I couldn't help but noticing that most of the oscar nominated films premiered in winter and most of them chose to premier at the toronto international film festival. Does this mean that as a first time filmmaker, it's best to carefully target a specific festival if you're, let's say, confident that your project will be well received?

Moved to Viewfinder.

I would say that if you are absolutely positive that it will be well recieved then you should go for the bigger name fests like Toronto and Sundance. With that said, as long as any given fest doesn't require that your film make it's premiere there, then you should submit to multiple fests - as many as you can.

On the topic of the Oscars, anyone groan aloud when you heard the nominees?

Poke

On the topic of the Oscars, anyone goran aloud when you heard the nominees?


I did.

I can't believe they passed over that http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_moore.gif film!

Must ... resist .... getting ... annoyed....

Hopefully this will be Johnny Depp's year.. he's been nominated before, but hasn't won yet, has he?

Yeah, I couldn't believe they passed on Farenheit 9/11 either. I was sure it'd be in the Best Picture category (although that would make me groan louder).

And I feel like Depp is only getting recognized for earlier work that he was passed over on.

Poke

And I feel like Depp is only getting recognized for earlier work that he was passed over on.



Better late than never.

But the Oscars are supposed to be about the most recent year in film. I get tired when people get "make up" nominations.

Poke

You don't think he deserved a nomination for Finding Neverland? I haven't seen it, but heard nothing but good things..

But the Oscars are supposed to be about the most recent year in film. I get tired when people get "make up" nominations.

Poke

You are right, but Depp does deserve some recognition. I felt the same as you when PJ won for LotR:RofK. IMO he should have won for all three. But then I guess that is an entirely different circumstance. Have you seen "Finding Neverland?" Since I haven't I can't speak on his performance. Does he deserve the nomination?

I saw half of it (snuck in after Life Aquatic let out). He was good, but not as good as Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine.

Yeah, PJ should have won for all three (Chicago is a better film than The Two Towers?), but what I'm talking about is something we could call the Denzel Syndrome.

Poke

Jim Carrey got the nom for the GG's but not for CC or the Oscars. I think that is sad. He really outdid himself in underplaying the role. Everyone knows he could have put an incredible amount more into it but he played a semi-depressed, lonely guy for 1 1/2 hours. That is total acting.

Winslett deserves the nom. Watch her in any other film and then watch who she is in ESotSM.

I'm happy Sunshine got the nod for best screenplay, but I don't think it should have been nom for the best screenplay, but best picture. Read the script and you'll see how it was turned into a better picture after production and post was over with.

Amazing both male leads were left out of noms for Sideways.

Phantom doesn't get nominated for costume, but Ray does?

To Skin a Cat not nominated for best Live action short? What?

To Skin a Cat not nominated for best Live action short? What?

Your already a mod, you can quit kissing up now :lol:

Oh, that was Dan, the founder of indietalk.com 's short? I forgot!

Shorts are only eligible for competition if the win the ITOOFC.

Poke

That's not entirely true..

They can be eligable after a certain length theatrical run in LA (and I believe NY)... which can be bought. ;)

Agreed. It was definately refreshing to see Carrey not hamming it up for the camera, for once. I think he should do more dramatic roles.

Dude I was joking.

Poke

Dude I was joking.

Though in all fairness, it was a most excellent and reasonable idea. :cool:

Dude I was joking about joking.

Poke

Here's last year's official list of festivals you can submit to to become Oscar eligible for your short: http://www.oscars.org/76academyawards/rules/rules_shortfest.html

I don't see the ITOOFC on there?

Here's last year's official list of festivals you can submit to to become Oscar eligible for your short: http://www.oscars.org/76academyawards/rules/rules_shortfest.html

I don't see the ITOOFC on there?

Hmm.. that is most odd indeed.

Some of the films that have come out of ITOOFC are the stuff of legend now.

Must be an oversight. I'm half-tempted to drop them an email, asking why it is not listed on that page.

:cool:

Wait are we talking about the Oscars or the Woscars? The Woscars are connected with the ITOOFC, not the Oscars.

Poke

Brad Bird deserves his nominations.

That brings up something that bugs the crap out of me. Did anyone truly believe that Beauty and the Beast was Best Picture worthy? And if it was, why can't truly great animated films like The Incredibles and The Triplets of Bellville be nominated for Best Pic?

I know the year BatB was nominated was a week year, but come on, you're telling me that Sideways is a better movie than The Incredibles?

Also, why can't Bird be nominated for Directing? Was that not the best directed movie of the year?

And while we are on the subject of things that bug me, why is Jamie Foxx nominated as an Actor in a Supporting Role for Collateral? Was he not the protagonist in that film? Who was he supporting? Everyone was supporting him. I think he should have two nods for Best Actor.

Poke

Wasn't Beauty & the Beast one of the first to use a lot of computer background plates and stuff? That could be a big part of its nomination.

why is Jamie Foxx nominated as an Actor in a Supporting Role for Collateral? Was he not the protagonist in that film? Who was he supporting? Everyone was supporting him. I think he should have two nods for Best Actor.

i thought that Vincent was the protagonist as he pushed the basic plot forward, demanding to take us all to the next killer. I believed Foxx to be the antagonist in that he was always saying 'hey, lets all get along', even when he seemed to be the protagonist and pushing the plot along in a new direction, it was all in reaction rather than original action.
comment on oscars: sad thing is that as they gave Denzel a nod for that 'performance' in Training Day, what could be described as the cultural importance of Foxx's upcoming victory has been taken away - a very sad thing. This may mean that he won't win as it will not be as important a win as if someone else took it. All the Oscars are not all about films, and that is costing film big-willy-time (local saying, sorry)

i thought that Vincent was the protagonist as he pushed the basic plot forward, demanding to take us all to the next killer. I believed Foxx to be the antagonist in that he was always saying 'hey, lets all get along', even when he seemed to be the protagonist and pushing the plot along in a new direction, it was all in reaction rather than original action.

Vincent was the antagonist. Max's motivation or goal as the protagonist was to get out of the situation with as little death as possible, which made his "let's all get along" stance actually a proactive response to the same old, same old killing of Vincent. Yes, the meeting with Vincent was the kick start of the plot (this is the case with many firt meetings between the protag and antag), but it was Max's actions that drove the story forward.

Poke

Vincent was the antagonist. Max's motivation or goal as the protagonist was to get out of the situation with as little death as possible, which made his "let's all get along" stance actually a proactive response to the same old, same old killing of Vincent.

his stance was in opposition to Vincent's stance. as V was the originator of the plot, his drive was primary to it all. Irrelevant of if M's stance was proactive, it only existed as opposition to another, and did not exist on its own, whereas the protagonist has self-sufficient goals, that don't depend on the actions of another.

BUT this is all following what i was taught at college that it was all about the SOURCE of the action, but if thats true then the protagonists would have been the law, and the antagonists - the criminals
and i wouldn't have liked that at all :no:

To be fair the guy who taught me lost his job over allegations of (((:censored: ))) - so its probably best not to follow his line too much.............

it was Max's actions that drove the story forward.

In truth i think it was more of an action-reaction that made both of them pro + an tagonists according to various egs in the film.
However, are you saying that an actor has to be playing a protagonist in order to get nominated for Best Actor? Is that actually how it works?

The categories are "Actor/Actress in a Leading Role" and "Actor/Actress in a Supporting Role." They no longer go by "Best Actor/Actress" or "Best Supprting Actor/Actress," I'm not even sure they ever did. So, going by those terms, Jamie Foxx should not be nominated for Collateral as an "Actor in a Supporting Role" because his role was not supporting.

Poke