Quintus 5,399 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a551609/baftas-2014-gravity-best-british-film-win-sparks-online-debate.htmlWhen I read on the news that it'd been given that award I was baffled. Gravity is an American film built and shot in the UK, just like Star Wars was. So according to BAFTA George Lucas' movie is a British one. Yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I forgot it was BAFTAS last night. Anyhow, beside amazing FXs, I still don't understand what people see in Gravity.That the Brits claim it to be British is strange indeed. It's a Hollywood film written and directed by a Mexican and shot in an English studio. Sharkissimo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It was payed for by British money?Alex, you dont understand why an inspirational "feel good" film is popular with award ceremonies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I didn't feel good after watching Gravity. I was merely puzzled as to why people called it the 2001: ASO killer. I saw nothing special. Oscar or BAFTA doesn't mean a thing: 1) Film is not sports where the best is something you can measure with a stopwatch 2) The awards are mainly self-serving to the film industry.Alex Sharkissimo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 According to reports it was an American financed production... hence the controversy. This is easy and natural to believe as a Brit: because we just don't produce movies that look like Gravity, especially with Hollywood stars. And no it's not best picture quality, but since the meaning of that award was lost years ago it's absolutely no surprise that a trending movie like Gravity is considered best pic awards material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 This Cremers like snobism is unbecoming of you, Lee.Ofcourse Gravity is an BAFTA worthy film! As for the Oscars, they love films about triumph over adversity, not giving up, the strength of the human soul, moving on after the death of a loved one.I'm hoping it will win.I didn't feel good after watching Gravity. I was merely puzzled as to why people called it the 2001: ASO killer.Who called it that? No one here did.In terms of special effects and the depiction of outer space, sure. But not in philosophical content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 It's not snobbery! It's called ccynicism and being realistic. Grav, while enjoyable, is far too flawed a film to be considered great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Cynicism and reality dont have a lot to do with each other, even of the cynic thinks it does.What you consider the films flaws, i consider part of its style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I didn't feel good after watching Gravity. I was merely puzzled as to why people called it the 2001: ASO killer.Who called it that? No one here did.I didn't say it was 'here' ...What you consider the films flaws, i consider part of its style.Which to me was the film's biggest letdown.And since Quint and I agree it means that snobbery has nothing to do with it. The only awards Gravity should get are technical awards such as FX and sound. After all, that's the film's main focus. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Gravity did prove for once and for all that the whole "CGI makes everything look artificial and fake" argument is essentially nonsense.The problem lies in how CGI is applied by many directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It's a technical evolution. CGI in games and movies will always get better. Gravity is another step up. Before Gravity it was Avatar. I do think a space environment is probably easier to mimic with a computer than an ordinary domestic scene on Earth (a street, nature, normal everyday clothing) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I agree, but it's not just space. I still can't believe all the space suits are 100% CGI as well. That's what blew me away the most. for all the exterior scenes only the actors faces are "real".I have no idea who did the effects BTW, was it ILM? Weta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 It was a British FX company, hence one of the claims of its Britishness. Were Sandra's undies cg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 No!And trust me...i really really checked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWMike 117 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I believe a films country of origin status is usually determined on where their production companies are from/based. David Heyman was one of the producers and Heyman Films was one of the production companies. Therefore it qualifies as a co-British film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 No!And trust me...i really really checked!The only thing that was real was Sandra's head. How else do you explain the fit bod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkissimo 1,973 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 No! And trust me...i really really checked! The only thing that was real was Sandra's head. How else do you explain the fit bod? Nip & tuck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 No!And trust me...i really really checked! The only thing that was real was Sandra's head. How else do you explain the fit bod?Exercise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkissimo 1,973 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 No! And trust me...i really really checked! The only thing that was real was Sandra's head. How else do you explain the fit bod? Exercise? So naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I can't believe you people are actually answering the question.The reason why I know the head was real and the rest was not is because Sandra's hair didn't float. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now