|
Post by stephen on Nov 29, 2018 19:13:33 GMT
...........and the big winner is..........Netflix. The most impactful development in American movie since.........um............sound? So this is the biggest prize yet for them right, unless I'm forgetting something? They've planned this all beautifully and it could easily steamroller going forward too - Roma, Lisa Taback and Martin Scorsese. Historic times........ I'd say the development of color cinematography, the appearance of CGI and digital cameras/editing equipment have certainly been more significant for American movies than Netflix. I mean, they're doing some good things but most impactful since sound is a bit too much. I do wonder if pacinoyes would be so eager to declare such hyperbole if The Irishman didn't exist. Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Nov 29, 2018 19:15:39 GMT
Poor Collette.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 29, 2018 19:18:48 GMT
2018's Tiffany Haddish. This was very surprising. Very shades of Cameron Diaz's win in 1998 for There's Something About Mary... Do y'all think Gaga, Close, and Colman split the votes? Honestly, it's hard to say. You'd have to think Aparicio was also in heavy contention. McCarthy, too, considering her co-star won. Gaga doesn't really seem like NYFCC's cup of tea, also. I'm guessing that considering how long it took for them to come to a consensus, they split the difference and decided to back a performance they loved but probably has no chance of breaking into the awards conversation.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 29, 2018 19:29:33 GMT
I'd say the development of color cinematography, the appearance of CGI and digital cameras/editing equipment have certainly been more significant for American movies than Netflix. I mean, they're doing some good things but most impactful since sound is a bit too much. I do wonder if pacinoyes would be so eager to declare such hyperbole if The Irishman didn't exist. Hmm... Well no, but I would be using such hyperbole if Pacino and DeNiro weren't involved in it. No really Think about this - its a film where actors (all 70s +) cast themselves (rightly or wrongly), picked their director, are doing it on a huge scale, using a ground breaking cinematic tool (again for better or worse) and dovetailing all with a studio (for lack of a better term) who can support it financially and artistically. If it wasn't Netflix it couldn't be done. If it works its a huge deal...........now if it fails its Heaven Gate II and I will be crying in a bar saying "so close" to myself thankyouverymuch..........
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 29, 2018 19:31:32 GMT
Regina Hall is ok I guess - the movie is a good idea but to me felt like a botch. I actually don't think she'd even make my Top 20 for Lead Actress this year...
And on the other hand - First Reformed!! Is it possible Hawke gets in...?
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 29, 2018 19:36:44 GMT
I'd say the development of color cinematography, the appearance of CGI and digital cameras/editing equipment have certainly been more significant for American movies than Netflix. I mean, they're doing some good things but most impactful since sound is a bit too much. Well maybe but think about it - everything you named are technological innovations and bound to happen in time but Netflix is rather unique - a combination of that and actual finance and supportive of artistry too - who has done more for established artists and new filmmakers than they have just in this short period? It's closer to what United Artists was intended to be actually. Cuaron's going to get his movie placed in the hands/eyes/minds of more people at once than he has ever had prior - more than filmmakers could have ever dreamed of for the CGI or digital editing tools in those films that couldn't be seen like that. Scorsese too and he got to make it very expensively his way without interference. More than "some good things" to me and more important to me than all of CGI personally but yes your mileage may vary on that. Gamechangers is all I'm saying.......... Well, I listed technological innovations because you yourself compared the impact of Netflix to sound which is also a technological advancement. But actually those things aren't just tech-related - all the stuff I've described basically allows any modern movie to exist. The industry of today's American cinema cannot be imagined without CGI which helps filmmakers not just create worlds and characters but correct mistakes, add minor things in the background to make their works complete and so on. And digital cinematography and editing is not just a tech tool but an artistic one as well. And those tools helped much more filmmakers get their movies done than Netflix. Actually without digital there wouldn't be any Netflix since it's basically their policy that directors shoot digitally so that more content can be created faster. I don't think I need to mention the artistic impact of color photography. I get what you're saying about Netflix and I sure get your idealism about it but there's a different side to it too. Yes, Cuaron will be able to have his movie instantly accessible to people but look at him being pissed that it won't be shown in good Mexican cinemas for the limited release. He clearly wants more for it than just to be seen by everyone but he has to accept the imperfect terms. That already puts a spin on the whole thing. And he's lucky because Netflix is really doing everything to make his movie relevant for people, they're actively pushing it as they'll definitely do with "The Irishman". But that doesn't happen for every film they make. And that's the primary reason why I say 'they do some good things'. Let's take a movie we both love - "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs". Yeah, it's amazing that Netflix made it happen and for us it's amazing that we have this instant access to it. But doesn't it already feel to you that people are barely talking about it? That's the Netflix problem - they produce so much content that for them the flow itself is the most important thing. They can make an exception for something like "Roma" but most of their stuff just gets lost in the shuffle. What I hope happens in the future is that Netflix finds a way into making their films into events, like they do with very few films now. But coming to the original point, I'm not denying the impact and significance of Netflix in the modern film climate. Maybe it is indeed the way of the future, maybe theatrical distribution disappears one day. But I'm just saying that more significant stuff has happened since sound, stuff that allows Netflix to exist at all.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Nov 29, 2018 19:53:16 GMT
HAWKE AND SCHRADER
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 29, 2018 19:55:03 GMT
I do wonder if pacinoyes would be so eager to declare such hyperbole if The Irishman didn't exist. Hmm... Well no, but I would be using such hyperbole if Pacino and DeNiro weren't involved in it. No really Think about this - its a film where actors (all 70s +) cast themselves (rightly or wrongly), picked their director, are doing it on a huge scale, using a ground breaking cinematic tool (again for better or worse) and dovetailing all with a studio (for lack of a better term) who can support it financially and artistically. If it wasn't Netflix it couldn't be done. If it works its a huge deal...........now if it fails its Heaven Gate II and I will be crying in a bar saying "so close" to myself thankyouverymuch.......... I'm not denying Netflix's importance as a home for auteurs to be able to work freely. But Jango has perfectly summed up the issues inherent to the Netflix model above, and I also think a bit more studio oversight might not be a bad idea. There have been (in my estimation) far more misses than hits with Netflix's original films; for every Roma or The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, you've got Hold the Dark, Outlaw King and Mute. Perhaps that speaks to auteuristic control and which directors are good at it and which aren't, but Netflix is just a more lucrative Annapurna right now, and I'm hoping the bubble doesn't burst before too long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 21:56:50 GMT
Regina Hall is the first black woman to win Best Actress from NYFCC!
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 29, 2018 22:49:15 GMT
I called Grant in April.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 30, 2018 0:43:27 GMT
Well no, but I would be using such hyperbole if Pacino and DeNiro weren't involved in it. No really Think about this - its a film where actors (all 70s +) cast themselves (rightly or wrongly), picked their director, are doing it on a huge scale, using a ground breaking cinematic tool (again for better or worse) and dovetailing all with a studio (for lack of a better term) who can support it financially and artistically. If it wasn't Netflix it couldn't be done. If it works its a huge deal...........now if it fails its Heaven Gate II and I will be crying in a bar saying "so close" to myself thankyouverymuch.......... I'm not denying Netflix's importance as a home for auteurs to be able to work freely. But Jango has perfectly summed up the issues inherent to the Netflix model above, and I also think a bit more studio oversight might not be a bad idea. There have been (in my estimation) far more misses than hits with Netflix's original films; for every Roma or The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, you've got Hold the Dark, Outlaw King and Mute. Perhaps that speaks to auteuristic control and which directors are good at it and which aren't, but Netflix is just a more lucrative Annapurna right now, and I'm hoping the bubble doesn't burst before too long. All good points stephen but let me ask you - what movie has Annapurna ever made that wouldn't have been made if they didn't do it? Maybe we don't know that for sure but I'm leaning towards zero. With Netflix that's fairly common now - not just The Irishman but The Other Side of The Wind and Mute (quality notwithstanding) and I'm sure there's plenty of other examples too right? So with that in mind why do the "misses" matter even matter - if the misses allow them to sustain their business model (which is clearly what they want - thousands of hours of proprietary original product). No one really gets it, but on paper the biggest entertainment company in the world - We're awfully quick to tell them what they should be doing with their business model. I'm old enough to remember when this company was battling with freakin' Blockbuster (RIP) and now, well I'm calling them the most important change to the movie experience since sound . Hyperbole aside we don't even know how the generation of kids - current adolescents, is being formed and shaped by them specifically. How they perceive film and will going forward. Steven Spielberg famously (imo stupidly) dissed Netflix in March. 8 months later, they win NYFCC with (much) more to come obviously - Best Foreign Film likely, Best Pic winner possible. Not only that they did it as part of a very precise plan. I'm just saying that we don't even know what we're in the middle off with this bunch of corporate evil geniuses.........
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 1,047
Member is Online
|
Post by chris3 on Nov 30, 2018 3:51:57 GMT
Congratulations to Alfonso Cuaron! Haven't seen Roma yet but I'm absolutely frothing at the mouth to do so. I'm one of the few on this board who loved Gravity even more than the great Children of Men, so IMO he's the best filmmaker on the planet right now and I've been feverishly anticipating his next film for over five years. I'm also very, very happy for First Reformed, which is exactly the type of movie that usually gets unfairly ignored come awards season. I hope this means it'll get some well-deserved Oscar noms.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Jan 8, 2019 14:20:12 GMT
|
|