69th Golden Globe Awards a/k/a Ricky Gervais Strikes Back

[Secret Fawful]

Thank God there are people who will stand up for this. Faith in the human race is restored.

 

[Project862006]

thats 4 minutes tho

watchmen had a beautiful opening credits with no dialogue aswell

 

[Project862006]

Thank God there are people who will stand up for this. Faith in the human race is restored.

you have a different opinion than me so you are wrong

thats exactly what your post sounded like

 

[danoyse]

thats 4 minutes tho

watchmen had a beautiful opening credits with no dialogue aswell

What difference does that make? Up told an entire life story in 4 minutes, without dialogue, with virtually no sound, and it's the most critically praised sequence in the whole movie.

The point is that you can tell a story without sound and without dialogue, and if you do it well, it will work with an audience.

If you haven't seen The Artist, how are you so sure it didn't work?

 

[Project862006]

did i say it did'nt work ?

i am just saying dont use a 4 minute clip to prove a whole movie will work with some people

 

[HighFivingMF]

You people don't realize what's at stake here.

Nothing. We're just some *******s on the internet. That movie's already getting the accolades and attention... It's well past successful.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Nothing. We're just some *******s on the internet. That movie's already getting the accolades and attention... It's well past successful.

There is something at stake. A lasting impact. A positive impact that gets more of this kind of thing made. People don't have to like this kind of thing. You don't have to like this kind of thing. But all I want is that people don't drag it down so that those of us who do don't get to see more of it except at a rate of every fifteen years. You might think you don't matter. You might think one person can't equal a larger mindset, but you can.

I'm merely doing my part one person at a time, trying to keep this antagonism toward the film at bay as much as possible.

 

[danoyse]

did i say it did'nt work ?

i am just saying dont use a 4 minute clip to prove a whole movie will work with some people

Sure I can. You just don't want to see the movie, so nothing will convince you.

The point to posting that was that a sequence without dialogue and virtually no sound still powerfully told an entire story. There's no reason an entire movie can't do the same thing if it's done right.

And since you don't want to see The Artist, you really can't be an authority on whether or not that works, right?

 

[Project862006]

why are you getting so defensive

like me and a few people who choose no to see it is insulting to you and some others beliefs or something

being a silent film has nothing to do why it does'nt appeal to me

and while it works in that 4 minute video it can easily over stay its welcome for the geenral audience

 

[flickchick85]

and while it works in that 4 minute video it can easily over stay its welcome for the geenral audience

And yet, it doesn't.

 

[Secret Fawful]

See, I don't really care about convincing anyone to like the movie. I care when people tear it down for reasons that don't really make sense and about antagonism toward it in general. It seems like nowadays you can't not care for a film without outright hating it. It has to be that you either love it or despise it, but it can't be something more complex, like not really enjoying watching it but respecting what it's trying to do and understanding why others might see merit in it. I call for complexity in decisions regarding thoughts on movies, but I rarely get it. That's why I say people who say certain things are idiots when they say them. Because some responses are so base and quick to cut things down that they have no real intelligence put into them at all.

 

[danoyse]

why are you getting so defensive

like me and a few people who choose no to see it is insulting to you and some others beliefs or something

being a silent film has nothing to do why it does'nt appeal to me

Why do you have such a problem with people making a point?

I don't care if you see the movie or not. Makes absolutely no difference to me one way or another.

Those of us who have seen it are just explaining why it worked for us and why we think it's deserving of the acclaim it's getting, and why we think audiences are (and will) enjoy it.

I posted the clip as an example of an effective story done without dialogue to show how it works.

You haven't seen the movie, so...no, you can't tell anyone here that it doesn't work in The Artist.

If your only response is that we're getting "defensive", well, then...you ran out of responses to the argument.

 

[Dark Phantom]

There is something at stake. A lasting impact. A positive impact that gets more of this kind of thing made. People don't have to like this kind of thing. You don't have to like this kind of thing. But all I ask is that you don't drag it down so that those of us who do don't get to see more of it at a rate that isn't every fifteen years.

Agreed. To expand upon this, I feel that this in direct correlation with the widening divergences in the social classes. Hollywood is becoming so greedy that they will churn out lower quality films if it means a wider audience will buy tickets. In opposition, we have actors, directors, producers, and crews who are looking for challenging material to enhance the craft. I'll be perfectly honest, this year, I wish I had been more interested to see the films nominated... if only they were more heavily advertised. Out of all the films nominated for Golden Globes, I have only seen The Artist. I saw it, not only because i love silent films, but because it seemed like such a risk to take in this day and age. I applaud the entire creative team behind that movie. They had a vision contrasting the regurgitation Hollywood spits out. For that, they deserve everyone's respect.

 

[C. Lee]

I'm looking forward to seeing THE ARTIST when I can. I saw the trailer a month or so ago and have been waiting for it to come to my area. I have many Silent films in my DVD collection. A good story is a good story...whether it is silent, sound, color, or black and white.

 

[Project862006]

Why do you have such a problem with people making a point?

I don't care if you see the movie or not. Makes absolutely no difference to me one way or another.

Those of us who have seen it are just explaining why it worked for us and why we think it's deserving of the acclaim it's getting, and why we think audiences are (and will) enjoy it.

I posted the clip as an example of an effective story done without dialogue to show how it works.

You haven't seen the movie, so...no, you can't tell anyone here that it doesn't work in The Artist.

If your only response is that we're getting "defensive", well, then...you ran out of responses to the argument.

read my post again did i say it does'nt work quit putting words in my mouth

but to show a 4 minute clip to show that possibly a 2 hour silent film is gonna work with modern genral audiences is absolutely absurd

Do you think UP would of been as effective without the dialouge of Russell and Carl?

 

[Hamill-Joker]

Think of another story without dialogue/sound (after the opening applause) and look how that worked:

[YT]GroDErHIM_0[/YT]

It's not all that different from how The Artist tells its story.

You make a good point with the clip and I think my problem was that I was thinking about some specific moments and how having no sound could effect them.

I remember when taking a film class, we watched the shower stabbing from Psycho three times. Once with no sound, once with no music, and once with sound and music. I personally felt that no sound lessened the scenes effectiveness. However, there were some who felt that no sound made the scene more horrifying, so I guess it is more a matter of opinion.

And also, I didn't mean to say that The Artist didn't deserve Best Picture because it is silent. It was more of a question in my head when I wrote it down and it ended up as a statement in the post.

 

[Secret Fawful]

You make a good point with the clip and I think my problem was that I was thinking about some specific moments and how having no sound could effect them.

I remember when taking a film class, we watched the shower stabbing from Psycho three times. Once with no sound, once with no music, and once with sound and music. I personally felt that no sound lessened the scenes effectiveness. However, there were some who felt that no sound made the scene more horrifying, so I guess it is more a matter of opinion.

And also, I didn't mean to say that The Artist didn't deserve Best Picture because it is silent. It was more of a question in my head when I wrote it down and it ended up as a statement in the post.

Also, on that Psycho scene, the scene is so synonymous with its music that our brains are culturally hard-wired to accept it the easiest with the score attached. However, outside of the screaming and the trickling of water, the scene has no other sounds. It's hard, though, to make this argument that that class made as silent films were designed around their lack of sound and non-silent films aren't. It's hard to take one thing out of its design and put it in another design and expect it to work. The scene they used is probably the easiest to use since it only uses around two main sounds outside of the score.

 

[flickchick85]

read my post again did i say it does'nt work quit putting words in my mouth

but to show a 4 minute clip to show that possibly a 2 hour silent film is gonna work with modern genral audiences is absolutely absurd

Come on now, it's not like he could have posted a full-length movie here as an example. He was just showing how effective wordless/soundless storytelling can be. And that IS the most effective part of that whole movie (the one that had everybody talking). The Russ and Carl stuff was fun too, because it was fun Pixar characters being fun, but the movie's heart, the moment audiences fell in love with that movie (and Carl), can be found in that 4-minute sequence.

And why do you keep talking as if someone needs to "prove" The Artist can work for the general audience? Everyone here who loves it IS part of the general audience - we're not critics or industry insiders - and it obviously worked for us. And it seems to be working pretty well for the sold out crowds who are seeing it at my theater, too. Hell, the reason it's gotten so much buzz at festivals to begin with is because it's such a crowd pleaser. So I'd say it's working just fine for the general audience.

No one's saying you have to be a part of that audience. It obviously won't be to everyone's taste, and if you don't think it will be to yours then I don't blame you for not wanting to spend time/money on it. That's cool. What I don't understand having such a dismissive attitude toward something you haven't seen that's getting acclaim from all over and entertaining so many people.

 

[Doctor Jones]

So... uh, I plan to see The Artist.

 

[danoyse]

read my post again did i say it does'nt work quit putting words in my mouth

but to show a 4 minute clip to show that possibly a 2 hour silent film is gonna work with modern genral audiences is absolutely absurd

Do you think UP would of been as effective without the dialouge of Russell and Carl?

Quit having a tantrum because you can't properly respond to a discussion.

It's not absurd. Read flickchick's post again - showings of The Artist have been selling out. It was crowded when I saw it. People on another forum I read have been raving about it. C. Lee just posted about how he wants to see it and how he has silent films in his DVD collection. Do you honestly think he's the only one?

It's one of the best-reviewed movies of the year. It won a Golden Globe last night and it's an Oscar frontrunner right now.

Obviously, it's working.

It might not work for you, but thankfully you have the option to stay home if you want. Feel free to do so.

And yes, if they had decided to let the rest of Up playing out as a silent film, it would have worked if they had done it right. If it was as strong as the opening sequence, it would have been fun to see.

Hell, Up did it again towards the end of the movie, and it was another powerful scene:

[YT]PvgVsVmusPg[/YT]

 

[danoyse]

You make a good point with the clip and I think my problem was that I was thinking about some specific moments and how having no sound could effect them.

I remember when taking a film class, we watched the shower stabbing from Psycho three times. Once with no sound, once with no music, and once with sound and music. I personally felt that no sound lessened the scenes effectiveness. However, there were some who felt that no sound made the scene more horrifying, so I guess it is more a matter of opinion.

And also, I didn't mean to say that The Artist didn't deserve Best Picture because it is silent. It was more of a question in my head when I wrote it down and it ended up as a statement in the post.

Psycho is a great example of that too. I love how that scene is completely terrifying, yet you never see him actually stab her.

Look at something like Jaws. Mention that movie, and 9 times out of 10 someone will humming this:

[YT]ZvCI-gNK_y4[/YT]

That movie had an amazing script, but the music was as scary as the shark was.

 

[Secret Fawful]

So... uh, I plan to see The Artist.

WHAT!? I'LL MURDER YOU!

Spoiler

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Well I saw The Descendants and I'm not really sure if it deserves the awards it's getting. My opinion though. George Clooney seemed to play...George Clooney his performance mainly seemed to rely on his facial expressions and his awkwardness with his kids, which worked exceptionally well. There's nothing really wrong with the film, it's just I don't understand all the love this film is getting. I just generally wasn't all that impressed by it.

It's still a more than decent film that people should check out if it's on a cheap Tuesday at their movie theatre (like I did ).

 

[HighFivingMF]

Watched The Descendants. Thought it was pretty good. Credits started. I saw that Dean Pelton wrote it. Now it's amazing.

 

[flickchick85]

Well I saw The Descendants and I'm not really sure if it deserves the awards it's getting. My opinion though. George Clooney seemed to play...George Clooney

I felt the same way. I also hated his narration in it. I love George Clooney in most things, and he was good in that movie, but I don't get where this "career best" talk is coming from, other than than the fact that he had a crying scene, which we rarely get from him.