152 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

It was a key moment in the consumption of cinema in the 20th Century.

Sure. There's no denying the historical importance of STAR WARS. But evaluating historical importance and general popularity is not the same as evaluating its artistic merits.

Exactly. If STAR WARS (EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) is "brilliant", then so is RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II.

Was RAMBO popular? Yes, it was a box office smash the world over. Was it influential on other films? Yes, very - not only did it lead to countless straight-to-video imitators, but it helped shape mainstream action cinema (for instance, three years after its release, RAMBO was mated with THE TOWERING INFERNO to produce DIE HARD). Did it have a major impact on popular culture? Certainly. It's referenced or spoofed in everything from WATCHMEN to HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX. It even had a major impact outside popular culture - Reagan, rather frighteningly, gave the impression that he had been influenced by it. Did Rambo become every bit as iconic a character as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader? He certainly did.

However, all that aside, RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II is not actually a very good film. And while STAR WARS/EPISODE IV may be a rather better film than RAMBO II, it's certainly nowhere near good enough to be described as "brilliant" on its artistic merits alone.

A careful look at the production of STAR WARS (not the Lucasfilm approved revisionist account, but what actually happened), shows that STAR WARS' ultimate success was really something of a happy accident, rather than the result of a focused visionary director.

Lucas never had a real grasp on his creation, and I think his attitude towards the two sequels, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (which is pretty superior to the first STAR WARS in all respects, really) and RETURN OF THE JEDI, demonstrates as much.

Agreed. I have a friend who's a rabid STAR WARS fan, who's as deeply into STAR WARS as we are into Bond, who straight-out admits that Lucas is an appalling director whose sole strength is as an ideas man. His fatal flaw is that he tends to insist on developing those ideas himself. I repeat, this guy loves STAR WARS (the whole phenomenon, not just the first film), but he's quite upfront that Lucas simply doesn't know the first thing about directing and cannot deal with actors at all. He even told me that Lucas demanded multiple changes to Kershner's rough cut of EMPIRE on the grounds that it was too good.

And your friend Loomis was on set and in the editing room for how many days exactly?

(sorry - does this count as starting something we both should have left behind..?)

Empire was better than Star Wars, but it also went over-budget; Lucas only made the film as a tidy finance with which to build Skywalker Ranch. The fact that it was fantastic was entirely due to Kirshner, Kasdan, Kurtz, and Lucas's fluke brainwave while writing the second draft of turing Darth Vader into Luke's father.

Zor, the bit with Lucas acting like a petulant child in the editing room is well attested to.

[Loomis]

It was a key moment in the consumption of cinema in the 20th Century.

Sure. There's no denying the historical importance of STAR WARS. But evaluating historical importance and general popularity is not the same as evaluating its artistic merits.

Exactly. If STAR WARS (EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) is "brilliant", then so is RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II.

Was RAMBO popular? Yes, it was a box office smash the world over. Was it influential on other films? Yes, very - not only did it lead to countless straight-to-video imitators, but it helped shape mainstream action cinema (for instance, three years after its release, RAMBO was mated with THE TOWERING INFERNO to produce DIE HARD). Did it have a major impact on popular culture? Certainly. It's referenced or spoofed in everything from WATCHMEN to HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX. It even had a major impact outside popular culture - Reagan, rather frighteningly, gave the impression that he had been influenced by it. Did Rambo become every bit as iconic a character as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader? He certainly did.

However, all that aside, RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II is not actually a very good film. And while STAR WARS/EPISODE IV may be a rather better film than RAMBO II, it's certainly nowhere near good enough to be described as "brilliant" on its artistic merits alone.

A careful look at the production of STAR WARS (not the Lucasfilm approved revisionist account, but what actually happened), shows that STAR WARS' ultimate success was really something of a happy accident, rather than the result of a focused visionary director.

Lucas never had a real grasp on his creation, and I think his attitude towards the two sequels, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (which is pretty superior to the first STAR WARS in all respects, really) and RETURN OF THE JEDI, demonstrates as much.

Agreed. I have a friend who's a rabid STAR WARS fan, who's as deeply into STAR WARS as we are into Bond, who straight-out admits that Lucas is an appalling director whose sole strength is as an ideas man. His fatal flaw is that he tends to insist on developing those ideas himself. I repeat, this guy loves STAR WARS (the whole phenomenon, not just the first film), but he's quite upfront that Lucas simply doesn't know the first thing about directing and cannot deal with actors at all. He even told me that Lucas demanded multiple changes to Kershner's rough cut of EMPIRE on the grounds that it was too good.

And your friend Loomis was on set and in the editing room for how many days exactly?

(sorry - does this count as starting something we both should have left behind..?)

No, although I knew you'd ask that question!

(This friend of mine was actually offered the job of guitarist in Coldplay [he turned it down, though] - does that make it okay for him to comment on, y'know, art and stuff, what with his background as a musician?)

I guess I'd better stop airing my own views on the movies. Because I haven't been on film sets or in editing rooms. For a good few years, at any rate.

[Zorin Industries]

It was a key moment in the consumption of cinema in the 20th Century.

Sure. There's no denying the historical importance of STAR WARS. But evaluating historical importance and general popularity is not the same as evaluating its artistic merits.

Exactly. If STAR WARS (EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) is "brilliant", then so is RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II.

Was RAMBO popular? Yes, it was a box office smash the world over. Was it influential on other films? Yes, very - not only did it lead to countless straight-to-video imitators, but it helped shape mainstream action cinema (for instance, three years after its release, RAMBO was mated with THE TOWERING INFERNO to produce DIE HARD). Did it have a major impact on popular culture? Certainly. It's referenced or spoofed in everything from WATCHMEN to HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX. It even had a major impact outside popular culture - Reagan, rather frighteningly, gave the impression that he had been influenced by it. Did Rambo become every bit as iconic a character as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader? He certainly did.

However, all that aside, RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II is not actually a very good film. And while STAR WARS/EPISODE IV may be a rather better film than RAMBO II, it's certainly nowhere near good enough to be described as "brilliant" on its artistic merits alone.

A careful look at the production of STAR WARS (not the Lucasfilm approved revisionist account, but what actually happened), shows that STAR WARS' ultimate success was really something of a happy accident, rather than the result of a focused visionary director.

Lucas never had a real grasp on his creation, and I think his attitude towards the two sequels, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (which is pretty superior to the first STAR WARS in all respects, really) and RETURN OF THE JEDI, demonstrates as much.

Agreed. I have a friend who's a rabid STAR WARS fan, who's as deeply into STAR WARS as we are into Bond, who straight-out admits that Lucas is an appalling director whose sole strength is as an ideas man. His fatal flaw is that he tends to insist on developing those ideas himself. I repeat, this guy loves STAR WARS (the whole phenomenon, not just the first film), but he's quite upfront that Lucas simply doesn't know the first thing about directing and cannot deal with actors at all. He even told me that Lucas demanded multiple changes to Kershner's rough cut of EMPIRE on the grounds that it was too good.

And your friend Loomis was on set and in the editing room for how many days exactly?

(sorry - does this count as starting something we both should have left behind..?)

No, although I knew you'd ask that question!

(This friend of mine was actually offered the job of guitarist in Coldplay [he turned it down, though] - does that make it okay for him to comment on, y'know, art and stuff, what with his background as a musician?)

I guess I'd better stop airing my own views on the movies. Because I haven't been on film sets or in editing rooms. For a good few years, at any rate.

I think it's best.... (I am joking).

I just question anyone who claims to make such claims about the production process of a film they (if they did indeed just miss becoming a Coldplay guitarist) were probably about five years old when it was shooting....(?).

[honeyjes]

zorin's post encapsolates why a film like Bond will never win an Oscar.

Why is it OK to dismiss an actor because he/she are performing in a popular genre and elevate someone else because they are perceived to be in more noteworthy endeavours?

I thought great acting involved elevating your performance whereby people sit up and take notice, can someone tell me that DC did not do this and apart from the genre what was so inferior and lacking in his acting to warrant the downgrading of his skills to the other actors in their respective films.

If you cannot judge someones true worth without prejudice then whats the point of the awards.

[Zorin Industries]

zorin's post encapsolates why a film like Bond will never win an Oscar.

Why is it OK to dismiss an actor because he/she are performing in a popular genre and elevate someone else because they are perceived to be in more noteworthy endeavours?

I thought great acting involved elevating your performance whereby people sit up and take notice, can someone tell me that DC did not do this and apart from the genre what was so inferior and lacking in his acting to warrant the downgrading of his skills to the other actors in their respective films.

If you cannot judge someones true worth without prejudice then whats the point of the awards.

Daniel Craig - whether he may anyone sit up and notice in ROYALE - will not get Oscar nominated for playing 007. That has nothing to do with the quality of any Bond film or any apparent elitism on the part of AMPAS. It is simply the way it is.

Craig has brought "great acting" to the role - but is only "great" because it is better than what we have witnessed before. I don't think Craig expects an Oscar for Bond and neither should the fans. For a Bond film to really win an Oscar would require the role and the films to shift dramatically from the formula - and look how receptive the so called "fans" were to QUANTUM OF SOLACE (wrongly so too) just because it moved a gunbarrel logo and thought it shrewd not to recreate every scene from every Bond film from 1962-74.

I do not dismiss any form of acting. My professional life involves dealing with artists who do not get awards for work they should, but I and they are always realistic.

[Loomis]

Daniel Craig - whether he may anyone sit up and notice in ROYALE - will not get Oscar nominated for playing 007. That has nothing to do with the quality of any Bond film or any apparent elitism on the part of AMPAS. It is simply the way it is.

Well, presumably, Craig was nominated for a Bafta on the grounds that the Bafta voters thought he was genuinely good in his own right, and not merely because he was perceived as having played Bond better than anyone else up to that point (in which case Dalton would have been nominated for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS).

[Zorin Industries]

Daniel Craig - whether he may anyone sit up and notice in ROYALE - will not get Oscar nominated for playing 007. That has nothing to do with the quality of any Bond film or any apparent elitism on the part of AMPAS. It is simply the way it is.

Well, presumably, Craig was nominated for a Bafta on the grounds that the Bafta voters thought he was genuinely good in his own right, and not merely because he was perceived as having played Bond better than anyone else up to that point (in which case Dalton would have been nominated for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS).

BAFTA is an odd one. It is completely different to the Oscars. Winning a BAFTA or even getting nominated is a different thing to how AMPAS works. There are different criteria at stake, different rationale and different television audiences to keep entertained.

[dee-bee-five]

BAFTA is an odd one. It is completely different to the Oscars. Winning a BAFTA or even getting nominated is a different thing to how AMPAS works. There are different criteria at stake, different rationale and different television audiences to keep entertained.

Given that I think the Oscars are tiresome nonsense in the extreme, can you imagine how I feel about the BAFTAs...?


Being given a BAFTA - "winning" seems such a wrong term, given the arbitrary nature of the damned thing - is akin to geing awarded an OBE in the UK. And we all know that OBE stands for Other Buggers' Efforts...

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree - SLUMDOG is HUGELY overrated. It´s directed well but mostly in a flashy, hectic blockbuster style. And its story is a totally simplistic one, driven by a love story that does not work for me at all. C´mon, the guy knew this girl from some moments in their childhood. They lost contact. And as grown-ups they suddenly have the hots for each other.

Even if you buy that as true love, you must admit that this film is full of stereotypical narrative patterns - its love story is only one of them. And I was definitely surprised and shocked to read that this film is supposed to be a "feel good" movie. After the whole torture thing at the beginning, the devastating civil war atmosphere with the burning man, the child abuse and torture I actually was thinking: this is a "feel good" film these days? Only the fact that the guy, of course, wins at the end does not make this a feel good movie to me at all. It´s just misleading marketing.

And the worst mistake of the whole narrative structure (and a reason why this script should never have been given any awards): all questions during the "millionaire show" have answers that point to significant times in the main character´s life. ALL of the questions. And they ALL even are asked according to the CHRONOLOGY of his life. What a convenient coincidence. What a totally unbelievable situation.

This is lazy screenwriting, my friends. Totally constructed.

Of course, in the end, "fate" is brought into the proceedings. As if everything had to happen this exact way.

Well, for a fairy tale this might work. But for a film which shockingly depicts torture and poverty and wants to be realistic, this is like having your cake and eat it.

So, SLUMDOG, IMO, was definitely not the best film of the year. It was just the safe political choice and a big you to the studios because the film almost had been released on DVD only.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

[Loomis]

Daniel Craig - whether he may anyone sit up and notice in ROYALE - will not get Oscar nominated for playing 007. That has nothing to do with the quality of any Bond film or any apparent elitism on the part of AMPAS. It is simply the way it is.

Well, presumably, Craig was nominated for a Bafta on the grounds that the Bafta voters thought he was genuinely good in his own right, and not merely because he was perceived as having played Bond better than anyone else up to that point (in which case Dalton would have been nominated for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS).

BAFTA is an odd one. It is completely different to the Oscars. Winning a BAFTA or even getting nominated is a different thing to how AMPAS works. There are different criteria at stake, different rationale and different television audiences to keep entertained.

Accepted, but I still presume that Craig was nominated because the Bafta people thought he was genuinely good, and not because he was The Best Bond So Far™.

[Vauxhall]

I agree - SLUMDOG is HUGELY overrated. It´s directed well but mostly in a flashy, hectic blockbuster style. And its story is a totally simplistic one, driven by a love story that does not work for me at all. C´mon, the guy knew this girl from some moments in their childhood. They lost contact. And as grown-ups they suddenly have the hots for each other.

And the worst mistake of the whole narrative structure (and a reason why this script should never have been given any awards): all questions during the "millionaire show" have answers that point to significant times in the main character´s life. ALL of the questions. And they ALL even are asked according to the CHRONOLOGY of his life. What a convenient coincidence. What a totally unbelievable situation.

Thank you!! These are my two major issues with SLUMDOG and I'm glad that others are seeing this. I thought that I was missing something. (Admittedly, Harmsway and JackWade were also not so hot on SLUMDOG either.)

[Zorin Industries]

I agree - SLUMDOG is HUGELY overrated. It´s directed well but mostly in a flashy, hectic blockbuster style. And its story is a totally simplistic one, driven by a love story that does not work for me at all. C´mon, the guy knew this girl from some moments in their childhood. They lost contact. And as grown-ups they suddenly have the hots for each other.

Even if you buy that as true love, you must admit that this film is full of stereotypical narrative patterns - its love story is only one of them. And I was definitely surprised and shocked to read that this film is supposed to be a "feel good" movie. After the whole torture thing at the beginning, the devastating civil war atmosphere with the burning man, the child abuse and torture I actually was thinking: this is a "feel good" film these days? Only the fact that the guy, of course, wins at the end does not make this a feel good movie to me at all. It´s just misleading marketing.

And the worst mistake of the whole narrative structure (and a reason why this script should never have been given any awards): all questions during the "millionaire show" have answers that point to significant times in the main character´s life. ALL of the questions. And they ALL even are asked according to the CHRONOLOGY of his life. What a convenient coincidence. What a totally unbelievable situation.

This is lazy screenwriting, my friends. Totally constructed.

Of course, in the end, "fate" is brought into the proceedings. As if everything had to happen this exact way.

Well, for a fairy tale this might work. But for a film which shockingly depicts torture and poverty and wants to be realistic, this is like having your cake and eat it.

So, SLUMDOG, IMO, was definitely not the best film of the year. It was just the safe political choice and a big you to the studios because the film almost had been released on DVD only.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

SLUMDOG was not the safe "political" choice. SLUMDOG got the Best Film Oscar as it was a solid piece of uplifting entertainment. I do think MILK was the better film from the shortlist, but SLUMDOG deserved its nods.

And let's not diminish the film on the grounds of its screenplay being apparently "totally unbelievable". That is the conceit and magic of cinema. It is not very "believable" for a British spy character to feature in 22 stories of similiar intent, but we embrace that because it is Bond and it is fun. Cinema is not about what is real. The very act of putting a camera infront of some actors and choosing when they come in and when they leave is not real. It is the artifice of the art of film.

The film is not a "feel good" film, you're right. But that is a fault of the advertising campaign and not the film itself. Danny Boyle has said recently how he didn't want the the film to be marketed at the MAMMA MIA audiences, but is just grateful that people are going to see the film anyway.

And the genesis of this film, ie. the movement of style that it echoes are the likes of AMORES PERROS and CITY OF GOD - films that are directed and lensed in a particular style, but to say the direction of these or MILLIONAIRE is flashy and mainstream sort of misundertands mainstream cinema and its more artistic, soulful cousins. It is indeed "totally constructed". But you show me one film that has been made in the last century that hasn't been.

[HildebrandRarity]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

The Academy is filled with soft bodies who've never poured sweat in a gym. They, therefore, have no idea what it would be like for someone like Craig to make James Bond a credible force in global popular cinema...again.

They're physically weak and frail airy fairy types who have deluded themselves into thinking they 'know' cinema when actually they're far removed from the people who spend their hard-earned money on consuming film. They get to see movies for free and it goes to their heads.

How can voters appreciate DC as Bond when they have flabby bellies, flappy biceps, man boobs, non-existent quads and would huff and puff after climbing only two flights of stairs?

Can anyone provide an answer?

[Loomis]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

Have you seen SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE?

[HildebrandRarity]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

Have you seen SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE?

Yes.

Now how about answering my question?

This one:

The Academy is filled with soft bodies who've never poured sweat in a gym. They, therefore, have no idea what it would be like for someone like Craig to make James Bond a credible force in global popular cinema...again.

They're physically weak and frail...

How can voters appreciate DC as Bond when they have flabby bellies, flappy biceps, man boobs, non-existent quads and would huff and puff after climbing only two flights of stairs?

Can anyone provide an answer?

[Loomis]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

Have you seen SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE?

Yes.

Fairy nuff.

Now how about answering my question?

Perhaps that question ought to be answered by those who do not feel that Craig's turn in CASINO ROYALE was Oscar-worthy.

[Zorin Industries]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

Have you seen SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE?

Yes.

Fairy nuff.

Now how about answering my question?

Perhaps that question ought to be answered by those who do not feel that Craig's turn in CASINO ROYALE was Oscar-worthy.

That'll be me....(!)

[HildebrandRarity]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

Have you seen SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE?

Yes.

Fairy nuff.

Now how about answering my question?

Perhaps that question ought to be answered by those who do not feel that Craig's turn in CASINO ROYALE was Oscar-worthy.

That would depend on whether they go to the gym at least three times a week and work-out hard for 50 to 60 minutes straight until they're drenched with sweat from forehead to their socks. Imagine doing that for 1 to 2 hours a day, six times a week.

I wonder how many at the academy work-out like that? Or do they live the Idi Amin lifestyle of fatty, flabby bloatedness?

[Jim]

That would depend on whether they go to the gym at least three times a week and work-out hard for 50 to 60 minutes straight until they're drenched with sweat from forehead to their socks. Imagine doing that for 1 to 2 hours a day, six times a week.

I wonder how many at the academy work-out like that? Or do they live the Idi Amin lifestyle of fatty blabbyness?

Are you proposing that the most significant thing - the most notable and award-worthy thing - that Mr Craig brought to James Bond in Casino Royale was his physical fitness? That this should have been the core of their appreciation of him?

[Zorin Industries]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

The Academy is filled with soft bodies who've never poured sweat in a gym. They, therefore, have no idea what it would be like for someone like Craig to make James Bond a credible force in global popular cinema...again.

They're physically weak and frail airy fairy types who have deluded themselves into thinking they 'know' cinema when actually they're far removed from the people who spend their hard-earned money on consuming film. They get to see movies for free and it goes to their heads.

How can voters appreciate DC as Bond when they have flabby bellies, flappy biceps, man boobs, non-existent quads and would huff and puff after climbing only two flights of stairs?

Can anyone provide an answer?

Thinking you may be slightly resting your tongue in your cheek, I will try and respond.

The Oscars are voted by a huge pool of creative talent. As are the BAFTAS in Britain. Make up artists, camera technicians, sculptors, dressers, screenwriters, composers, model builders, photographers, costume designers, sound mixers, FX wizards, sound editors, graders, picture editors, draughtsmen, focus pullers, lens pullers, dolly grips and actors all vote for these awards. They are not decided by flabby people without a clue. They are chosen by people who live and breath all sorts of cinema, not just James Bond films. They do indeed "know" cinema and realise there is more out there than 007 sequels, WATCHMEN and Clint Eastwood boxsets. IThey also realise and understand how - for example - something like BENJAMIN BUTTON which is hardly changing the course of storytelling - is actually a film that technically should be acknowledged and rewarded.

It is not about "seeing movies for free" and letting that go to your head. It is about knowing and respecting the toil, craft and man hours it takes to create something most people dismiss.

It is always very naive and limiting to a discussion of cinema if people are going to put stamps of "mainstream" on films. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE was not made as a mainstream film. Its very production history and creative genesis was far from "mainstream". The difference is the film was solidly put together and got lucky with its scheduling, promotions, word of mouth and early awards.

The biggest grossing film in Britain last year was MAMMA MIA (followed by SOLACE, I believe). Is anyone going to say that MAMMA MIA deserves Oscars just because the man on the street went to see it in droves? No. Of course not. It was a Happy Meal of a film. There is a place for that. Of course there is. Some of my favourite films of all time are hardly quality fare. But I don't expect them to win Oscars and awards that are meant to protect, nurture and celebrate the art of cinema.

The Oscars are one of the more fairer slew of awards as they are decided upon by those that should have an opinion as it is their industry. I couldn't think of anything worse than opening a prestigious film prize night to the American Idol voters or the global equivalent.

Yes, Craig has made Bond a viable force in the global cinema. But he is not the only one responsible for that. If we are to bestow awards on the new Bond era for anything it surely should be the guile and wisdom Eon Productions have brought to their product - a wisdom they (for a variety of reasons) were not always allowed or able to achieve.

[HildebrandRarity]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

The Academy is filled with soft bodies who've never poured sweat in a gym. They, therefore, have no idea what it would be like for someone like Craig to make James Bond a credible force in global popular cinema...again.

They're physically weak and frail airy fairy types who have deluded themselves into thinking they 'know' cinema when actually they're far removed from the people who spend their hard-earned money on consuming film. They get to see movies for free and it goes to their heads.



How can voters appreciate DC as Bond when they have flabby bellies, flappy biceps, man boobs, non-existent quads and would huff and puff after climbing only two flights of stairs?

Can anyone provide an answer?

Thinking you may be slightly resting your tongue in your cheek, I will try and respond.

The Oscars are voted by a huge pool of creative talent. As are the BAFTAS in Britain. Make up artists, camera technicians, sculptors, dressers, screenwriters, composers, model builders, photographers, costume designers, sound mixers, FX wizards, sound editors, graders, picture editors, draughtsmen, focus pullers, lens pullers, dolly grips and actors all vote for these awards. They are not decided by flabby people without a clue. They are chosen by people who live and breath all sorts of cinema, not just James Bond films. They do indeed "know" cinema and realise there is more out there than 007 sequels, WATCHMEN and Clint Eastwood boxsets. IThey also realise and understand how - for example - something like BENJAMIN BUTTON which is hardly changing the course of storytelling - is actually a film that technically should be acknowledged and rewarded.

It is not about "seeing movies for free" and letting that go to your head. It is about knowing and respecting the toil, craft and man hours it takes to create something most people dismiss.

It is always very naive and limiting to a discussion of cinema if people are going to put stamps of "mainstream" on films. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE was not made as a mainstream film. Its very production history and creative genesis was far from "mainstream". The difference is the film was solidly put together and got lucky with its scheduling, promotions, word of mouth and early awards.

The biggest grossing film in Britain last year was MAMMA MIA (followed by SOLACE, I believe). Is anyone going to say that MAMMA MIA deserves Oscars just because the man on the street went to see it in droves? No. Of course not. It was a Happy Meal of a film. There is a place for that. Of course there is. Some of my favourite films of all time are hardly quality fare. But I don't expect them to win Oscars and awards that are meant to protect, nurture and celebrate the art of cinema.

The Oscars are one of the more fairer slew of awards as they are decided upon by those that should have an opinion as it is their industry. I couldn't think of anything worse than opening a prestigious film prize night to the American Idol voters or the global equivalent.

Yes, Craig has made Bond a viable force in the global cinema. But he is not the only one responsible for that. If we are to bestow awards on the new Bond era for anything it surely should be the guile and wisdom Eon Productions have brought to their product - a wisdom they (for a variety of reasons) were not always allowed or able to achieve.

But you skirted the gym question, old friend!

That would depend on whether they go to the gym at least three times a week and work-out hard for 50 to 60 minutes straight until they're drenched with sweat from forehead to their socks. Imagine doing that for 1 to 2 hours a day, six times a week.

I wonder how many at the academy work-out like that? Or do they live the Idi Amin lifestyle of fatty blabbyness?

Are you proposing that the most significant thing - the most notable and award-worthy thing - that Mr Craig brought to James Bond in Casino Royale was his physical fitness? That this should have been the core of their appreciation of him?

No. I'm not. I propose it as a factor, not the most significant factor. If acting is an art, then acting which incorporates extreme physicality and the portraying of a credible physical force should not be discounted as having no 'artistic' merit.

The acting - unlike Lazenby's, some Moore and some Brosnan - was obviously 'very good' (an opinion, a value judgement) but that was only a piece of the overall pie. The physicality buttressed all else into a very credible performance (in both movies).

You imagine no 'sweat' went into Mr Craig successfully portraying 007 circa later 2000s?

[Harmsway]

I agree - SLUMDOG is HUGELY overrated. It´s directed well but mostly in a flashy, hectic blockbuster style. And its story is a totally simplistic one, driven by a love story that does not work for me at all. C´mon, the guy knew this girl from some moments in their childhood. They lost contact. And as grown-ups they suddenly have the hots for each other.

And the worst mistake of the whole narrative structure (and a reason why this script should never have been given any awards): all questions during the "millionaire show" have answers that point to significant times in the main character´s life. ALL of the questions. And they ALL even are asked according to the CHRONOLOGY of his life. What a convenient coincidence. What a totally unbelievable situation.

Thank you!! These are my two major issues with SLUMDOG and I'm glad that others are seeing this. I thought that I was missing something. (Admittedly, Harmsway and JackWade were also not so hot on SLUMDOG either.)

Indeed. And the more popular it becomes, the more SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE irks me. But it's hardly the first time the Oscar was handed to an undeserving Best Picture winner.

[baerrtt]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

The Academy is filled with soft bodies who've never poured sweat in a gym. They, therefore, have no idea what it would be like for someone like Craig to make James Bond a credible force in global popular cinema...again.

They're physically weak and frail airy fairy types who have deluded themselves into thinking they 'know' cinema when actually they're far removed from the people who spend their hard-earned money on consuming film. They get to see movies for free and it goes to their heads.

How can voters appreciate DC as Bond when they have flabby bellies, flappy biceps, man boobs, non-existent quads and would huff and puff after climbing only two flights of stairs?

Can anyone provide an answer?

To be fair back in 2001 the Academy gave it's Best Actor trophy to a 'serious' performer who, for the purpose of a certain action movie that, to the surprise of some, won him the award, physically transformed his usually flabby form into a stone-cold killing machine known as Maximus (and a performance that became the first of the 'badass action heroes with soul' this decade has given us on the big and small screen, Craig's Bond included).

I think the problem has been the fact that the Academy clearly does like rewarding popullism (look at their history) as long as it's within their parameters of what constitutes a great film.

As an example there was a time when, seemingly, being the top grossing film of the year made you a Best Picture contender/nominee (unless it was animated hence my later point) and occasionally the winner. When the winning films had been LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or THE GODFATHER or the nominated ones like JAWS, STAR WARS, THE RED SHOES, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK(films critics liked as much as contemporary audiences did) etc it wasn't an issue.

But that also meant, inevitably, you got the mediocre and underserving competing. The likes of LOVE STORY being nominated for Best Picture, KRAMER VS KRAMER, a good but cinematically ordinary film winning the top prize over APOCALYPSE NOW, TITANIC sweeping the awards in '98 and so on and so forth.

All those movies just mentioned fall into the net of dramas with important subjects and as the likes of Chris Nolan and Pixar have discovered this year somehow dramas with 'important subjects' are more cinematically worthy of reward than a film actually succeeding in entertaining a wide audience (critics included)that just happens to reside in the 'genre' pool. And unfortunately genre is a dirty word to the Academy as starting in the 1980s sci-fi, comedy, action movies were spawning the biggest successess.

My point is it's pretty silly to for anyone to say QOS(or even CR) weren't worthy of prizes when the likes of the Academy have over-rewarded countless dramas and musicals with no actual lasting artistic merit just because they think those types of movies are more essential to the art of motion pictures.

Is anyone going to claim that the nominated LOVE STORY (a manipulative weepie dreck of a film) adds more to cinema, popular cinema on it's own, than the unnominated likes of BACK TO THE FUTURE which is actually creative. Likewise why is THE DEPARTED (a film I love btw), a remake at that, a more artistic achievement than CASINO ROYALE?

[jaguar007]

IF there had not been 20 films before it and Casino Royale was the first James Bond movie, it (and Craig) would have fared a much better chance of being nominated for an Oscar. I'm not saying it would have received a nomination, but a much better chance.

[baerrtt]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE truly is a much better film, I kid you not.

Of course it is.

The Academy is filled with soft bodies who've never poured sweat in a gym. They, therefore, have no idea what it would be like for someone like Craig to make James Bond a credible force in global popular cinema...again.

They're physically weak and frail airy fairy types who have deluded themselves into thinking they 'know' cinema when actually they're far removed from the people who spend their hard-earned money on consuming film. They get to see movies for free and it goes to their heads.

How can voters appreciate DC as Bond when they have flabby bellies, flappy biceps, man boobs, non-existent quads and would huff and puff after climbing only two flights of stairs?

Can anyone provide an answer?

To be fair back in 2001 the Academy gave it's Best Actor trophy to a 'serious' performer who, for the purpose of a certain action movie that, to the surprise of some, won him the award, physically transformed his usually flabby form into a stone-cold killing machine known as Maximus (and a performance that became the first of the 'badass action heroes with soul' this decade has given us on the big and small screen, Craig's Bond included).

I think the problem has been the fact that the Academy clearly does like rewarding popullism (look at their history) as long as it's within their parameters of what constitutes a great film.

As an example there was a time when, seemingly, being the top grossing film of the year made you a Best Picture contender/nominee (unless it was animated hence my later point) and occasionally the winner. When the winning films had been LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or THE GODFATHER or the nominated ones like JAWS, STAR WARS, THE RED SHOES, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK(films critics liked as much as contemporary audiences did) etc it wasn't an issue.

But that also meant, inevitably, you got the mediocre and underserving competing. The likes of LOVE STORY being nominated for Best Picture, KRAMER VS KRAMER, a good but cinematically ordinary film winning the top prize over APOCALYPSE NOW, TITANIC sweeping the awards in '98 and so on and so forth.

All those movies just mentioned fall into the net of dramas with important subjects and as the likes of Chris Nolan and Pixar have discovered this year somehow dramas with 'important subjects' are more cinematically worthy of reward than a film actually succeeding in entertaining a wide audience (critics included)that just happens to reside in the 'genre' pool. And unfortunately genre is a dirty word to the Academy as starting in the 1980s sci-fi, comedy, action movies were spawning the biggest successess.

My point is it's pretty silly to for anyone to say QOS(or even CR) weren't worthy of prizes when the likes of the Academy have over-rewarded countless dramas and musicals with no actual lasting artistic merit just because they think those types of movies are more essential to the art of motion pictures.

Is anyone going to claim that the nominated LOVE STORY (a manipulative weepie dreck of a film) adds more to cinema, popular cinema on it's own, than the unnominated likes of BACK TO THE FUTURE which is actually creative? That patronising sermons likes DRIVING MISS ING DAISY and CRASH deserved to walk off with their respective wins? Likewise why is THE DEPARTED (a film I love btw), a remake at that, a more artistic achievement than CASINO ROYALE?

Oops, double post.

Edited by baerrtt, 02 March 2009 - 03:50 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Good post, baerrtt.

Likewise why is THE DEPARTED (a film I love btw), a remake at that, a more artistic achievement than CASINO ROYALE?

Yeah. I suggested as much on page one of the thread. Not only is Departed a remake...it was a remake of a film that was only a year or two old.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree - SLUMDOG is HUGELY overrated. It´s directed well but mostly in a flashy, hectic blockbuster style. And its story is a totally simplistic one, driven by a love story that does not work for me at all. C´mon, the guy knew this girl from some moments in their childhood. They lost contact. And as grown-ups they suddenly have the hots for each other.

And the worst mistake of the whole narrative structure (and a reason why this script should never have been given any awards): all questions during the "millionaire show" have answers that point to significant times in the main character´s life. ALL of the questions. And they ALL even are asked according to the CHRONOLOGY of his life. What a convenient coincidence. What a totally unbelievable situation.

Thank you!! These are my two major issues with SLUMDOG and I'm glad that others are seeing this. I thought that I was missing something. (Admittedly, Harmsway and JackWade were also not so hot on SLUMDOG either.)

Indeed. And the more popular it becomes, the more SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE irks me. But it's hardly the first time the Oscar was handed to an undeserving Best Picture winner.

I´ve got one more: The main character endures heavy torture like Jack Bauer. Pretty amazing for a skinny kid to go through a night of beating and electrocution and then get back on the show with not so much as a ruffled shirt.

Make no mistake - the film did entertain me. I don´t think it´s a bad film at all. But it is not a masterpiece, nor an award-worthy film. It was a safe political choice in regard to Hollywood politics: most members of the Academy probably wanted to shove it to the big studios who have turned down their smaller projects again and again. And BENJAMIN BUTTON never stood a chance because of Fincher´s "I don´t kiss to anybody"-attitude. THE READER canceled itself out because there are lots of people in Hollywood who hate Harvey Weinstein and his bully tactics to get Scott Rudin off the project. MILK was, well, just to much of a left choice. And FROST/NIXON had the disadvantage of being directed by Ron Howard (who I think is a great director) whom most people just did not want to see win again after A BEAUTIFUL MIND.

[HildebrandRarity]

I´ve got one more: The main character endures heavy torture like Jack Bauer. Pretty amazing for a skinny kid to go through a night of beating and electrocution and then get back on the show with not so much as a ruffled shirt.

"You didn't change your shirt, Mr. Slumdog..."

What if they'd had a convalescence scene at Lake Como? Would that have helped?

I don´t think it´s a bad film at all. But it is not a masterpiece, nor an award-worthy film. It was a safe political choice in regard to Hollywood politics: most members of the Academy probably wanted to shove it to the big studios who have turned down their smaller projects again and again. And BENJAMIN BUTTON never stood a chance because of Fincher´s "I don´t kiss to anybody"-attitude. THE READER canceled itself out because there are lots of people in Hollywood who hate Harvey Weinstein and his bully tactics to get Scott Rudin off the project. MILK was, well, just to much of a left choice. And FROST/NIXON had the disadvantage of being directed by Ron Howard (who I think is a great director) whom most people just did not want to see win again after A BEAUTIFUL MIND.

So, you're saying the fix was in? That they didn't want it to go to Fincher, Weinstein, Opie Howard and homosexuality?

[SecretAgentFan]

Of course, I can´t know for sure but that is my interpretation.

[Cabainus]

I might be in the minority here but I actually enjoyed Slumdog immensely, and thought it was well worthy of the Best Picture Oscar.
Don’t think there was any sort of conspiracy, just that it was a bloody good film.