EricHasNoPull said:What about my favorite?... Z! No love for Z from the Academy what so ever!
OrangeGrayBlue said:
I never said anything about you not being able to have the opinions you had. If fact, I got the exact same message out of the film that you got. I understand the people who think it's a hoax. All I'm saying is that there is not proof right now to say it's a hoax, so there's no point trying to convince the other side that your side is correct.EricHasNoPull said:I am saying it's obvious to it's viewers, I am merely talking about my own viewing experience, By the end of the film I walked out of the theater thinking that this was all a hoax that symbolized Bansky's Street Art Career and success through pop culture.
If only all movie going audience had to wait to hear what the filmmakers had to say about their film after watching it, the general public doesn't go see a movie for that reason, they go see a movie to be entertained and get something out of it for themselves. And what I got from ETGS was that it was designed to symbolize the general public's attitude towards contemporary "art" or simply question "what is art?" is it the execution of it? is it the artistic intention? among many other questions etc. etc.
The film definitely raised those questions for me after it was finished and coincidentally
I found those questions to be very reflective of Bansky's actual street art that he's been famous for for the past few years. Am I not allow to get that from this movie? "am I doing it wrong" or something? I'm sure I'm not alone in having this opinion about the movie so hence "the obvious".
Yes I think I know what can be categorized as a "documentary" and we can argue till the cows come home that most documentaries out there these days are merely just personal film projects.
I understand that every documentary doesn't have to be a CNN, live raw news footage. It's important that documentaries have a central message and most documentaries for better or worse are manipulated and fine tweaked by the fimmaker(s) to help get that message across to it's audience but... there's a fine line between all that and a work of fiction, scripted film.
The film is label as a "documentary" everywhere sure, but I seriously did not feel like it was one when I finished watching it, but hey!... that's just my personal take on it. take it or leave it.
It's just like a movie being categories as a psychological thriller, but once you done watching it, it maybe feel more like a shallow, horror slasher to you. (just to be clear this is just an example I am using detached from the film in discussion, not saying that I felt that ETGS was the "slasher of "documentaries")
Veidt said:How come Scores have to be original. While the films that usually in, are adaptations of books no one has read, or uninteresting source matter.
Scullibundo said:Erm. You mean like the best ADAPTED screenplay vs best ORIGINAL screenplay?
Tom Hooper, David O. Russell and Darren Aronofsky worked the #DGA red carpet. David Fincher & Chris Nolan didn't.
4 minutes ago via Mobile Web
DMczaf said:
Scullibundo said:One didn't because he's a sure thing. The other didn't because he was a sure non-thing.
David Fincher split the second after Tom Hooper's name was announced. #DGAs
14 minutes ago via HootSuite
Retweeted by 9 people
Awesome.DMczaf said:I guess Fincher should have sucked up. Tom Hooper wins the DGA Award
http://twitter.com/thecarpetbagger/status/31614963961307137
:lol
Fair enough, although it's the complete opposite: it's well recorded that it was for much of its life intended to be a light hearted Hugh Grant romp, but Colin Firth's inspiring auditions led the crew to manipulate the script into a slightly more serious period piece.TekkenMaster said:Just want to say that I hope Social Network wins. As others have said King's Speech just seems like it was planned as Oscar Bait from the start.
OrangeGrayBlue said:King's Speech winning would be a real bummer, to me. It's such a vanilla choice.
Solo said:Who cares if its vanilla when its so much better than The Social Network (which is the "clearcut" favorite)?
Count of Monte Sawed-Off said:Haven't seen the King's Speech, and while I hear it's an awesome movie, I imagine that it's one of those films no one will think about in a couple of years. I could totally be wrong though.
Personally, I won't soon forget the performances of Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. I don't give a rat's ass if the public forgets about it or not.jett said:You're pretty much right.
BertramCooper said:Personally, I won't soon forget the performances of Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. I don't give a rat's ass if the public forgets about it or not.
It's quite simply a better film than The Social Network, and deserves to win the Oscar over it.
jett said:Geoffrey Rush, really? The guy's on autopilot.
Solo said:Fuck NeoGAF for removing smileys, because frankly there isn't a :lol big enough for this pure and utter horseshit. Oh, jett, you really did make me laugh.
Pirates of the Caribbean is Geoffrey Rush on autopilot.jett said:Geoffrey Rush, really? The guy's on autopilot.
DMczaf said:It's alright Fincher, you'll always have the Wolf Pack
Scullibundo said:Look at Nolan. He looks like a happy fan whilst the others are putting on their 'posing with a fan' face.
Discotheque said:Where's the picture of Nolan with Michael Mann. There's another one that fits the description
Is James Cameron hoverhanding?!DMczaf said:It's alright Fincher, you'll always have the Wolf Pack
WTF is this? I hate how fashionable it is to use the term oscar-bait lately. Neither films are oscar-bait.Ikael said:The Social Network - A good movie on the technical side, I think it was ultimately, empty and generic, as if the director didn't knew what to say with it, other than wanting to narrate the history of Facebook and get done with it. It strikes me as if it would have worked better as a documentary than a movie. And boy, does it reek of Oscar - bait, even more so than the King's speech.