Academy Awards - Rent and Producers — Page 4

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#76

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/1/06 at 12:08pm

I thought Rent was ok. I didn't absolutely despise it. I just think that it had a lot of flaws that kept me from loving it like I wanted to.

The Producers was a better adaptation of a musical in every possible way in my opinion. That isn't to say that The Producers should have been nominated for the Oscars either, because it shouldn't have - but I did enjoy The Producers far more than Rent.

#77

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/1/06 at 12:14pm

True... I think that even if they had some "star power" in Rent it still wouldn't have been nominated for a "Best Actor/Actress" award. The cast was very natural and I think they did a good job since they are so engrossed in their roles so I don't think that it was a lack of acting on their part. The roles are just not as complete as in an original screenplay and while I still loved it my friends who hadn't seen Rent on B'way before didn't understand why some of the characters were acting in certain ways.

In terms of Cinematography, maybe it was a little "MTV"-y (though MTV now is My Super Sweet 16 and Laguna Beach which were taped nothing like this) but I think that they nailed the NY scenery which was more interesting to me than sweeping views of the Wyoming (well, Alberta Canada) landscape. But that's just me, and like I said, I'll live. But on the subject of MTV, Chbosky's 'Perks of Being A Wallflower' IS an 'MTV' book so the screenplay and set directions could very well be a result of working in the MTV realm.

I'm still going to buy the DVD and enjoy it. And even though only 1/2 the critics liked the movie, they're not going to change my opinion that it was great.

Hopefully others will respond to your thread, Patronus.

i grew up 13 miles north of bohemia and 31 miles northeast of hicksville.

#78

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/1/06 at 12:16pm

"I wasn't really expecting RENT to get anything, but I won't pretend I wasn't hoping for it. Not only because I thought they did an amazing job with it but it would be nice to see someone who isn't your typical Hollywooder get nominated. :-/ Oh well. "

I wouldn't call Bennett Miller, Noah Baumbach, Terrence Howard, Philip Seymour Hoffman, or Tony Kushner a "typical Hollywooder." Considering the most likely recipient of the Best Picture award is going to be a love story about two cowboys, I'd go out on a limb and say this is one of the least "Hollywoody" Oscar years in history. You don't have to be a "typical Hollywooder" to get nominated, but your work does have to be of a certain caliber, and "Rent" wasn't even close.

#79

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/1/06 at 12:23pm

dreaminaret, I'll also be buying the DVD if for no other reason to support a show that has made such a significant impact in my life.

I agree that the New York street shots were nicely shot. However, the cinematography during the songs didn't do much for me.

If nothing else, I hope that upon a 2nd viewing I can find things to make it more enjoyable for me.

TimeSuckage, I couldn't agree more.

I think I know what the poster was trying to say, but it didn't really come out right. This year's Oscar nominees aren't exactly "typical Hollywood." A lot of them are are 1st time nominees and with the exception of the special effects categories there are very few "blockbuster" films here.

Updated On: 2/1/06 at 12:23 PM

#80

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/1/06 at 12:29pm

Patronus, don't get me started on the visual effects category. No nominations for "Revenge of the Sith"? WTF? For another thread, I know, but my panties are in a big twist over this...

#81

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/1/06 at 12:32pm

Yeah, that was really surprising to me as well. Especially given the Academy's propensity to award a franchise's final installment.

The fact that Revenge of the Sith only got one nomination, in the Make Up category no less, makes me wonder who Lucas pissed off.

#82

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/1/06 at 6:34pm

Was anyone else surprised Walk the Line wasn't nominated for Best Picture? I think. I'm surprised that there are only 3 score and 3 song nominations... last year there were 5 each.

Oscar went very different this year, bolder. As previously mentioned, there are several newbies this year. I personally am proud of Pride and Prejudice, with all of it has nominations it garnered from the Oscars. This year will be an interesting one to watch.

~Jkor

#83

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/2/06 at 2:21am

I don't think "Revenge of the Sith" got visual effects nominations simply because of George Lucus's 100% CGI insistance. It sort of kills of half the mistique and actually challenge of doing a good visual effects scene if it is all fake - and since the nominations are decided by people in this feild (in this case I'd say the technicians who do the VE), I'd say it played a big role.

Thanks Patronus for explaining why Brokeback Mountain didn't get a Best Song nomination. I scarily enough think now Dolly Parton has that win locked up.

#84

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/2/06 at 4:59am

well...many of us won't have to sit and watch the show this year...and that is a relief!

"People have their opinions and that doesn't mean that their opinions are wrong or right. I just take it with a grain of salt because opinions are like as*holes, everyone has one". -Felicia Finley-

#85

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/3/06 at 12:33pm

don't think "Revenge of the Sith" got visual effects nominations simply because of George Lucus's 100% CGI insistance. It sort of kills of half the mistique and actually challenge of doing a good visual effects scene if it is all fake
----------------------

Exactly. The real hallmarks of good effects are how the phony and the real blend together. There's a scene in Episode 2 where Mace Windu's walking down a hallway, and Yoda's putting along of his lil' hoverchair. Yoda and the hallway were CGI. Had they built a hallway, and made it appear as if puppet Yoda was hovering down it, that would have been a good effect. As it was, it was just kinda meh. Nothing looked connected, and Sam Jackson couldn't act, because he was standing in a big green room talking to a green ball on a stick. Everything in that scene stuck out like a sore thumb. Now, compare that to a scene from 20 years ago, in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", when the weasels were interrogating Eddie. Cartoons holding real guns, spitting and splashing real water, moving clothes and furniture... That's innovation. That's good special effects. And it works better than anything in a Star Wars prequel.

As to the main topic, no sense repeating everything Patronus said so perfectly.

Lucas sucks.

#86

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/3/06 at 3:42pm

I don't agree with some of the comments about the quality of the ROTS effects, but if the completely lousy visual effects in King Kong were good enough to get nominated, I'd say the effects in ROTS were good enough to get nominated.

#87

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/3/06 at 3:49pm

I'm surpised this is even coming up (well not really). Rent wasn't nominated for any of the other large award shows, why would it for this one? I really do think Wilson did an amazing job and maybe should have been nominated, but not over who was.

I just hope Brokeback doesn't sweep the awards. Save them for movies that really need them. (Sorry, it didn't really fit my expectations and I see it as one of those movies that win everything and really don't deserve them *coughRAYcough*

What good is a life, With no one to share, The light of the moon, The honor of a swear?

#88

re: Academy Awards - Rent and Producers

Posted: 2/3/06 at 4:13pm

UMA WAS TRASH!!! IN THE PRODUCERS.

"Now Ula belt," * cue sound guy to just turn up the volume on her sad, straight toned bullsh!t that you couldn't even call singing. She was the worst part of the bad rendition of the stage production that they like to call a movie musical.

I LOVE musical theatre and I think that it is great that the entertainment business is bringing back the movie musical, but producing a half assed version of a successful broadway show should not be allowed. They could have done so much more with Rent and the Producers. I thought the idea of making them into films was to open doors to a more creative medium to do things that are impossible to perform on stage. In the case of the Porducers it was Susan Stroman filming the stage production on a sound stage instead of the in the theatre. And Rent was just a mess because they decided to change things to make it more commercial, but in the end it just hurt the story instead of helping it be told.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the movies and thought that there was great performances but I think the only reason I liked the movies was because I LOVE the shows.

I think that the race to make another Chicago is not going very well and they need to step it up or this comeback of the movie musical will be over before it has even begun!!

Updated On: 2/3/06 at 04:13 PM

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95