Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 25, 2006 19:12:52 GMT
And what has become of Caché, then? I have a feeling you'll love that.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 25, 2006 19:47:18 GMT
I would see it tomorrow, but there's no longer any early showings. I may have missed it, unless it sticks around for another week or two. I'm surprised it's played for as long as it has, though.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 26, 2006 0:54:51 GMT
It was kept on for another week than originally scheduled at my local arthouse, due to popular demand. The screening I went to was fully packed, almost, which was great to see.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 27, 2006 16:11:18 GMT
Now that we're a day over the deadline, I seriously suggest you start getting final votes in if you haven't already nominated...
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 28, 2006 0:16:35 GMT
Guys;
Me and You and Everyone We Know, Dear Wendy, Wolf Creek, Match Point, Grizzly Man, The Squid and the Whale, Shopgirl, Paradise Now, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Crash and Keane are all 2004 productions.
Sorry, I feel like a bit of an asshole saying that, but I'm not sure how to cast my vote if there's confusion about eligibility.
Also, Eternal Sunshine is a 2003 production, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 28, 2006 0:21:27 GMT
Personally, I go by release dates rather then production dates. Also, Timothy Treadwell died at the end of 2003, so are you sure about that?
My votes should be finished tonight.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 28, 2006 0:22:59 GMT
Yeah, it had its debut at Sundance in January of 2005, which means it had to be submitted by September of 2004.
I think there's a late submission option that continues to November, but anything that debuts at Sundance was completed before the end of the previous year.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 28, 2006 15:01:28 GMT
Sin City, too. 2004. The more you know...
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 28, 2006 18:21:52 GMT
I've been going by Sight & Sound's dates; they'er pretty spot-on; festival screenings often differ from the actual completed version.
Thanks for pointing them out, anyway; but how long have you known about them, before telling us? At this rate, we';; never get the awards done. At least not before Oscar.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 28, 2006 18:30:47 GMT
Thanks for pointing them out, anyway; but how long have you known about them, before telling us? I just found out yesterday, I'm updating my database with accurate production dates. I'm not sure where to go with this... any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 28, 2006 19:32:09 GMT
My voting is done, finished with laziness, because I simply cannot stand this day.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 28, 2006 19:49:43 GMT
cant we just use the movies that are Oscar eligible this year?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 28, 2006 20:14:07 GMT
I'll go along with whatever.
I think production dates are infinitely more valuable, focusing on the relationship between the artist and the art, rather than the financier/distributor and the consumer. For some reason the information isn't often readily available.
As far as I can ascertain, these are the only feature-length 2005 productions I've seen;
40 Year Old Virgin, The A Cock and Bull Story A History of Violence Bad News Bears Batman Begins Broken Flowers Brothers Grimm, The Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Corpse Bride Jarhead King Kong Land of the Dead Last Days Munich New World, The Red Eye Revolver Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story! Syriana Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit War of the Worlds Where the Truth Lies Wild Blue Yonder, The
And I'm not sure about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Probably not.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 28, 2006 20:58:25 GMT
Go by what the film's end credits give as the copyright date.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 28, 2006 21:03:19 GMT
the easiest way to go about it I think would probably be just to go by whatever year IMDb calls it
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 28, 2006 21:08:37 GMT
I'd prefer copyright years. I don't like this constant deferral of authority to IMDB, which is ultimately no more accurate than any of the people submitting dubious information to it.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Mar 1, 2006 18:02:13 GMT
I think production dates are infinitely more valuable, focusing on the relationship between the artist and the art, rather than the financier/distributor and the consumer. For some reason the information isn't often readily available. don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean, but this doesn't make sense. as the audience, you have no relation to the period the artist made the work of art. only the finished product is of interest, and only that version is judged in events like these. now, first screening dates are questionable wether to take a festival screening as first (like Imdb does, often the copyright year) or the regular release (Oscars). but using production dates is pretty useless. most films are finished months before release. some films have 3 or 4 year production periods. also, there's difference between the shooting period, post-production period and marketing period, so when does the production end? and I'm not even starting on films having several different release dates internationally, sometimes with different versions. I'd prefer general release as the norm, without release the audience does not get to see the film. but copyright dates seem like a somewhat checkable mean.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2006 19:01:06 GMT
don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean, but this doesn't make sense. as the audience, you have no relation to the period the artist made the work of art. only the finished product is of interest, and only that version is judged in events like these. I completely disagree. My relationship is directly with the artist, via the art. I'm not interested in when that art became a marketed commodity, because that's not what it is to me. When I'm watching a film, I'm considering it as a piece of art, and the only exchange is between me and the artist, so the only pertinent time period is the one in which the artist was creating the art that I'm experiencing. That's when the film was created, so that's when it's of. The idea of release dates being the authority is totally peculiar to cinema. A painter's work isn't dated based on its first exhibitions. When the film is completed. Why not? This is exactly the reason that using release dates is absurd. Without release the audiences don't get to see the film. True. But with just an initial release in one country the majority still don't - and that's where we take our date from, based on that reasoning? There's only one completion date. There's hundreds of release dates.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2006 19:42:18 GMT
Has anybody checked the end credits of Eternal Sunshine yet? Is it 2003?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2006 19:57:08 GMT
No, it's copyrighted to 2004 (but was produced in 2003).
|
|