you dont think loyal knew that imax films were filmed differently than regular ones?

i think i'd have to agree with him...that does go without saying.

wow, i didnt know so many had even seen that movie. i hadnt heard of it til a couple weeks ago :o

You're sleeping on the coach tonight, buster.

How could you not like SFC?

Proves I'm not a clone of loyal.

I'm looking for a Billy Hatchet and the Mohawks photo.

He may very well have know the answer, but he did not communicate it when asked by lennier and Neostorm - his answer, as quoted below, was: "It's all about the quality of the stock. Most of your Imax films are shot in 70mm. But 65mm/70mm is very expensive compared to 35mm. You'll often get 35mm prints blown-up for some Imax theatres." That does not answer the question of what's so special about 65/70mm film - it is neither the "quality of the stock" nor it's cost - it is the increased resolution gained by it's larger frame size.

It really does go without saying.

Bradley, you try too hard.

Congratulations on The New World's BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY Academy Award nomination!



Drinks all around









No Kilcher sucks though .

Indeed.

Congrats to Emmanuel Lubezki. He's been nominated twice before. In 1996 for The Little Princess and in 2000 for Sleepy Hollow.

Crap. I spelled couch as coach, didn't I?

Moving along

I'm glad to see The New World get its recognition for cinematography. Yay

No big deal, loyal - I just never react well to arrogance...

no worries.

Glad to see New World getting a cinematogrophy nomination. I'm rooting for it to win. 'Shame none of it's other technical achievements could be recognized.

Huh, I didn't expect it to get a Cinematogpahy nod, but I'm happy as hell that it did. Here's hoping it wins, although it will probably go to Brokeback Mountain.

You know, I actually put New World down as winning cinematography this year. I know, I know, but hear me out.

I did this in "nuetral" fashion. I first thought GNAGL might take it, for the love of black and white, but nothing appeals to voters more than landscapes. So then it was between Brokeback and New World (sorry, Batman doesn't have a chance, but it's nice it got a nom).

Aside from the fact that voters are all over the place this year, and I don't see any film winning more than three categories, I figured New World must have impressed itself on the minds of voters quite a bit to even be under consideration at this point. This is the Sith arguement. That had voters been that impressed with Sith, they would have given it a special effects nom despite all its other short-comings. I see them being so impressed with New World, that they gave it cinematography despite not really liking any other element that much, the lukewarm critical and audiance reception, etc. The only person I see beating it (for landscape reasons) is Brokeback. I don't know why, but Constant Gardener doesn't seem in the running (even though it is a very worthy opponent).

That and the cinematographer has been up twice before, also for movies that weren't that "big." Including a kids movie. So clearly, he goes over very well with voters.

I call New World takes the Oscar for cinematography, and rightfully so.

I heart Dolce

Um...is there actually a bigger review thread in this section than this one?

I don't think so.

It even beat King Kong.

Kong has double I think.

I'm hoping to finally see this at some point next week.

It's funny. All these hosannas and blow jobs have somehow lowered my expectations. Too much hyperbole, I imagine.

Blow Jobs? I miss all the cool parties.

Please don't ever crack a joke that associates me and bjs. I find them very personal, and if you scan everyone of my exorbitantly useless posts, you'll not once catch me making such an association either with myself or anyone else on this forum. Thanks.

Otherwise, point well taken, but hey...it actually really was my logic. Voters like landscapes, and I find the order to be 3. Gardener (this may be due to the fact I really never got into the movie at all), and a tie for BBM and New World. However, I have BBM winning three of its other noms, so...I've got 72 DVDs riding on that guess, about 7 of which I'm keeping and the I'm giving to kids in the libraries, so I tried to make the decision carefully.

A quality assessment. I also think it has a great chance of edging out Brokeback Mountain for the win in this category. Malick's previous film, The Thin Red Line, was equally as breathtaking, but lost (justifiably) to Saving Private Ryan for cinematography at the 1999 Oscars. Maybe this fact will earn The New World a little more support this year.



King Kong's review thread is 18 pages.

It's just a matter of time...

A bit of info (thanks littlegoldenguy.com)

So we know Emmanuel Lubezki was twice nominated (Sleepy Hollow, Little Princess)

Here's his competition

Dion Beebe for Memoirs - Nominated once before Chicago (lost)

Robert Elswit for Good Night - First time nominee

Rodrigo Prieto for Brokeback - First time nominee

Wally Pfister for Batman - First time nominee

ASC guild nominations match up 4/5 this year with the AMPAS. Andrew Lesnie was nominated for Kong.

This thread is the new pube. Totally.

Holy cow, how did this movie get 14 pages?

Biggest box-office to review pages ratio ever, by a landslide.

But by the way, I don't think this is the biggest thread. I'm pretty sure The Ring 2 has higher.