Do best picture and best director always go to the same film

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
TheDenizen
Posts: 1638
3114 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by TheDenizen »

I'll be honest, I watched Gladiator 12 years ago, hated it, and haven't watched it since. I can't recall specific instances of dialog that annoyed me (just rest assured I wasn't impressed), but I do remember laughing at how shitty the CGI tigers/arena crowd looked, and how rinky-dink the coliseum was. Also, the whole ending with Crowe walking through the reeds was laaaaame. Joaquin's lisping and furious overacting got on my tits almost immediately.

Again, I'm fully aware that my personal preferences fall well outside the range of "normal". Such is life.

and westerns, yeah I can see where nauru is coming from. There were really only a small handful of westerns made between the late 70's and early 00's, and in particular, there were practically zero westerns between 1995 and 2003. Since 2003 there's been a bunch, mostly good.

Open Range
The Proposition
3:10 to Yuma
Appaloosa
True Grit
Jonah Hex
Django Unchained (yes, it's got a lot of slave drama, but it's got cowboys shooting each other, hence it's a western....Tarantino was clearly drawing inspiration from Italian spaghetti westerns)
Plus the Asian Western/comedies Sukiyaki Western Django and The Good The Bad and the Weird.

I for one welcome the return of the Western to prominence and definitely prefer them over sword and sandal/peplum epics.

ayall
Posts: 458
1652 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by ayall »

In addition to Master and Commander & 3:10 to Yuma, he was also in L.A. Confidential.

I got him at an average tier of 7.9 and average ranking of 83.6

Robin Hood is the only movie i think he sucked in, and it's weighing down his averages.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing him in Aronofsky's Noah (i can already predict his performance will be award worthy) and will also be interested to see him in the next superman flick.

TheDenizen
Posts: 1638
3114 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by TheDenizen »

Hated Master & Commander, and yes, Robin Hood sucked.

And while LA Confidential was an OK movie, I think it was one of the most overrated films of the 90s.

anyways, we've wandered pretty far from the original topic of discussion, so I'll leave it there. :)

ayall
Posts: 458
1652 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by ayall »

TheDenizen wrote:anyways, we've wandered pretty far from the original topic of discussion, so I'll leave it there. :)


agree'd.

Moving on to Saving Private Ryan losing BP to Shakespeare in Love; that's a travesty.
I personally liked Shakespeare in Love, but SPR was definitely the best film made that year.

nauru
Posts: 515
1667 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:41 am

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by nauru »

What puzzled me in 1998 was Saving Private Ryan got so much attention while the far superior film The Thin Red Line was virtually ignored. IMO it was the best film of the year.

ayall
Posts: 458
1652 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by ayall »

The Thin Red Line?!
You kidding me?!?
SPR made TTRL look like a second tier made for tv straight to video movie.

If anything was a close second that year it would have been Life is Beautiful or American History X (which should have at least been nominated).

Anyway, I think the thing that won me over on SPR was the first scene when they hit the beach.
That was just an absolutely brilliant and amazing segment, and so perfectly put into film. That 15 minute portion alone is why Spielberg deserved and won Best Director. Also, Tom Hanks did such a terrific job.
I did think the film started to drag in the middle, but I've re-watched the movie countless times and there is a lot of depth in so many scenes that really puts the characters into perspective. It's difficult to appreciate in 1 sitting because there are a lot of characters and i think all the actors do a great job.

When people like to complain about how much life sucks these days with the "recession," i always reference that scene and say "atleast we're not forced into the draft to be placed in that situation." :mrgreen:

TheDenizen
Posts: 1638
3114 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by TheDenizen »

ayall wrote:Anyway, I think the thing that won me over on SPR was the first scene when they hit the beach.
That was just an absolutely brilliant and amazing segment, and so perfectly put into film. That 15 minute portion alone is why Spielberg deserved and won Best Director.

It was the best scene of the film by far [spoiler](other than Vin Diesel dying)[/spoiler] but Spielberg directly lifted several of the visual cues out of a samurai battle sequence in Kurosawa's Ran, so much of the brilliance on the screen was actually just an echo of a better director's work (I'm not saying Spielberg is a bad director at all). It's interesting to me how so many people will absolutely crucify Quentin Tarantino for pilfering ideas from earlier films, but few other filmmakers seem to get called out on it.

also, that scene was the first 15 minutes of a nearly 3 hour long movie, none of the rest of which ever approached the greatness of the opening. It was practically forgotten by the time the film finally ground to a conclusion. Are you suggesting Oscars should be handed out based on individual scenes?

ayall
Posts: 458
1652 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by ayall »

TheDenizen wrote:also, that scene was the first 15 minutes of a nearly 3 hour long movie, none of the rest of which ever approached the greatness of the opening. It was practically forgotten by the time the film finally ground to a conclusion.


Agree'd. This was very odd and made the movie basically climax at the beginning of the film. That 15 minutes was so EPIC and spectacular it made the rest of the film seem extremely mediocre. And due to the long length of the film, it was nearly forgotten by the end.
However, if that 15 minutes wasn't in there, the film would probably still seem good.
I.e. The Greatness of that first scene raised the bar incredible high. Making even a good movie seems bad.


TheDenizen wrote:Are you suggesting Oscars should be handed out based on individual scenes?

Though to say.
Take Enter the Void as an example. After the first few minutes i thought it was brilliant (the technique). But as the film kept progressing (with over use of the technique) the movie got exponentially worst.

I would say that Oscars (awards in general) should most certainly account for the amazement of individual scenes, but it does need to take into account how said scenes work in conjunction with the entire film.

CMonster
Posts: 689
1444 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 am

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by CMonster »

ayall wrote:Take Enter the Void as an example. After the first few minutes i thought it was brilliant (the technique). But as the film kept progressing (with over use of the technique) the movie got exponentially worst.

None of that film was brilliant. It had unique camera work and nothing else.

ayall
Posts: 458
1652 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: Do best picture and best director always go to the same

Post by ayall »

CMonster wrote:
ayall wrote:Take Enter the Void as an example. After the first few minutes i thought it was brilliant (the technique). But as the film kept progressing (with over use of the technique) the movie got exponentially worst.

None of that film was brilliant. It had unique camera work and nothing else.


ETV was definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but probably 10 minutes into it i thought it was going to be one of the best movies by using those "unique camera work" techniques.

ETV is not oscar worthy or worthy of any award unless it's a razzie.

Post Reply