Cool News

+ Expand All

Readers Talkback

• Jan 27, 2003 12:34:42 PM CST

  some lazy nominations here...

  by mansep

  as is often the case with oscars, baftas and the like, we see single films get a whole load of nominations across almost every applicable category. don't they watch other films? for example, the best music noms are almost the same as best picture. can it really be true that out of all the films released in the past year these 'best films' also had the best music? of course not. (at least they had the sense to not nominate howard shore's lotr score, another woeful attempt at epic scoring). this lazy, blanket nomination applies to many other categories. the people that come up with these noms need to explore cinema more and see a wider range of films. otherwise we just get a bland consensus sweeping these events. people say the golden globes are a pointer as to ho wthe oscars will go, so what's the point of having two events?

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content as is often the case with oscars, baftas and the like, we see single films get a whole load of nominations across almost every applicable category. don't they watch other films? for example, the best music noms are almost the same as best picture. can it really be true that out of all the films released in the past year these 'best films' also had the best music? of course not. (at least they had the sense to not nominate howard shore's lotr score, another woeful attempt at epic scoring). this lazy, blanket nomination applies to many other categories. the people that come up with these noms need to explore cinema more and see a wider range of films. otherwise we just get a bland consensus sweeping these events. people say the golden globes are a pointer as to ho wthe oscars will go, so what's the point of having two events?

• Jan 27, 2003 12:45:59 PM CST

  I've said it before and I'll say it again...

  by tabalf

  Why on Earth does everyone keep dissing the FX in AOTC? Or is it just forgetfulness? Or, let me guess, too much inbuilt antipathy towards Star Wars? How can you say that Harry Potter and Spiderman had better visual effects than Clones? Proof that anyone can get it plain wrong.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Why on Earth does everyone keep dissing the FX in AOTC? Or is it just forgetfulness? Or, let me guess, too much inbuilt antipathy towards Star Wars? How can you say that Harry Potter and Spiderman had better visual effects than Clones? Proof that anyone can get it plain wrong.

• Jan 27, 2003 1:19:10 PM CST

  I hope Christopher Lee actually has something to do in "Return o

  by rev_skarekroe

  He's a class act and deserves some award-style recognition. Sadly, he had about 10 lines in "Two Towers," and they weren't even particularly intersting. sk

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content He's a class act and deserves some award-style recognition. Sadly, he had about 10 lines in "Two Towers," and they weren't even particularly intersting. sk

• Jan 27, 2003 1:23:30 PM CST

  TABALF...

  by hobbitastic

  It's because nobody's going to admit that the FX in Clones were, by and large, better than their beloved (and somewhat overrated)Two Towers.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content It's because nobody's going to admit that the FX in Clones were, by and large, better than their beloved (and somewhat overrated)Two Towers.

• Jan 27, 2003 2:03:49 PM CST

  Please stop saying it now.

  by azapheep

  It's because the FX in AOTC was very poor by modern standards.
  
  And why is Daniel Day-Lewis in there as best actor leading role? Supporting surely!

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content It's because the FX in AOTC was very poor by modern standards. And why is Daniel Day-Lewis in there as best actor leading role? Supporting surely!

• Jan 27, 2003 2:45:10 PM CST

  And, of course, the highlight of the evening will be a drunken R

  by cooldan989

  Anyway, this may not be an important awards show here, but it's always nice to see a person win an award. Except Russell Crowe.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Anyway, this may not be an important awards show here, but it's always nice to see a person win an award. Except Russell Crowe.

• Jan 27, 2003 2:47:37 PM CST

  Correction...

  by cooldan989

  Obviously I meant Crowe in the first one. I could have sworn I didn't press the R key...

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Obviously I meant Crowe in the first one. I could have sworn I didn't press the R key...

• Jan 27, 2003 3:17:10 PM CST

  Azapheep...tsk tsk

  by the_10th_muse

  Let me get this straight.....the FX in AOTC is 'poor by modern standards'?? What standards are you using? Have you ever even SEEN AOTC? I think TABALF had it right...everyone just automatically wants to hate it because story-wise and character-wise it is not living up what we wanted, but that is no reason to ignore some damn good effects when you see them. Geesh.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Let me get this straight.....the FX in AOTC is 'poor by modern standards'?? What standards are you using? Have you ever even SEEN AOTC? I think TABALF had it right...everyone just automatically wants to hate it because story-wise and character-wise it is not living up what we wanted, but that is no reason to ignore some damn good effects when you see them. Geesh.

• Jan 27, 2003 3:56:13 PM CST

  Hopfelly the BAFTAs won't be fooled by dreary Oscar-bait like TH

  by cash bailey

  But where's Andy Serkis's nomination?

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content But where's Andy Serkis's nomination?

• Jan 27, 2003 4:54:14 PM CST

  Andy Serkis DOES deserve a nomination...

  by vegas

  ...for playing Martin Hannett in 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE. Best movie he was in this year.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content ...for playing Martin Hannett in 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE. Best movie he was in this year.

• Jan 27, 2003 5:15:32 PM CST

  What a bunch of boring, predictable nominations. And where the f

  by a goonie

  The Picture and Director nods are exactly the same. "Gangs of New York" ties for the most nominations? What the hell is that? I understand this silly obligation the various awards seem to have to Scorcese, because he's never won an Oscar and he just won his first Globe, but this is ridiculous. A nod for Screenplay? Come off it. Gangs of New York deserves recognition for its Art Direction and Costume Design. That's it. The complete absence of "Far From Heaven" is inexcusable. The attention paid to Chicago, The Hours, and The Two Towers is wonderful but obviously no surprise. What a bore. I'll happily wait till the Oscar nods in February.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content The Picture and Director nods are exactly the same. "Gangs of New York" ties for the most nominations? What the hell is that? I understand this silly obligation the various awards seem to have to Scorcese, because he's never won an Oscar and he just won his first Globe, but this is ridiculous. A nod for Screenplay? Come off it. Gangs of New York deserves recognition for its Art Direction and Costume Design. That's it. The complete absence of "Far From Heaven" is inexcusable. The attention paid to Chicago, The Hours, and The Two Towers is wonderful but obviously no surprise. What a bore. I'll happily wait till the Oscar nods in February.

• Jan 27, 2003 5:18:07 PM CST

  Stephen Fry hosts again!

  by jacksonsbane

  Thank god, the tears were rolling down my face at last years BAFTAs. The man is a comedic genius.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Thank god, the tears were rolling down my face at last years BAFTAs. The man is a comedic genius.

• Jan 27, 2003 6:03:34 PM CST

  chicago

  by raker

  So my wife dragged me by my hair down to see Chicago. And as much as I am a Tolkien Geek, Chicago has something though I am not quite sure what that makes me think it will take the Oscars this year. The funny thing is it is sort of unemotional. I mean it pokes fun at killing and getting away with it so you want to laugh and then you think about what your laughing about and it is well not that funny. Anyway it will be another year where another bland movie wins.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content So my wife dragged me by my hair down to see Chicago. And as much as I am a Tolkien Geek, Chicago has something though I am not quite sure what that makes me think it will take the Oscars this year. The funny thing is it is sort of unemotional. I mean it pokes fun at killing and getting away with it so you want to laugh and then you think about what your laughing about and it is well not that funny. Anyway it will be another year where another bland movie wins.

• Jan 27, 2003 6:55:33 PM CST

  WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS HORSESHIT

  by dan_average

  So both Ken Loach AND Mike Leigh release a new film in 2002, and NEITHER ONE OF THEM gets even a single nomination? Choosing "Bend It Like Beckham" over either of these two for "The Alexander Korda Award for the outstanding British film of the year" nomination is an abomination unto God.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content So both Ken Loach AND Mike Leigh release a new film in 2002, and NEITHER ONE OF THEM gets even a single nomination? Choosing "Bend It Like Beckham" over either of these two for "The Alexander Korda Award for the outstanding British film of the year" nomination is an abomination unto God.

• Jan 27, 2003 7:11:17 PM CST

  Editing

  by addanc

  Gangs Of New York up for best editing? Are you fucking kidding me?! That's the first thing I commented on on leaving the cinema - how bad the editing was. Can't believe it's nominated for anything really - it was very poor.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Gangs Of New York up for best editing? Are you fucking kidding me?! That's the first thing I commented on on leaving the cinema - how bad the editing was. Can't believe it's nominated for anything really - it was very poor.

• Jan 27, 2003 8:05:46 PM CST

  Four good actors and Alfred Molina

  by rollo tomassi

  Okay, I haven't seen "Frida", but after Molina's performance as Snively Whiplash . . . in "Chocolat" . . . I can't imagine him doing anything award worthy.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Okay, I haven't seen "Frida", but after Molina's performance as Snively Whiplash . . . in "Chocolat" . . . I can't imagine him doing anything award worthy.

• Jan 27, 2003 9:15:04 PM CST

  Lame Awards

  by grand digital

  BadAssUncleFucka - Hey I agree with you about the prequels. Also take into account the fact that all the fanboys were like 10 when the original Star Wars movies came out, now they're 36 and wondering why new Star Wars films don't feel the same. I thought AOTC at least was really entertaining.
  ALSO AWARDS ARE FRICKIN BULLSHIT. Seriously, who gives a damn about the English Patient or A Beautiful Mind, or The Hours or Ghandi and so on. I mean they're OK movies but c`mon. Basically if you want to win an award you have to set your bullshit movie in the past, colour it sepia and maybe base it on someone real. That way it's, you know, classy. But how many best director / best film oscars did Stanley Kubrick get? None. That's how many. How many did Scorsese get? None. I think. Anyway, AWARDS ARE MOSTLY BULLSHIT.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content BadAssUncleFucka - Hey I agree with you about the prequels. Also take into account the fact that all the fanboys were like 10 when the original Star Wars movies came out, now they're 36 and wondering why new Star Wars films don't feel the same. I thought AOTC at least was really entertaining. ALSO AWARDS ARE FRICKIN BULLSHIT. Seriously, who gives a damn about the English Patient or A Beautiful Mind, or The Hours or Ghandi and so on. I mean they're OK movies but c`mon. Basically if you want to win an award you have to set your bullshit movie in the past, colour it sepia and maybe base it on someone real. That way it's, you know, classy. But how many best director / best film oscars did Stanley Kubrick get? None. That's how many. How many did Scorsese get? None. I think. Anyway, AWARDS ARE MOSTLY BULLSHIT.

• Jan 28, 2003 1:00:25 AM CST

  Andy Serkis SHOULD be up there

  by allhailthomyorke

  As Harry so eloquently stated, Andy Serkis breathed life into a deep, dark, and very physically challenging character. The genius of the onscreen Gollum is not so much the CGI (I agree, it's the best I've ever seen-makes everything else that came before it look like a damn muppet) but the heart and soul-the backbone that no computer generated image can possibly provide. It's difficult to say exactly what Andy Serkis deserves seeing as how no award has been named for someone in his position. But, as EW (entertainment weekly, not elijah wood lol) said, what is known is that Serkis deserves something. If they can't find an existing awards category to fit him in, they should create one dammit.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content As Harry so eloquently stated, Andy Serkis breathed life into a deep, dark, and very physically challenging character. The genius of the onscreen Gollum is not so much the CGI (I agree, it's the best I've ever seen-makes everything else that came before it look like a damn muppet) but the heart and soul-the backbone that no computer generated image can possibly provide. It's difficult to say exactly what Andy Serkis deserves seeing as how no award has been named for someone in his position. But, as EW (entertainment weekly, not elijah wood lol) said, what is known is that Serkis deserves something. If they can't find an existing awards category to fit him in, they should create one dammit.

• Jan 28, 2003 1:19:47 AM CST

  Best Film not in the English Language

  by jerichohol

  Devdas for Best Film not in the English Language!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  woot. It was a good film, havent seen the other ones though.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Devdas for Best Film not in the English Language!!!!!!!!!!! woot. It was a good film, havent seen the other ones though.

• Jan 28, 2003 4:31:40 AM CST

  Harry Potter Vs. Lotr

  by sound of reason

  Who is gonna win out of these two eh?! No Star Wars nomination?! Come on, what would you expect with Gollum to contend with? Still, I really believe that The Whomping Willow has to be one of the all time greatest Giant Sequences in a movie and Harry potter probably deserves to win on that merit alone. Who are the dudes that created such a marvel?

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Who is gonna win out of these two eh?! No Star Wars nomination?! Come on, what would you expect with Gollum to contend with? Still, I really believe that The Whomping Willow has to be one of the all time greatest Giant Sequences in a movie and Harry potter probably deserves to win on that merit alone. Who are the dudes that created such a marvel?

• Jan 28, 2003 4:49:02 AM CST

  Danny Elfman?

  by lazarus long

  I didn't know there was any additional music? And what the fuck is up with nominating Kander And Ebb for work they did, what, over 20 years ago? Also, as much as I respect Howard Shore, the work he did on Gangs wasn't that impressive; the main theme sounds WAY too close to LOTR. I'd nominate Robbie Robertson for compiling all the historical music and putting it together. That's the real achievement in film music this year. I think it's quite possible that Gangs will come away with the most Oscar noms this year. Although Chicago could pull out an extra acting nom or two, there's several tech categories that Gangs might get to itself without Chicago, plus the sure-thing U2 nomination. If that happens, and Gangs secures the most, it is POSSIBLE for it to win the big prize. You never know. Unfortunately, Miramax is probably going to throw all their weight (pun intended) behind Chicago, which is a shame, because at best it's just great entertainment.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content I didn't know there was any additional music? And what the fuck is up with nominating Kander And Ebb for work they did, what, over 20 years ago? Also, as much as I respect Howard Shore, the work he did on Gangs wasn't that impressive; the main theme sounds WAY too close to LOTR. I'd nominate Robbie Robertson for compiling all the historical music and putting it together. That's the real achievement in film music this year. I think it's quite possible that Gangs will come away with the most Oscar noms this year. Although Chicago could pull out an extra acting nom or two, there's several tech categories that Gangs might get to itself without Chicago, plus the sure-thing U2 nomination. If that happens, and Gangs secures the most, it is POSSIBLE for it to win the big prize. You never know. Unfortunately, Miramax is probably going to throw all their weight (pun intended) behind Chicago, which is a shame, because at best it's just great entertainment.

• Jan 28, 2003 5:10:54 AM CST

  The reason AOTC wasn't nominated,

  by conan_the_humble

  Was because it wasn't any good. Why should it's mediocrity be rewarded? Lucas needs to be shown that below par efforts are not acceptable. Unfortunately the enduring legacy of the O/T means that any SW movie is gonna make hundreds of millions. This does not mean that the movie is a success. Lucas's distinct lack of critical acclaim from almost every reviewer (bar the ones on this site and perhaps one or two others) should inspire Lucas to try harder and not offhandedly dismiss these people. Both prequel's have been subpar uninteresting efforts, that seem little more than advertisements for ILM's SFX ability. Lucas needs to pay attention to things that matter in a movie, acting, dialogue, character development and emotion. SFX should be used to enhance the story, not make up for lack of it. Cheers.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Was because it wasn't any good. Why should it's mediocrity be rewarded? Lucas needs to be shown that below par efforts are not acceptable. Unfortunately the enduring legacy of the O/T means that any SW movie is gonna make hundreds of millions. This does not mean that the movie is a success. Lucas's distinct lack of critical acclaim from almost every reviewer (bar the ones on this site and perhaps one or two others) should inspire Lucas to try harder and not offhandedly dismiss these people. Both prequel's have been subpar uninteresting efforts, that seem little more than advertisements for ILM's SFX ability. Lucas needs to pay attention to things that matter in a movie, acting, dialogue, character development and emotion. SFX should be used to enhance the story, not make up for lack of it. Cheers.

• Jan 28, 2003 5:31:59 AM CST

  I beg to differ, Conan

  by darthflagg

  First of all, the prequels are not universally scorned as you claim. Both TPM and AOTC average 63% positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes website, which means prequel haters are in the minority of both the public AND critics. Second, even if we accept that the prequels are crap, which they weren't, that doesn't excuse the lack of a nomination for AOTC's visual effects, which were arguably the best of the year, and certainly better than the awful animation in Spider-Man.
  The BAFTAs fucked up, face it.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content First of all, the prequels are not universally scorned as you claim. Both TPM and AOTC average 63% positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes website, which means prequel haters are in the minority of both the public AND critics. Second, even if we accept that the prequels are crap, which they weren't, that doesn't excuse the lack of a nomination for AOTC's visual effects, which were arguably the best of the year, and certainly better than the awful animation in Spider-Man. The BAFTAs fucked up, face it.

• Jan 28, 2003 6:17:39 AM CST

  Timing

  by mrs danvers

  The BAFTAs are pretty useless because the release=pattern of films in the UK is fucked. Sometimes they don't get a movie until two years later! (Hallie Berrie from Monsters Ball in 2003????). They're credible in the script categories, and I'm glad to see Y Tu Mama Tambien recognized somewhere at last. GO Meryl in Adaptation! Best act she's ever done -- that drug-fucked laugh on the phone gets the Oscar alone!

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content The BAFTAs are pretty useless because the release=pattern of films in the UK is fucked. Sometimes they don't get a movie until two years later! (Hallie Berrie from Monsters Ball in 2003????). They're credible in the script categories, and I'm glad to see Y Tu Mama Tambien recognized somewhere at last. GO Meryl in Adaptation! Best act she's ever done -- that drug-fucked laugh on the phone gets the Oscar alone!

• Jan 28, 2003 8:08:19 AM CST

  LOTR "Ents" Vs. Potter Whomping Willow

  by sound of reason

  Chamber of secrets definatly deserves to win on merit of the Whomping Willow Seq alone!!

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Chamber of secrets definatly deserves to win on merit of the Whomping Willow Seq alone!!

• Jan 28, 2003 11:47:18 AM CST

  Sound of 'Reason'...

  by the_10th_muse

  While I am a fan of Harry Potter (guilty pleasures are the best), and I do think they've done a good job as far as effects go, there's absolutely NO WAY Harry Potter should or can win against the magic that WETA produced for LOTR. No way. And I just can't get over it...how the hell is Harry Potter nominated for effects and AOTC isn't? That's just...insane. I don't want to hear any more crap about how the movie itself was subpar - if that's what you think, fine, but I KNOW you can't be talking about the fx. You are right on target, darthflagg. (stay on target....stay on target...)

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content While I am a fan of Harry Potter (guilty pleasures are the best), and I do think they've done a good job as far as effects go, there's absolutely NO WAY Harry Potter should or can win against the magic that WETA produced for LOTR. No way. And I just can't get over it...how the hell is Harry Potter nominated for effects and AOTC isn't? That's just...insane. I don't want to hear any more crap about how the movie itself was subpar - if that's what you think, fine, but I KNOW you can't be talking about the fx. You are right on target, darthflagg. (stay on target....stay on target...)

• Jan 28, 2003 2:22:08 PM CST

  It seems obvious andy serkis isnt going to get the oscar nominat

  by dragonfire

  If all the major awards ceremonies snub him, the oscars are the least likely to be the odd one out, but atleast TTT gets lots of nominations, though it should have been nominated for best score. I guess for some reason nominating Howard shore for gangs of new york means he cant be nominated for TTT. Sure most of it was stuff from fellowship but the new stuff he did was also amazing. Empire strikes back got nominated for best score based on the new stuff John Williams had done. AOTC may have deserved a best score nomination as well because across the stars was great, though I guess everyone's reluctant to nominate that movie for anything. Some people here are shocked that AOTC didnt get nominated for best special effects but I'm not surprised at all. I thought the effects for AOTC were pretty crappy, and the believability of it wasnt helped by the bad acting. The spiderman effects weren't that great either but at least the movie was good. TTT's most probably going to get the oscar nominations as well but I actually hope it doesn't win, because I want the academy to give best picture to 'the return of the king' next year, not just because it's the conclusion of the trilogy but also because it was the best of the three books and has the potential to be the greatest epic ever made, though I wouldnt be unhappy if TTT won.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content If all the major awards ceremonies snub him, the oscars are the least likely to be the odd one out, but atleast TTT gets lots of nominations, though it should have been nominated for best score. I guess for some reason nominating Howard shore for gangs of new york means he cant be nominated for TTT. Sure most of it was stuff from fellowship but the new stuff he did was also amazing. Empire strikes back got nominated for best score based on the new stuff John Williams had done. AOTC may have deserved a best score nomination as well because across the stars was great, though I guess everyone's reluctant to nominate that movie for anything. Some people here are shocked that AOTC didnt get nominated for best special effects but I'm not surprised at all. I thought the effects for AOTC were pretty crappy, and the believability of it wasnt helped by the bad acting. The spiderman effects weren't that great either but at least the movie was good. TTT's most probably going to get the oscar nominations as well but I actually hope it doesn't win, because I want the academy to give best picture to 'the return of the king' next year, not just because it's the conclusion of the trilogy but also because it was the best of the three books and has the potential to be the greatest epic ever made, though I wouldnt be unhappy if TTT won.

• Jan 28, 2003 3:26:27 PM CST

  Andy Serkis/Gollum - Special Award?

  by adt100

  Regarding Andy Serkis and his part in the portrayal of Gollum, would it not be the perfect situation for A.M.P.A.S. to give the team invloved in the character an honorary award.
  
  After all, Disney received an Honorary Award for the creation of Mickey Mouse in 1932 and for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1938, recognizing it as as "a significant screen innovation which has charmed millions and pioneered a great new entertainment field for the motion picture cartoon."
  
  More recently, a selection of special awards is as follows:
  
  1968 : outstanding makeup achievement for PLANET OF THE APES
  
  1972 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE
  
  1974 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to EARTHQUAKE
  
  1975 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to THE HINDENBURG
  
  1976 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to two films, KING KONG and LOGAN'S RUN
  
  1978 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to SUPERMAN
  
  1980 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
  
  1983 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to RETURN OF THE JEDI
  
  1988 : Special Achievement for Animation Direction to WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT
  
  1995 : Special Achievement Award for TOY STORY
  
  Surely the creation of Gollum would fit perfectly alongside this illustrious company?
  

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Regarding Andy Serkis and his part in the portrayal of Gollum, would it not be the perfect situation for A.M.P.A.S. to give the team invloved in the character an honorary award. After all, Disney received an Honorary Award for the creation of Mickey Mouse in 1932 and for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1938, recognizing it as as "a significant screen innovation which has charmed millions and pioneered a great new entertainment field for the motion picture cartoon." More recently, a selection of special awards is as follows: 1968 : outstanding makeup achievement for PLANET OF THE APES 1972 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE 1974 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to EARTHQUAKE 1975 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to THE HINDENBURG 1976 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to two films, KING KONG and LOGAN'S RUN 1978 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to SUPERMAN 1980 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK 1983 : Special Achievement for Visual Effects to RETURN OF THE JEDI 1988 : Special Achievement for Animation Direction to WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT 1995 : Special Achievement Award for TOY STORY Surely the creation of Gollum would fit perfectly alongside this illustrious company?

• Jan 28, 2003 4:20:12 PM CST

  Good FX, but not groundbraking

  by adt100

  The fact that AOTC was used blue screen so much doesn't make the special effects any better (and it certainly doesn't help with the acting!).
  
  In my view it was the over-reliance on blue screen and pure CGI above sets/miniatures etc that made both TPM and ATOC look a little too artificial. Don't get me wrong, the SFX were generally excellent, and should have received a nomination, but George Lucas's apparent obsession with the new technologies has I think made the films look a bit OTT.
  
  At times the effects seem like more of a distraction and simply a showcase for how much CGI ILM can use, rather than used to enhance the scene. What gives LOTR the edge is how they manage to make the extraoridnary look ordinary ie, as if there were no high-tech computers creating everything, to blend so seemlessly the effects and action.
  
  AOTC seems more evolution to TTT's revolution. CGI was used to a greater extent than perhaps any film to date, but hasn't really advanced the art form, unlike the creation of Gollum.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content The fact that AOTC was used blue screen so much doesn't make the special effects any better (and it certainly doesn't help with the acting!). In my view it was the over-reliance on blue screen and pure CGI above sets/miniatures etc that made both TPM and ATOC look a little too artificial. Don't get me wrong, the SFX were generally excellent, and should have received a nomination, but George Lucas's apparent obsession with the new technologies has I think made the films look a bit OTT. At times the effects seem like more of a distraction and simply a showcase for how much CGI ILM can use, rather than used to enhance the scene. What gives LOTR the edge is how they manage to make the extraoridnary look ordinary ie, as if there were no high-tech computers creating everything, to blend so seemlessly the effects and action. AOTC seems more evolution to TTT's revolution. CGI was used to a greater extent than perhaps any film to date, but hasn't really advanced the art form, unlike the creation of Gollum.

• Jan 28, 2003 4:22:04 PM CST

  You are all one big steaming heap of Fanboy excrement

  by doc cock

  Oi you fecking lot.......just take a god damn good look at all the posts on this page......it's about the BAFTA's,you pre-pubescent numbskulls......just perhaps, just perhaps........there are people out in the big bad world who actually couldn't give a flying fuck about "Attack of The Clones" or "The Two Towers"......quick, before it's too late.....get out of Trailer Trash Road, Nowhereville, USA, and join the real world, you brainless morons!!!!

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Oi you fecking lot.......just take a god damn good look at all the posts on this page......it's about the BAFTA's,you pre-pubescent numbskulls......just perhaps, just perhaps........there are people out in the big bad world who actually couldn't give a flying fuck about "Attack of The Clones" or "The Two Towers"......quick, before it's too late.....get out of Trailer Trash Road, Nowhereville, USA, and join the real world, you brainless morons!!!!

• Jan 28, 2003 4:44:49 PM CST

  You don't have to be a 'fanboy' to recognise achievement

  by adt100

  My comments on the subject are not based on being some 'fanboy' or zealot of either Star Wars or LORT, though I do really enjoy both.
  My comments were based purely from a technical standpoint, and given previous winners of said honorary awards (BAFTA or Oscar), I think it only fitting that the work on creating Gollum is recognised for the remarkable achievement it is.
  Oh, and please don't undermine yourself by implying that anyone raising such comments is some pre-pubescent numbskull from nowhereville USA, as in reality neither of these comments apply to me. :)

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content My comments on the subject are not based on being some 'fanboy' or zealot of either Star Wars or LORT, though I do really enjoy both. My comments were based purely from a technical standpoint, and given previous winners of said honorary awards (BAFTA or Oscar), I think it only fitting that the work on creating Gollum is recognised for the remarkable achievement it is. Oh, and please don't undermine yourself by implying that anyone raising such comments is some pre-pubescent numbskull from nowhereville USA, as in reality neither of these comments apply to me. :)

• Jan 28, 2003 4:45:42 PM CST

  Don't get yourself in such a twist...

  by the_10th_muse

  I'm sorry. Aren't we allowed to pretty much talk about whatever the hell we want to around these parts? Got to a site with threads, if you don't like it. Yeah - I understand TTT was REAL big with the trailer trash. I believe the Dwarves were happy with it as well. Didn't Hobbits like this one, too? Jerkwad.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content I'm sorry. Aren't we allowed to pretty much talk about whatever the hell we want to around these parts? Got to a site with threads, if you don't like it. Yeah - I understand TTT was REAL big with the trailer trash. I believe the Dwarves were happy with it as well. Didn't Hobbits like this one, too? Jerkwad.

• Jan 28, 2003 5:28:07 PM CST

  Talk about what you like, no problem!!!!

  by doc cock

  BUT.......if your talking out a hole in your rear end about how fantastic CGI is then then don't expect an intelligent measured response from me.......films, real films.....are about actors, musicians, editors, production teams, and tangible, credible performances....I would put, "The Pianist", "The Hours", and "The Road to Perdition", way, way ahead of any CGI summer blockbuster!!!!CGI should be part of the whole experience, not the experience it's self. Yet....nobody seems to have really taken any time to offer a balanced comment on any of these movies.
  
  Perhaps this is my whole point, this Web Site is supposed to be about the Film Industry as a whole, not George Lucas, and certainly not The Two Towers.
  
  And please don't undermine yourself or your e-cronies by assuming that everyone who reads my comments are aimed at anyone in particular, and if you have taken offence.......then the truth hurts!!!

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content BUT.......if your talking out a hole in your rear end about how fantastic CGI is then then don't expect an intelligent measured response from me.......films, real films.....are about actors, musicians, editors, production teams, and tangible, credible performances....I would put, "The Pianist", "The Hours", and "The Road to Perdition", way, way ahead of any CGI summer blockbuster!!!!CGI should be part of the whole experience, not the experience it's self. Yet....nobody seems to have really taken any time to offer a balanced comment on any of these movies. Perhaps this is my whole point, this Web Site is supposed to be about the Film Industry as a whole, not George Lucas, and certainly not The Two Towers. And please don't undermine yourself or your e-cronies by assuming that everyone who reads my comments are aimed at anyone in particular, and if you have taken offence.......then the truth hurts!!!

• Jan 28, 2003 6:20:29 PM CST

  Rooooooooooster

  by allhailthomyorke

  actually, Rooster, I am a film student myself and I consider The Two Towers to be an incredible achievement not because of special effects but because of the way characters, direction, cinematography, and emotion are blended seamlessly to produce a beautiful whole. The fact that Gollum is CGI isn't so important-it's how our minds tell us that he's not real, yet because of the astounding visuals and magnificent performance by Serkis, our eyes tell us otherwise. This film IS visual poetry. The amount of work that went into bringing such a difficult piece like LOTR to the screen is unfathomable. Peter Jackson and his team are true artists-just as Polanski and his crew for The Pianist, or Stephen Daldry, Rob Marshall, Scorsese, etc etc etc. Yes, Jackson's film features Orcs and Hobbits, Wizards and Elfs (that's how he spells 'elves')-that does not mean that it isn't a stunning cinematic achievement. Because it truly embodies fantastic filmmaking with developed characters and spectacular visuals.

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content actually, Rooster, I am a film student myself and I consider The Two Towers to be an incredible achievement not because of special effects but because of the way characters, direction, cinematography, and emotion are blended seamlessly to produce a beautiful whole. The fact that Gollum is CGI isn't so important-it's how our minds tell us that he's not real, yet because of the astounding visuals and magnificent performance by Serkis, our eyes tell us otherwise. This film IS visual poetry. The amount of work that went into bringing such a difficult piece like LOTR to the screen is unfathomable. Peter Jackson and his team are true artists-just as Polanski and his crew for The Pianist, or Stephen Daldry, Rob Marshall, Scorsese, etc etc etc. Yes, Jackson's film features Orcs and Hobbits, Wizards and Elfs (that's how he spells 'elves')-that does not mean that it isn't a stunning cinematic achievement. Because it truly embodies fantastic filmmaking with developed characters and spectacular visuals.

• Jan 28, 2003 6:29:38 PM CST

  Art or Entertainment - technical excellence can still be recogni

  by adt100

  RR - Of course films should primarily be about the story, screenplay, characters, acting etc, and often I get annoyed about how successful some relatively poor,

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content RR - Of course films should primarily be about the story, screenplay, characters, acting etc, and often I get annoyed about how successful some relatively poor,

• Jan 28, 2003 10:22:09 PM CST

  Hey now..

  by the_10th_muse

  Okay - take it easy, Rooster. No one is stopping you from talking about whatever movies you want to talk about, I just don't see why you can't go ahead and start talking about them instead of getting on here and calling those of us who talk about SW or LOTR 'pre-pubescent' and refering to us as 'numbskulls'. For someone who enjoys the art of film, you sure don't come off that way when you start out your post with a subject line calling everyone...how did you poetically state it...'a big steaming pile of Fanboy excrement'. Ouch. It hurtssss ussssss!!!

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content Okay - take it easy, Rooster. No one is stopping you from talking about whatever movies you want to talk about, I just don't see why you can't go ahead and start talking about them instead of getting on here and calling those of us who talk about SW or LOTR 'pre-pubescent' and refering to us as 'numbskulls'. For someone who enjoys the art of film, you sure don't come off that way when you start out your post with a subject line calling everyone...how did you poetically state it...'a big steaming pile of Fanboy excrement'. Ouch. It hurtssss ussssss!!!

• Jan 29, 2003 12:41:37 AM CST

  Fantastic..........................

  by doc cock

  You fanboys have actually seen the light at last, some well balanced viewpoints, congratulations......(come into my web said the spider to the fly).......and not the previous "toys out of the pram attitude" because the British Academy have deemed Attack of the Clones not worthy to be included in their nominations. I'm sorry to to tell you, but I sat through Attack of the Clones with my two kids who are 9 & 7 years old....they loved it, personally, I thought it was dire, remember, folks, thats only my opinion!
  
  Also, with reference to my comments being addressed on a "threads page".....why? Surely the point of this link in AICN (and thats AIN'T It Cool News, folks, and not AMERICA is cool news!)...Is to have a forum for discussion on the British Academy Awards....(it's our time in the sun, you see!!!), and I would rather see comments or moans and groans on the standard of the multiplex cinemas here in Glasgow and elsewhere in the UK.....instead of....."those bastards at the Academy, they haven't chosen my film, boo hoo"!.....
  
  Because if just 10% of the money spent on a 2ft troll fighting Christopher Lee was put into developing new talent (and not just CGI talent),plus the provision of better seating, and facilites at cinemas, then I might, and I said......just might enjoy going to see The Two Towers or whatever summer blockbuster comes along.
  
  But until then as Orson Welles, said in "The Third Man"....500 hundred years of peace and all they produced was the cuckoo clock"
  
  Ta ta

  Reply to Talkback

  Subject

  Content You fanboys have actually seen the light at last, some well balanced viewpoints, congratulations......(come into my web said the spider to the fly).......and not the previous "toys out of the pram attitude" because the British Academy have deemed Attack of the Clones not worthy to be included in their nominations. I'm sorry to to tell you, but I sat through Attack of the Clones with my two kids who are 9 & 7 years old....they loved it, personally, I thought it was dire, remember, folks, thats only my opinion! Also, with reference to my comments being addressed on a "threads page".....why? Surely the point of this link in AICN (and thats AIN'T It Cool News, folks, and not AMERICA is cool news!)...Is to have a forum for discussion on the British Academy Awards....(it's our time in the sun, you see!!!), and I would rather see comments or moans and groans on the standard of the multiplex cinemas here in Glasgow and elsewhere in the UK.....instead of....."those bastards at the Academy, they haven't chosen my film, boo hoo"!..... Because if just 10% of the money spent on a 2ft troll fighting Christopher Lee was put into developing new talent (and not just CGI talent),plus the provision of better seating, and facilites at cinemas, then I might, and I said......just might enjoy going to see The Two Towers or whatever summer blockbuster comes along. But until then as Orson Welles, said in "The Third Man"....500 hundred years of peace and all they produced was the cuckoo clock" Ta ta

User Login

Quick Talkback Form