CSK Fan Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Pacino not getting for godfather 2 has to be the biggest oscar blunder ever. And Godfather 1
CSK Fan Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I sort of don't agree. to be fair, it was a performance of a lifetime too by DeNero in less but significant screentime. True, the movie was more about Pachinos character than DeNero's but DeNero's flashbacks are easily a third of screetime. It went to the wrong actor i agree, but the decision wasn't a total blunder either. Two actors gave amazing performances, the one with less screentime won. Thats, a bit tough, but blunder, it is not. Well, Pacino was denied for the first movie and it was given to Brando for the same reason, as it was felt that Brando was the main actor. This logic was not used in Godfather 2
Detonator Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Pacino not getting for godfather 2 has to be the biggest oscar blunder ever. Forrest Gump winning over The Shawshank Redemption and Pulp fiction. english patient of all movies winning 9 oscars including the best picture and best director. :WTF: Blue Velvet not even getting nominated for Best Picture, and Dennis Hopper for Best actor. It's one of the awesomest mystery movies ever. The angst genre and angsty wangsty acting seems to be winning a lot of awards.
SLICKR392 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I sort of don't agree. to be fair' date='[b'] it was a performance of a lifetime too by DeNero in less but significant screentime. True, the movie was more about Pachinos character than DeNero's but DeNero's flashbacks are easily a third of screetime. It went to the wrong actor i agree, but the decision wasn't a total blunder either. Two actors gave amazing performances, the one with less screentime won. Thats, a bit tough, but blunder, it is not. Errr..no. It wasn't really. It was a big break for DeNiro but certainly not one of his best. Al Pacino's character in the second was rated highly and above Brando by most. When Vito brought the family together, Micheal was destroying it. Micheal's sheer dominance and vulnerability to put things together was amazingly executed by Al Pacino. Its a way tougher role than DeNiro. Agree with you that its not entirely a blunder giving DeNiro the Oscar, but it does become one when you ignore Al Pacino's performance which was way tougher and superior to that of DeNiro. But again, as Outy said, it does seem like Filmfare, when you give the Oscar to Hoffman for Kramer vs Kramer and ignore J.Lemmon in China Syndrome and Al Pacino in And Justice For All.
SLICKR392 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 And Godfather 1 There were better ones in the nominee, TBH. And I think Robert Duvall (the Lawyer) deserved it more as he was in the list too. Al Pacino was robbed off an Oscar thrice unlike DiCaprio who deserved one in 1993.
CSK Fan Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 There were better ones in the nominee, TBH. And I think Robert Duvall (the Lawyer) deserved it more as he was in the list too. Al Pacino was robbed off an Oscar thrice unlike DiCaprio who deserved one in 1993. No, I meant that Pacino was nominated for supporting actor and Brando for the leading role even though Pacino was clearly the lead
Sachin=GOD Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 No' date=' I meant that Pacino was nominated for supporting actor and Brando for the leading role even though Pacino was clearly the lead[/quote'] yeah. IIRC I read that Pacino didn't attend the Oscars that year in protest because he thought he also should have been nominated for Best Actor.
Sachin=GOD Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Was a bigger blunder when DeNiro got it for the same movie. UK rated his role over Brando's. Congo to Mathew. As much as I am pissed at Leo not getting it, Mathew deserved it. Might get one next year as well. I sort of don't agree. to be fair, it was a performance of a lifetime too by DeNero in less but significant screentime. True, the movie was more about Pachinos character than DeNero's but DeNero's flashbacks are easily a third of screetime. It went to the wrong actor i agree, but the decision wasn't a total blunder either. Two actors gave amazing performances, the one with less screentime won. Thats, a bit tough, but blunder, it is not. Forrest Gump winning over The Shawshank Redemption and Pulp fiction. english patient of all movies winning 9 oscars including the best picture and best director. :WTF: Blue Velvet not even getting nominated for Best Picture, and Dennis Hopper for Best actor. It's one of the awesomest mystery movies ever. The angst genre and angsty wangsty acting seems to be winning a lot of awards. I haven't seen as many movies as some of you but in all the movies I have seen till date, I found Pacino's performance in Godfather 2 head and shoulders above everyone else.
Detonator Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I haven't seen as many movies as some of you but in all the movies I have seen till date' date=' I found Pacino's performance in Godfather 2 head and shoulders above everyone else.[/quote'] Art Carney is not a bad choice but Pachino deserved it much more than him. Even Jack Nicholson deserved the award that year. Pachino won the Bafta, so no worries. The examples I said are outright and unfair snubs.
SLICKR392 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 No' date=' I meant that Pacino was nominated for supporting actor and Brando for the leading role even though Pacino was clearly the lead[/quote'] Probably because of Brando's stardom during that period.
SLICKR392 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Art Carney is not a bad choice but Pachino deserved it much more than him. Even Jack Nicholson deserved the award that year. Pachino won the Bafta, so no worries. The examples I said are outright and unfair snubs. The question is how did they end up giving it to DeNiro but not Al? I found Stasberg a strong candidate among the supporting candidates as well. Its fair to give it to him for the Scent of A Women but he should have had 2-3 Oscars by now.
SLICKR392 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QUacU0I4yU]Marlon Brando's Oscar® win for " The Godfather" - YouTube[/ame]
maniac Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Are people really kidding me when they say Gravity didn't deserve the best dirctor oscar :facepalm:? The Director and his crew made us beleive that the actors were really in outer space and kept us on the edge of our seats.They didn't half-** it and ask any astronout who has seen the movie they were in awe about the attention to detail. They were so meticulous that when S.B was in the Russian Space Ship the button she pressed to get it started was the right one and the copy of it was as perfect of a replica you would ever see. I hate the hippie mentality that just because a movie was a B.O blockbuster it must have sucked in comparison to some indy movie :banghead: The story was just another survival movie and I totally agree it didn't deserve the best picture but handsdown Alfonso deserves the oscar for making a path breaking movie just like Ang Lee won for Life of Pi for creating Ocean in a water tank
SLICKR392 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Are people really kidding me when they say Gravity didn't deserve the best dirctor oscar :facepalm:? The Director and his crew made us beleive that the actors were really in outer space and kept us on the edge of our seats.They didn't half-** it and ask any astronout who has seen the movie they were in awe about the attention to detail. They were so meticulous that when S.B was in the Russian Space Ship the button she pressed to get it started was the right one and the copy of it was as perfect of a replica you would ever see. I hate the hippie mentality that just because a movie was a B.O blockbuster it must have sucked in comparison to some indy movie :banghead: The story was just another survival movie and I totally agree it didn't deserve the best picture but handsdown Alfonso deserves the oscar for making a path breaking movie just like Ang Lee won for Life of Pai for creating Ocean in a water tank That was not Ang Lee's idea. It was Rhythm & Hues's.
maniac Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 That was not Ang Lee's idea. It was Rhythm & Hues's. That is like saying movies based on a novel should not be given credit to the people who adapted it......Rythm and Hues is just a hired consultant,in the end it is Ang Lee's Call. Also going back to gravity read this effort It would've been easier, technologically speaking, to actually launch Sandra Bullock and George Clooney into space for their new movie, "Gravity." Director Alfonso Cuarón’s vision forced the crew to devise groundbreaking technology in order to properly fake the weightlessness of zero gravity on the A-list stars. "I have to say it was a big act of miscalculation, naivete and stupidity," jokes Cuarón, who originally envisioned the massive adventure that is "Gravity" as a "small" film. Director Alfonso Cuarón on the set of “Gravity†Director Alfonso Cuarón on the set of “Gravity†"I told my cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, we were making a small movie about two characters. It took us four and a half years! When we started doing tests, we realized there was no technology to do the film. So we had to invent our own.†The result, opening Friday, is a 3-D tour de force that critics are already placing in the upper stratosphere of Academy Award contenders. The film opens as debris strikes a space shuttle mission, sending a medical engineer (Bullock), on her first spacewalk, and her veteran cohort (Clooney) hurtling through the cold void. Hopes of survival start to dwindle almost as fast as their suits' remaining oxygen does, as the duo try to find their way to safety. The “Light Box†Sandra Bullock was strapped into for the filming of “Gravity.†It contained 4,096 LED light bulbs. The “Light Box†Sandra Bullock was strapped into for the filming of “Gravity.†It contained 4,096 LED light bulbs. “Gravity,†however, is no ordinary sci-fi flight of fantasy — every single frame and movement had to be planned out before filming started to merge the CGI and live action seamlessly. Visual effects coordinator Tim Webber’s team referenced thousands of NASA photographs of the space shuttle and International Space Station down to every last nut and bolt. “It really was in many different ways a step beyond anything I’ve been involved with before,†says Webber. “It felt like, well, a giant leap for mankind.†Perhaps Cuarón’s smartest move was tethering the film to Oscar winners Bullock and Clooney. Bullock, who was coming off a two-year hiatus from movies to devote time to her adopted son, underwent a particularly tough training regimen. From left, Sandra Bullock, George Clooney and director Alfonso Cuarón on the set of "Gravity" From left, Sandra Bullock, George Clooney and director Alfonso Cuarón on the set of "Gravity" “Sandra started training four months before shooting,†says Cuaron. “She got acquainted with the torture chamber, meaning all the rigs she would have to endure ... and then she started practicing with the rigs, stunt people, special effects people and puppeteers.†As gifted as Bullock is as an actress, she needed the help of puppeteers from the West End production of “War Horse†to manipulate a harness made up of 12 carbon-thin wires that spread across her body and were virtually invisible on camera. In her spare time, Bullock called up the International Space Station to question Catherine Coleman as the American astronaut orbited 372 miles above Earth. The “Light Box†on the set of “Gravity†The “Light Box†on the set of “Gravity†But since Cuarón couldn’t actually spin his star as if she were really in orbit, he decided he’d move the universe around her. Bullock was strapped into a rig inside a custom-made device dubbed “The Light Box,†a cube filled with 4,096 LED light bulbs that could be programmed to provide whatever brightness, colors and speed were needed to simulate the light of the Earth and the sun on a spinning astronaut. “When Sandra was in the cube, she was completely insulated and all the communication was on radio, not unlike the astronauts talking to Houston,†says Cuarón. “And in between the setups, the process to get her in and out was so long that she chose just to stay there for hours and hours.†It was a tough journey, but worth it for the director, who grew up wanting to be an astronaut after watching the 1969 moon landing live on television as a kid in his native Mexico. “I would still like to go into space,†says Cuarón, “but I would never go back to space in a film.â€
Sachin=GOD Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Gravity was a pretty good movie but to me it seemed like a made-for-Oscar movie. Nowadays directors know very well what kind of a movie they have to make in order to win an Oscar. The best and most recent example can be Argo.
SLICKR392 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 That is like saying movies based on a novel should not be given credit to the people who adapted it......Rythm and Hues is just a hired consultant,in the end it is Ang Lee's Call. Also going back to gravity read this effort That's not how you said it. :winky: Ang Lee won for Life of Pai for creating Ocean in a water tank
akshayxyz Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 That lady giving out the award looks like - kalki koechlin
Detonator Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 The question is how did they end up giving it to DeNiro but not Al? I found Stasberg a strong candidate among the supporting candidates as well. Its fair to give it to him for the Scent of A Women but he should have had 2-3 Oscars by now. Al has stronger contenders. Art carney is a comedian, played a much different role and played it naturally but al taken the method acting too far in godfather. could be a decisive factor. He fine tuned it in Scent of Women. I just checked the nominees for supporting cast, I ve seen the Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, Jeff Bridges played an absolutely loveable role , like the dude lebowski. Yes, de niro doesnot deserve. Looks like that year is a blunder too, :giggle:
Recommended Posts