It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
And critical acclaim on sites as RT and Imdb usually come from the younger generations so by comparison it is fairly surprising that Le Mis gets a good result. The negatives I wager are from folks that most probably not have seen the movie. And the voting on Imdb has always puzzled me as some smucks vote 1 on movies that they have never seen but are threathening the standing of their favorite movie.
This is a rather childish response if you dont mind me saying so GL.
My comments are only ever directed at your opinions which over the last 4 months or so I have found overwhelmingly skewed towards praising SF and DC and decrying anyone who says otherwise.
This page (but there are others) carries a nice sample of your rantings when SF didnt get every nomination going:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2576/skyfall-awards-nominations-and-rankings-two-bafta-wins/p12
Had you even seen any of the other films nominated at the moment you wrote that (doubtful as they werent starring DC) so you could offer an objective judgement over the travesty BAFTA and the Oscars delivered to SF?
I never hoist anybody (irrelevant of their sex) unless its by their own petard GL. And your petard in this instance is ripe for hoisting when it comes to irrational SF and DC praise.
Just to show I'm not always getting at you, you make a good point here. Personally I loathe musicals but why is musical a genre that it is fine to reward with nominations and actual BAFTAs and Oscars but action thriller isnt?
The Bond universe is fantasy so acting nods in that are less likely than in serious dramas such as Lincoln and Amour but how is a universe where everyone communicates only in song anything other than ridiculous yet Hathaway and Jackman hoovering up nominations and awards all over the shop?
About the rest - as so often you are exaggerating. I was "ranting" as I still do (not alone obviously. Mendes anybody) about not getting a nod by a BRITISH Film Academie. YOU make of it - "not getting every nomination going." ..and about "childish" I think, Tuulia made a good post about this topic of comparing fandom.
On this base, there is no way to communicate. Sorry...but i would like to discuss the other topic, which also might be less boring for others.
I don't think these kind of stats are relevant personally. The Avengers has an RT score of 92%, but no one expects an Oscar haul for it.
Doesn't critical acclaim on RT come from film critics of all age? Certainly different on IMDB, where everybody can vote.
No, you are right, but...if a film has 70% critical ACCLAIM rom film critics (of course, there are black sheep among them, but still..) - how does this make it a contender for BP?
It's irrelevant. Most critics aren't industry people and besides, the Academy and BAFTA have their agendas. It's just the way of the world. I couldn't care less about people singing for three hours, but it fits like a glove in the pretentious world of psuedo art-house cinema. Tom Hooper is the awards Golden Boy. Not much RT or any other site can do to alter this I'm afraid.
I really think, the Oscars at least should add more categories to give those films a chance, like Best Action Film, Best Drama, Best Comedy...some already do it, but since the Oscars are still the King awards, they should follow, because making a GOOD action film, a GOOD comedy etc is certainly as difficult as making good drama.
Thanks..
? - this quote is not from this conversation - what exactly do you want to say?
DO you mean to say anything? At the BO thread you posted cool pic, where there is none.
The 27th ASC Awards (The American Society Of Cinematographers) have been forgotten a bit due to the BAFTA's, but I think it's win is pivotal for the actual Oscar for 'Best Cinematography'. You can check this website for the winners: http://www.theasc.com/asc_news/News_Articles/News_446.php.
Moreover, you can read here an in-depth article of Deakins win for 'Skyfall': http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/roger-deakins-wins-asc-award-for-cinematography-for-skyfall-20130211
In the meantime, Claudio Miranda won the 'Best Cinematography' BAFTA for 'Life Of Pi'. So the race until the Oscars will stay very close. I do think however that the ASC Award has a bit more gravita:
Claudio Miranda won for the cinematography of 'Life Of Pi':
--> Broadcast Film Critics Association - Critics Choice Award
--> Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association - DFWFCA Award *1ST PLACE*
--> Las Vegas Film Critics Society - Sierra Award
--> Phoenix Film Critics Society - PFCS Award (By the way, Thomas Newman won the PFCS Award for 'Best Original Score' for 'Skyfall'!)
--> San Diego Film Critics Society - SDFCS Award
--> San Francisco Film Critics Circle - SFFCC Award
--> Satellite Awards - Satellite Award
--> Southeastern Film Critics Association - SEFCA Award *1ST PLACE*
--> Washington DC Area Film Critics Association - WAFCA Award
--> BRITISH ACADEMY OF FILM AND TELEVISION - BAFTA AWARD *02/10/2013*
Roger Deakins won for the cinematography of 'Skyfall':
--> Central Ohio Film Critics Association - COFCA Award
--> Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association - DFWFCA Award *2ND PLACE*
--> Florida Film Critics Circle - FFCC Award
--> Los Angeles Film Critics Association - LAFCA Award
--> National Society of Film Critics - NSFC Award *2ND PLACE*
--> Online Film Critics Society - OFCS Award
--> Southeastern Film Critics Association - SEFCA Award *2ND PLACE*
--> AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CINEMATOGRAPHERS - ASC AWARD *02/10/2013*
I'm so happy for Thomas! It's only his second win at the BAFTA's. I'm now praying he will also win his first ever Oscar. I have a distinct feeling, the Academy will give him the first Oscar ever.
Now I will listen Newman's tracks 'Tennyson' and 'Enquiry' for 'Skyfall'. One of my favourite music pieces ever and with a fantastic build up. I love the use of strings. It's kinda obvious Newman uses more strings than Arnold. It gives a more crisp and Bond-ian sound to 'Skyfall', while at the same time it is definately a Thomas Newman music piece. Love it!
I saw the awards on TV and I don't remember it either. I think it might have been axed.
They put it in that category because they couldn't fit it in the best picture category.
I agree with you and others. SF is a Hollywood blockbuster. The category should be for small, independant (British) films.
No need to "remember" since vids of the speech are available and have been posted here, too. He didn't say it on stage. I posted about this on the previous page. Let's take it again, then:
Later on at a backstage press conference, Mendes continued with this theme, saying Craig had suffered ‘the curse of Bond’ after not being nominated for Best Actor.
"It was an incredible performance but because Bond is the spine of the movie... You take it for granted."
Add to that the same event, from other sources:
Director Sam Mendes says Daniel Craig "sets a real example" as an actor.
and
Skyfall director Sam Mendes paid tribute to Daniel Craig’s ‘bravery and brilliance’ in his third Bond outing, adding that he regretted that Craig had not been nominated for an award.
‘I think it’s the curse of Bond,’ he said following the win. ‘Sometimes, because Bond is the spine of the movie and you know he’s always going to be there, you take him for granted. I wish he had been nominated.’
...and, of course, what he said in his speech on stage, too, was very telling. It was more than a simple thanks; he gave major credit for the movie to Daniel. All in all I think Sam made it very clear what he thought. :) It's lovely that he gave credit generously, but naturally he knew what he was talking about; without Daniel, Sam himself wouldn't have been there, and the movie would have been something else completely. (Those who wish SF hadn't been made need not jump on this, thanks. ;) )
It's nice to see that the BAFTAs are quite capable of being a joke. First "ARGO" as Best Picture and then, "SKYFALL" as Best British Film.
Since we all know your opinion on SF, what's wrong with Argo?
Absolutely. This BAFTA is meaningless and more than that its a slap in the face to proper British films that struggled to get made on a shoestring. If Argo had been made at Pinewood would Ben Affleck have walked off with best British picture as well?
I want Bond to win awards as much as the next man but I want it to be on merit. I'm not going to go crazy over something that amounts to nothing more than a sympathy vote to say well done for 50 years and spectacular box office.
About Life of Pi winning best cinematography can someone who's seen it tell if this is deserved? From the clips I've seen it seems as though there isn't a shot that doesn't feature a CGI element. Fair enough to win for visual effects but I don't see how you can win what is basically a photography award when half of the compositions are rendered by computer.
I haven't seen it, but from the little I've seen I got the same impression as you.
I just don't get all the negative sentiment. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were absolutely delighted with their BAFTA-statue.
Moreover, one year ago, and this is a fact, most of the Bond fans in here were saying that James Bond doesn't need awards to show its popularity. I think I was one of few fans in here who said it would be absolutely wunderful if 'Skyfall' would win some awards. Now it has won quite a bunch.......actually the most awards ever for a Bond film, and the sentiment in here is negative.
You carry on living in your little bubble. There's no debate to be had here. It's pointless trying to rationalise things with you. Your last paragraph doesn't even make any sense.
MY little bubble??? Damn, from a pure objective view I just can not find any reason to be negative about the current awards won by 'Skyfall'.
Sometimes people complain about the fact that big blockbusters, enjoyed by millions of fans, like 'The Dark Knight', don't win a 'Best Picture' Oscar.
And now, right nowww, when 'Skyfall' wins a BAFTA for 'Best British Picture', people in here say it doesn't deserve this BAFTA because it should be reserved for smaller pictures, arthouse movies.
Really, this is a discussion with no end. But I am NOT living in my personal bubble. That's bullocks. What I see is this:
'SKYFALL' and its most important prizes/awards:
--> WON: 1 Golden Globe
--> WON: 2 BAFTA's
--> WON: 3 Critics Choice Awards
--> WON: 1 Screen Actors Guild Award
--> WON: 1 ASC Award (American Society of Cinematographers)
--> NOMINATED: 1 Producers Guild Award (won by 'Argo')
--> NOMINATED: 5 Academy Awards
I always predicted (given a few mistakes more or less) that 'Skyfall' would achieve a list like the one above. But I NEVER expected more. If you look at the tradition of awards more properly (what kind of movies win/get nominated and what kind of movies not), then especially for a James Bond film this is something extraordinary. No previous Bond film, NOT even the Connery ones, managed to achieve this. Fact. Period.
I'm not living in a bubble. I'm just a realist, I try to judge things dispassionately. But in this instance, sheer positivity is logical.
I have seen it and the whole film just looked wonderful, wonderful in that sense that you didn't realized that 90% have been CGI, so I completley agree that it IMO is a contender for Visual effects but NOT cinematography.
Sometimes I just don't get the rules that apply for certain nominations :|
Bollocks mate. If you were a realist, you would know that SF's 'Best British Film' BAFTA, is nothing more than a patronising thank you. People have already pointed out the specific reasons why, if you don't understand them, then that's up to you.
While I haven't seen LIFE OF PI (i went to see an advertised 2D showing only to turn up and they were showing it in 3D so I declined to watch - and never got an opportunity after that to see it) to really comment on how well the film is shot. But this subject about the CGI elements making the film look "beautiful" and "stunning" has cropped up before with films that eventually won the OSCAR for BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY - AVATAR was one of them. Surely most of that film is CGI and yet it won the oscar for VISUAL EFFECTS and CINEMATOGRAPHY. HUGO won both CINEMATOGRAPHY and VISUAL EFFECTS last year. If LIFE OF PI wins VISUAL EFFECTS this year it is highly likely that it will also pick up cinematography. Because everyone in the Academy votes for the winner (and not just the cinematographers branch) its highly likely that they vote for the most "spectacular looking" film wether it was shot naturally or rendered in a computer...I do hope though that Deakins can finally win. However his loss at the BAFTAS is not looking good for the OSCAR despite winning the ASC (voted for by CINEMATOGRAPHERS)...