Drive (2011)

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by djgeneral

I hope Drive isn't shut out of the Oscars. I guess the chances are slim now since Golden globes typically predicts the Oscars.

Not especially, particularly the last 7 years or so...though the nominations may overlap, for this show they really are engineered for red carpet oppurtunities/the party. The Ides of March has not made any real awards noise this season, yet Clooney gets a Director nod and it gets a Picture nod. I don't think it will get either for the Oscars. The Social Network last year? Cleaned house at the Golden Globes, then the Guild awards came and deflated that balloon.

I think The Social Network was robbed in those awards btw, but it goes to show that recently at least the Guilds have replaced the Globes as the most staunch Academy predictor.

At least there are no true stinkers this year amongst the Globe nominess like The Tourist. Most of them are actually quite decent this year, though.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by lherman22

Not accoring to this list of critic's top 10. Its the 2nd most picked film of the year (Tree of Life was #1 and no Globe noms, ouch! But I didn't care for the film anyway). http://www.metacritic.com/feature/mo...-top-ten-lists

If Drive isn't a top choice, then what the heck is Ides of March? I think it received more noms than any other film. Anyone remember Ides being on any critic's top 10? Wouldn't have called that one.



Don't even get me started on BB. Best show of the decade and has been nom'd for best drama once in 4 seasons.

Don't get upset at me - I think it's the best film I've seen (so far) this year. I really just have not seen the kind of press on it from a critical angle that I thought I would at this time. And Brooks not getting a SAG nomination - which is a real, hard and true predictor for the Oscars - is very surprising.

The Tree of Life stood no chance at this race. Terence Malick could hardly be pressed to show his face at Cannes (he bypassed the red carpet to sneak into the screening there, though people pointed him out), let alone the Globes red carpet. (I share your opinion on that film, btw).

And again as I've enumerated, The Ides of March's noms can be chalked up to Clooney, who will probably show up with his girlfriend (this'll probably be their first 'big' appearance), and all the cameras will just obliterate. Clooney in a picture? NOMINATED. Pitt? NOMINATED. Jolie? NOMINATED!!

Granted I like Clooney and those others - and I'm really not trying to hate on the Globes here, I'll be watching - but this is what the Globes are about: stars.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Seymour

All awards shows are meaningless.

Not really. People just take them way too seriously. I take them with a grain of salt and purely as entertainment. I couldn't care less who wins what anymore, but I still enjoy watching the pageantry of the events.

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

Don't get upset at me - I think it's the best film I've seen (so far) this year. I really just have not seen the kind of press on it from a critical angle that I thought I would at this time.

Not upset at all...just illustrating that besides being on many critic's top 10s and being one of the more lauded films of the year, it was also more highly praised that atleast half the films with Globe noms.

It actually ok with me...keep its cult following. Its just the ridiculousness of the Globes...like the popularity of the Kardashians.

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

The Social Network last year? Cleaned house at the Golden Globes, then the Guild awards came and deflated that balloon.

I think The Social Network was robbed in those awards btw, but it goes to show that recently at least the Guilds have replaced the Globes as the most staunch Academy predictor.

Idk...SAG's choices for "Best Picture" award are about the cast, and its frequently given to films with more than one notable performance. A strong ensemble cast usually has the best chance of a nom or winning. Bridesmaids makes sense because of how perfectly they fit together; however, a film like that is unlikely to get an Oscar nom. Wasn't really surprised Social Network was snubbed at SAG, as it wasn't particularly talked about for acting—it was more about Fincher's vision and Sorkin's script. I was surprised it was so shutout at the Oscars (I've heard that attributed to the older average age of the Oscar voting crowd, and the subject—Facebook—not appealing to them).

[Psinex]

Originally Posted by erikilla

That's an awful cover! Ugh!

Yeah, that is quite possibly the ugliest cover I've seen in a couple years. Such a shame, considering how cool the theatrical posters are.

[28BlusLater]

This is one of my favorite movies of 2011. I agree with many others that this is one of the most disappointing covers I have seen in quite some time. The posters that I have seen from the US and a few other countries were much better. Sony Pictures had a lot to choose from and they give us this? That's really a letdown.

I also was very irritated to not see this nominated for many Golden Globes. Hopefully it receives some Oscar nods. It certainly deserves some. If not, I've lost what I have left of the respect I have for Hollywood, which isn't very much.

[Bunker]

Meh. The deluxe version (heh) coming out later will have much better cover art. Best wait until then to buy it.

[djgeneral]

Originally Posted by Bunker

Meh. The deluxe version (heh) coming out later will have much better cover art. Best wait until then to buy it.

IF there is one.

[PlanetDahmz]

I'm giddy with excitement for this release. EASILY my favorite film of 2011. You know a movie is good when you still think about specific scenes/moments months after seeing it.

One thing though - I wish more people would do research on a movie before seeing it in theaters. Other than my friend and I, I'm pretty sure everyone at the theater left disappointed, probably because they weren't expecting something so "artsy". Whatever, the vintage/retro look, neon colors, etc. and soundtrack were absolutely awesome (in fact, if there are any other movies out there similar in style, I'll take recommendations).

Definitely will be at Best Buy the day of release.

[Neutron82]

i preordered the hmv uk steelbook which looks pretty badass in my opinion... i've never seen it but a friend says it's really good and we have similar tastes so i went for it, just keeping my fingers crossed that it isn't region locked

[Minimejer05]

Originally Posted by Seymour

All awards shows are meaningless.

Basically. I've stopped caring ever since Mickey Rourke got robbed his Oscar for The Wrestler. The past few years have been getting worse.

[keldons]

Originally Posted by djgeneral

IF there is one.

yeah, I can't say I'm holding my breath, though I'd love to double dip.

and don't even get me started on the art for this one.

[K i r a]

Originally Posted by djgeneral

IF there is one.

There was a link in the first few pages where they interviewed Refn and he confirmed there will be one. No duck tales here.

[Veronica Mars]

Originally Posted by lherman22

Idk...SAG's choices for "Best Picture" award are about the cast, and its frequently given to films with more than one notable performance. A strong ensemble cast usually has the best chance of a nom or winning. Bridesmaids makes sense because of how perfectly they fit together; however, a film like that is unlikely to get an Oscar nom. Wasn't really surprised Social Network was snubbed at SAG, as it wasn't particularly talked about for acting—it was more about Fincher's vision and Sorkin's script. I was surprised it was so shutout at the Oscars (I've heard that attributed to the older average age of the Oscar voting crowd, and the subject—Facebook—not appealing to them).

I agree with how the SAGs work and the Globes have their own "crazy" way of voting that fits what they're trying to do.

That said, if it's 10 noms again, I could see Bridesmaids possibly getting a nomination. I mean, it's not like they ever really get the best 5 or 10 films by most people's account. So, if it's 10, I think they go out of their way to give token noms since they know 6 out of the 10m films probably have no chance of winning anyway. So, with all the acclaim for the women making Bridesmaids, it would be the perfect time to be politically correct and give a nod to women and get the critics to kind of shut up about comedies not get recognition.

I loved Bridesmaids, but it really doesn't deserve an Oscar nom, but since they aren't going to be the best films anyway, it might have a shot.

I hope they show more love for Drive and possibly correct, my belief that Kirsten Dunst deserves an acting nomination for Melancholia. I don't think they'll give any love to either, though.

[keldons]

Originally Posted by veritas

There was a link in the first few pages where they interviewed Refn and he confirmed there will be one. No duck tales here.

He said he and Gosling will think of putting it all together sometime in 2012. He would like to do it. He never confirms it.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Psinex

Yeah, that is quite possibly the ugliest cover I've seen in a couple years. Such a shame, considering how cool the theatrical posters are.

I agree: 'sdreadful. It's particularly amusing that, after the mismarketing pseudo-controversy, the studio chooses a cover that would seem to reinforce the whole "slam-bang actioner" misconception.

And, as you say, there were perfectly good posters that could've been used.

[Murkurial]

Originally Posted by erikilla

That's an awful cover! Ugh!

I'm a bit late to the discussion -- though I caught the news on the cover via an Amazon reminder -- and I'm just wondering, why is there a scorpion pasted on the chest?

I couldn't agree more with everyone saying this is worst cover that they could've made, but I feel like that scorpion is particularly egregious. Makes no sense.

[djgeneral]

Originally Posted by Murkurial

I'm a bit late to the discussion -- though I caught the news on the cover via an Amazon reminder -- and I'm just wondering, why is there a scorpion pasted on the chest?

I couldn't agree more with everyone saying this is worst cover that they could've made, but I feel like that scorpion is particularly egregious. Makes no sense.

Uh, the scorpion is in the movie and trailers.

I'm assuming this is what you're talking about?



edit: oh, I see you mean the small one on the front... I never even noticed that.

[Murkurial]

^ Yea. I mean, all that can do is piss the people off who've already seen and love the movie. Those who might not have picked this up normally (the one's they're catering to with this cover), won't be like "aw yea, i remember that scorpion." And when they see the film, they'll probably notice that it's actually on his back and not on his chest like a tiny baseball team emblem/crest.

It's bizarre. They may as well have put a scorpion tat on his forehead, or shown an overhead view of a Lamborghini with the scorpion on the hood while Gosling walks away from it with an explosion in the background and a bazooka in his hand...while boning some broad. Go full retard or go home.