Oscar Snubs that make you pissed?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Its based on a true story and thats what happened. Nothing they could do - besides, how can you not like Henry running around while his brother stirs the sauce, mixing up coke, dropping guns off at Jimmys, and taking Lois to get her focking hat? C'mon man!

DWW had its moments but it seemed long just for the sake of being long. An editor would have come in handy.

Which version did you see, the theatrical version that won all the awards including Best Film Editing, or the one prepared as an ABC miniseries with many scenes that were rightfully cut placed back into it to stretch it out over two nights of broadcast television? The latter version - while not exactly disowned by Costner - was a version he states he had nothing to do with and that it was a "studio thing".

I'm still waiting for a US Blu-Ray release of the version Costner supervised -- not the "extended" version, but the theatrical version, which from where I sit is vastly superior.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

OK - thats a well put response. Ill buy that. I still dont think it was better than Goodfellas but I see what you are saying.

Although, Id ask about Lawrence of Arabia: that was closer to 4 hours and was a 60's film. Wouldnt that have been the first true mega-epic for the theater with a long running length? It was damned successful too. Curious...

it is simple - the length of the movie has to follow the length of the story. I have no issue watching longer movies(other than having to pause it a couple times for bathroom breaks) if the movie warrents that longer running time. I actually think that is one of the biggest problems with movies now - they try and do a 2 hours or less running time to they can get a certian number of showings but that can ruin the movie because they cut out things and as a result, the movie doesn't make sense.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

it is simple - the length of the movie has to follow the length of the story. I have no issue watching longer movies(other than having to pause it a couple times for bathroom breaks) if the movie warrents that longer running time. I actually think that is one of the biggest problems with movies now - they try and do a 2 hours or less running time to they can get a certian number of showings but that can ruin the movie because they cut out things and as a result, the movie doesn't make sense.

This is what happened to The Abyss.

"But it is undeniable that these cuts did more than just shorten the film," Cameron notes. "They substantially changed its tone and more importantly, its intent. The original goal of the film was to tell a story of a kind of apocalypse in which we are all judged by a superior race and found to be worthy of salvation because of a single average man, an Everyman, who somehow represents that which is good in us: the capacity for love measured by the willingness for self-sacrifice."
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-..._james-cameron

[Jowiko96]

Originally Posted by Dazed+Confused

DiCaprio getting snubbed this year for his role as Calvin Candie. He was great and it was well dispersed.

Will he ever get an Oscar?