Golden Globe 2015 Winners List

In this here thread.

Not really, you disagreed with my views and then made baseless accusations which didn't contribute to the discussion regarding the film. Look, they made us go off topic instead.

I want to assure another nomination for Best Couple next year.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

You can get a nomination, but if you wanna win, you've gotta flirt with me.

Alright. Let's see what you wrote about the film in this thread:

No discussion. No criticizing.

You're basically saying here it has nothing interesting to say without ever explaining that in any way. I see you still believe that saying something "has no depth" is actual criticism. The point of criticism is explaining why.

Again. you're basically saying that it's mediocre without substantiating that. You can only say that a film is nothing more than a concept when you actually explain why it fails in every other aspect. you always forget the explaining part, which is the only thing people actually care about when reading someone's opinion.

...

That seems to be all. Nothing about the actual content of the film has been discussed or criticized by you.

I was just pointing out the fact that you are once again bashing a film without ever actually giving any reasons for it in any relevant and meaningful way. It's frustrating, so I felt like expressing that frustration.

I challenged your comments not because I dislike you, but because I want to actually understand what you hate so much about this film.
That could actually result in an interesting discussion about the recent winner of the Golden Globe for Best Drama Film and therefore would contribute to this thread. It's not off-topic. Don't always use that excuse as an escape.

You are in serious need of some English lessons, man.

1. dis·cuss
dəˈskəs/
verb
talk about (something) with another person or group of people.

I talked about Boyhood with Daniel M, Simseboy and a few other people. I discussed about Boyhood. You don't know the meaning of this verb, so yes, English lessons for you.

All of what you quoted consists of discussion that I've made regarding Boyhood.

This is quite frankly a ridiculous point that you're making. I'm honestly not sure as to what exactly it is that you're trying to prove or achieve here...


2. crit·i·cize
ˈkridəˌsīz/
verb
1.
indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.

I criticized the film in that second quote very clearly. When I mentioned how the film is one-dimensional, there is no artistry or depth in it, there is nothing special about it besides the twelve year thing and that Ellar Coltrane resembles a prop, I'm pretty sure I was trying to indicate its faults.

Also, notice that there is a difference between criticizing and critique, a critique means evaluating the film in a detailed and analytical way, I never said I did a review or critique of the film.


Maybe because that is what I wanted? Does one always have to be thorough and always go in-depth in their posts? I don't want to be so meticulous, sometimes I like to be indirect and comment with just a few words to get my point across. I don't want to sound like a broken record.


Daniel and a few others didn't find it frustrating, they perfectly understood the point I was trying to make. It's always you trying to find faults in my posts. What you're gaining from it, other than making us go off topic, I'll never know.


I don't hate the film, I give it two and a half stars. The same rating I give to Guardians of the Galaxy, but that film wasn't met with the same acclaim so it doesn't really bother me.


It's obviously off topic because this discussion has nothing to do with the Golden Globes or the film itself, it's you trying to make yourself the center of attention yet again.

Escape, he said. While I'm responding to each of his posts. I don't even...

Very happy that Linklater and Boyhood won!

Boyhood for best picture at Oscars (I said this as soon as I watched it).

BlueLion vs. Cobpyth, round 2.....

Another antagonizing post... There just seems to be no getting through to you.

This is what I wrote:

Nothing about the actual content of the film has been discussed or criticized by you.

Tell me where you actually spoke about the content of the film and I'll take back everything I said.


Euhm...

crit·i·cize (krĭt′ĭ-sīz′)
v. crit·i·cized, crit·i·ciz·ing, crit·i·ciz·es
v.tr.
1. To find fault with: criticized the decision as unrealistic. See Usage Note at critique.
2. To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate: criticizes art for a living.
v.intr.
To act as a critic.

There's nothing wrong with my English interpretation here.

Also, saying that something has "no depth" is not indicating the film's faults. You should explain what the film does wrong (faults) so we can understand why (you think) it has no depth.

You sound like a broken record when the only thing you can say about a film is that it has "no depth". Two sentences is enough to actually say something about the actual content of the film and what you think didn't work, but you don't even do that.


1) It's not off topic.
2) Nobody truly understands your interpretation of the film and why you didn't like it. We just know that you somehow think the film has no depth.

Not at all. I pointed something out that bothered me and wanted you to actually tell us why the film doesn't have any depth or why it's a "a waste of time and celluloid" according to you, but once again you are refusing to go any further. God knows why.

Also, if you plan on simply talking back and forth without ever actually doing what I wish you would do (writing a sentence or two that make an outsider actually understand your dislike for the film in any kind of meaningful way), you can just stop right now, because constantly responding to your attempts to validate your right to just bash a film without having to give any sort of valuable explanation besides that, is boring.

Describes you perfectly.


Oh, so now I'll have to talk about the content. Why do I have to talk about the content specifically? Because you say so?


Okay. No depth equals masterpiece from now on.


1 Not true
2 Whatevz


Because I don't feel like it?


Ooh so it's me going back and forth now. Your wishes and the reality are two different things. My wish is to go to Hollywood and become a film director, but it doesn't look likely at this point.

I was going to stop now anyway, you didn't have to tell me. It's obvious that this isn't going anywhere and honestly I regret wasting so much of my time and energy on this futile debate.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) BL is criticizing the lock-step, almost universal praise for Boyhood more than the movie itself, but he has to say in an unspecific way that it's undeserving of it. Apparently Linklater has become a sacred cow with his Before trilogy and now Boyhood. Those films have become the "great" American films which everyone can get behind because everybody can apparently relate to them, either through actual life or wish fulfillment. But I believe all four films are only modestly-successful because I don't really think they're that believable or have great dialogue or great cinematics (sorry, bluedeed). I think the best thing about them is their sense of overriding romance and presenting the different levels of romance available in simple life which most people let pass or never take advantage of. I'm saddened to not get the feelings these (and other movies) engender in people because I am a romantic at heart - not "rom com"-type romantic, but romantic as in open to the possibilities of life, not only a romance with a potentially significant other but a romance with your children, best friends, pets and of course, nature. I get that feeling from all four movies, but I also feel like I'm providing more than the movies are. Maybe I'm not a romantic anymore but just a hateful old git who's too concerned with his own pathetic, feeble existence to get simple pleasures any more. But then every movie I watch would just be a variation on the mark f story which is certainly worse in most regards than Linklater's humanistic films.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Now if BlueLion would have written that insightful, deeply personal and explanatory comment of Mark, I would've achieved my goal. ;p

-------------------------------

Thanks for the wonderful comment, Mark!

I get that you need to be some sort of romantic to like the films of Linklater you're mentioning and maybe even a specific kind of romantic.

My sister for instance, who I think can be romantic (in the sense you mean) sometimes (if she's in a good mood), also didn't really like Boyhood. It's interesting to see that she kind of made the same remarks you do about the film not being "that believable or having great dialogue or great cinematics". Especially the first element (which is probably kind of an extension of the other two) seems very important to me in this kind of film. If you don't believe what you're seeing on the screen in Boyhood, the effect of living through the characters and experiencing what they're going through or at least the illusion of observing something that seems true and the sensation of relating to the material, gets lost.
My sister actually pointed out some physical and ugly mistakes in the film she noticed and used it as argumentation for her dislike of the picture. That made it obvious to me that she also somehow didn't believe what she was seeing on the screen when watching the film in the theater. She was somehow unable to and started looking for mistakes. That's a huge problem when watching films like this.

I also don't know how it is to be you or to be in your situation, but it seems natural that it has become harder for you to "appreciate" certain things that films like Boyhood try to romanticize when you're constantly confronted with your own existence like you are. I do see that you still enjoy a whole lot of very personal and romantic films in your Movie Tab posts, though (which I and many others fanatically look forward to every day/two days), so I'm pretty sure you aren't the "hateful old git" you fear you've become, Mark.

One of the two Globes winner for Best Actress going on to win the Oscar has been more consistent, with only eight misses going back to 1970, and one of those was 2008 when Kate Winslet won Best Actress Drama for Revolutionary Road and Best Supporting Actress for The Reader at the Golden Globes, while at the Academy Awards they had The Reader classified as a lead performance, which she won the Oscar for. But technically, it doesn't match either of her Globes wins.



So of late, it has been a pretty accurate predictor. But historically it is only 70% if you go all the way back to the 1940s. The 1960s were especially bumpy, with only two years of the decade matching. But going by the more recent trends, Julianne Moore and Amy Adams would have to be considered favorites (assuming both are nominated for Oscars).

.


For Supporting Actress, the Globes do not chop up the category, so they have only one possible to match at the Oscars. Historically, they have not been a good predictor, with only 42% winning Academy Awards, with the 1970s being their toughest decade with only two matches. In this Century they have been slightly better than that, with six misses in thirteen years (53%), including just last year when Jennifer Lawrence won at the Globes for American Hustle but Lupita Nyong'o went on to win the Oscar for 12 Years a Slave. Still, Patricia Arquette will likely be the favorite among the Oscar hopefuls.

Attachments

       

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

As incredibly accurate as the DGA Award has been at predicting the Oscar winner, the Golden Globe for Best Director has been about as useful as a coin toss. Going all the way back to the beginning of the Golden Globes it is only 52% accurate, and in this Century alone only six of the fourteen winners at the Globes went on to win the Oscar.

Attachments