
And for anyone who thinks Titanic deserves 11 oscars has BAD[/i][/u] taste! :-)

(yes I pulled out all the formatting stops for the emphasis it deserves :-D)

Damn! I was going to post that! :lol:
Beating the dead horse since 2002.
 

Offline cecilia

  • Amiga Snob
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 4875
  • Country: 00
  • Total likes: 1
    • http://cecilia.sawneybean.com/
Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2004, 04:37:29 PM »
Titanic was definitly an utter piece of dreck!
 :smack:

but sometimes great movies get recognized and Lord Of the Rings is sure one of them!
Damn fine piece of film-making there!!!!
the no CARB diet- no Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld or Bush.
IFX CD Tutorial
 

Offline KennyR

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2004, 06:28:42 PM »
Worth an oscar. Maybe two. Not eleven.
 

Offline AccyD

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2004, 08:05:35 PM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Worth an oscar. Maybe two. Not eleven.


That's right.

Nowadays most people seem to go on the hype that a film has raised, rather than its technical merits.

For example, as Mikeymike has said Titanic is a good film, but not brilliant, anyone with a modicom of film experience will realise that it does not compare to the classics (a la Ben Hur).

But at the time the media hype meant it was virtually guaranteed the max number of Oscars. The same us true of Lord of the Rings, whilst it may be a good film (I have not seen it) it is not as good as Ben Hur or the other classic films, merely the media has carried the film.

Yet again, the Oscasrs/Brits/BAFTA's etc. etc. has merely turned into a backslapping event for the film industry rather than a constructive view of the previous 12 months of films, - but then again what are we to expect from this industry?
 

Offline mikeymike

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2004, 08:16:26 PM »
Quote
For example, as Mikeymike has said Titanic is a good film, but not brilliant, anyone with a modicom of film experience will realise that it does not compare to the classics (a la Ben Hur).


Hold on a second!  I have never said Titanic is a good film.  It is cack of the highest order!

...

I think it would be a far better to give films awards for their staying power.  If people are still raving about a film say ten years after its release, it's worth giving an award to.  It annoys the hell out of me, when there are the "top 100 of all time" for something like music, where they have a track by Robbie Williams in the top ten, and right next to it another track that is still considered brilliant thirty years after its release.

Personally I doubt the LotR trilogy will exhibit the sort of staying power I'm talking about.  IMO it lacks real substance, and is basically a Hollywood, watered-down, cliched re-hashing of a quite decent plot from a book that will still be talked about for at least the next 50 years.  The book may not be considered the best sample of literature but it has a decent plot and ideas.

Offline Cyberus

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2004, 08:51:53 PM »
Quote

mikeymike wrote:

I think it would be a far better to give films awards for their staying power.  If people are still raving about a film say ten years after its release, it's worth giving an award to.  It annoys the hell out of me, when there are the "top 100 of all time" for something like music, where they have a track by Robbie Williams in the top ten, and right next to it another track that is still considered brilliant thirty years after its release.



Yeah that irks me too, I think its because there are so many cretins out there.
I was really aggreived when an Oasis album finished higher than Pink Floyd's DSOTM...NO Oasis album can take you on an emotional journey like that album can, but then, like I said, people are cretins...
I like Amigas
 

Offline aardvark

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2004, 09:57:04 PM »
Quote
I have never said Titanic is a good film. It is cack of the highest order!

IMHO Titanic was a good film, but not a great one.  Technically it was of the highest order, but the soap opera love story..oh pulleeze.  Rather like an omlette made with spoiled ham..good in parts.

About LOTR
11 Oscars devided by three films = 3.67 Oscars per film (yeah, I know the other two films won a few oscars, but I can't be bothered to look them up)and none of the actors ever won any.  (Okay,I looked it up.  Two Towers nominated for six and won two; Fellowship of the Ring nominated for thirteen won four.  Ian McKellen was the only actor ever nominated and did not win)

Quote
I think it would be a far better to give films awards for their staying power. If people are still raving about a film say ten years after its release, it's worth giving an award to.

I think it's safe to say that these movies will be talked about for years, as are Lawrence of Arabia, Cleopatra, Gone With the Wind.

Quote
basically a Hollywood, watered-down, cliched re-hashing of a quite decent plot

I think that if it had been done Hollywood style, we would have had _one_ three hour movie to cover the whole thing and would have made even less sense.  Peter Jackson took very few liberties with the story and gave us extended versions on the DVDs.  Tolkien would have been appalled at even a quality Disney animated version and surely must be turning over in his grave about the Ralph Bakshi version.  I think he would have approved of Jackson's version although he might have quibbled over a few details.  I only hope that they get to do a version of The Hobbit if film rights can be worked out.  I'm not sure that The Silmarillion would be as suitable or any of the other books that his son Christopher Tolkien edited, but as always I keep hoping for more. :hat:
(just trying out the new smilies)
 

Offline mikeymike

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2004, 12:48:19 AM »
Quote
Peter Jackson took very few liberties with the story

Erm, perhaps you ought to read the book (again)?

Yes, only a certain amount of time can be used before the film becomes too long, but in places ol' PJ decided that the original plot wasn't good enough, and suddenly Aragorn goes from being a man who has walked the world, taken part in some of the major battles, and approximately 80 years old (and still looking "middle-aged", out of 250 odd years before he died), to being a wayward 20 year old who won't accept his responsibility/destiny.  I don't know about you, but I've heard the latter plot idea before!

I have had a conversation with my brother a number of times about the LotR films.  We're both major fans of the books, and I think the number of times I've read LotR is around the count of 20.  One of us will start the conversation, talking about something or rather in the films, where my brother will say "oh, it wasn't that bad...", conversation goes on a bit... "oh, except that... oh and that, jesus christ!  and what about the exorcism Gandalf is apparently performing on Theoden... do these guys have no idea what subtlety is?", and then we have torn the films to pieces on points, not nitpicking, but where perfectly good plot that could have stayed in is removed for dodgy cliche plot.  In the books, the idea of Wormtongue being sent to talk Theoden into thinking that he's growing old to the point of losing his grip so that Saruman can do what he likes is a good one.  The books go on about how Saruman and Wormtongue were extremely good at what they did with great subtlety.  In the films we have an actor is is bound to be a bad guy to anyone who has seen a single film out of the nearly 200 where Christopher Lee has played a bad guy, and he does it in virtually exactly the same way he always does!  There's no explanation why Saruman decided to turn to evil in the films, it's just "because it's Christopher Lee! you know, that bad guy!".  And don't forget the line that nearly made me retch in the cinema "you have my sword! my bow! my axe!", Jesus Christ.  Who wrote that garbage.  Lines from the book are then thrown in randomly like they were quoting some book at random, then they get back to their totally unsubtle and uncreative plot, complete with over-acting and random plot "twists" that end up not being plot twists and just to "spice up the action a bit".

And to people that wonder whether it "could be done", converting LotR properly to the screen, I recommend watching the unfinished animated version, the Bakshi version IIRC it is referred to.  That also cuts huge swathes out of the books, but it still lends respect by not screwing with what it leaves in!  It has its faults, but it is a far more satisfying watch than the films are.


Offline Ross_Geller

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2004, 01:29:57 AM »
@Mikeymike

Quote
Yes, only a certain amount of time can be used before the film becomes too long, but in places ol' PJ decided that the original plot wasn't good enough, and suddenly Aragorn goes from being a man who has walked the world, taken part in some of the major battles, and approximately 80 years old (and still looking "middle-aged", out of 250 odd years before he died), to being a wayward 20 year old who won't accept his responsibility/destiny. I don't know about you, but I've heard the latter plot idea before!


Watch The Two Towers Extended Edition (which is the true cut of the film).  There is a scene near the beginning of the second disc in which comment is made of Aragorn riding to war with Thengel, that states Aragorn's age as 87, and that he is a descendent of Numenor.

Also, Aragorn is played by Viggo Mortensen, who's 45... I don't think he's played a wayward 20 year old in a while!
\\"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us\\"
 

Offline Glaucus

Re: 11 oscars = overrated
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2004, 02:23:02 AM »
It's a sad day on Amiga.org when we see moderators trolling!  ;-) How did I know Mikeymike was gonna have something to say about Peter Jackson's coup at the Oscar's? :-D

Quote
Personally I doubt the LotR trilogy will exhibit the sort of staying power I'm talking about. IMO it lacks real substance, and is basically a Hollywood, watered-down, cliched re-hashing of a quite decent plot from a book that will still be talked about for at least the next 50 years. The book may not be considered the best sample of literature but it has a decent plot and ideas.
Yeah, well, let's not forget that there's plenty of people who think that the books are crap, while the movies are otherwise quite good. There's many people who think the books are too slow paced and Tolkien goes off the deep-end with minute details that no one really cares about (not to mention all that silly singing). The real question is, now with these excellent movies out, is it worth reading the books?!?

Now, was it good enough to win 11 awards? Not sure as I don't know what the catagories were or what movies it was up against. I'm not sure I'd give it best picture, but I'd be willing to give Jackson Best Director - if for no other reason then for having the balls to comit to such a massive and expensive project. I just hope the academy doesn't decide to reward Lucas in such a way for his Star Wars crap! Ugh!!!

  - Mike
YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE