- This topic is empty.
- Posts
There’s actually some controversey over Columbia’s numbers. Frankly I think it just boils down to the Oscar race. New Line is scared of BIG FISH’s darkhorse status, and would rather see the movie open up a 2nd, and away from the public conciousness. This bit of controversey should work in BIG’s favor.
http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/weekendboxofficer.html
Ryan
Look at the theater averages:
Hey, I’m no Tolkien freak, but I’d be very surprised if Big Fish did better than Return of the King at the Oscars.
Not that the numbers mean a whole lot at this point, since ROTK has been out for a few weeks and is therefore already in its decline at the box office. If they had simultaneously received a nationwide release and Big Fish STILL beat ROTK, I’d be amazed.
Big Fish should do better, considering that Big Fish is more of a grounded film, whereas LOTR is a fantasy spectacle, much like Star Wars, and Star Wars never made best picture. For some reason the MPAA doesn’t give alot of awards to the most popular films…but what do i know…
All i can say is that LOTR was long as hell and i certainly didn’t feel the same way when i left the theater – that movie made me feel drained. Big Fish, on the other hand, made me feel good – wasn’t overly long, my ass didn’t hurt. Maybe they see that as a factor in their judgements…one last thing…
Now, i’ve never seen a flick where the insurance term “fiduciary” was used – not even Nicholson’s “About Schmidt.” But Big Fish used it…does this warrant an Oscar? Probobly not, but at least it’s a word not normally used in flicks, and i thought that was pretty original.“For some reason the MPAA doesn’t give alot of awards to the most popular films”
Yeah, well how about “Titanic”? It’s tied for the most Oscars with “Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Wolf?” (including best picture and director) and it’s the highest grossing film of all time.
Nat
Actually, it didn’t :
http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=2960
Okay…let me rephrase that: They don’t seem to give out Best Picture Oscars to blockbuster FANTASY films. Titanic was a drama rooted in historical fact. I’ll bet ya even if it didn’t have that kind of appeal it would have scored, anyway. But, like i said after that statement – what do i know? I don’t work for the MPAA…and i’m only going by what’s in my head – and no researching.
Isn’t Big Fish a fantasy spectacle, too?
Regardless, Fellowship and The Two Towers received plenty of nominations from the Academy. Return of the King is also better reviewed than Big Fish.
I dearly love Burton’s film, but I don’t see it getting nominated or wining a best picture award. However, I don’t see Return of the King winning best picture, either.
The Academy is hard to read these days.
hey maybe we’re all wrong and it’ll go to Mystic River…and they’ll give Eastwood another commendation…
Big Fish might be a fantasy, true, but it’s grounded in a real-world drama, so who knows. Not as heavy as Mystic River, by far – but I found Burton’s movie to be pretty damn noteworthy…If anything, i’m sure both flicks will get awards in some category.It always upsets me to see all the long, boring movies winning oscars. I really don’t understand why the highest-grossing movies don’t win many oscars. They are the ones that people liked the best, right? The movies that earn squat at the box office always win the most oscars.
I heard about the whole box office race for big fish and return of the king…i think that new line is just a sore box office loser, just accept that your big-budget movie can be beaten, especially in its third week!
Eh…I did like Big Fish thoroughly, but I would have to agree that it’s not going to get a Best Picture nomination.
It’s meaningful, but not deep enough…
It doesn’t carry a political message…
It doesn’t scold society’s ills (i.e., Dances With Wolves, Philadelphia, etc.)…
It doesn’t do anything the Academy would select it for.
I would LOVE to be proven wrong on Nomination Day in February.
who knows…Big Fish will probobly get nominated, but won’t get it. Lest you forget Burton has more tenure than Jackson does. And LOTR is mostly about fantasy battles…i really didn’t catch the moral aspect of it, or the human aspect of it, even, because there were so many characters who were not only underdeveloped as a cheap marketing ployfor texpanded dvd, but because many of them aren’t human to begin with. Or maybe just didn’t get it. I saw alot of Star Wars in LOTR, which leads me to think that it won’t receive squat for BEst PIcture. I picture the MPAA as a cabinet of mature, grounded folks who always go for mature, grounded movies…and choosing a fantasy epic – no matter how moral (even Star Trek flicks had more morality, yet never got Best Picture) – is not something they do. Now i’m starting to think Fish will get Best Screenplay, instead.
“…there were so many characters who were not only underdeveloped as a cheap marketing ployfor texpanded dvd…”
What about Edward Bloom, he had no character development. He stayed the same throughout.
As I understand it, the expanded edition of Return of the King won’t have any new character’s, aside a scene with Saruman, who we know well.
eh – whatever. The entire movie was about Edward Bloom…and to get his character you have to go through his stories and figure it out for yourself. I sure did. Id say more but i don’t wanna ruin it…I’ll say this, though – his imperfections are hidden underneath all that stuff…
“The entire movie was about Edward Bloom…and to get his character you have to go through his stories …”
If you want to get his character, than yes, you do. However I don’t know what that has to do with his character development.
Hey if you can’t figure him out through the stories, then it’s your own failing, not mine – to quote Bloom. Much like The Sixth Sense, the character development came from within…you just have to look for it.
There are a lot of “deep” lines in that movie that make more sense the more times you see it.
Nat
I understand the subtext, allegory and metaphors in Big Fish.
They have nothing to do with character development. Will Bloom does develop in Big Fish. however. Edward doesn’t.
Man, if you say ED didn’t develop, then you’re obviously not getting it. You’re going to tell me Will developed because he cried at the end or met a resolution? Everybody in that flick met a resolution. It just wasn’t enough development for you , i guess…Hey not everyone’s expected to understand it, so it’s ok.
“Everybody in that flick met a resolution…”
I don’t know what resolution has to do this character development, but it’s OK that Edward doesn’t develop, that’s the whole point. His son does. Will is able to pass on his father’s gift to his children.
As for the Lord of the Rings — it’s just silly to say that the characters are underdeveloped.
I thought the elves were undeveloped, as was the army of the dead, as well as the orcs. And Legolas? Cate Blanchett’s character? The tree people? Legolas doesn’t even talk…and i also thought the Hobbits were a bit too friendly with one another…it just got to a point where Frodo and Sam were staring at each other WAY too long, and closer to each other’s faces. That really ruined the ending for me…Once i saw Sam with a wife and kid i felt relieved, because i was doubting him at the goodbye scene.
So, then, by your very submission you could say that each flick has its share of flaws, but in the end it’s all about the eye of the beholder.
Oh and i can tell when you’re answering me or whatever, but by all means quote me – i like that.
)“I thought the elves were undeveloped…”
I don’t think Elrond (Hugo Weaving), is underdeveloped – letting his daughter go after being so conflicted with her future.
“…as was the army of the dead, as well as the orcs.”
They’re designed to be a menace. They’re essentially Stormtroopers.
“And Legolas? Cate Blanchett’s character?”
Despite what teenage girls will tell you, Legolas isn’t a big character, he doesn’t speak much. Cate Blanchett’s character isn’t even in the second book. Treebread just makes a cameo in the book of Return of the King.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.