The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155 
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 7, 2020 21:31:32 GMT
Refrain yourself from saying Todd Phillips as a predictable Film Twitter / Letterbox person.
As for myself, I really hope Randy Newman gets snubbed for his annoying Toy Story score on Marriage Story. I never could take the movie seriously due to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on Jan 7, 2020 21:39:22 GMT
I agree about Newman.
It probably won't happen, but Dicaprio doesn't deserve his sixth nomination for OUATIA. I don't want Nyong'o nominated either.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,305 
Likes: 2,839
|
Post by LaraQ on Jan 7, 2020 21:42:10 GMT
It's a pipe dream,but Dern missing for Marriage Story and Renee for Judy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 7, 2020 21:48:54 GMT
Margot Robbie being left out for both films would be.......100% right - although she was "good" in Bombshell.
Nicole Kidman can be left out for Bombshell too....what exactly did she do that was better than "good"?
I would be quite happy with f'n 1917 missing screenplay if it hurts its BP odds....and I do like the movie, but its GG wins were too much and this acclaim is really stretching it to me...........would be quite pleased to see it taken down a peg.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jan 7, 2020 21:53:12 GMT
I still don't even know what the fuck 'Film Twitter' actually represents. But I pick Todd Phillips as my hopeful snub because I didn't like the movie and his choices were the least interesting thing about the flick
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Jan 7, 2020 21:56:39 GMT
J-Lo, aka Jenny from the Block. The acting bar has been set so low when it comes to her. What's considered "good" for her - is considered mediocre for any real actress. And she is basically playing a version of herself.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jan 7, 2020 21:59:29 GMT
J-Lo, aka Jenny from the Block. The acting bar has been set so low when it comes to her. What's considered "good" for her - is considered mediocre for most actresses. And she is basically playing a version of herself. Thoughts on Phoenix beating Driver at the Globes? |
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Jan 7, 2020 22:01:17 GMT
J-Lo, aka Jenny from the Block. The acting bar has been set so low when it comes to her. What's considered "good" for her - is considered mediocre for most actresses. And she is basically playing a version of herself. Thoughts on Phoenix beating Driver at the Globes? Phoenix was a worthy competitor. Not so with Jo-Lo - and a legit actress like Dern. And Driver will get his Oscar at some point. He's still young. His career is on the rise. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 7, 2020 22:07:08 GMT
The Irishman for VFX would be nice, but I'm expecting it to get in.
Hell, I'm just hoping we don't see a last-minute "Meryl Streep for The Laundromat" nomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 7, 2020 22:14:44 GMT
Hopefully Waititi gets left off Director.
Wouldn't mind seeing Driver, Joaquin, and Dern all snubbed, but that's not happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2020 23:00:55 GMT
Yeah, I'm still struggling to see why people think the de-aging effects in The Irishman were successful...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 7, 2020 23:05:20 GMT
as much as I appreciated The Irishman I would love to see it snubbed for cinematography/VFX and production/costume design because there are much more distinctive and exciting options. And of course any snub for OUATIH and Joker would be most welcome  |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 7, 2020 23:06:53 GMT
Yeah, I'm still struggling to see why people think the de-aging effects in The Irishman were successful... I thought the effects themselves were decent, despite the actors' old man selves peaking through in the physical performances. What threw me off were De Niro's freakishly blue contact lenses. Who ok-ed that uncanny valley BS and why couldn't something have been done in post to make it look less like he wandered away from a Star Trek shoot onto the wrong set?  |
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 8, 2020 0:15:13 GMT
I still don't even know what the fuck 'Film Twitter' actually represents. But I pick Todd Phillips as my hopeful snub because I didn't like the movie and his choices were the least interesting thing about the flick Reported |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 8, 2020 0:18:06 GMT
Yeah, I'm still struggling to see why people think the de-aging effects in The Irishman were successful... I thought the effects themselves were decent, despite the actors' old man selves peaking through in the physical performances. What threw me off were De Niro's freakishly blue contact lenses. Who ok-ed that uncanny valley BS and why couldn't something have been done in post to make it look less like he wandered away from a Star Trek shoot onto the wrong set? Says a lot when some guy with basic deepfake skills and free software can make a more convincing finished product: |
|
|
|
Post by TheAlwaysClassy on Jan 8, 2020 0:26:25 GMT
as much as I appreciated The Irishman I would love to see it snubbed for cinematography/VFX and production/costume design because there are much more distinctive and exciting options. And of course any snub for OUATIH and Joker would be most welcome I felt like the cinematography was worse/more distracting than the de-aging effects, personally speaking. And I usually like Prieto. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 8, 2020 0:37:55 GMT
Except it isn't though - you don't want the actor looking like he did when HE was young - Travis Bickle or whomever - that isn't the point, you want them looking like Frank Sheeran as played by this actor now but age appropriate via the effects. Your de-aging relative to Frank.......not to Robert.  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 8, 2020 1:27:07 GMT
Except it isn't though - you don't want the actor looking like he did when HE was young - Travis Bickle or whomever - that isn't the point, you want them looking like Frank Sheeran as played by this actor now but age appropriate via the effects. Your de-aging relative to Frank.......not to Robert. That's a ridiculous cop-out excuse because Robert De Niro doesn't look anything like the real Frank Sheeran, and it's a bullshit argument that "oh, he needs to look like a younger version of the character, not the actor" as if the de-aged character a.) wouldn't look like anything like what a younger version of the actor would, and b.) even looks like he's anything less than retirement age even at his youngest. Hell, he barely looks human at times, to say nothing of the Dune-spice glow of his eyes. Yes, I would want the character to look like a young Frank Sheeran when he's supposed to be young. The problem is, that never happened. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 8, 2020 1:40:29 GMT
Except it isn't though - you don't want the actor looking like he did when HE was young - Travis Bickle or whomever - that isn't the point, you want them looking like Frank Sheeran as played by this actor now but age appropriate via the effects. Your de-aging relative to Frank.......not to Robert. That's a ridiculous cop-out excuse because Robert De Niro doesn't look anything like the real Frank Sheeran, and it's a bullshit argument that "oh, he needs to look like a younger version of the character, not the actor" as if the de-aged character a.) wouldn't look like anything like what a younger version of the actor would, and b.) even looks like he's anything less than retirement age even at his youngest. Hell, he barely looks human at times, to say nothing of the Dune-spice glow of his eyes. I didn't say the real Frank Sheeran did I? The character has a look based on the actor playing him and the de-aging is to make the actor fit as close to possible to the character's age and the look of the character in the film. If he evokes a "past character" the actor played well, that's not the intent at all. What is really ridiculous, and a cop-out actually is snarkily looking at a deep fake and pretending that those apples are equivalents to the oranges of The Irishman's goal. If it didn't work for someone fair enough, that's fine - but we shouldn't be doubting state of the Art tools were used here .......the video you posted isn't funny really, it isn't insightful, it's rather............misguided. Ymmv. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 8, 2020 1:46:45 GMT
That's a ridiculous cop-out excuse because Robert De Niro doesn't look anything like the real Frank Sheeran, and it's a bullshit argument that "oh, he needs to look like a younger version of the character, not the actor" as if the de-aged character a.) wouldn't look like anything like what a younger version of the actor would, and b.) even looks like he's anything less than retirement age even at his youngest. Hell, he barely looks human at times, to say nothing of the Dune-spice glow of his eyes. I didn't say the real Frank Sheeran did I? The character has a look based on the actor playing him and the de-aging is to make the actor fit as close to possible to the character's age and the look of the character in the film. If he evokes a "past character" the actor played well, that's not the intent at all. What is really ridiculous, and a cop-out actually is snarkily looking at a deep fake and pretending that those apples are equivalents to the oranges of The Irishman's goal. If it didn't work for someone fair enough, that's fine - but we shouldn't be doubting state of the Art tools were used here .......the video you posted isn't funny really, it isn't insightful, it's rather............misguided. Ymmv. I never said the video was funny. It just shows that some guy with basic tools at his disposal and too much time on his hands made something that was more convincing as a younger version of a Robert De Niro character than a movie with a $200+ million budget. It still doesn't look right, but it's a step closer to convincing me that he was in his thirties when he was supposed to be, rather than twice that age. "State of the art" technology marches on, and as much as Scorsese and Co. might've pushed the boundaries of that tech in their quest to achieve a younger-looking cast, they didn't convince me. And I think it's laughable when people laud this while shitting on, say, Gemini Man's de-aging technology. "Evokes a past character." No, dude, if that were the case, they wouldn't have bothered casting recognizable A-list actors and trumpeted the importance of this de-aging technology. Using that phrase is just a CYA excuse because the technology has its limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 8, 2020 2:06:02 GMT
"Evokes a past character." No, dude, if that were the case, they wouldn't have bothered casting recognizable A-list actors and trumpeted the importance of this de-aging technology. Using that phrase is just a CYA excuse because the technology has its limitations. Well it basically comes down to what your willing to live with - you can't cast other actors but them, period to get the gravitas it has - if we're going to talk about posting videos watch the Alec Baldwin one I posted because that gets to the heart of the matter without even mentioning the effects! If it didn't work for you, fair enough. To argue that any other option was available is just misleading, to argue they were trying to make DeNiro look like Travis in '76 is also misleading. If you're merely arguing the technology has limitations that to me is sort of a non-issue related to the movie - are people supposed to say "Yeah, they shouldn't have made it"  .......of course not. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 8, 2020 2:27:56 GMT
"Evokes a past character." No, dude, if that were the case, they wouldn't have bothered casting recognizable A-list actors and trumpeted the importance of this de-aging technology. Using that phrase is just a CYA excuse because the technology has its limitations. Well it basically comes down to what your willing to live with - you can't cast other actors but them, period to get the gravitas it has - if we're going to talk about posting videos watch the Alec Baldwin one I posted because that gets to the heart of the matter without even mentioning the effects! If it didn't work for you, fair enough. To argue that any other option was available is just misleading, to argue they were trying to make DeNiro look like Travis in '76 is also misleading. If you're merely arguing the technology has limitations that to me is sort of a non-issue related to the movie - are people supposed to say "Yeah, they shouldn't have made it" .......of course not. This, I think, is malarkey. The movie could've easily been made, and probably better, with age-appropriate actors, many of whom actually were in the movie (Graham, Cannavale, maybe even Romano or Lombardozzi). The story of Frank Sheeran did not necessitate De Niro's involvement, or Pacino's, or Pesci's. The entire gimmick of casting old legends for one last rodeo with a legendary director stipulated that they use de-aging technology, and that is why the film had such a massive price tag, and when you watch the movie, you have to ask yourself: was it worth it? For you and many others, it clearly was. But I also have to wonder how much of your love for it has clouded judgment you might've had if that tech had been applied to a movie you were less excited by. No movie in recent memory has been hyped as much as this one, and so many people had the absolute highest expectations possible for years, if not more. Would admitting fault to it -- any fault -- be tantamount to admitting that your expectations might've been too high? Just speculation on my part. In the end, you can love what you love and I expect the Academy will go gonzo for the movie and its techs. I'm just not convinced by some of the excuses in regards to the technology, which I think massively misfires. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 8, 2020 3:11:12 GMT
This, I think, is malarkey. The movie could've easily been made, and probably better, with age-appropriate actors, many of whom actually were in the movie (Graham, Cannavale, maybe even Romano or Lombardozzi). The story of Frank Sheeran did not necessitate De Niro's involvement, or Pacino's, or Pesci's. The entire gimmick of casting old legends for one last rodeo with a legendary director stipulated that they use de-aging technology, and that is why the film had such a massive price tag, and when you watch the movie, you have to ask yourself: was it worth it? For you and many others, it clearly was. But I also have to wonder how much of your love for it has clouded judgment you might've had if that tech had been applied to a movie you were less excited by. No movie in recent memory has been hyped as much as this one, and so many people had the absolute highest expectations possible for years, if not more. Would admitting fault to it -- any fault -- be tantamount to admitting that your expectations might've been too high? Just speculation on my part. In the end, you can love what you love and I expect the Academy will go gonzo for the movie and its techs. I'm just not convinced by some of the excuses in regards to the technology, which I think massively misfires. Well this is an elusive and tricky topic tbh - to me this isn't "Frank's story" as much as it's a symbolic story of the crime film and America so those parts require these actors so linked to the genre - the gimmick has a sinister and weighty purpose. I do think the film has faults early - but my affection for it comes in something I talked about in other posts - this just astonishing run of great scene after great scene - until the end. I haven't watched the film on Netflix so I'm not sure when that starts but prior to that run it's merely a very good film - but most all time great movies do not have near that many great scenes imo - at least a dozen great individual scenes or more - it goes from very good to great to very great. I think the way the movie was made - its ambition basically - hasn't exactly clouded my judgement but rather has made me reconfigure what pieces are important to me - like the de-aging was minor to me - almost inconsequential like the length too. To others they can't get beyond it. In some ways if I liked the film less overall the de-aging might bother me more - it's hard to know that for sure since so much about the movie is odd to begin with - the years in the making, the de-aging, my affection for the whole cast, the ending scenes of the film/the structure of it etc. It's a whole lot of movie to mull over that's for sure |
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Jan 8, 2020 3:48:27 GMT
Well it basically comes down to what your willing to live with - you can't cast other actors but them, period to get the gravitas it has - if we're going to talk about posting videos watch the Alec Baldwin one I posted because that gets to the heart of the matter without even mentioning the effects! If it didn't work for you, fair enough. To argue that any other option was available is just misleading, to argue they were trying to make DeNiro look like Travis in '76 is also misleading. If you're merely arguing the technology has limitations that to me is sort of a non-issue related to the movie - are people supposed to say "Yeah, they shouldn't have made it" .......of course not. But I also have to wonder how much of your love for it has clouded judgment you might've had if that tech had been applied to a movie you were less excited by. No movie in recent memory has been hyped as much as this one, and so many people had the absolute highest expectations possible for years, if not more. Would admitting fault to it -- any fault -- be tantamount to admitting that your expectations might've been too high? You can't quanitify which movies have been "the most hyped" for years. You could just as easily say the same was true for Joker and DC fans, especially if there's no specific barometer. |
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Jan 8, 2020 4:18:41 GMT
If I had it my way, Bombshell would be shut out entirely. It doesn't even deserve makeup. But I'll settle for Kidman's "snub," as that's pretty much all there is to look forward to. |
|
.......of course not.
