World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

United 93 Deserves a Best Picture Nomination
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23582		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Excel [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:  United 93 Deserves a Best Picture Nomination
Just saw this..............wow. never been so moved before. ever.

Paul Greengrass deserves immense praise; screenwriting and directing nomiations should defiently go his way-ESPECIALLY the directing of the film was incredible. SO real and gut wrenching.

watching it you really felt THERE. Its such a good movie, easily better then BOBBY or anything else, i cant believe it. its so ridiculous. now iuve just gotta see world trade center.....
Author:  trixster [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't think it deserves one, but I can see why it would get one. I wouldn't mind if it did, but I didn't find it Best Picture material. Most of the emotion is derived from the events portrayed, rather than the movie's portrayal of them.
Author:  zingy [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Right now, I wouldn't be surprised if it did. It doesn't sound like all these potential nominees are getting the rave reviews some expected. United 93 could be another Crash, with its early release date, September DVD release, and a potentially heavy Oscar campaign.
Author:  Mister Ecks [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
If any of the 9/11 movies deserve it, United 93 is the film. But, I feel if there is a 9/11 film nominated, it'll be World Trade Center, unfortunately.
Author:  Anonymous [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
no no no no no.

can't happen, won't happen
Author:  Libs [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes. Yes, it does.
Author:  Anonymous [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've had enough of trite, manipulative, underwhelming films being nominated for BP.

It's sickening.
Author:  Libs [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
I've had enough of trite, manipulative, underwhelming films being nominated for BP.

It's sickening.


Hahaha Loyal it's so funny that you are literally the only person I've seen express this sort of opinion about U93. I mean, obviously Crash had its legion of haters here, but you're the only one who doesn't support U93.

*cue Debbie Downer music*
Author:  Anonymous [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Libs wrote:
loyalfromlondon wrote:
I've had enough of trite, manipulative, underwhelming films being nominated for BP.

It's sickening.


Hahaha Loyal it's so funny that you are literally the only person I've seen express this sort of opinion about U93. I mean, obviously Crash had its legion of haters here, but you're the only one who doesn't support U93.

*cue Debbie Downer music*


I'm a trend setter AND a website owner.

Deadly combo indeed.

*cue ominous music*
Author:  MovieDude [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Libs wrote:
loyalfromlondon wrote:
I've had enough of trite, manipulative, underwhelming films being nominated for BP.

It's sickening.


Hahaha Loyal it's so funny that you are literally the only person I've seen express this sort of opinion about U93. I mean, obviously Crash had its legion of haters here, but you're the only one who doesn't support U93.

*cue Debbie Downer music*


I'm a trend setter AND a website owner.

Deadly combo indeed.

*cue ominous music*


Get out of here, and take that A you gave to Lady in the Water with you. :tongue:

And yup, it absolutely does deserve one, and we'd have to have a fucking terrific winter at the movies for it to not get a nomination.
Author:  Gulli [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Aaahhh....No.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Loyal gave Lady in the Water an A and hates U93?

That's idiotic, man :)
Author:  Shack [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:58 am ]
Post subject: 
I have it sitting upstairs right now, I was going to watch it tonight but my friends dragged me out to Step Up... Tomorrow will be the day.
Author:  Chippy [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:46 am ]
Post subject: 
I refused to watch U93. As alot of people directly compared it to Crash as a movie that is very emotional, but behind it, it's not that good.

Thus... I didn't want to watch another Crash. And I haven't.

And I also gave Lady in the Water an A.

Maybe Loyal and I are twins?!?
Author:  xiayun [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:54 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't get the comparison to Crash except for when talking about its chance at Oscar (and there are not a lot of similarities there either). The emotion U93 generates is raw and hardly manipulative. It's a powerful movie regardless if it's based on a real event.
Author:  Bradley Witherberry [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:21 am ]
Post subject: 
xiayun wrote:
I don't get the comparison to Crash...

Didn't you stay for the ending? ;)

Yeah, it was good as a propoganda movie, but hardly Oscar material -- though political manipulation will be in full force to twist academy voters arms for this one...
Author:  Anonymous [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:44 am ]
Post subject: 
ChipMunky wrote:
I refused to watch U93. As alot of people directly compared it to Crash as a movie that is very emotional, but behind it, it's not that good.

Thus... I didn't want to watch another Crash. And I haven't.

And I also gave Lady in the Water an A.

Maybe Loyal and I are twins?!?


:ohmy:

UA93 wouldn't be the worst movie ever nominated for BP in recent memory. But it would be one of the most undeserving.
Author:  Dkmuto [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
ChipMunky wrote:
I refused to watch U93. As alot of people directly compared it to Crash as a movie that is very emotional, but behind it, it's not that good.

Thus... I didn't want to watch another Crash. And I haven't.

And I also gave Lady in the Water an A.

Maybe Loyal and I are twins?!?


By a lot of people comparing it to Crash, you mean, like... 2?

The elements that undermine United 93's emotional intensity (that those deriding it claim it to have) are completely different from those that undermined Crash.
Author:  Anonymous [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
They're both shit. Just packaged differently.
Author:  Chippy [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
If I see it... I'm sure I'll like it initially... but I liked Crash initially too...

I HATE Crash now...
Author:  makeshift [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
I watched it again the other day...

The first hour or is fucking terrible cinema. It's a bunch of really bad actors screaming about blinking green dots on computer screens while the camera operator appears to be having some sort of epileptic fit. It gets better during the final act when it finally gains some focus, though.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
makeshift wrote:
I watched it again the other day...

The first hour or is fucking terrible cinema. It's a bunch of really bad actors screaming about blinking green dots on computer screens while the camera operator appears to be having some sort of epileptic fit. It gets better during the final act when it finally gains some focus, though.


Interesting, considering that several of those people screaming at green dots are played by people who do this job for real.
Author:  makeshift [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
makeshift wrote:
I watched it again the other day...

The first hour or is fucking terrible cinema. It's a bunch of really bad actors screaming about blinking green dots on computer screens while the camera operator appears to be having some sort of epileptic fit. It gets better during the final act when it finally gains some focus, though.


Interesting, considering that several of those people screaming at green dots are played by people who do this job for real.


And that makes them qualified to peform that role in a film?

Using this logic, a Taco Bell employee would have definitely given a better performance than any of the cast members in Clerks II.

U93 is a prime example of stunt casting backfiring.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
makeshift wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
makeshift wrote:
I watched it again the other day...

The first hour or is fucking terrible cinema. It's a bunch of really bad actors screaming about blinking green dots on computer screens while the camera operator appears to be having some sort of epileptic fit. It gets better during the final act when it finally gains some focus, though.


Interesting, considering that several of those people screaming at green dots are played by people who do this job for real.


And that makes them qualified to peform that role in a film?

Using this logic, a Taco Bell employee would have definitely given a better performance than any of the cast members in Clerks II.


Um, if the Taco Bell employee was supposed to behave like a normal Taco Bell employee, why not? The point of Kevin Smith films is not being normal usually, though. Those folks in U93 were supposed to be authentic and I don't think anyone can be more authentic at a job than the people actually working this very job. It is not like the movie tried (or was supposed) to show something non-authetic, something that had to be acted. Trying to argue that appear ridiculous to me.
Author:  makeshift [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
makeshift wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
makeshift wrote:
I watched it again the other day...

The first hour or is fucking terrible cinema. It's a bunch of really bad actors screaming about blinking green dots on computer screens while the camera operator appears to be having some sort of epileptic fit. It gets better during the final act when it finally gains some focus, though.


Interesting, considering that several of those people screaming at green dots are played by people who do this job for real.


And that makes them qualified to peform that role in a film?

Using this logic, a Taco Bell employee would have definitely given a better performance than any of the cast members in Clerks II.


Um, if the Taco Bell employee was supposed to behave like a normal Taco Bell employee, why not? The point of Kevin Smith films is not being normal usually, though. Those folks in U93 were supposed to be authentic and I don't think anyone can be more authentic at a job than the people actually working this very job. It is not like the movie tried (or was supposed) to show something non-authetic, something that had to be acted. Trying to argue that appear ridiculous to me.


Thing is, they weren't behaving like normal employees in U93. I'd hardly call 9/11 a normal day for the aviation community.

Even if their job was to just act like they do everyday (which it wasn't), they still have to be able to deliver lines, hit their marks, etc...

I fail to see how being experienced in a certain profession automatically makes you qualified to perform that profession in a film.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/