![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.106.183.136
In Reply to: RE: You really think that film deserved 3 academy awards? posted by Jazz Inmate on February 25, 2008 at 18:07:59
though, based on the editing I understand why it was nominated. Or at least I thought I understood, professionally, you know... that is until you set me straight on the real reason."You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
Follow Ups:
If you care to stop your sarcasm, maybe you could share your opinion about why the academy liked it so much. I have my theory. Let's hear yours.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
it's that (and this is just about the nominations)....
the sound and editing were, craft wise... actually... well done....
Phew, there, I said it!!
;-)
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
Thank you, agreed.
I would have preferred it if NCFOM or DB&TB had won editing.
But they didn't, and at least Bourne was well crafted. I think the complexity and speed probably impressed the non-editors in AMPAS. Greengrass is the real deal, and his editors are superb. May he return to a personal film soon.
Although I hear there is now going to be a 4th Bourne movie.
The first one was far better than the others. How many academy awards did it win? Not a one, did it?
So are you guys really telling me that not only was Bourne Ultimatum more deserving than any other movie this year, it was better than the other Bournes that didn't win squat?
You guys really don't think Hollywood is more likely to award an anti-US themed movie? Cannes certainly is.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
...and girl...are just trying to tell you that Bourne was well crafted and well edited.
There are conservatives in Hollyweird, but the town is fairly liberal and has been for quite some time. But I don't think that had a darned thing to do with Bourne winning for editing. The zealous G-man bad guy has been a stock figure in movies for a long time.
The editing branch of AMPAS (actual film editors) selects the finalists in this category, then everyone who is a member votes on the final awards winner. I just think most actors (who comprise the largest mebership of the Academy) were simply impressed by the speed & complexity of the intecutting. No more, no less. The movie was a kinetic, non-stop action ride for some folks, who loved it. I like Bourne II the best, personally.
A lot of people just like the movie, and like Greengrass.
Would I have voted for it? Naw, I already told which two who I would have voted for.
Cannes, whose jury is international, is located in a completely different political climate from southern California aka USA movieland. I don't see any connection between voting at Cannes and voting for the Oscars - in fact, there ain't much connection even between Oscar and Sundance. If any festival has an inkling of influence on AMPAS, it's probably September's Toronto fest, since many high profile films make their NA debut there. To be well received at Toronto is to get recognition and maybe a little boost or buzz going into the awards season. But even it's too early to have a major impact.
So who's seeing conspiracies?
Besides, I don't think Bourne is anti-US.
The entire film is not much more than an advertisement for young men to stay away from serving their country. There isn't a whole heck of a lot of room to see it any other way.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: