I've heard Hugo is very good and highly rated by some but when I saw the trailer I thought "Meh", it just looked like another 3D kids adventure film
That's what many critics and analysts think why it's bombed massively including Paramount.
It's an 'adult' film in a child like infrastructure. I think it's too long for children and they don't 'get it' (don't understand it's underlying theme). It's basically Scorsese's love affair with the history of cinema and how it all began. I mean it's been universally acclaimed and has had great praise but it's been totally marketed wrongly by Paramount IMO. Hopefully it will find a place in home video when it get's released after the Oscars.
Rise of the Planet Of The Apes only got a Visual Effects nod!
I really do wonder at times.
All it deserves. Not a bad film, but not worth an award for its story (hardly comparable to the original, and fairly vacuous as well as clunky at times) or for Serkis being a human template to a CGI puppet.
Tell me, can you tell me where you're certain you're seeing Serkis's performance instead of the CGI? You do realise that any flaws in Serkis's performance can be fixed afterwards? You do realise also that many times with MoCap that they discard a lot of the actor's stuff and do it themselves? Thing is, with MoCap, you're not sure if Serkis did a good performance and it was enhanced to great due to the effects team or whether it was wholly his own work. So, I'm quite glad he didn't get the nomination, because until we can be confident that what we see is the performance he gave, we'll never know whether he deserves it or not.
Maybe there needs to be a separate category, one that not only gives the actor kudos but also the effects team. In all this, it's them that tends to be left out.
That's what many critics and analysts think why it's bombed massively including Paramount.
It's an 'adult' film in a child like infrastructure. I think it's too long for children and they don't 'get it' (don't understand it's underlying theme). It's basically Scorsese's love affair with the history of cinema and how it all began. I mean it's been universally acclaimed and has had great praise but it's been totally marketed wrongly by Paramount IMO. Hopefully it will find a place in home video when it get's released after the Oscars.
Surely if Scorcese wanted to make a "love letter" to silent cinema, then that's what he should have made, and marketed it as such? Not tied it within and marketed it as a family adventure film about a kid in a train station? The people who would have been interested in such a film stayed away from it, and the people who the film was marketed to had no interest in Georges Melies.
Whatever the case, surely it shouldn't have cost $170 million dollars to make, even most of the big Hollywood blockbusters don't cost that much! I think they let him burn money just because of who he was, and hoping his name and the push of the dying 3D fad would recoup it was almost as silly as the bad marketing.
On the other hand, if it was marketed as a homage to silent cinema, it probably wouldn't have helped matters. Film affecianados aren't really a mainstream audience, and such marketing wouldn't have attracted the families who have gone to see the film. There's certainly no way a film about the history of cinema was ever going to come close to making $170 million, no matter how it was marketed.
Surely if Scorcese wanted to make a "love letter" to silent cinema, then that's what he should have made, and marketed it as such? Not tied it within and marketed it as a family adventure film about a kid in a train station? The people who would have been interested in such a film stayed away from it, and the people who the film was marketed to had no interest in Georges Melies.
Whatever the case, surely it shouldn't have cost $170 million dollars to make, even most of the big Hollywood blockbusters don't cost that much! I think they let him burn money just because of who he was, and hoping his name and the push of the dying 3D fad would recoup it was almost as silly as the bad marketing.
It isn't Scorcese's fault though..... he doesn't market the film.
It isn't a love letter to silent cinema its about the history of cinema. Something many would be interested in if Paramount marketed it as one.
That's what many critics and analysts think why it's bombed massively including Paramount.
It's an 'adult' film in a child like infrastructure. I think it's too long for children and they don't 'get it' (don't understand it's underlying theme). It's basically Scorsese's love affair with the history of cinema and how it all began. I mean it's been universally acclaimed and has had great praise but it's been totally marketed wrongly by Paramount IMO. Hopefully it will find a place in home video when it get's released after the Oscars.
Sounds interesting, I'll see if I can see it when it comes out on DVD/BD.
Surely if Scorcese wanted to make a "love letter" to silent cinema, then that's what he should have made, and marketed it as such? Not tied it within and marketed it as a family adventure film about a kid in a train station? The people who would have been interested in such a film stayed away from it, and the people who the film was marketed to had no interest in Georges Melies.
Whatever the case, surely it shouldn't have cost $170 million dollars to make, even most of the big Hollywood blockbusters don't cost that much! I think they let him burn money just because of who he was, and hoping his name and the push of the dying 3D fad would recoup it was almost as silly as the bad marketing.
On the other hand, if it was marketed as a homage to silent cinema, it would probably have done even worse than it has. Film affecianados aren't really mainstream audience, and such marketing wouldn't have attracted the families who have gone to see the film.
I won't repeat what Deserana 12 has said but I agree, it was an homage to the infrastructure of the cinematic process.
I don't think Scorsese 'burnt money' the effects are spectacular and you can see an awful lot of money was thrown at it, Paramount gave Scorsese the money to spend, why shouldn't he use it? He normally works with very low budgets - the Hollywood standard, this is arguably his first mainstream blockbuster.
Scorsese is also very vocal about his use of 3D which was used perfectly in this film, many critics who detest 3D (me included) thought 3D improved this film rather than a shoddy gimmick - this is how 3D should be used and this film shows how it can be used effectively.
- No Best Actor nomination for Michael Fassbender for 'Shame'
- No Best Actress nomination for Kirsten Dunst for 'Melancholia'
- No Best Foreign Language Film Nomination for 'The Skin I Live In'
- The ridiculous number of nominations for 'Hugo'
- Leonardo DiCaprio being made to wait even longer for his Oscar
- No 'Drive' in Best Picture
- No 'Senna' in Best Documentary
- 'Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close' getting nominated considering it's been panned by everyone
- Rooney Mara being nominated for Best Actress considering Noomi Rapace has already played her role and already set the tone for that character
- 'Transformers 3' getting three nominations (SMFH)
The Skin I Live In wasn't even put forward by Spain for some reason, had it been I expect it would have been nominated
Complete & utter joke ..
Artsy fartsy shite that took about £2.50 at the cinema ...
The Empire movie awards or the Blockbuster awards are a truer reflection on the years films
I would have liked to have seen something that was actually decent nominated , nothing that was nominated was anywhere near the top 10 grossing films of the year & i think that should be thought of when these nominations are made
Drive being snubbed is an absolutely shocking decision. Not only was it excellent, but I'd have thought it'd be prime Oscar material.
And I have to say I think Rise of the Planet of the Apes was good enough to deserve a nomination in best picture. I know it was a "blockbuster" type film, but it was far superior to any of the other massively grossing films this year.
Hugo was a lovely film but not worth 11 nominations - it's mainly due to it being by Scorsese but no heads being ripped off.
The Oscars aren't really that representative of what is good in film.As Mark Kermode has said the Oscar committee see what the Golden Globe committee nominated and then follow them...unfortunately the GG committee just nominate films to do with people they would like to meet that year.
The best female performance last year I have seen was Elle Fanning in Super 8...amazing actress for 12 years old.
Streep will win of course..Streep in a role of a British PM who was 100% American dream values.
I go to the cinema a lot, but clearly I don't have "award winning" tastes as I've only seen the artist (good, but not amazing), tree of life (horrendous, couldn't pay me to rewatch it!) and midnight in Paris (just meh)
My favourites this year were:
We need to talk about Kevin
50/50
Limitless
The guard
Bridesmaids
What really annoys me about The Oscars is that they are supposed to reflect a year of cinema, yet most of those films are not out on DVD here yet, and we can't all go to the cinema to see them all. So yet again, they have gone with the most recently released films in the US for many of the categories. Then you have the fact that none of the films truly represent the cinema audience, with all the ones that were major blockbusters largely being left out because they are not artistic enough. And I don't mean Transformers
Disappointed that Drive didn't get a shout and surprised that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross didn't get nominated for a second year running for their Dragon Tattoo soundtrack.
Also think that 50/50 and Melancholia deserved something in there as they were two of the best films I saw last year but not good enough apparently.
What really annoys me about The Oscars is that they are supposed to reflect a year of cinema, yet most of those films are not out on DVD here yet, and we can't all go to the cinema to see them all. So yet again, they have gone with the most recently released films in the US for many of the categories. Then you have the fact that none of the films truly represent the cinema audience, with all the ones that were major blockbusters largely being left out because they are not artistic enough. And I don't mean Transformers
It may have escaped your attention but The Oscars are first and foremost an American awards ceremony. That is why they focus on releases that may include films only released in America at the time of the awards.
Our own BAFTAs cover films that have been released in the UK within a specific time frame.
This isn't a new concept.
And how exactly do you come to the conclusion that none of the films represent the cinema audience? At this moment in time there's a little film called War Horse at number one in the UK box office. Now, to reach number one it's gone through a process of having people pay to watch it. Those people are known as an audience.
The Help - big audience last year.
Hugo - big audience over Christmas
Gary Oldman star of Tinker, Tailer, Soldier Spy - massive audience
Meryl Streep in the Iron Lady - currently seeing huge audiences.
Fair enough not all films are huge audience films but your sweeping statement of none of the nominated films representing cinema audiences is a bit unfair and sensationalist.
So....people who go to the cinema to watch a film are called an audience are they? Wow. I was completely and utterly unaware of that, thanks so much rybev. As for the rest of your snarky post, I took a look at the IMDB for each film you mentioned, here are the figures. If you don't believe me, go look them up.
War Horse - 169,585,995
Hugo - 54,663,234
Tinker Tailor - 39,694,989
Iron Lady - 7,216,069
War Horse - 67,522,500
All the above are gross in the US to 15 Jan 2012, except for Tinker Tailor which is worldwide gross to 14th Jan.
The two lowest are Tinker and Iron Lady. So not massive audiences there, then. Hugo did ok, but not as well as just about any of the CGI kids films.
The help did have a massive audience so I concede thatone along with War Horse, which everyone went to see because it's Spielberg, lets face it.
The point i was trying to make however, and I do have some film knowledge, is that none of these are what you would call mainstream films, and two of them got extra attention because of who the directors were. It would be nice to see some of the massive hitters being acknowledged without all the usual film snobbery.
It may have escaped your attention but The Oscars are first and foremost an American awards ceremony. That is why they focus on releases that may include films only released in America at the time of the awards.
Most films released in December so that they are still in cinemas when they can get a box office boost from being nominated.
The point i was trying to make however, and I do have some film knowledge, is that none of these are what you would call mainstream films, and two of them got extra attention because of who the directors were. It would be nice to see some of the massive hitters being acknowledged without all the usual film snobbery.
What do you categorize as a "mainstream" film? A summer blockbuster like a Marvel movie? To be honest, films like The Iron Lady, War Horse, The Help and Moneyball are absolutely mainstream. Thinking back to last year's Oscars, The King's Speech, Black Swan, Inception, Toy Story 3, The Kids Are All Right, 127 Hours and The Social Network could be described as mainstream movies too that appealed to massive audiences.
And your point about DVD releases earlier doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. The Oscars are an American ceremony, and all of the nominees have received major or limited releases in the States. Most of the major ones have been released here too, or will be in coming months. It's a silly idea to expect the Academy to wait around for the DVD release of every film. There's absolutely no logic to that.
The Academy is stuffy and overwhelmingly old-fashioned and should recognise a wider breadth of films, but bringing the term "mainstream films" into that argument is pretty irrelevant. The real problem is that the best films usually can't afford the massive Oscar campaigns required, leaving moguls like Harvey Weinstein to scoop up all the nominations and most of the wins because he has deep pockets. Which explains why something hideously mundane, traditional and populist like The King's Speech swept the ceremony in what was, generally, a risky and ambitious year for film in 2010.
Comments
That's what many critics and analysts think why it's bombed massively including Paramount.
It's an 'adult' film in a child like infrastructure. I think it's too long for children and they don't 'get it' (don't understand it's underlying theme). It's basically Scorsese's love affair with the history of cinema and how it all began. I mean it's been universally acclaimed and has had great praise but it's been totally marketed wrongly by Paramount IMO. Hopefully it will find a place in home video when it get's released after the Oscars.
All it deserves. Not a bad film, but not worth an award for its story (hardly comparable to the original, and fairly vacuous as well as clunky at times) or for Serkis being a human template to a CGI puppet.
Tell me, can you tell me where you're certain you're seeing Serkis's performance instead of the CGI? You do realise that any flaws in Serkis's performance can be fixed afterwards? You do realise also that many times with MoCap that they discard a lot of the actor's stuff and do it themselves? Thing is, with MoCap, you're not sure if Serkis did a good performance and it was enhanced to great due to the effects team or whether it was wholly his own work. So, I'm quite glad he didn't get the nomination, because until we can be confident that what we see is the performance he gave, we'll never know whether he deserves it or not.
Maybe there needs to be a separate category, one that not only gives the actor kudos but also the effects team. In all this, it's them that tends to be left out.
Surely if Scorcese wanted to make a "love letter" to silent cinema, then that's what he should have made, and marketed it as such? Not tied it within and marketed it as a family adventure film about a kid in a train station? The people who would have been interested in such a film stayed away from it, and the people who the film was marketed to had no interest in Georges Melies.
Whatever the case, surely it shouldn't have cost $170 million dollars to make, even most of the big Hollywood blockbusters don't cost that much! I think they let him burn money just because of who he was, and hoping his name and the push of the dying 3D fad would recoup it was almost as silly as the bad marketing.
On the other hand, if it was marketed as a homage to silent cinema, it probably wouldn't have helped matters. Film affecianados aren't really a mainstream audience, and such marketing wouldn't have attracted the families who have gone to see the film. There's certainly no way a film about the history of cinema was ever going to come close to making $170 million, no matter how it was marketed.
It isn't Scorcese's fault though..... he doesn't market the film.
It isn't a love letter to silent cinema its about the history of cinema. Something many would be interested in if Paramount marketed it as one.
Sounds interesting, I'll see if I can see it when it comes out on DVD/BD.
I won't repeat what Deserana 12 has said but I agree, it was an homage to the infrastructure of the cinematic process.
I don't think Scorsese 'burnt money' the effects are spectacular and you can see an awful lot of money was thrown at it, Paramount gave Scorsese the money to spend, why shouldn't he use it? He normally works with very low budgets - the Hollywood standard, this is arguably his first mainstream blockbuster.
Scorsese is also very vocal about his use of 3D which was used perfectly in this film, many critics who detest 3D (me included) thought 3D improved this film rather than a shoddy gimmick - this is how 3D should be used and this film shows how it can be used effectively.
The Skin I Live In wasn't even put forward by Spain for some reason, had it been I expect it would have been nominated
Transformers 3?:eek:
For an Oscar?????:D:D:D:D
Leonardo DiCaprio has gone through many 'big' directors to get his Oscar; Scorsese, Mendes, Spielberg and now Eastwood who will it be next
Nominations are bought.
There are worse films out there.:D
Oh.
My.
God.
And I have to say I think Rise of the Planet of the Apes was good enough to deserve a nomination in best picture. I know it was a "blockbuster" type film, but it was far superior to any of the other massively grossing films this year.
The Oscars aren't really that representative of what is good in film.As Mark Kermode has said the Oscar committee see what the Golden Globe committee nominated and then follow them...unfortunately the GG committee just nominate films to do with people they would like to meet that year.
The best female performance last year I have seen was Elle Fanning in Super 8...amazing actress for 12 years old.
Streep will win of course..Streep in a role of a British PM who was 100% American dream values.
Andy Serkis deserved a nomination for best actor.
Would also have loved Alan Rickman to be nominated but didn't think there was a chance of that
My favourites this year were:
We need to talk about Kevin
50/50
Limitless
The guard
Bridesmaids
Just not award material clearly!
Also think that 50/50 and Melancholia deserved something in there as they were two of the best films I saw last year but not good enough apparently.
It may have escaped your attention but The Oscars are first and foremost an American awards ceremony. That is why they focus on releases that may include films only released in America at the time of the awards.
Our own BAFTAs cover films that have been released in the UK within a specific time frame.
This isn't a new concept.
And how exactly do you come to the conclusion that none of the films represent the cinema audience? At this moment in time there's a little film called War Horse at number one in the UK box office. Now, to reach number one it's gone through a process of having people pay to watch it. Those people are known as an audience.
The Help - big audience last year.
Hugo - big audience over Christmas
Gary Oldman star of Tinker, Tailer, Soldier Spy - massive audience
Meryl Streep in the Iron Lady - currently seeing huge audiences.
Fair enough not all films are huge audience films but your sweeping statement of none of the nominated films representing cinema audiences is a bit unfair and sensationalist.
Just sayin'!
Probably too arty farty for Hollywoodland.
War Horse - 169,585,995
Hugo - 54,663,234
Tinker Tailor - 39,694,989
Iron Lady - 7,216,069
War Horse - 67,522,500
All the above are gross in the US to 15 Jan 2012, except for Tinker Tailor which is worldwide gross to 14th Jan.
The two lowest are Tinker and Iron Lady. So not massive audiences there, then. Hugo did ok, but not as well as just about any of the CGI kids films.
The help did have a massive audience so I concede thatone along with War Horse, which everyone went to see because it's Spielberg, lets face it.
The point i was trying to make however, and I do have some film knowledge, is that none of these are what you would call mainstream films, and two of them got extra attention because of who the directors were. It would be nice to see some of the massive hitters being acknowledged without all the usual film snobbery.
Most films released in December so that they are still in cinemas when they can get a box office boost from being nominated.
What do you categorize as a "mainstream" film? A summer blockbuster like a Marvel movie? To be honest, films like The Iron Lady, War Horse, The Help and Moneyball are absolutely mainstream. Thinking back to last year's Oscars, The King's Speech, Black Swan, Inception, Toy Story 3, The Kids Are All Right, 127 Hours and The Social Network could be described as mainstream movies too that appealed to massive audiences.
And your point about DVD releases earlier doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. The Oscars are an American ceremony, and all of the nominees have received major or limited releases in the States. Most of the major ones have been released here too, or will be in coming months. It's a silly idea to expect the Academy to wait around for the DVD release of every film. There's absolutely no logic to that.
The Academy is stuffy and overwhelmingly old-fashioned and should recognise a wider breadth of films, but bringing the term "mainstream films" into that argument is pretty irrelevant. The real problem is that the best films usually can't afford the massive Oscar campaigns required, leaving moguls like Harvey Weinstein to scoop up all the nominations and most of the wins because he has deep pockets. Which explains why something hideously mundane, traditional and populist like The King's Speech swept the ceremony in what was, generally, a risky and ambitious year for film in 2010.