Ten movies up for Best Picture though..thoughts?
ohh...
sounds boring
ohh...
sounds boring
Not so much boring as stupid...and useless...and not really a measure of anything meaningful.
Examples, or just going to generalize again? :rolleyes:
i didn't even have to read those to know soldiers don't go...up to the bomb themself when they have a robot that can do the job.Um...yes they do. There are units in Iraq and Afghanistan dedicated to disarming IEDs, and they don't generally have the luxury of a robot to help them out. I was watching a clip last week on CNN in which a reporter embedded in a unit in Afghanistan showed a local man telling them about a bomb on top of the building they were standing next to. And hey, guess what, a specialist had to climb up there and carefully disarm it with his own two hands. This isn't the bomb squad in a controlled environment...it's the middle of an urban-landscape combat zone.
i didn't even have to read those to know soldiers don't go...up to the bomb themself when they have a robot that can do the job.Um...yes they do. There are units in Iraq and Afghanistan dedicated to disarming IEDs, and they don't generally have the luxury of a robot to help them out. I was watching a clip last week on CNN in which a reporter embedded in a unit in Afghanistan showed a local man telling them about a bomb on top of the building they were standing next to. And hey, guess what, a specialist had to climb up there and carefully disarm it with his own two hands. This isn't the bomb squad in a controlled environment...it's the middle of an urban-landscape combat zone.
I didn't see the movie, but based on my dad's accounts/pictures of he and his buddies dicking around in Iraq while he was there, I would believe a good number of them are, in fact, reckless cowboys..
I'm interested in seeing the foreign entries and the documentaries more than the films in the main competition, to be honest. But I was glad Star Trek won something (Best Makeup or some such.) How long has it been since a Star Trek movie won an award for anything?
Except they've done really nasty ****. That video iamzack was talking about with throwing puppies around? Seen it. It's not pleasant.I didn't see the movie, but based on my dad's accounts/pictures of he and his buddies dicking around in Iraq while he was there, I would believe a good number of them are, in fact, reckless cowboys..
I once caught a fish THIS BIG[/echo].
Examples, or just going to generalize again? :rolleyes:
Examples, or just going to generalize again? :rolleyes:
Examples of what?
Bad modern art?
Or bad Oscar picks?
And what is it to you anyway?
Avatar is on the list. Nuff said. :pAvatar is on the list for the same reason that Titanic was nominated: because it was a visual tour-de-force, and because it was, oh, just the highest-grossing movie ever. Its nomination isn't some sort of statement about the quality of its plot, but instead a reflection of what a massive phenomenon it's become. In fact, it's the very sort of movie that the expansion of the Best Picture nominees to ten was designed to include. Every year, people complain that the films nominated for Best Picture are largely those that only hardcore film buffs would be interested in; doubling the number of nominees allows quality blockbuster titles like Avatar (and something like the sadly-snubbed Dark Knight), or standout animated works like Up, to receive the same level of accolades.
Avatar is on the list for the same reason that Titanic was nominated: because it was a visual tour-de-force, and because it was, oh, just the highest-grossing movie ever.[/qutoe]
Which has 0 to do with the actual quality of the movie.QuotePutting all of that aside, you don't really have much of a reason to complain, because unlike Titanic, Avatar didn't actually win the category. :p
You've got a point there.
Again, I don't care.
Titanic earned millions, and pretty much everyone agreees it's overhyped.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19971219/REVIEWS/712190303/1023
4/4
James Cameron's 194-minute, $200 million film of the tragic voyage is in the tradition of the great Hollywood epics. It is flawlessly crafted, intelligently constructed, strongly acted and spellbinding. If its story stays well within the traditional formulas for such pictures, well, you don't choose the most expensive film ever made as your opportunity to reinvent the wheel
http://www.reelviews.net/movies/t/titanic.html
4/4
Meticulous in detail, yet vast in scope and intent, Titanic is the kind of epic motion picture event that has become a rarity. You don't just watch Titanic, you experience it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/12/19/titanic_1997_review.shtml
4/5
It's reckoned that the rivets were a key structural element that failed the doomed liner. But you could hardly condemn the whole ship as shoddy, or question its magnificence. The script for the movie is rather like those rivets. It's weak and riddled with poor dialogue. But despite its failings it's hard not to become swept up in the sheer grandeur of "Titanic".
...
And when you consider that it tops a bum-numbing three-hour running time, then you have a truly impressive feat of entertainment achieved by Cameron.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teachable_moments/deconstructing_titanic_6.cfm
The normal repeat viewing rate for a blockbuster theatrical film is about 5%. The repeat rate for Titanic was over 20%. People were not only telling their friends about the movie, they were returning to see it over and over again.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/titanic/
83 %
http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/titanic?q=
74