Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:44 am
Sabin wrote:The important thing is that we're on topic.
Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board
The internet's oldest Oscar discussion forum.
https://www.uaadb.com/
Worst Best Director of the Decade
Page 1 of 3
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:49 pm
The important thing is that we're on topic.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:36 pm
The hysterectomy had its benefits.FilmFan720 wrote:Eric, your point of view is always so invaluable to this board.Eric wrote:My god if this board hasn't put you all on the same cycle.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:27 pm
Wes, don't be so presumptuous as to assign motives for my wanting to see a particular film. I saw the first Twilight movie on April 22, 2009. Care to assign any ulterior reasons for that?OscarGuy wrote:I doubt Condon will be able to make any gay overtones in the film, maybe undertones, but certainly no gay characters or situations.
First, Stephanie Mayer is a Mormon and contributes to the cause. You can draw the appropriate connections.
I doubt she would let anyone put something in that's against her beliefs. On top of that, as the "admitted fan boy" in the article Damien posts, this is an "abstinence parable". This is as much a Mormon work as anything. Vampires might even be Mormons themselves (they don't seem to have any problem with multiple romantic involvements or sucking the life out of people they disagree with).
* * *
And Damien needs to admit that the only reason he watched New Moon is because he knew Condon was in negotiations for the franchise. It's not even remotely close to the kind of film Damien would ever deign to watch, so an ulterior motive is not too hard to fathom. I don't see a problem with that per se, because anytime I find myself wanting to watch something that has previous installments, I catch myself up on them as well (Reading Lord of the Rings, watching 8 1/2 and so on). And, at the time, I'm sure Damien couldn't say anything about those negotiations, but I think it's about time he at least come clean on that one.
I thought the Catherine Hardwicke film didn't work, but was sweet-natured and interesting enough for me to want to see the sequel, and I knew from the time it opened I would watch it (although I didn't see any reason to shell out 12 bucks instead of waiting for the DVD.) Also, I liked the Weitz Brothers films ABout A Boy and In Good Company a lot -- in addition to Chris's New Moon, I saw Paul's The Vamoire's Assistant, which is terrible.
And, by the way, the article quoting the "admitted fan boy" about the "abstinence parable" was a satirical piece from "Reel Loop."
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:17 pm
Eric, your point of view is always so invaluable to this board.Eric wrote:My god if this board hasn't put you all on the same cycle.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Very nice Big Magilla - but AT LEAST ONCE you could make an effort and vote for someone who's younger, like, I mean, in her 60s...
Edited By ITALIANO on 1270840142
Edited By ITALIANO on 1270840142
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:59 pm
Funny, I found it to be a devastating and deeply felt piece. Yes, nothing is broadly spelled out – it is indeed about the way detachment is used as a survival mechanism after all - but the horror and the desperation and the sense that one it all alone in the world is there for you to see. But for some reason it seems to be out of your – what? – comfort zone or maybe some preconceived notions. Pity.OscarGuy wrote:Coldness in a film about a devastating part of human history is NOT a good quality. You're making a film, not a documentary. I couldn't have cared less if Brody's character lived or died. Shouldn't you care about something like that in relation to a protagonist? It was flat storytelling. It had minor peaks and valleys, but never went anywhere with them. It's my biggest complaint about the first half of the novel The Return of the King. We're walking. We're walking. We're walking. OOOH! A big event occurs. We're walking. We're walking. We're walking...the writing may have good form, but it's not terribly compelling or engaging.
And when I said don't like, I didn't mean I hated it either. I gave it a positive 3 star rating, but deducted the full star for the reasons I've made clear here.
And if "elitism" means keeping some reasonable intellectual and cultural standards intact then I'm definitely for it.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:54 pm
Yep. Always go for the old ladies over the ingenues. As Ben Franklin put it in 1745 when he was forty:ITALIANO wrote:My guess? You will pick Dame May Whitty.Big Magilla wrote:Comparing Anne Shirley and Andrea Leeds with Dame May Whitty is something even fewer can do, but we'll be doing it in a few days - so start thinking about it, everyone.
1. Because they have more Knowledge of the world, and their Minds are better stored with Observations; their conversation is more improving, and more lastingly agreeable.
2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an Old Woman who is not a good Woman.
3. Because through more Experience they are more prudent and discreet.
4. Because having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend making an old Woman happy.
5. Because they are so grateful!!!
Of course Ben was talking about sex, but the same advice can be applied to measuring acting performances one against the other.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:46 pm
Not everyone is happy about the direction Condon is planning to take Breaking Dawn. Jake Brannen, a 20-year old college student in Muncie, Indiana, says he’s concerned about how a gayer Twilight will make him look.
“I like my Twilight just the way it is,” Brannen said. “A beautiful abstinence parable about a teenage girl named Bella Swan who falls in love with a vampire who sparkles like brilliant diamonds when the sun hits him, only they can’t be together because of ancient vampire rules passed down from Rome. Also, there’s an American Indian who’s also a werewolf, and he falls in love with a baby. If Twilight starts to include gay stuff, I might be embarrassed to admit I like it."
I just want to repost this.
A vampire who sparkles like brilliant diamonds when the sun hits him...don't wanna gay that up.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:35 pm
My god if this board hasn't put you all on the same cycle.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:35 pm
I doubt Condon will be able to make any gay overtones in the film, maybe undertones, but certainly no gay characters or situations.
First, Stephanie Mayer is a Mormon and contributes to the cause. You can draw the appropriate connections.
I doubt she would let anyone put something in that's against her beliefs. On top of that, as the "admitted fan boy" in the article Damien posts, this is an "abstinence parable". This is as much a Mormon work as anything. Vampires might even be Mormons themselves (they don't seem to have any problem with multiple romantic involvements or sucking the life out of people they disagree with).
Magilla: I think the distinction here, Magilla, is not that he's taking on a commercial project. Sure, he could be doing this to get money to make more of his personal choices of films (like Kinsey and Gods and Monsters), but that he's taking on a later part of a franchise.
Most directors want to put their entire imprint on a franchise (hence why Peter Jackson is still involved with writing the Hobbit). If he were making a purely commercial film (like Dreamgirls say), I would expect him to do something original, not expand on a series.
And Damien needs to admit that the only reason he watched New Moon is because he knew Condon was in negotiations for the franchise. It's not even remotely close to the kind of film Damien would ever deign to watch, so an ulterior motive is not too hard to fathom. I don't see a problem with that per se, because anytime I find myself wanting to watch something that has previous installments, I catch myself up on them as well (Reading Lord of the Rings, watching 8 1/2 and so on). And, at the time, I'm sure Damien couldn't say anything about those negotiations, but I think it's about time he at least come clean on that one.
First, Stephanie Mayer is a Mormon and contributes to the cause. You can draw the appropriate connections.
I doubt she would let anyone put something in that's against her beliefs. On top of that, as the "admitted fan boy" in the article Damien posts, this is an "abstinence parable". This is as much a Mormon work as anything. Vampires might even be Mormons themselves (they don't seem to have any problem with multiple romantic involvements or sucking the life out of people they disagree with).
Magilla: I think the distinction here, Magilla, is not that he's taking on a commercial project. Sure, he could be doing this to get money to make more of his personal choices of films (like Kinsey and Gods and Monsters), but that he's taking on a later part of a franchise.
Most directors want to put their entire imprint on a franchise (hence why Peter Jackson is still involved with writing the Hobbit). If he were making a purely commercial film (like Dreamgirls say), I would expect him to do something original, not expand on a series.
And Damien needs to admit that the only reason he watched New Moon is because he knew Condon was in negotiations for the franchise. It's not even remotely close to the kind of film Damien would ever deign to watch, so an ulterior motive is not too hard to fathom. I don't see a problem with that per se, because anytime I find myself wanting to watch something that has previous installments, I catch myself up on them as well (Reading Lord of the Rings, watching 8 1/2 and so on). And, at the time, I'm sure Damien couldn't say anything about those negotiations, but I think it's about time he at least come clean on that one.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:19 pm
Maybe watching Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner kiss each other will finally wake up Kristen Stewart.Damien wrote:BILL CONDON PROMISES TO MAKE FINAL TWILIGHT FILM "WAY MORE GAY"
Academy Award-Wining Director Has Big, Gay Plans for Final Chapter
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:02 am
My guess? You will pick Dame May Whitty.Big Magilla wrote:Comparing Anne Shirley and Andrea Leeds with Dame May Whitty is something even fewer can do, but we'll be doing it in a few days - so start thinking about it, everyone.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:55 am
I'm sure that a good director can show his talent even in such a commercial framchise; what I feel, though, is that in the choice of his material Condon has gradually left personal projects to go more and more into the mainstream, the safe (it's not like we haven't seen gay vampires before), whereas the (great) directors you mentioned did sometimes go commercial - and with admittedly good results - but it was like a slight diversion from a path which was already established.
And yes, of course the Oscars are a popular subject to begin with - if we werent a bit elitist this board would be full of Sandra Bullock fans.
And yes, of course the Oscars are a popular subject to begin with - if we werent a bit elitist this board would be full of Sandra Bullock fans.
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:44 am
Comparing Anne Shirley and Andrea Leeds with Dame May Whitty is something even fewer can do, but we'll be doing it in a few days - so start thinking about it, everyone.