the Magicball Network Forums

the Magicball Network Forums (https://forum.magicball.net/index.php)
-   Off topic (https://forum.magicball.net/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   The oscar awards (https://forum.magicball.net/showthread.php?t=8919)

Reek 2005-01-06 13:55

The oscar awards
 
Doesn't it piss you off that Return of the King won a million oscars, when it wasn't the best of the trilogy (well that's a matter of opinion), but i don't see how the make-up, or the directing here was bettter than the other two lotr movies.

Also both FotR and TTT had better music scores.
Into the West was no where near as good The Breaking of the Fellowship, May It Be, or Gollum's Song.

Anyway the whole thing feel's really made up/forced, I suppose people really eat up those epic war scenes.

Also, Master an Commander winning 2 oscars? WTF?!

Gustav Sweden 2005-01-06 15:14

In my opinion, the Return of the king was the best :) But perhaps the first two movies had harder opponents?

Darkflame 2005-01-06 15:27

Indeed.
Also RotK was partly being rewarded for being a well made conclusion to a series, so it was gaining credits from the previous eppisodes.

wacko 2005-01-06 16:40

Do you have a summary of all oscars of 2004? I can only find the 2005 nominees.

[edit] Never mind, found it.

Gustav Sweden 2005-01-06 16:41

http://www.oscars.com/oscarnight/winners/index.html

Atresica 2005-01-06 19:46

I liked the Fellowship the best. I think especially due to the wonderful Moria scene. Also, I must admit I didn't expect much of the movie to begin with, while with the other two movies I expected it to be better than that.

There are two reasons why the Oscars are fucked up anyway: 2004 nominees for Best Male Actor: all blacks. Not because I hate blacks, but because it's so damn obvious they were like "OMG we forgot the blacks, lets give them something quick before they get angry".
The other thing is the shitload of oscars for Titanic and Chicago.

Reek 2005-01-06 19:53

Whoa, I agree with you completely, FotR is my favourite, and yes, Chicago and Titanic were incredibly overrated >_>

Battler 2005-01-06 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atresica
The other thing is the shitload of oscars for Titanic and Chicago.

I don't know, why people liked Titanic so much. It's the most unrealistic film about the R.M.S. Titanic, that I ever saw. Why don't they make a film, focused on the ship itself? Is it impossible to make a film about the Titanic, without implementing a love story in it, or what?

1. In the film (made in the 1997), the ship breaks into 2 pieces, while in the 1996, the Discovery Channel team, with Paul Matthias on the head, prooved, that the ship broke up into 3 pieces. :stupid:

2. In the film, Joseph Bruce Ismay orders the Captain to go on full speed. This wasn't so on the real ship, because everybody knew, that if the ship had been going full speed, the engines would have broken.

3. In reality, there was NO SHOOTING on the Titanic, and the first office, mr. William McMaster Murdoch did not get shot. He was taken by a wave, caused probably by the ship's sinking itself, when the ship was almost in the vertical position.

4. The iceberg didn't make such a big hole in the ship, but only series of small holes. It has been proved in the 1996, and it's strange, the Cameron didn't take it into consideration, when he made the movie in the 1997.

5. It omits many events of the ship's departure, like its almost-collision with a smaller ship, called New Yorker in Southampton, and an engine-worker, who climbed up to the top of the funnel, when the sheep was in Queenstown (now Cork).

6. And why the h*ck do the movies always omit the ship being built, registered, and tested, and they all start, when the ship departs from Southampton. I mean, we all know, that the ship was never "baptised", I mean, a bottle of champagne was never broken on the ship's bow.

7. There were no passengers with surnames, like Hockley, DeWitt-Bukater, Rossi, Lovejoy, or Dawson on the real Titanic. Cameron made these up. I had the complete passengers' list of the Titanic (downloaded from the Internet), and I did a complete search. Also, the rooms, where Rose and Cal, Lovejoy, and Rose's family stay during the voyage, was empty on the real Titanic.

8. During the last moments of the ship, when it was in vertical position, it was spinning around in real life. Strangely, it's not spinning around in the film.

And I can find many, many more points, to prove my right. Some years ago, I was very interested in the R.M.S. Titanic (the ship), and I did a very hard research, I watched all possible documentaries, and read many books about the ship (documentaric books), so I know something about it. ;)

Gustav Sweden 2005-01-06 20:09

You can write a similar list about most films (for example the Lord of the rings), you've got to take it for what it is, Leader.

Panda 2005-01-06 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBrasilo
I don't know, why people liked Titanic so much. It's the most unrealistic film about the R.M.S. Titanic, that I ever saw. Why don't they make a film, focused on the ship itself? Is it impossible to make a film about the Titanic, without implementing a love story in it, or what?

1. In the film (made in the 1997), the ship breaks into 2 pieces, while in the 1996, the Discovery Channel team, with Paul Matthias on the head, prooved, that the ship broke up into 3 pieces. :stupid:

2. In the film, Joseph Bruce Ismay orders the Captain to go on full speed. This wasn't so on the real ship, because everybody knew, that if the ship had been going full speed, the engines would have broken.

3. In reality, there was NO SHOOTING on the Titanic, and the first office, mr. William McMaster Murdoch did not get shot. He was taken by a wave, caused probably by the ship's sinking itself, when the ship was almost in the vertical position.

4. The iceberg didn't make such a big hole in the ship, but only series of small holes. It has been proved in the 1996, and it's strange, the Cameron didn't take it into consideration, when he made the movie in the 1997.

5. It omits many events of the ship's departure, like its almost-collision with a smaller ship, called New Yorker in Southampton, and an engine-worker, who climbed up to the top of the funnel, when the sheep was in Queenstown (now Cork).

6. And why the h*ck do the movies always omit the ship being built, registered, and tested, and they all start, when the ship departs from Southampton. I mean, we all know, that the ship was never "baptised", I mean, a bottle of champagne was never broken on the ship's bow.

7. There were no passengers with surnames, like Hockley, DeWitt-Bukater, Rossi, Lovejoy, or Dawson on the real Titanic. Cameron made these up. I had the complete passengers' list of the Titanic (downloaded from the Internet), and I did a complete search. Also, the rooms, where Rose and Cal, Lovejoy, and Rose's family stay during the voyage, was empty on the real Titanic.

8. During the last moments of the ship, when it was in vertical position, it was spinning around in real life. Strangely, it's not spinning around in the film.

And I can find many, many more points, to prove my right. Some years ago, I was very interested in the R.M.S. Titanic (the ship), and I did a very hard research, I watched all possible documentaries, and read many books about the ship (documentaric books), so I know something about it. ;)

http://www.rllmukforum.com/html/emoticons/lol.gif

Please write more. I need more entertainment. Tell me why the Matrix isn't real. Or while you're at it, tell me why Pirates of the Carribean can't be real.

Reek 2005-01-06 20:30

Quote:

7. There were no passengers with surnames, like Hockley, DeWitt-Bukater, Rossi, Lovejoy, or Dawson on the real Titanic. Cameron made these up.
Oh noes!!!!
:eek::eek::eek:

Battler 2005-01-06 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anakin
Oh noes!!!!
:eek::eek::eek:

What? You don't believe me? I can 100% ensure you it's true. ;)

Battler 2005-01-06 20:58

And yes, final notice:
The ship, called R.M.S. Titanic, really existed, and it really hit an iceberg, and it really sank on its maiden voyage, this is, why I wrote about it. The film is supposed to be based on a true story, while Lord of the Rings, and many other things, not. Stop flaming me for this. Hell... the people here really respect you more, if you're stupid, than, if you're intelligent. :stupid:

Panda 2005-01-06 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBrasilo
And yes, final notice:
The ship, called R.M.S. Titanic, really existed, and it really hit an iceberg, and it really sank on its maiden voyage, this is, why I wrote about it. The film is supposed to be based on a true story, while Lord of the Rings, and many other things, not. Stop flaming me for this. Hell... the people here really respect you more, if you're stupid, than, if you're intelligent. :stupid:

The ship was real, aye, but it's just a FILM. It's not meant to be 100% real. I think you've really missed the whole point.

Xakep_INC 2005-01-06 21:56

And shame to these costume designers! The capitan had white underpants, not gray ones! :stupid: I mean, that's so unrealistic!!! :eek:

Reek 2005-01-06 21:59

Xakep, did you know, that on the real titanic the captain dug his nose with his index finger, but in the movie he does it with hit pinky?!!?

This is so unrealistic!!

Battler 2005-01-06 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandy
The ship was real, aye, but it's just a FILM. It's not meant to be 100% real. I think you've really missed the whole point.

I'll tell you the truth. The problem isn't the film, but the people, who believe, what is told by the films, instead of believing, what is told in the documentaries and documentaric book. For example, in the Titanic case, mr. Cameron didn't think, how would the real participants in the Titanic disaster, and the guys there at Harland'n'Wolff, Norther Ireland, where the Titanic was made, feel about that. I have common sense, but immagine this: some day, a stupid director makes a film about the recent Thai tsunami, makes up a few people, a love story, etc., and takes gazillions of dollars from it, while people really died in the tragedy. The same is for the WTC. What if someone creates a film about 9/11, and puts up a love story between some invented people, just to make a plot. I mean, those are real tragedies, and they had real victims, and we must respect the real victims.

Just want to point some achievements we have from the Titanic tragedy:
  1. We started to use the SOS distress sign, instead of the complicated, old CQD.
  2. We take more care about a ship's safety, and we no longer invent stories about "unsinkable" ships.
  3. Ships now have enough lifeboats, some excercitations during the voyage (so that the passengers know, what to do, in case of dangers), and more safety objects.
  4. Ships are now bigger, and better built.
  5. Some people, like Stanley Lord, captain of the ship Californian, which was right there, in front of the Titanic, but did nothing for the people, because of him, finally lost their good careers. I mean, justice was finally made.
  6. And finally, although the Titanic wasn't sailing full speed, it was still sailing too fast, and now we finally learned, that this brings to certain danger. Also, we found out, that the manevers, that mr. Murdoch, first officer of the Titanic, ordered to do, when he heard about the iceberg right ahead, were in fact, according to all sailor's manuals, the best way to hit the iceberg, and we don't make them anymore.

And, many, many more.

Respect the dead people, and the achievements, as tragedies bring us both.

Panda 2005-01-06 23:02

Ships are now bigger? Not many.

And a film about a Tsunami and the WTC? Lol, okay. Whatever you say!

prone2accidents 2005-01-07 04:41

Is it just me, or does Obras remind anyone of Adrian Mole?

bunnyrabbot02 2005-01-07 14:17

A Love Story blend with 9/11 or the Tsunami disaster, LOL!
OBrasilo, it´s a little off topic, but do you know much about ships? :ferry:

Battler 2005-01-07 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunnyrabbot02
A Love Story blend with 9/11 or the Tsunami disaster, LOL!
OBrasilo, it´s a little off topic, but do you know much about ships? :ferry:

Not much about ships in general, but very much about the R.M.S. Titanic specificly.

Gustav Sweden 2005-01-07 16:37

I read a book, with a theory, that the boat Titanic just was an american conspiracy (it never really existed) to cause an uprise against Gavrilo Princip, who was to murder the Austrian crown prince and wife two years later. I believe in this theory.

Battler 2005-01-07 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav Sweden
I read a book, with a theory, that the boat Titanic just was an american conspiracy (it never really existed) to cause an uprise against Gavrilo Princip, who was to murder the Austrian crown prince and wife two years later. I believe in this theory.

How can it be an American conspiracy, if it was build in a shipyard in Northern Ireland, and it was propeirty of an a British company? Besides, the ship was also registered in Liverpool. And Gavrilo Princip was just an unknown Serbian at the time, and, when he shot the two Austrians, he was just there 18-20, and not a 50-yo king, so your teory is foolish. And if you believe in it, it's just because you know about nothing about history.

morshem 2005-01-07 17:02

I don't think Gustav said he believes in that, he just said that he read it in a book...

Battler 2005-01-07 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav Sweden
I believe in this theory.

Erm... did you read everything? :p


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:31.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, the Magicball Network