Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:53 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 213 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture' 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6976
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Vexer wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
God, why did you people have to bring up Driving Miss Daisy again?

As for Titanic, that movie is awesome so you can all suck it. The relationship stands as a metaphor for the ship itself, quick to start and doomed to fail its maiden voyage. If you don't believe in the chemistry of the characters that's up to you but I've always bought it. Few films in recent years have been able to strike such awe out of its visuals and intermix story, theme and characters together as well as this.
Bella and Edward in Twilight had more chemistry then Jack And Rose.


Obviously this is somewhat subjective, but I think you're wrong. I don't think the movie could have struck such a chord with audiences if they didn't feel the main couple was worth rooting for.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:25 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 259
Location: NJ
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
I will say one thing about Titanic...

It is the last big movie that Leonardo was in that wasn't really relevant to him becoming a major actor and star in my book. His next (big) role was Gangs of NY, which I can take or leave, but then he was in Catch Me If you Can and I don't think I have disliked anything he has been in since then.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:52 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2003
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
JamesKunz wrote:
Obviously this is somewhat subjective, but I think you're wrong. I don't think the movie could have struck such a chord with audiences if they didn't feel the main couple was worth rooting for.

Twilight obviously strikes a chord with a certain audience. Perhaps the same audience responsible for Titanic's overwhelming success.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:46 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 326
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
I'm with Kunz. Titanic's not a totally great film, but elements of it are great. It boggles my mind that people who sing the praises of something like Skyfall can't gather appreciation for Cameron's accomplishment. Bond's newest has zero chemistry between Bond and his Girls, has absolutely no appeal for those who don't dig the genre, features acting that is fine but very specific to the needs of the film's style, draws out its unnecessary scenes and is very well made technically. I feel like all of the same things could be said of Titanic. I'm not saying its a perfect comparasin, but I don't get how one could consider the Bond film great but not Titanic. Taste and preference are fine, as is not wanting to rewatch Titanic, but to call it one of the worst winners is crazy to me.

And yes, the Twilight-type crowd very much pushed Titanic to its monetary successes, just as the Transformers crowd are doing with Skyfall.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:06 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2003
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Shade2 wrote:
I'm with Kunz. Titanic's not a totally great film, but elements of it are great. It boggles my mind that people who sing the praises of something like Skyfall can't gather appreciation for Cameron's accomplishment. Bond's newest has zero chemistry between Bond and his Girls,
I disagree, but chemistry between romantic leads is essential for Titanic and not so much for Skyfall.

Quote:
has absolutely no appeal for those who don't dig the genre,
A non-sequitur, as this is true for almost any genre picture regardless of quality. Though I would bet that Skyfall has charmed some people who otherwise wouldn't care for a Bond picture.

Quote:
features acting that is fine but very specific to the needs of the film's style,
In other words, it does precisely what it should be doing.

Quote:
draws out its unnecessary scenes
Define "unnecessary".

Quote:
and is very well made technically.
Define "technically".

Not to pick on you unfairly, but I feel like this comparison isn't revealing as much as you're shooting for.

And does anybody really see Skyfall in serious contention for Best Picture?

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:14 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 326
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Ken wrote:
A non-sequitur, as this is true for almost any genre picture regardless of quality. Though I would bet that Skyfall has charmed some people who otherwise wouldn't care for a Bond picture.


A fine point, but again I think the same could be said of Titanic in that the last hour charmed those generally not interested in old-school Hollywood syrupy romances.

Ken wrote:
In other words, it does precisely what it should be doing.


For both films, yes.

Ken wrote:
Define "unnecessary" & "technically"


Fair enough: For "unnecessary," I feel like both films take their dramatic elements way too seriously and come across as boring or silly. In a technical sense, I feel like both films are extremely credible in their depiction of their action (in terms of clarity and precision) and production values in general. They're both well-shot for their individual style.

Ken wrote:
Not to pick on you unfairly, but I feel like this comparison isn't revealing as much as you're shooting for.

And does anybody really see Skyfall in serious contention for Best Picture?


I don't feel picked on; as I said the comparasin is a bit weak. And no, I don't think Skyfall -- or Titanic -- warrant best picture contention in terms of what I think are the best movies. But in terms of what the Academy rewards? I think Titanic deserved its slot. It's not in my top, say, 250 of all time (and neither is Skyfall), but its fine for what it is.

And that's my point: Titanic is a fine genre piece. It's production values are high and totally credible. I don't think being groundbreaking is terribly relevant in art, but Titanic was fairly groundbreaking in some technical senses. I don't love it in any sense, but I don't get hating it.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:33 pm
Profile
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
O.K. I will throw in my 2C regarding "Titanic".
The positive sides: Cameron really did his homework and hired "the" Titanic researcher/artist: Ken Marschall. Cameron really did get the details of this ship right - and most historical facts are correct as well.
Photography/cinematography is wonderful and the CGI is - with the exception of some details such as the coal exhaust smoke, which lacks convincing texture, very smoothly integrated - kept down to the necessary (= scale and full size models wherever possible) and convincing.

The acting ranges from cliched to horrible, with one single exception: David Warner as Billy Zane's right hand with the keen eye and no-nonsense approach of a police inspector. I found his character the most interesting in the movie.

Every single aspect of the movie looks and feels sanitized. Not in one single shot did I feel I was transported back to 1912. It's just like the Hollywood 50s where all cars, even the Chevy pickup, are shiny as new. Even the sailors didn't look real. The bloke who played captain Smith was plain wrong. The real Captain Smith looked rugged, and most likely was pompous and had a short temper, the actor was stiff, half smiling most of the time and otherwise without any expression - like someone out of a cheezy tv commercial. Yes, the ship was new, but back in 1912 signs of weather., aggressive salt water and use would show very quickly. It looks too new, too idealized. It looks as Cameron wanted to glorify, idealize everything to fit the Romeo and Juliet story. And that Romeo and Juliet story was what the movie was about. It wasn't about Titanic. There is not one single comment how all this was inevitable. I miss comments from, say, the chief engineer how the rudder was too small and outdated in design, the triple screw design was inappropriate (the earlier Lusitania and Mauretania had way more advanced designs with a balanced rudder, steam turbines and four propellers - as in airplane design, an even number of propellers is preferable) - and of course the single riveted hull, which is simply too flimsy for an Atlantic crossing (as far back as 1858 the "SS Great Eastern" was launched: it had a double hull and vertical watertight compartments all (!) the way up - That was truly an unsinkable ship, not Titanic). I'm sure engineers, the captain and of course the ship's architect himself knew that all too well. Cameron avoided all that (except for the lifeboat comment - but that was Rose - she is part of the love story and it shows just that she has brains) and kept the popular myth about how perfect Titanic was - it wasn't, not even close.

I would have liked to see just a little more elaboration on some of the historic figutres. As it is, it feels like a check list: J.J. Astor: check, B. Guggenheim: check,... O.K. we got them out of the way, let's go on with the love story. Now that love story has two convenient moments which I never bought for a split second:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
1. Rose wants to commit suicide exactly when Jack, a third class passenger was in the same area - and noone else - then he got invited to join the first clas for dinner - how convenient!
2. "I changed my mind!" - hey Jack, that was an easy one, wasn't it?


Yes Cameron did a lot of things right, but I had the feeling it was in large part to cover his ass so he can do the love story and attract very young females who are easy to impress with that kind of stuff and have enough money for repeated viewings. Just check how almost all the "boys" stuff is kept to an absolute minimum. I was craving for just one more second in those awesome engine and boiler rooms and on the bridge.

"Titanic" isn't a bad movie. No way. But the story and acting are not oscar material, not even close.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:16 pm
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2891
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Shade2 wrote:
I'm with Kunz. Titanic's not a totally great film, but elements of it are great. It boggles my mind that people who sing the praises of something like Skyfall can't gather appreciation for Cameron's accomplishment. Bond's newest has zero chemistry between Bond and his Girls, has absolutely no appeal for those who don't dig the genre, features acting that is fine but very specific to the needs of the film's style, draws out its unnecessary scenes and is very well made technically. I feel like all of the same things could be said of Titanic. I'm not saying its a perfect comparasin, but I don't get how one could consider the Bond film great but not Titanic. Taste and preference are fine, as is not wanting to rewatch Titanic, but to call it one of the worst winners is crazy to me.

And yes, the Twilight-type crowd very much pushed Titanic to its monetary successes, just as the Transformers crowd are doing with Skyfall.

I disagree with you there, I thought Bond had plenty of chemistry with Naomie Harris's character, watching Jack And Rose interact was like a really bad high school play, their "chemistry" was like a wet match in a dark cave.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:36 pm
Profile
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Vexer wrote:
...watching Jack And Rose interact was like a really bad high school play....


Well I fully agree with this part. Unfortunately this was the focus of "Titanic", the actual disaster of the (in)famous vessel and the real life story were basically just finely crafted background noise.
And don't get me started on the music score. James Horner was under such pressure, that he recorded another CD after the success of Titanic, the way he wanted it in the first place (as far as I know - "official" stories can be told in an "embellished" way). Listen to the music when the dolphins are jumping near the bow (seconds before the King of the world scene) - these are horribly cheap sounding digital samples of a human choir, they are even out of phase (resulting in an awkward sound). As far as I know, Horner did't have time to record with a real choir (and perhaps Cameron was happy with the fake choir because it sounds more like the multiple overdubs on an Enya CD - which was the temp track, Cameron used). I have nothing against Enya, but it's another surfire sign, that Cameron had just the young female audience in mind. Fortunately James Horner is talented enough so he came up with a few very good parts (except for that ridiculous Celine Dion tune which makes me want to drill through my ears so I won't ever have to endure that piece of s*** again....)


Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:51 pm
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 172
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Vexer wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
God, why did you people have to bring up Driving Miss Daisy again?

As for Titanic, that movie is awesome so you can all suck it. The relationship stands as a metaphor for the ship itself, quick to start and doomed to fail its maiden voyage. If you don't believe in the chemistry of the characters that's up to you but I've always bought it. Few films in recent years have been able to strike such awe out of its visuals and intermix story, theme and chara
cters together as well as this.
Bella and Edward in Twilight had more chemistry then Jack And Rose.


Hogswash and sexism.

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:04 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2891
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
JJoshay wrote:
Vexer wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
God, why did you people have to bring up Driving Miss Daisy again?

As for Titanic, that movie is awesome so you can all suck it. The relationship stands as a metaphor for the ship itself, quick to start and doomed to fail its maiden voyage. If you don't believe in the chemistry of the characters that's up to you but I've always bought it. Few films in recent years have been able to strike such awe out of its visuals and intermix story, theme and chara
cters together as well as this.
Bella and Edward in Twilight had more chemistry then Jack And Rose.


Hogswash and sexism.

I'm not Bella and Edward made a good couple(they didn't, they were very wooden) but Jakc And Rose had so little chemistry that even those two look better by comparison


Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:12 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:34 am
Posts: 95
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
JJoshay wrote:
Vexer wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
God, why did you people have to bring up Driving Miss Daisy again?

As for Titanic, that movie is awesome so you can all suck it. The relationship stands as a metaphor for the ship itself, quick to start and doomed to fail its maiden voyage. If you don't believe in the chemistry of the characters that's up to you but I've always bought it. Few films in recent years have been able to strike such awe out of its visuals and intermix story, theme and chara
cters together as well as this.
Bella and Edward in Twilight had more chemistry then Jack And Rose.


Hogswash and sexism.


Don't you mean hogwash and vampirism?


Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:34 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Titanic is another instance (like the Star Wars prequels) where I'm glad I'm far removed from it (in term of my age, the time and hype of its release, and all those awards) when I watched it for the first time.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:16 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 172
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
MunichMan wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
Hogswash and sexism.


Don't you mean hogwash and vampirism?


Hogwash maybe, the rest was as intended.

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:35 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 172
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Vexer wrote:
I disagree with you there, I thought Bond had plenty of chemistry with Naomie Harris's character, watching Jack And Rose interact was like a really bad high school play, their "chemistry" was like a wet match in a dark cave.


Image

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:56 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1144
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
I don't think there's any doubt that "Titanic" is a very well-made movie; the problem is that its story is incredibly superficial.


Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:59 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1438
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
H.I. McDonough wrote:
I don't think there's any doubt that "Titanic" is a very well-made movie; the problem is that its story is incredibly superficial.


Bingo! That's it right there. From a technical standpoint, Titanic was unbeatable at the time. It still is fantastic in that regard. Technically it is very well-made.

In terms fo story and characters is where it doesn't work. Dialogue has never been Cameron's strong point as a writer. But its especially orevalent here.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:29 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2003
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Titanic is technically mediocre. Technique governs all elements of storytelling, including the ones that make the movie look like a Corvette but perform like an AMC Gremlin.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:38 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6976
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Ken wrote:
Titanic is technically mediocre. Technique governs all elements of storytelling, including the ones that make the movie look like a Corvette but perform like an AMC Gremlin.


Well it's not as if Titanic is flawed as a story, it's just perhaps too simplistic.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:12 pm
Profile
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
JamesKunz wrote:
Well it's not as if Titanic is flawed as a story, it's just perhaps too simplistic.


O.K. now we're discussing "Titanic", something I didn't look forward to, but fortunately all comments are very reasonable IMHO.
I guess I still need to learn being less long winded. Oh well.
Anyhowz: I think that "Titanic" has more flaws than just the too simplistic story.
-The story is contrived and the pair is definitely not the best match. Rose is a woman and Jack is still a boy.
-The dialog is functional, heavy handed and poorly written.
-The entire movie looks too "pretty". The entire cast looks exactly like people from 1997. Captain Smith looks pathetic (just check photos of the real man). Something which has been done so much better in "Master and Commander". I own the DVD with the director's comment of the latter - the casting went to great lengths to avoid "contemporary faces".
Sure "Titanic" never was intended to be a documentary, but a little less gloss and squeaky clean glamour would have helped to make it look more 1912-ish instead of a Walt Disney version of the Titanic disaster.
And just a couple of minutes dedicated to the "Californian" which was nearby and didn't come to the rescue wouldn't have hurt the credibility either. Cameron really made sure to get facts (which he so thoroughly researched) out of the way of the love story. I am still convinced he did all this research and hired the top experts on the subject just to cover his ass. Now about that "book end" story about old Rose and the deep sea treasure hunter Bill Paxton (getting all misty).... what's that supposed to be? Throw-in a little Jessica Tandy in "Driving Miss Daisy" (sorry I brought that up again)?


Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:09 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 213 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gedmud, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr