Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Mar 2, 2009 15:25:48 GMT
I've seen all except Chop Shop, Che and Three Monkeys. even The Reader.
Can't say my personal favorite was present in much of the categories, but overall I think the list is nice. Too bad only three films made the cut, if only we had more nominations...
worst looking categorie: Best Supporting Female. I didn't have quite convincing nominations myself either. too bad there's no love for Sean Penn (well, not enough), he would've gotten my vote.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 2, 2009 15:32:05 GMT
Sorry, we're going to have to remove The Fall from the two categories it's made it into because it's a 2006 title.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Mar 2, 2009 15:34:31 GMT
Sorry, we're going to have to remove The Fall from the two categories it's made it into because it's a 2006 title. not by theatrical release. I thought that was the criterium (and rightly so)?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 2, 2009 15:55:07 GMT
No, the eligibility criterion was that it be an IMDb-2008 title, or an IMDb-2007 title that hadn't been nominated last year or received a wide release in 2007. IMDb-2006 titles are ineligible; there has to be a cut-off point or we could go back indefinitely.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 2, 2009 16:18:11 GMT
What a pity, since FCM seems enchanted by THE FALL (which I'll try to check out on DVD).
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Mar 2, 2009 17:26:38 GMT
I am also weary (and ignorant) when it comes to downloading things and what not, but after clicking just a few links, I was able to make this work on my computer! I'll be watching this tomorrow, and if I have time this week, I wouldn't mind rewatching the others.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 2, 2009 17:28:48 GMT
You're not actually downloading anything; it's just a stream.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Mar 2, 2009 17:47:04 GMT
You're not actually downloading anything; it's just a stream. That's where the ignorance kicked in.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Mar 2, 2009 17:52:26 GMT
The FBI or something is going to raid my home soon. I've put 3 monkeys, synec and W&L for download. I didn't go for the stream, as my internet is super crappy of late for some reason.... buffering and restarting annoys the hell out of me. So I have gone back to torrents.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 2, 2009 17:53:55 GMT
Just load the page well in advance of watching it, to let the buffer reach the end of the film. That way there's no opportunity for the stream to catch up with the buffer.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 2, 2009 19:35:27 GMT
The quality of that stream looks miserable to me.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Mar 3, 2009 19:14:39 GMT
No, the eligibility criterion was that it be an IMDb-2008 title, or an IMDb-2007 title that hadn't been nominated last year or received a wide release in 2007. well, The Fall is no different, except for screening(s) on one festival. what's is the difference between a year long of many limited releases and festival screenings, and 14 month long period of four festivals, without any official theatrical release? I'd say this is a minor flaw in the FCM awards rules, that should be revisited next time. even if it is only this exceptional case IMDb-2006 titles are ineligible; there has to be a cut-off point or we could go back indefinitely. well, not entirely true. The Fall was screened at one (ONE!!) festival in late 2006, according to Imdb, and only a handfull in 2007. not until spring 2008 did it get a theatrical release, both limited and wide, in countries around the world. so, who could have seen this film in 2007, or even 2006? A few Canadians, and some industry people (press, crew, would-be-distributors, etc.). The FCM is not a industry-community, as far as I know. FCM is "by the people, for the people" bla bla, you know, we're all just normal, regular filmgoers and buffs, we have to wait for theatrical releases or DVD's to see films, the occasional film festival or preview screening not included. so there's more validity to including a film in this exceptional position than we may have thought. I'm not sure if you can go back indefinitely, so much relies on a movie's theatrical release. (PS, sorry this discussion disrupts this particular thread)
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Mar 3, 2009 19:27:54 GMT
There will always be a flaw in the system, most of my yearly cinema going is at festivals and the odd press screening so sometimes catch things earlier myself, I saw the Bela Tarr film in '07 for instance, but have voted for it this year as it seems to fit in with everybody else.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 3, 2009 21:34:18 GMT
We had basically the same debate last year. Pherdy, the flaw in your reasoning is that the "theatrical release" that a film such as The Fall ultimately receives is not in any way comparable to the kind that a film such as 300 does. As I said before, "if all we watched were the blockbusters, with their international platform releases, this'd hardly be an issue at all." Take a film such as I Don't Want to Sleep Alone, my favourite film of 2006. It was never released in Ireland. According to IMDb, the first non-festival public screenings it received were in Serbia. How is that more relevant to me (or anyone on this board) than a plethora of festival screenings in various places equally remote from me? Your argument is premised on the assumption that non-festival screenings necessarily make a film significantly more widely available than festival screenings do, but for many films that's just not true; the reality is instead one of 'touring prints' that slowly make their way from major city to major city, screening for a day or two at each stop, and really effectively being no more accessible to the non-lucky-bastard than one-time showings at film festivals are. So since a film like I Don't Want to Sleep Alone basically never received what we could appropriately term a "theatrical release", which year's awards should it be eligible for? Whether it's 2007, 2008 or 2009, the chances are that anyone who's seen it (and hundreds of other films like it) will have seen it on DVD. Werckmeister Harmonies is another good example - first screened in 2000, never screened in Ireland to my knowledge, finally released on Region 2 DVD in 2004, and I saw it in 2005. Or, actually, what about Satan's Tango? Is that 1994 (first screening) or 2007 (DVD release)?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 3, 2009 22:07:57 GMT
This reminds me way too much of the nonsense bullshit reasoning why WALTZ WITH BASHIR initially wasn't nominated for Foreign Picture originally because it used too much English or whatever sillyness.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Mar 3, 2009 23:48:02 GMT
DVD release again depends upon region. It is possible that the DVD may not be released at all in some region for considerable time. So I don't think we'll ever find a good solution to this.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 4, 2009 1:29:52 GMT
I think the cut-off should be relative to the case. In the case of The Fall, I'm not entirely against it, but that's perhaps because I don't think it has any chance of winning anything.
It's not ideal, but I don't think it's miserable enough to give it a pass. With a bit of evaluative adjustment, it's better than nothing.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 7, 2009 15:37:55 GMT
Just a reminder that the deadline is tonight.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 7, 2009 16:01:08 GMT
Well I voted.
And I feel dirty.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Mar 7, 2009 18:33:06 GMT
Deadline is end of March 7 for everyone in the world right? Not that I have any chance of checking out any more movies, still...
|
|