The Two Towers breaks US$300 million!

WizarDru said:
And I think we just hashed out how much making money has, as an impact on a film's heritage. After all "It's a Wonderful Life" did OK at the box office (contrary to the story that it bombed...it didn't), but nothing about the film then was an indicator that it would go on to be the highly-regarded classic it now is. Which is what assenpfeffer's point was, I think and I whole-heartedly agree.

It's my understanding that the rights to the film It's a Wonderful Life went unrenewed at some point which gave anyone with a copy of the film free license to block some time on their station with running it. Is this some urban (cinematic) myth, or does it bear some truth?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mark said:
It's my understanding that the rights to the film It's a Wonderful Life went unrenewed at some point which gave anyone with a copy of the film free license to block some time on their station with running it. Is this some urban (cinematic) myth, or does it bear some truth?

If I remember correctly, it dropped into the public domain briefly, but along with a fair amount of other stuff was grandfathered back into copyright by the Berne Convention Implementation Act.
 

I don't have much taste for the musical, to be honest. But both Sining in the Rain and The King and I are on my list of films to eventually see. As is Moulin Rouge. And I might see Chicago because there's Hot Women in it.

I think that up to this point the only musicals I've actually sat through are Grease (which is a great movie) and Grease II (which isn't.)

But Storm Raven is right - one can't claim to be a serious movie buff without having some understanding of the musical, which occupies an important place in the history of the medium. To have that one needs to see at least the important examples.
 

As a huge fan of comedy, I am pissed at the musical. Why do these judges stick musicals in with comedies. Judges like serious stroy lines that push emotional buttons and therefore anytime a good musical is made, you can bank on it getting many awards and the comedies of that year are the toilet tissue to the musical.

IMO musicals should be catagorized with what ever type of musical it is. If it is a dramatical musical such as Chicago, throw it against other dramas. If it is a comical musical such as LIttle Shop of Horror, put it with comedy. To do otherwise is to artifically inflate the importance and quality of the genre.

I have spoken my peace.

M@

PS. I enjoy musicals, but hate to see comedy get spit on year after year. many things are funny, spit is not:mad:
 

KnowTheToe said:
IMO musicals should be catagorized with what ever type of musical it is. If it is a dramatical musical such as Chicago, throw it against other dramas. If it is a comical musical such as LIttle Shop of Horror, put it with comedy. To do otherwise is to artifically inflate the importance and quality of the genre.

You do realize that in the Oscars, there is no separate category for different types of pictures, right? I assume you're referring to the Golden Globes or People's Choice awards?

Can you name a few comedies that you think were deserving that were snubbed? The problem with many comedies is that their reduced emphasis on drama often translates into lesser requirements for the acting. I mean, Ben Stiller's performance in "Something about Mary" or "Zoolander" isn't exactly oscar material, although it's just fine for the context of the movie. The same goes for Wil Smith's work in "MIB II", while his previous movie, "Ali", was nominated. A film like Rushmore or the Royal Tannenbaums, is more along the lines of what I'd expect to see nominated. Most comedies simply don't give the actors as much to do, acting-wise.
 

Man don't even get me started with A Beautiful Mind. It was a predictable movie moulded for mass consumption it showed the Oscars going the way of the Grammys. Pathetic.
 

Sagan Darkside said:


...it would seem to me horror is also ignored. Am I mistaken? Looking down the best picture list I don't see any winning, but perhaps some were nominated.

The Ring strikes me as one of the better films of the past year.

SD

True, true. The only horror movie to ever win was Silence of the Lamb, and that wasn't really horror. The horror/suspense genre has always gotten the proverbial shaft. That's why The Sixth Sense lost. And that's why Hitchcock, one of film's greatest directors, was perpertually ignored. Is it just me, or did Psycho deserve an Oscar?
And the Ring was one of the better movies of the year.

Demiurge out.
 

Actually, as cool as I think it would be for some part of LotR to win Best Picture at the Oscars, I really just hope that all three parts get nominated for Best Picture and Best Director. Heck, even The Godfather movies didn't accomplish that. And if it lost all three years, it would give me something else to bitch about. ;)

Or. . .

Once in a blue moon they give special Oscars and Golden Globes for outstanding achievement. It'd be cool if it got one of those.:)
 

For what it is worth, HSX.com is currently betting on the following movies, in this order, for the oscars:

1. Chicago $12.15
2. The Hours $11.37
3. About Schmidt $10.59
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $9.94
5. Gangs of New York $9.81
6. Adaptation $4.09
7. The Pianist $6.56
8. My Big Fat Greek Wedding $1.49
9. Far From Heaven $1.49
10. Road to Perdition $1.10
11. Antwone Fisher $0.58
12. Talk to Her $0.45
13. The Quiet American $0.32

So, here is my take on it (if you care):

Personally, I think Chicago will not win best picture. They already turned down a better musical last year, and ignored the director. Not gonna happen this time around either, though it is being pushed by the studio right now.

The Hours is a fine film, and being pushed very VERY heavily here in Los Angeles right now on radio and television ads. Gloria Steinem is leading the charge with opinion pieces in newspapers and free showings to influential folks. Personally, I don't think it is the best picture - but it IS a safe bet for the Academy. Sometimes, the Academy likes the safe bet, as other votes are split between several more controversial films. Certainly if "Most-Whored-Out-For-The-Oscars Movie Of The Year" were a category, this one would take it hands down.

About Schmidt I have not seen, and don't have a read on it yet.

Gangs of New York I also have not seen, but know many people who have. All of them say it is a good film, but not fantastic. It, like The Hours, is being pimped heavily by the studio on radio and television right now. Could take it, but I hope not.

Adaptation is a great film, but also difficult to digest (not in a disturbing way however). It also has a huge portion that is intentionally boring - and very effective for the end but still boring while you are watching it. This one could sneak in lots of awards, and could also get totally ignored. I doubt it will get the nomination for best picture, much less win it.

The Pianist is being pimped heavy right now, but nobody wants to SEE the movie is the problem. I mean, we know how it ends, and similar subject matter has already taken the oscars before. I doubt this will take the key categories, but it might sneak in to best director.

The rest are serious long shots, though I personally loved both My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which should win something), and Road to Perdition (which will probably not get the attention I feel it deserves, but then I am biased because I love good movies based on good comic books). I can't speak to the rest, having not seen them or heard much about them.

I doubt Spiderman or Attack of the Clones will get much. Catch Me If You Can, Frida, Punch Drunk Love, Real Women Have Curves, and Minority Report might sneak some things in (all of which I also liked). There is a bit of buzz around Jennifer Aniston in The Good Girl, and she was pretty good in that film. Can't think of anything else off hand.

Of course, my true desire is to see The Two Towers sweep...it won't happen, but I can hope!
 


Remove ads

Top