+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 87
Latest: brewski
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112818
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Poll

Which film should win Best Picture?

Call Me By Your Name
0 (0%)
Darkest Hour
0 (0%)
Dunkirk
0 (0%)
Get Out
0 (0%)
Lady Bird
1 (20%)
Phantom Thread
1 (20%)
The Post
0 (0%)
The Shape of Water
1 (20%)
Three Billboards
2 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Author Topic: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees  (Read 599 times)

$+/\|_°|\|

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2018, 11:33:05 pm »
No - I'm REALLY not interested in The Post.  Like, that looks like preachy, slanted garbage to me personally.  I'd certainly see the other two before the Post.

Eh... only if you buy into the narrative that it's at all relevant to what's going on right now, which to be fair it kinda isn't. Comparing Trump to Nixon is one thing, but I refuse to allow comparisons between the Washington Post in its golden age and, say, Buzzfeed's pee-pee dossier. As a movie about the days when reporters did actual reporting, it's kinda nice. That said, the cinematography is ugly as hell and the film as a whole pales in comparison to All the President's Men. Definitely skippable.

Loved All the President's Men.  And I don't even really care about the topic of today - it feels like a movie where the media is going to depicted as this beacon of truth who is doing it for the good of the people and that anyone who opposes them are evil.  I mean, I guess it follows some of today's stuff - but I've thought the media was horribly corrupt, hypocritical, and morally reprehensible for about 20 years now.  I've dealt with too many of them far too often to want to see a movie portraying them as the altruistic "good guys".
Iíd counter that the filmís more about how government censorship is evil rather than that questioning the media is evil, but to each his own I suppose.

But I'm betting it's not showing any of the immorality or extreme biases of the media - I'm guessing they are painted in the light of being pious and the government is the evil entity?
Thatís a fair point, but you have to realize that from a filmmaking standpoint, it would make no sense. What purpose would that serve the story? Nuance is important, but it seems like pointing out the media itself isnít squeaky clean itself would distract/detract from the message of the film which doesnít really even have to do with any of that. And Iíd argue that the movie expresses more admiration for journalism and how important of a role it has in society, rather than the media corporations and outlets that supply our news.

Thereís a very big difference between the two. Itís like filmmaking as a craft and the actual film industry. Yeah, the film industry is full of terrible people and does tons of harm. That doesnít invalidate the artform of cinema itself. It doesnít mean making movies is an inherently bad thing, just the industry thatís based around it.

I don't even mean the corporations or media outlets.  A large swath of journalists I have encountered are self-absorbed, slimy fuck holes who literally don't give 2 shits about the truth of a story they are writing, they are ONLY looking for anything that can be twisted to fit their narrative.  And, mind you, I've dealt with hundreds of journalists in my time - I'd say only about 20% of them are legitimately trying to write an unbiased article and looking for the real story.  The other 80%...well...let's just say I'd rather deal with a group of lawyers than a group of those fucktard "journalists".
Thatís understandable and your experience is valid. Iím not doubting it at all. In fact, Iíd be more skeptical if you said all the journalists you met were decent people. But I donít think that negates the filmís message, or journalism as a field. It certainly says a lot about the people that go into the field, but the purpose of a free press remains to be immensely essential in my opinion. Extending the film metaphor, there are so many people who have formed an entire career out of making movies, yet are absolutely reprehensible human beings that donít even care about the art. They certainly sully cinema, but you canít deny film and art in general are still important facets of a civilized society.

Furthermore, wouldnít it make sense to blame the corporations and outlets that warp these people into scumbags? Iím not saying every single journalist out there was always an angel who just happened to become a victim of executive micromanagement, but considering the toxic nature of how our news system is set up... that just seems more logical. Hate the game, not the player. Reform the system and fix the causes, donít blame the symptoms.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2018, 12:09:34 am »
No - I'm REALLY not interested in The Post.  Like, that looks like preachy, slanted garbage to me personally.  I'd certainly see the other two before the Post.

Eh... only if you buy into the narrative that it's at all relevant to what's going on right now, which to be fair it kinda isn't. Comparing Trump to Nixon is one thing, but I refuse to allow comparisons between the Washington Post in its golden age and, say, Buzzfeed's pee-pee dossier. As a movie about the days when reporters did actual reporting, it's kinda nice. That said, the cinematography is ugly as hell and the film as a whole pales in comparison to All the President's Men. Definitely skippable.

Loved All the President's Men.  And I don't even really care about the topic of today - it feels like a movie where the media is going to depicted as this beacon of truth who is doing it for the good of the people and that anyone who opposes them are evil.  I mean, I guess it follows some of today's stuff - but I've thought the media was horribly corrupt, hypocritical, and morally reprehensible for about 20 years now.  I've dealt with too many of them far too often to want to see a movie portraying them as the altruistic "good guys".
Iíd counter that the filmís more about how government censorship is evil rather than that questioning the media is evil, but to each his own I suppose.

But I'm betting it's not showing any of the immorality or extreme biases of the media - I'm guessing they are painted in the light of being pious and the government is the evil entity?
Thatís a fair point, but you have to realize that from a filmmaking standpoint, it would make no sense. What purpose would that serve the story? Nuance is important, but it seems like pointing out the media itself isnít squeaky clean itself would distract/detract from the message of the film which doesnít really even have to do with any of that. And Iíd argue that the movie expresses more admiration for journalism and how important of a role it has in society, rather than the media corporations and outlets that supply our news.

Thereís a very big difference between the two. Itís like filmmaking as a craft and the actual film industry. Yeah, the film industry is full of terrible people and does tons of harm. That doesnít invalidate the artform of cinema itself. It doesnít mean making movies is an inherently bad thing, just the industry thatís based around it.

I don't even mean the corporations or media outlets.  A large swath of journalists I have encountered are self-absorbed, slimy fuck holes who literally don't give 2 shits about the truth of a story they are writing, they are ONLY looking for anything that can be twisted to fit their narrative.  And, mind you, I've dealt with hundreds of journalists in my time - I'd say only about 20% of them are legitimately trying to write an unbiased article and looking for the real story.  The other 80%...well...let's just say I'd rather deal with a group of lawyers than a group of those fucktard "journalists".
Thatís understandable and your experience is valid. Iím not doubting it at all. In fact, Iíd be more skeptical if you said all the journalists you met were decent people. But I donít think that negates the filmís message, or journalism as a field. It certainly says a lot about the people that go into the field, but the purpose of a free press remains to be immensely essential in my opinion. Extending the film metaphor, there are so many people who have formed an entire career out of making movies, yet are absolutely reprehensible human beings that donít even care about the art. They certainly sully cinema, but you canít deny film and art in general are still important facets of a civilized society.

Furthermore, wouldnít it make sense to blame the corporations and outlets that warp these people into scumbags? Iím not saying every single journalist out there was always an angel who just happened to become a victim of executive micromanagement, but considering the toxic nature of how our news system is set up... that just seems more logical. Hate the game, not the player. Reform the system and fix the causes, donít blame the symptoms.

1 - My point is there really isn't a "free press" in regards to trying their best to research and print and true and unbiased story.  Most of the individual members of the press (at least that I've encountered) are merely looking for the most "clicks" - regardless of whether or not their story is true or accurate.  So, "free press" in terms of "anyone can say anything regardless of whether or not there's a shred of truth to it" isn't all that important to me tbh. 

2-To simply blame the corporations and outlets is lazy to me.  I personally know a couple of legitimate journalists that work for these same outlets that the scumbags work for.  Corporations can only change people as much as they're willing to be changed. 

3-It seems you and I have a very different opinions as to the goals and methods of journalists.  I find the large majority of them to be lazy, sleezy, and only looking to their own self interests in the stories they write.  I've personally experienced this repeatedly.  So you're gonna have a pretty tough time getting me to blame the corporations when I know for a fact that most of these journalists (that I've encountered) are simply a bunch of egotistical pricks that truly believe their job is to "make" the news, not "report" the news.

$+/\|_°|\|

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2018, 12:20:52 am »
No - I'm REALLY not interested in The Post.  Like, that looks like preachy, slanted garbage to me personally.  I'd certainly see the other two before the Post.

Eh... only if you buy into the narrative that it's at all relevant to what's going on right now, which to be fair it kinda isn't. Comparing Trump to Nixon is one thing, but I refuse to allow comparisons between the Washington Post in its golden age and, say, Buzzfeed's pee-pee dossier. As a movie about the days when reporters did actual reporting, it's kinda nice. That said, the cinematography is ugly as hell and the film as a whole pales in comparison to All the President's Men. Definitely skippable.

Loved All the President's Men.  And I don't even really care about the topic of today - it feels like a movie where the media is going to depicted as this beacon of truth who is doing it for the good of the people and that anyone who opposes them are evil.  I mean, I guess it follows some of today's stuff - but I've thought the media was horribly corrupt, hypocritical, and morally reprehensible for about 20 years now.  I've dealt with too many of them far too often to want to see a movie portraying them as the altruistic "good guys".
Iíd counter that the filmís more about how government censorship is evil rather than that questioning the media is evil, but to each his own I suppose.

But I'm betting it's not showing any of the immorality or extreme biases of the media - I'm guessing they are painted in the light of being pious and the government is the evil entity?
Thatís a fair point, but you have to realize that from a filmmaking standpoint, it would make no sense. What purpose would that serve the story? Nuance is important, but it seems like pointing out the media itself isnít squeaky clean itself would distract/detract from the message of the film which doesnít really even have to do with any of that. And Iíd argue that the movie expresses more admiration for journalism and how important of a role it has in society, rather than the media corporations and outlets that supply our news.

Thereís a very big difference between the two. Itís like filmmaking as a craft and the actual film industry. Yeah, the film industry is full of terrible people and does tons of harm. That doesnít invalidate the artform of cinema itself. It doesnít mean making movies is an inherently bad thing, just the industry thatís based around it.

I don't even mean the corporations or media outlets.  A large swath of journalists I have encountered are self-absorbed, slimy fuck holes who literally don't give 2 shits about the truth of a story they are writing, they are ONLY looking for anything that can be twisted to fit their narrative.  And, mind you, I've dealt with hundreds of journalists in my time - I'd say only about 20% of them are legitimately trying to write an unbiased article and looking for the real story.  The other 80%...well...let's just say I'd rather deal with a group of lawyers than a group of those fucktard "journalists".
Thatís understandable and your experience is valid. Iím not doubting it at all. In fact, Iíd be more skeptical if you said all the journalists you met were decent people. But I donít think that negates the filmís message, or journalism as a field. It certainly says a lot about the people that go into the field, but the purpose of a free press remains to be immensely essential in my opinion. Extending the film metaphor, there are so many people who have formed an entire career out of making movies, yet are absolutely reprehensible human beings that donít even care about the art. They certainly sully cinema, but you canít deny film and art in general are still important facets of a civilized society.

Furthermore, wouldnít it make sense to blame the corporations and outlets that warp these people into scumbags? Iím not saying every single journalist out there was always an angel who just happened to become a victim of executive micromanagement, but considering the toxic nature of how our news system is set up... that just seems more logical. Hate the game, not the player. Reform the system and fix the causes, donít blame the symptoms.

1 - My point is there really isn't a "free press" in regards to trying their best to research and print and true and unbiased story.  Most of the individual members of the press (at least that I've encountered) are merely looking for the most "clicks" - regardless of whether or not their story is true or accurate.  So, "free press" in terms of "anyone can say anything regardless of whether or not there's a shred of truth to it" isn't all that important to me tbh. 

2-To simply blame the corporations and outlets is lazy to me.  I personally know a couple of legitimate journalists that work for these same outlets that the scumbags work for.  Corporations can only change people as much as they're willing to be changed. 

3-It seems you and I have a very different opinions as to the goals and methods of journalists.  I find the large majority of them to be lazy, sleezy, and only looking to their own self interests in the stories they write.  I've personally experienced this repeatedly.  So you're gonna have a pretty tough time getting me to blame the corporations when I know for a fact that most of these journalists (that I've encountered) are simply a bunch of egotistical pricks that truly believe their job is to "make" the news, not "report" the news.
Not exactly. I know the goals of the media arenít anywhere near noble. What Iím saying is that The Post is advocating for media that does have noble intentions. It doesnít necessarily endorse the current system we have, it hopes for a better one and praises the legitimate journalists who retain their integrity despite everything else.

And, Iím assuming that you met these journalists while on the job. Now, correct me if Iím wrong, but can you really compare sports reporters to those that expose unethical government conduct? Iím just saying, perhaps your experiences with journalism were that bad because of the type of journalists you tend to meet and encounter in your field.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #83 on: January 26, 2018, 12:37:52 am »
No - I'm REALLY not interested in The Post.  Like, that looks like preachy, slanted garbage to me personally.  I'd certainly see the other two before the Post.

Eh... only if you buy into the narrative that it's at all relevant to what's going on right now, which to be fair it kinda isn't. Comparing Trump to Nixon is one thing, but I refuse to allow comparisons between the Washington Post in its golden age and, say, Buzzfeed's pee-pee dossier. As a movie about the days when reporters did actual reporting, it's kinda nice. That said, the cinematography is ugly as hell and the film as a whole pales in comparison to All the President's Men. Definitely skippable.

Loved All the President's Men.  And I don't even really care about the topic of today - it feels like a movie where the media is going to depicted as this beacon of truth who is doing it for the good of the people and that anyone who opposes them are evil.  I mean, I guess it follows some of today's stuff - but I've thought the media was horribly corrupt, hypocritical, and morally reprehensible for about 20 years now.  I've dealt with too many of them far too often to want to see a movie portraying them as the altruistic "good guys".
Iíd counter that the filmís more about how government censorship is evil rather than that questioning the media is evil, but to each his own I suppose.

But I'm betting it's not showing any of the immorality or extreme biases of the media - I'm guessing they are painted in the light of being pious and the government is the evil entity?
Thatís a fair point, but you have to realize that from a filmmaking standpoint, it would make no sense. What purpose would that serve the story? Nuance is important, but it seems like pointing out the media itself isnít squeaky clean itself would distract/detract from the message of the film which doesnít really even have to do with any of that. And Iíd argue that the movie expresses more admiration for journalism and how important of a role it has in society, rather than the media corporations and outlets that supply our news.

Thereís a very big difference between the two. Itís like filmmaking as a craft and the actual film industry. Yeah, the film industry is full of terrible people and does tons of harm. That doesnít invalidate the artform of cinema itself. It doesnít mean making movies is an inherently bad thing, just the industry thatís based around it.

I don't even mean the corporations or media outlets.  A large swath of journalists I have encountered are self-absorbed, slimy fuck holes who literally don't give 2 shits about the truth of a story they are writing, they are ONLY looking for anything that can be twisted to fit their narrative.  And, mind you, I've dealt with hundreds of journalists in my time - I'd say only about 20% of them are legitimately trying to write an unbiased article and looking for the real story.  The other 80%...well...let's just say I'd rather deal with a group of lawyers than a group of those fucktard "journalists".
Thatís understandable and your experience is valid. Iím not doubting it at all. In fact, Iíd be more skeptical if you said all the journalists you met were decent people. But I donít think that negates the filmís message, or journalism as a field. It certainly says a lot about the people that go into the field, but the purpose of a free press remains to be immensely essential in my opinion. Extending the film metaphor, there are so many people who have formed an entire career out of making movies, yet are absolutely reprehensible human beings that donít even care about the art. They certainly sully cinema, but you canít deny film and art in general are still important facets of a civilized society.

Furthermore, wouldnít it make sense to blame the corporations and outlets that warp these people into scumbags? Iím not saying every single journalist out there was always an angel who just happened to become a victim of executive micromanagement, but considering the toxic nature of how our news system is set up... that just seems more logical. Hate the game, not the player. Reform the system and fix the causes, donít blame the symptoms.

1 - My point is there really isn't a "free press" in regards to trying their best to research and print and true and unbiased story.  Most of the individual members of the press (at least that I've encountered) are merely looking for the most "clicks" - regardless of whether or not their story is true or accurate.  So, "free press" in terms of "anyone can say anything regardless of whether or not there's a shred of truth to it" isn't all that important to me tbh. 

2-To simply blame the corporations and outlets is lazy to me.  I personally know a couple of legitimate journalists that work for these same outlets that the scumbags work for.  Corporations can only change people as much as they're willing to be changed. 

3-It seems you and I have a very different opinions as to the goals and methods of journalists.  I find the large majority of them to be lazy, sleezy, and only looking to their own self interests in the stories they write.  I've personally experienced this repeatedly.  So you're gonna have a pretty tough time getting me to blame the corporations when I know for a fact that most of these journalists (that I've encountered) are simply a bunch of egotistical pricks that truly believe their job is to "make" the news, not "report" the news.
Not exactly. I know the goals of the media arenít anywhere near noble. What Iím saying is that The Post is advocating for media that does have noble intentions. It doesnít necessarily endorse the current system we have, it hopes for a better one and praises the legitimate journalists who retain their integrity despite everything else.

And, Iím assuming that you met these journalists while on the job. Now, correct me if Iím wrong, but can you really compare sports reporters to those that expose unethical government conduct? Iím just saying, perhaps your experiences with journalism were that bad because of the type of journalists you tend to meet and encounter in your field.

Yes they are of the same mindset - "story in mind - find "evidence" or "quotes" that support pre-conceived notion" - write it in the most dastardly way possible to ensure the most clicks and tap into the most emotion - don't worry at all about accuracy or both sides of the story.  Rinse, repeat.  It's been this way for decades.  Maybe it's gotten a little worse lately, but while some people are just now coming to the revelation that the majority of the media are straight up liars, I've known this for so long that nothing in this specific cycle has surprised me in the least.

Glad you enjoyed The Post - it's simply not a movie I'm going to watch because, for me, it would be watching the elevation of an industry I know to be so corrupt.  So there's really zero chance I'll enjoy it - so it makes no sense to waste my time with it.

$+/\|_°|\|

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #84 on: January 26, 2018, 12:53:45 am »
No - I'm REALLY not interested in The Post.  Like, that looks like preachy, slanted garbage to me personally.  I'd certainly see the other two before the Post.

Eh... only if you buy into the narrative that it's at all relevant to what's going on right now, which to be fair it kinda isn't. Comparing Trump to Nixon is one thing, but I refuse to allow comparisons between the Washington Post in its golden age and, say, Buzzfeed's pee-pee dossier. As a movie about the days when reporters did actual reporting, it's kinda nice. That said, the cinematography is ugly as hell and the film as a whole pales in comparison to All the President's Men. Definitely skippable.

Loved All the President's Men.  And I don't even really care about the topic of today - it feels like a movie where the media is going to depicted as this beacon of truth who is doing it for the good of the people and that anyone who opposes them are evil.  I mean, I guess it follows some of today's stuff - but I've thought the media was horribly corrupt, hypocritical, and morally reprehensible for about 20 years now.  I've dealt with too many of them far too often to want to see a movie portraying them as the altruistic "good guys".
Iíd counter that the filmís more about how government censorship is evil rather than that questioning the media is evil, but to each his own I suppose.

But I'm betting it's not showing any of the immorality or extreme biases of the media - I'm guessing they are painted in the light of being pious and the government is the evil entity?
Thatís a fair point, but you have to realize that from a filmmaking standpoint, it would make no sense. What purpose would that serve the story? Nuance is important, but it seems like pointing out the media itself isnít squeaky clean itself would distract/detract from the message of the film which doesnít really even have to do with any of that. And Iíd argue that the movie expresses more admiration for journalism and how important of a role it has in society, rather than the media corporations and outlets that supply our news.

Thereís a very big difference between the two. Itís like filmmaking as a craft and the actual film industry. Yeah, the film industry is full of terrible people and does tons of harm. That doesnít invalidate the artform of cinema itself. It doesnít mean making movies is an inherently bad thing, just the industry thatís based around it.

I don't even mean the corporations or media outlets.  A large swath of journalists I have encountered are self-absorbed, slimy fuck holes who literally don't give 2 shits about the truth of a story they are writing, they are ONLY looking for anything that can be twisted to fit their narrative.  And, mind you, I've dealt with hundreds of journalists in my time - I'd say only about 20% of them are legitimately trying to write an unbiased article and looking for the real story.  The other 80%...well...let's just say I'd rather deal with a group of lawyers than a group of those fucktard "journalists".
Thatís understandable and your experience is valid. Iím not doubting it at all. In fact, Iíd be more skeptical if you said all the journalists you met were decent people. But I donít think that negates the filmís message, or journalism as a field. It certainly says a lot about the people that go into the field, but the purpose of a free press remains to be immensely essential in my opinion. Extending the film metaphor, there are so many people who have formed an entire career out of making movies, yet are absolutely reprehensible human beings that donít even care about the art. They certainly sully cinema, but you canít deny film and art in general are still important facets of a civilized society.

Furthermore, wouldnít it make sense to blame the corporations and outlets that warp these people into scumbags? Iím not saying every single journalist out there was always an angel who just happened to become a victim of executive micromanagement, but considering the toxic nature of how our news system is set up... that just seems more logical. Hate the game, not the player. Reform the system and fix the causes, donít blame the symptoms.

1 - My point is there really isn't a "free press" in regards to trying their best to research and print and true and unbiased story.  Most of the individual members of the press (at least that I've encountered) are merely looking for the most "clicks" - regardless of whether or not their story is true or accurate.  So, "free press" in terms of "anyone can say anything regardless of whether or not there's a shred of truth to it" isn't all that important to me tbh. 

2-To simply blame the corporations and outlets is lazy to me.  I personally know a couple of legitimate journalists that work for these same outlets that the scumbags work for.  Corporations can only change people as much as they're willing to be changed. 

3-It seems you and I have a very different opinions as to the goals and methods of journalists.  I find the large majority of them to be lazy, sleezy, and only looking to their own self interests in the stories they write.  I've personally experienced this repeatedly.  So you're gonna have a pretty tough time getting me to blame the corporations when I know for a fact that most of these journalists (that I've encountered) are simply a bunch of egotistical pricks that truly believe their job is to "make" the news, not "report" the news.
Not exactly. I know the goals of the media arenít anywhere near noble. What Iím saying is that The Post is advocating for media that does have noble intentions. It doesnít necessarily endorse the current system we have, it hopes for a better one and praises the legitimate journalists who retain their integrity despite everything else.

And, Iím assuming that you met these journalists while on the job. Now, correct me if Iím wrong, but can you really compare sports reporters to those that expose unethical government conduct? Iím just saying, perhaps your experiences with journalism were that bad because of the type of journalists you tend to meet and encounter in your field.

Yes they are of the same mindset - "story in mind - find "evidence" or "quotes" that support pre-conceived notion" - write it in the most dastardly way possible to ensure the most clicks and tap into the most emotion - don't worry at all about accuracy or both sides of the story.  Rinse, repeat.  It's been this way for decades.  Maybe it's gotten a little worse lately, but while some people are just now coming to the revelation that the majority of the media are straight up liars, I've known this for so long that nothing in this specific cycle has surprised me in the least.

Glad you enjoyed The Post - it's simply not a movie I'm going to watch because, for me, it would be watching the elevation of an industry I know to be so corrupt.  So there's really zero chance I'll enjoy it - so it makes no sense to waste my time with it.
Thatís very saddening to hear. Perhaps I was a bit too idealistic, and to be fair The Post is too.

The One Who Lurks

  • Tyler Perry
  • **
  • Posts: 952
  • I'm still here. Lord knows why.
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #85 on: January 26, 2018, 01:57:14 am »
Spoiler (hover to show)

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4285
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #86 on: January 28, 2018, 05:04:00 pm »
Call Me by Your Name: + (10/10)
Goodbye!

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2018, 07:53:46 pm »
I also added Tatum's scores since he's on vacation.


Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Moderator
  • Wes Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 7200
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #88 on: January 28, 2018, 08:10:30 pm »
I also added Tatum's scores since he's on vacation.


Add my CMBYN score (currently a 7.5/10 for reference).

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #89 on: January 28, 2018, 10:02:13 pm »
Shape of Water = 7/10.  Was going strong until the last 15 minutes.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Moderator
  • Wes Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 7200
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #90 on: January 28, 2018, 10:30:10 pm »
Shape of Water = 7/10.  Was going strong until the last 15 minutes.
Did you think the ending happened? I do agree that the rushed ending is basically the sole weakness of the film.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #91 on: January 28, 2018, 10:39:49 pm »
Shape of Water = 7/10.  Was going strong until the last 15 minutes.
Did you think the ending happened? I do agree that the rushed ending is basically the sole weakness of the film.

I absolutely hated how the Russian scientist completely betrayed the foundation of his character that was established throughout the film.  I know they had to get the movie to the docks at the end, but I thought it was terrible how they executed it. 

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Moderator
  • Wes Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 7200
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #92 on: February 04, 2018, 05:49:11 pm »
Added a poll and I tweaked a couple of my scores.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Moderator
  • Wes Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 7200
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: Consensus XXXIV: The 2018 Best Picture Nominees
« Reply #93 on: March 04, 2018, 03:31:39 pm »
Bump for Costigan. Feel free to check out the other consensus threads at your leisure.

Edit: Also bumping so Diego adds my scores for CMBYN and The Post.

 

+- Hot Threads

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Kale Pasta
Today at 01:44:04 am

Awards Season by Kale Pasta
Today at 01:43:13 am

The Video Games MegaThread by Charles Longboat Jr.
December 07, 2018, 01:06:29 am

The 2018 US Midterms and Goober-natorial Elections Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 04:19:15 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 03:59:28 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
November 26, 2018, 11:58:34 pm

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Charles Longboat Jr.
November 26, 2018, 11:56:39 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm