I think the panel got a little carried away with Gravity. Best Film and Oustanding British Film? In what way does it qualify as British? Orignal Screenplay? Dialogue was minimal and mostly expositional. Music? Must be a slow year for film soundtracks.
I suppose Bale's inclusion isn't too great a surprise in the Baftas seeing as everyone else is nominated. They're as British biased as the Oscars are US. I'd be surprised if he gets an Oscar nom.
I think the panel got a little carried away with Gravity. Best Film and Oustanding British Film? In what way does it qualify as British? Orignal Screenplay? Dialogue was minimal and mostly expositional. Music? Must be a slow year for film soundtracks.
I suppose Bale's inclusion isn't too great a surprise in the Baftas seeing as everyone else is nominated. They're as British biased as the Oscars are US. I'd be surprised if he gets an Oscar nom.
I agree. It's ridiculous nominating these films as British just because they feature British actors, directors or production crews or facilities. It reeks of desperation.
I agree. It's ridiculous nominating these films as British just because they feature British actors, directors or production crews or facilities. It reeks of desperation.
Gravity was mostly filmed in the UK using a mainly British crew, but the money, creative vision and idea came from abroad.
How on Earth Does Saving Mr Banks qualify as British?
Gravity was mostly filmed in the UK using a mainly British crew, but the money, creative vision and idea came from abroad.
Presumably that was a soundstage at Pinewood or somewhere similar? Blimey, if that's really what qualifies it as British, that is a rather pathetic attempt by Bafta to claim it as 'ours'.
Presumably that was a soundstage at Pinewood or somewhere similar? Blimey, if that's really what qualifies it as British, that is a rather pathetic attempt by Bafta to claim it as 'ours'.
Julie Andrews ;-)
Shepperton I believe.
Maybe its a ploy from BAFTA to increase Hollywood investment in the UK, if the studios are chucked a few BAFTA nominations purely for filming here.
Maybe its a ploy from BAFTA to increase Hollywood investment in the UK, if the studios are chucked a few BAFTA nominations purely for filming here.
There may be some truth in that. Presumably when the award comes up, Britain's involvment in the film will be the focus. "Hey, Mr Director, did you like Gravity and all its fancy effects? Know where it was filmed? Shepperton Studios in Britain, England. Film here and we guarantee your film will be as successful." Cheaper than a full-page ad in Variety. ;-)
I was shocked Gravity was a british film. Not because of the actors or the film crew, but because i assumed it was a big hollywood movie done in the states.
Gravity was a co-production of Heyday films (a British company which co-produced all the Harry Potter films) and Alfonso Cuarón's own company Esperanto Filmoj (which is Mexican).
Gravity was mostly filmed in the UK using a mainly British crew, but the money, creative vision and idea came from abroad.
How on Earth Does Saving Mr Banks qualify as British?
Warners is a U.S. distributor, which helped to partly fund Gravity by securing rights to distribute the film before it was made. So technically, it's a Spanish-British film. Edit: Sorry, Mexican-British film. (Just read the response above.)
Saving Mr Banks was partly funded by BBC Films. Technically, Saving Mr Banks is an Australian / British / American film.
It's a lot more common than we may believe, which is why I'm admittedly irritated when people say "Hollywood/American films" when talking about international films as a whole. I've stopped being pedantic after a major fight with one poster about one film, which he insisted describing as an American film when in fact it's 100% British. Yay?
Edit:
I just read the rest of the thread. It's depressing to see such a low opinion of the British film industry.
The Best Picture nominations actually name individuals as the nominees. In Gravity's case they are Alfonso Cuarón (Mexican) & David Heyman (British), the producers of the film.
Edit:
I just read the rest of the thread. It's depressing to see such a low opinion of the British film industry.
Who's said anything bad about it? Not realising the extent of behind-the-scenes British involvement doesn't equate to having a low opinion of the industry.
Bale getting in was a huge surprise for me, I thought all the buzz was for Mcconaughey.
There does seem to be a bit of a prejudice against McConaughey - the same thing happened with Magic Mike, lots of buzz but no pay off. I'm not outraged as I haven't seen all the performances and it's a very strong category but I do wonder if there's an unwillingness to acknowledge his development as an actor, given the amount of fluff he was in earlier in his career.
Bale (very good performance notwithstanding) seems to have become one of those actors who just needs to turn up in a non-Batman costume to get lauded. In fact, there are quite a few of the usual suspects in the nominations, as always. Tom Hanks was good, but shouldn't have got past the competition this time. And I love Judi Dench but it does seem to have become the law that she gets nominated every time she shows up. Haven't seen Philomena so can't judge on this particular nomination but, in general, it would be nice to see both Acadamies be a bit more imaginative in the types of performances/actors they consider. But it was ever thus...
Sure is odd. Bafta pushing Rush/Wolf of Wall Street to one side for a decent but not great American Hustle.
I think Gravity should be nominated for best British film. With all the other reason people have already stated but lets not forget the reason that made it look great. The UK digital effects industry, they made that movie look like it did.
Walt Disney Films presents (US) <--- a company in support of, which usually means a) they have officially given permission for the film to use one of their well-known IP assets or b) the company as a whole isn't directly involved, but there is a representative from said company involved (usually, as an executive producer, to keep an eye on an IP asset or introduce the producer to various investors or key people), or c) both.
Ruby Films (UK) <--- producer, e.g. a person or company that coordinates and puts all elements together as a project including financing, talent (crew and cast), distribution, negotiations of rights in all areas, etc., and oversees the entire process from the beginning to the end, which usually lasts four years (at least two years' worth of shopping around for investors, financiers and insurance, putting together agreements, then roughly a year-long pre-production and a year or two after post-production). Also includes shopping around for investors, often for years (ranging from 5 to 20 years), before pre-production.
Essential Media and Entertainment (Australia) <--- producer ditto.
In association with<--- a funding body
BBC Films (UK)
Hopscotch Features (Australia)
Who's said anything bad about it? Not realising the extent of behind-the-scenes British involvement doesn't equate to having a low opinion of the industry.
For me, those don't hold such a good opinion of the industry:
I agree. It's ridiculous nominating these films as British just because they feature British actors, directors or production crews or facilities. It reeks of desperation.
Maybe its a ploy from BAFTA to increase Hollywood investment in the UK, if the studios are chucked a few BAFTA nominations purely for filming here.
There may be some truth in that. Presumably when the award comes up, Britain's involvment in the film will be the focus. "Hey, Mr Director, did you like Gravity and all its fancy effects? Know where it was filmed? Shepperton Studios in Britain, England. Film here and we guarantee your film will be as successful." Cheaper than a full-page ad in Variety.
Presumably that was a soundstage at Pinewood or somewhere similar? Blimey, if that's really what qualifies it as British, that is a rather pathetic attempt by Bafta to claim it as 'ours'.
For me, those don't hold such a good opinion of the industry:
But all those comments stemmed from the mistaken belief/ assumption that the only British involvement in the film was that it was filmed in Shepperton with a British crew. Trying to claim a film as being British simply for those reasons would be pretty pathetic. No-one said anything like 'Pah ! Who cares, all British films are shit anyway !'.
FWIW, now that I know David Heyman co-produced, the inclusion seems valid.
No nomination for James McAvoy which disappoints but doesn't in the least surprise me. I've not seen a few of the nominees performances but if they're more of a standout than McAvoy in Filth I'd be very surprised. The Baftas are a joke!!
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d7c623b1b3054187ab17f23e41211e74.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 87,224
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/baftas/10557754/Bafta-nominations-2014-Gravity-gets-11-nods.html
Same here
Matthew has to be the biggest snub imo
I suppose Bale's inclusion isn't too great a surprise in the Baftas seeing as everyone else is nominated. They're as British biased as the Oscars are US. I'd be surprised if he gets an Oscar nom.
I agree. It's ridiculous nominating these films as British just because they feature British actors, directors or production crews or facilities. It reeks of desperation.
Gravity was mostly filmed in the UK using a mainly British crew, but the money, creative vision and idea came from abroad.
How on Earth Does Saving Mr Banks qualify as British?
Julie Andrews ;-)
Shepperton I believe.
Maybe its a ploy from BAFTA to increase Hollywood investment in the UK, if the studios are chucked a few BAFTA nominations purely for filming here.
Gandhi was filmed in India using thousands of Indian extras. Doesn't make it an Indian film.
Warners provided the financial backing.
Warners is a U.S. distributor, which helped to partly fund Gravity by securing rights to distribute the film before it was made. So technically, it's a Spanish-British film. Edit: Sorry, Mexican-British film. (Just read the response above.)
Saving Mr Banks was partly funded by BBC Films. Technically, Saving Mr Banks is an Australian / British / American film.
It's a lot more common than we may believe, which is why I'm admittedly irritated when people say "Hollywood/American films" when talking about international films as a whole. I've stopped being pedantic after a major fight with one poster about one film, which he insisted describing as an American film when in fact it's 100% British. Yay?
Edit:
I just read the rest of the thread. It's depressing to see such a low opinion of the British film industry.
There does seem to be a bit of a prejudice against McConaughey - the same thing happened with Magic Mike, lots of buzz but no pay off. I'm not outraged as I haven't seen all the performances and it's a very strong category but I do wonder if there's an unwillingness to acknowledge his development as an actor, given the amount of fluff he was in earlier in his career.
Bale (very good performance notwithstanding) seems to have become one of those actors who just needs to turn up in a non-Batman costume to get lauded. In fact, there are quite a few of the usual suspects in the nominations, as always. Tom Hanks was good, but shouldn't have got past the competition this time. And I love Judi Dench but it does seem to have become the law that she gets nominated every time she shows up. Haven't seen Philomena so can't judge on this particular nomination but, in general, it would be nice to see both Acadamies be a bit more imaginative in the types of performances/actors they consider. But it was ever thus...
Walt Disney Films presents (US)
Ruby Films (UK)
Essential Media and Entertainment (Australia)
In association with
BBC Films (UK)
Hopscotch Features (Australia)
I think Gravity should be nominated for best British film. With all the other reason people have already stated but lets not forget the reason that made it look great. The UK digital effects industry, they made that movie look like it did.
FWIW, in general industry terminology:
Walt Disney Films presents (US) <--- a company in support of, which usually means a) they have officially given permission for the film to use one of their well-known IP assets or b) the company as a whole isn't directly involved, but there is a representative from said company involved (usually, as an executive producer, to keep an eye on an IP asset or introduce the producer to various investors or key people), or c) both.
Ruby Films (UK) <--- producer, e.g. a person or company that coordinates and puts all elements together as a project including financing, talent (crew and cast), distribution, negotiations of rights in all areas, etc., and oversees the entire process from the beginning to the end, which usually lasts four years (at least two years' worth of shopping around for investors, financiers and insurance, putting together agreements, then roughly a year-long pre-production and a year or two after post-production). Also includes shopping around for investors, often for years (ranging from 5 to 20 years), before pre-production.
Essential Media and Entertainment (Australia) <--- producer ditto.
In association with <--- a funding body
BBC Films (UK)
Hopscotch Features (Australia)
For me, those don't hold such a good opinion of the industry:
FWIW, now that I know David Heyman co-produced, the inclusion seems valid.