forksforest
Junior Member
Quit your shit-spitting
Posts: 492 
Likes: 212
|
Post by forksforest on Oct 20, 2017 1:58:19 GMT
yes
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 20, 2017 2:17:38 GMT
It's not undeserving work by any stretch, and the fact he was able to capture the splendor and majesty of the era and create a beautiful melange of old-school movie-making and cutting-edge set-pieces is damned good. But I think Curtis Hanson was even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Oct 20, 2017 2:46:23 GMT
Fuck no
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Oct 20, 2017 5:01:52 GMT
of course not. The epicness of his vision aside, he has to be held accountable for the god-awful cheesy dialogue and story. Cameron is a perfectionist who tries to control every aspect of his films, so he has to be responsible for their strengths as well as their failures, and the screenplay (penned by him) was a titanic failure. If you really want to honor the film's technical brilliance, you can do it in the individual categories. But best director? Hell no.
That said, the only nominee that truly deserved to be in that lineup was Hanson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Oct 20, 2017 9:59:14 GMT
Nay
I'd be giving Curtis Hanson, Paul Thomas Anderson or Gary Oldman the win before him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Oct 20, 2017 10:00:25 GMT
Of course he was.
Among the best directorial achievements of that decade
|
|
|
|
Post by FrancescoAbides on Oct 20, 2017 13:42:04 GMT
Great directing, but I prefer Curtis Hanson by far, or even PTA for Boogie Nights
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 20, 2017 13:49:29 GMT
Definitely.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Oct 20, 2017 14:07:18 GMT
Definitely not.
Curtis Hanson should have won for one of the greatest directorial achievements.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Oct 20, 2017 15:22:22 GMT
Yeah I think it was well deserved. I mean, the sinking ship sequence alone was jaw dropping & a stunning achievement in filmmaking . He created an epic spectacle that is quite rare these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Oct 20, 2017 16:02:50 GMT
No, but I actually don't begrudge his win. It's an INCREDIBLY weak year (I'd honestly have trouble coming up with a top 5 I like enough to call top 5) so I honestly have trouble of thinking of 5 better directors that year to be perfectly honest.
And it was much better than what the BAFTAs chose that year *shudders* (Baz for those who do not wish to look it up).
|
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 21, 2017 11:44:39 GMT
of course not. The epicness of his vision aside, he has to be held accountable for the god-awful cheesy dialogue and story. That's why they have a screenplay category... (and he wasn't nominated). I think Hanson should have won but that is silly reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Oct 21, 2017 14:05:18 GMT
of course not. The epicness of his vision aside, he has to be held accountable for the god-awful cheesy dialogue and story. That's why they have a screenplay category... (and he wasn't nominated). I think Hanson should have won but that is silly reasoning. In this case he was responsible for the screenplay...which reflects badly on his directing (which btw is a broad umbrella category. Anyways, the opposite is true. If someone really thinks Titanic looks pretty and feels big, why not just give it a sweep in the tech categories and move on? The answer is obvious: a lot of people aren't as dismissive of the story/screenplay as me. If they were, they wouldn't be salivating over Cameron's direction. |
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Oct 21, 2017 16:55:18 GMT
There's no doubt in my mind that he did deserve it, as this is one of the best directorial achievements of that decade. L.A. Confidential might have a better script, but is it really a stunning achievement in directing? No, I don't think so. Cameron took a historical event and an ordinary love story, mixed them both and the result was one of the most moving and epic films of the 90's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 17:36:26 GMT
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 22, 2017 20:55:17 GMT
That's why they have a screenplay category... (and he wasn't nominated). I think Hanson should have won but that is silly reasoning. In this case he was responsible for the screenplay...which reflects badly on his directing (which btw is a broad umbrella category. Anyways, the opposite is true. If someone really thinks Titanic looks pretty and feels big, why not just give it a sweep in the tech categories and move on? The answer is obvious: a lot of people aren't as dismissive of the story/screenplay as me. If they were, they wouldn't be salivating over Cameron's direction. Then what is the point of having separate catagories for directing and screenplay? I'm not sure you see the difference... Poorly written movies can be well directed even if both were done by the same guy. There is already a Best Picture catagory if you are going to bunch things together. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Oct 23, 2017 7:07:56 GMT
In this case he was responsible for the screenplay...which reflects badly on his directing (which btw is a broad umbrella category. Anyways, the opposite is true. If someone really thinks Titanic looks pretty and feels big, why not just give it a sweep in the tech categories and move on? The answer is obvious: a lot of people aren't as dismissive of the story/screenplay as me. If they were, they wouldn't be salivating over Cameron's direction. There is already a Best Picture catagory if you are going to bunch things together. I'm curious what you consider as falling under the umbrella of "directing." I always understood it to encompass everything within the director's creative control, which in some cases is extremely broad. You can't praise the directing of Barry Lyndon without making note of the painterly cinematography and costume design because Kubrick had a hand in those details. Likewise I don't think you can praise the directing of Titanic if you strongly dislike the story and screenplay (delectably the most important aspect of a film) for which Cameron, the director, was responsible. In Titanic's case, d irecting is the sum of those parts. |
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2017 9:22:36 GMT
There is already a Best Picture catagory if you are going to bunch things together. I'm curious what you consider as falling under the umbrella of "directing." I always understood it to encompass everything within the director's creative control, which in some cases is extremely broad. You can't praise the directing of Barry Lyndon without making note of the painterly cinematography and costume design because Kubrick had a hand in those details. Likewise I don't think you can praise the directing of Titanic if you strongly dislike the story and screenplay (delectably the most important aspect of a film) for which Cameron, the director, was responsible. In Titanic's case, d irecting is the sum of those parts.If directing encompassed everything there wouldn't be a need for separate catagory between Best Picture and Director. Either that or the same film would always win both. There is a reason someone can win Director and not even be nominated for screenplay. The director catagory is mostly responsible for placement of the camera and getting the performances out of the actors. As well as the visual mood, tone and pacing of the film. |
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Oct 23, 2017 10:07:53 GMT
Paul Thomas Anderson did some of my favorite direction of the 90s in Boogie Nights, so I would say he was more deserving. However, I'm not mad at James Cameron's win. I've made it clear that it's hard for me to get mad at anything Titanic-related. I readily admit that I'm biased for nostalgic reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 19:39:03 GMT
Absolutely not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Oct 23, 2017 21:51:49 GMT
I'm curious what you consider as falling under the umbrella of "directing." I always understood it to encompass everything within the director's creative control, which in some cases is extremely broad. You can't praise the directing of Barry Lyndon without making note of the painterly cinematography and costume design because Kubrick had a hand in those details. Likewise I don't think you can praise the directing of Titanic if you strongly dislike the story and screenplay (delectably the most important aspect of a film) for which Cameron, the director, was responsible. In Titanic's case, d irecting is the sum of those parts.The director catagory is mostly responsible for placement of the camera and getting the performances out of the actors. As well as the visual mood, tone and pacing of the film. ...except when the director is also responsible for the story and screenplay. Directors are responsible for all of their creative decisions. You can't put the category into a tiny box because not all directors have the same amount of creative control or exert as much influence over the creative process. The category you describe sounds like a situation where the director doesn't have as much creative control and is limited to the bare minimum of directorial duties (i.e. most big budget studio films). For directors that go beyond those elements, their artistic decisions need to be taken into consideration. A good example of a film that I think had excellent direction without a particularly interesting story is Mad Max: Fury Road, because Miller created such a distinctive and thrilling world down to the last detail. And unlike Titanic, the dialogue/story in Mad Max isn't bad, just nothing special, so it doesn't take away points from the directing for me. |
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2017 22:29:15 GMT
The director catagory is mostly responsible for placement of the camera and getting the performances out of the actors. As well as the visual mood, tone and pacing of the film. ...except when the director is also responsible for the story and screenplay. Directors are responsible for all of their creative decisions. You can't put the category into a tiny box because not all directors have the same amount of creative control or exert as much influence over the creative process. The category you describe sounds like a situation where the director doesn't have as much creative control and is limited to the bare minimum of directorial duties (i.e. most big budget studio films). For directors that go beyond those elements, their artistic decisions need to be taken into consideration. A good example of a film that I think had excellent direction without a particularly interesting story is Mad Max: Fury Road, because Miller created such a distinctive and thrilling world down to the last detail. And unlike Titanic, the dialogue/story in Mad Max isn't bad, just nothing special, so it doesn't take away points from the directing for me. If the man wrote a bad screenplay you don't nominate him for screenplay... It doesn't matter if he Director is the writer or not. They are separate categories. You are making the Director catagory into some thing it is not by definition. You have made up your own way of judging the catagory that is different than the catagory that is actually voted upon. And no I don't "need" to take anything you say into consideration because you don't understand the catagories. You literally had to ask me what one of the catagories meant...We are just saying the same things over and over so I'll just let you do you. |
|
|
|
Post by scorpio68 on Oct 26, 2017 9:25:52 GMT
Ultimately Yes - Hanson is so darn close, but Cameron directed his historical epic with a vision that can't be ignored
|
|
