WGA Winners
-
- Temp
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:07 am
- Location: Kentucky
- Contact:
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Damien, I suggest you check it out on DVD. The extras, particularly the one hosted by Joseph Gordon-Levitt are fascinating.Damien wrote:Six months have passed since I suffered through Indulgence and I remember very little about it. But the problem with the film is not its being confusing as its being incoherent. The film follows no set of rules for its own particular universe and the events shown on screen unfold in an arbitrary maner, as if the editor just put sequences together at random..
It confirms what I thought as I watched the film which I originally thought was stupid myself.
There are certain things within dreams that are universal - we all go through the same things when we are dreaming. The film, which seems incoherent, actually makes perfect sense when looked at in that respect. The screenplay actually adheres quite strictly to the science of dreaming. Nolan really did his homework on this one.
Six months have passed since I suffered through Indulgence and I remember very little about it. But the problem with the film is not its being confusing as its being incoherent. The film follows no set of rules for its own particular universe and the events shown on screen unfold in an arbitrary maner, as if the editor just put sequences together at random..
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I don't mind the explanations at first. However, when they're still explaining the ideas two hours into the movie, they've failed. I enjoyed the movie inspite of that, but as a screenplay, yeah - it's crap.flipp525 wrote:See, this is the criticism I just don't understand. What exactly is confusing about it? The characters even explain to the viewer what is happening as it's happening. My friend and I were discussing what the big deal was with all the people saying it was overly complex. It's not.criddic3 wrote:There seems to be two camps on this movie. One says that it's a confusing mess with good photography.
You've just hit on my number one problem with the film.flipp525 wrote:See, this is the criticism I just don't understand. What exactly is confusing about it? The characters even explain to the viewer what is happening as it's happening. My friend and I were discussing what the big deal was with all the people saying it was overly complex. It's not.
See, this is the criticism I just don't understand. What exactly is confusing about it? The characters even explain to the viewer what is happening as it's happening. My friend and I were discussing what the big deal was with all the people saying it was overly complex. It's not.criddic3 wrote:There seems to be two camps on this movie. One says that it's a confusing mess with good photography.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
- Temp
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:07 am
- Location: Kentucky
- Contact:
But what is the criteria for good and bad? Are the same standards that we hold to avant garde movies be the exact same that we hold to mainstream films? No offense to your late friend, but that seems like an excuse to be an elitist.Damien wrote:Disagree.
As my late friend, film critic Stuart Byron, put it, "The distinction shouldn't be between 'art' films and 'entertainment' films. The distinction should be between good films and bad ones."
And while I didn't see The Last Airbender or Transformers 2, in 52 years of movie-going I have seen enough horrible large studio films to know what they are like.
I think the horribleness of Transformers 2 and The Last Airbender would shock you as to how bad a movie was allowed to be released by any large studio. I haven't seen anything this bad/insulting come out of a major studio in a long time. Well, Pearl Harbor, maybe...
"You are what you love, not what loves you." - Nicholas Cage; Adaptation
I tend to agree.Sabin wrote:So, I'm going to backpedal: in the subjective, entirely relative world of Oscar prognostication, Christopher Nolan was robbed for The Dark Knight, insofar as the true enthusiasm the film was greeted with contrasted to the relative indifference that met The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader. Because the industry hates a man on the top of his game so quickly, and, although I don't think Nolan is destined for Oscar-dom like famously snubbed auteurs (his style is already becoming suffocating and limited by emotional detachment), his attempts if there ever are any to win an Oscar will be shameless.
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8671
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
(Bog @ Feb. 06 2011,5:48)
We know all about Oscar fans, don't we? They're a very impressive, well-balanced, worldly lot of people, aren't they?
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
(Fucking nerds.)
Oscar fans and voters are so cosmically different, it's a wonder the former hasn't filed a restraining order yet. Oscar voters live to disappoint Oscar fans. They're wheeled out of bed in the morning, wiped, fed mush, and then vote for whatever sounds like a Holocaust film. To wake up in January of 2009 and see the calamity that was that year's nominations was painful. I maintain that Christopher Nolan is a major talent and a very good filmmaker, but he's no artist. I think his greatest strength lies as a collaborative writer and as a producer. Outside of some awesome images in The Dark Knight, it's not like he's a thoughtful visual stylist. Nolan has received some backlash on this board that I actually find preferable to the blind worship he sees elsewhere. The Dark Knight is not a masterpiece and I believe it was around no.7 or 8 on my list that year. The fact that one can make a case that the list of nominees expanding to ten in some form of response to the outcry of The Dark Knight's omission certainly boosts his visibility as an Oscar Casualty. I'm trying to think of the last time a film was so roundly embraced by critics and audiences to that degree and found its auteur entirely shut out. I really think the closest precedent would be if The Fellowship of the Ring failed to get nominations for Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay...
So, I'm going to backpedal: in the subjective, entirely relative world of Oscar prognostication, Christopher Nolan was robbed for The Dark Knight, insofar as the true enthusiasm the film was greeted with contrasted to the relative indifference that met The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader. Because the industry hates a man on the top of his game so quickly, and, although I don't think Nolan is destined for Oscar-dom like famously snubbed auteurs (his style is already becoming suffocating and limited by emotional detachment), his attempts if there ever are any to win an Oscar will be shameless.
Well no, that was part of the point I was trying to make, and I wouldn't even come close to considering you one of these offenders (someone who said both "love" and "major, major filmmaker" in one paragraph- imagine what these people really think). But you do realize this is a common feeling among basically 1 out of every 2 "Oscar fans" that are not in the vein of a typical member on this particular board.
We know all about Oscar fans, don't we? They're a very impressive, well-balanced, worldly lot of people, aren't they?
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
(Fucking nerds.)
Oscar fans and voters are so cosmically different, it's a wonder the former hasn't filed a restraining order yet. Oscar voters live to disappoint Oscar fans. They're wheeled out of bed in the morning, wiped, fed mush, and then vote for whatever sounds like a Holocaust film. To wake up in January of 2009 and see the calamity that was that year's nominations was painful. I maintain that Christopher Nolan is a major talent and a very good filmmaker, but he's no artist. I think his greatest strength lies as a collaborative writer and as a producer. Outside of some awesome images in The Dark Knight, it's not like he's a thoughtful visual stylist. Nolan has received some backlash on this board that I actually find preferable to the blind worship he sees elsewhere. The Dark Knight is not a masterpiece and I believe it was around no.7 or 8 on my list that year. The fact that one can make a case that the list of nominees expanding to ten in some form of response to the outcry of The Dark Knight's omission certainly boosts his visibility as an Oscar Casualty. I'm trying to think of the last time a film was so roundly embraced by critics and audiences to that degree and found its auteur entirely shut out. I really think the closest precedent would be if The Fellowship of the Ring failed to get nominations for Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay...
So, I'm going to backpedal: in the subjective, entirely relative world of Oscar prognostication, Christopher Nolan was robbed for The Dark Knight, insofar as the true enthusiasm the film was greeted with contrasted to the relative indifference that met The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader. Because the industry hates a man on the top of his game so quickly, and, although I don't think Nolan is destined for Oscar-dom like famously snubbed auteurs (his style is already becoming suffocating and limited by emotional detachment), his attempts if there ever are any to win an Oscar will be shameless.
"How's the despair?"
Sabin wrote:It's not criminal. Not at all. It's barely a misdemeanor. He's not in the same league as a slew of artists who anyone should rationally consider "robbed".
Well no, that was part of the point I was trying to make, and I wouldn't even come close to considering you one of these offenders (someone who said both "love" and "major, major filmmaker" in one paragraph- imagine what these people really think). But you do realize this is a common feeling among basically 1 out of every 2 "Oscar fans" that are not in the vein of a typical member on this particular board.
And that is based on (since 2002) Batman Begins, The Prestige, Dark Knight, and now Inception....yes, it's more like jaywalking.
Edited By Bog on 1297036357
(Bog @ Feb. 06 2011,2:27)
It's not criminal. Not at all. It's barely a misdemeanor. He's not in the same league as a slew of artists who anyone should rationally consider "robbed". He made a mixed-bag art project that raked in almost a billion dollars, eight Oscar nominations, and two for writing and producing. He had an amazing year. I think it's worth noting that the reason he appears to be robbed is that Christopher Nolan began in the indie circuit and has absolutely flourished in the populist marketplace to the point where his name is an immediate grab in a way that not many have the past decade, especially considering that his blockbuster offerings like The Dark Knight often seem a whole lot more serious and mature than the middlebrow Oscar-fare of its respective year. Billion dollars, eight Oscar nominations, two for him alone...nah. He's fine.
(Bog @ Feb. 06 2011,2:27)
The King's Speech is a less frustrating film but that's because it has nothing on its mind whatsoever. Inception has a ton on its mind and it makes it at times insufferably dull and unfocused. It's the difference between better filmmaking and a more solid film. I'll probably say Inception but both of them are C+ offerings in my opinion. I need to see Inception again, but after seeing The King's Speech a second time I'm convinced there's no need for anyone to see it again, and the once might be fairly irrelevant too. Like 127 Hours, it works best as a trailer.
(Sabin @ Feb. 06 2011,12:42)I love Christopher Nolan. On the basis of Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and the first third of Batman Begins, major, major filmmaking talent, and I don't care what anyone else on this board says otherwise. I have no problem with every Christopher Nolan film getting talked up for Oscars, because his films are doubtlessly going to be more interesting than a Joe Wright, Stephen Daldry, or Tom Hoo/pper film.
Eh...that's all I got.
I'll concede to Memento, but the question is why does everything have to be so criminal with him not being recognized let alone winning? Because he made Memento now over 10 years ago, he's Scorsese even if he simply makes popcorn entertainment/comic book rehashes every couple summers?
It's not criminal. Not at all. It's barely a misdemeanor. He's not in the same league as a slew of artists who anyone should rationally consider "robbed". He made a mixed-bag art project that raked in almost a billion dollars, eight Oscar nominations, and two for writing and producing. He had an amazing year. I think it's worth noting that the reason he appears to be robbed is that Christopher Nolan began in the indie circuit and has absolutely flourished in the populist marketplace to the point where his name is an immediate grab in a way that not many have the past decade, especially considering that his blockbuster offerings like The Dark Knight often seem a whole lot more serious and mature than the middlebrow Oscar-fare of its respective year. Billion dollars, eight Oscar nominations, two for him alone...nah. He's fine.
(Bog @ Feb. 06 2011,2:27)
"Major, major filmmaking" is about 2 too many positive adjectives? But it begs the ultimate 2010 question to you Sabin, would you vote for King's Speech or Inception if you had a gun to your head?
The King's Speech is a less frustrating film but that's because it has nothing on its mind whatsoever. Inception has a ton on its mind and it makes it at times insufferably dull and unfocused. It's the difference between better filmmaking and a more solid film. I'll probably say Inception but both of them are C+ offerings in my opinion. I need to see Inception again, but after seeing The King's Speech a second time I'm convinced there's no need for anyone to see it again, and the once might be fairly irrelevant too. Like 127 Hours, it works best as a trailer.
"How's the despair?"
Eh...that's all I got.Sabin wrote:I love Christopher Nolan. On the basis of Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and the first third of Batman Begins, major, major filmmaking talent, and I don't care what anyone else on this board says otherwise. I have no problem with every Christopher Nolan film getting talked up for Oscars, because his films are doubtlessly going to be more interesting than a Joe Wright, Stephen Daldry, or Tom Hoo/pper film.
I'll concede to Memento, but the question is why does everything have to be so criminal with him not being recognized let alone winning? Because he made Memento now over 10 years ago, he's Scorsese even if he simply makes popcorn entertainment/comic book rehashes every couple summers?
I honestly think in retrospect the film(s) would be looked on more favorably at least by me if I knew that after I viewed it I would not be bombarded with 6 months of he must win/be nominated for best director EVER (or at least an Oscar)!!
I cannot WAIT until next year when the Dark Knight Rises is irrationally pushed for a Return of the King type Oscar result...especially due to the "snub" the previous 2 installments.
"Major, major filmmaking" is about 2 too many positive adjectives? But it begs the ultimate 2010 question to you Sabin, would you vote for King's Speech or Inception if you had a gun to your head?
Hollywood Z wrote:Now, I'll be the first to admit, Inception isn't without it's flaws here and there, but they aren't so glaring as to consider it a bad movie, especially considering the dreck that came out this past summer. The problem with critiquing a movie like Inception the same way you would critique an Ingmar Bergman film is that the movies have two different goals. One is trying to be entertaining and an above average intelligent blockbuster while the other is a more artistic avant garde piece. You can't look at one and use the same criteria to judge the other.
And as far as Best Anything, I would have to argue a strong case for Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing (though it was grossly omitted from the nominations), Best Sound and Best Visual Effects.
Disagree.
As my late friend, film critic Stuart Byron, put it, "The distinction shouldn't be between 'art' films and 'entertainment' films. The distinction should be between good films and bad ones."
And while I didn't see The Last Airbender or Transformers 2, in 52 years of movie-going I have seen enough horrible large studio films to know what they are like.
Edited By Damien on 1297024147
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell