Hate to point this out, but-ursakoMarch 1 2004, 07:08:32 UTC
Just because you feel a huge affinity for Bill Murray's character (Eternally alienated? Past his prime? Emotionally involved with girls much much younger than him?) it doesn't make Lost In Translation the better of the two films.
Re: Hate to point this out, but-janeway216March 1 2004, 13:36:33 UTC
>> it doesn't make Lost In Translation the better of the two films in your opinion.
See, kids, that's the funny little thing about taste. There's really no point arguing about it, because at the end of the day there's no changing it. Taste is the most subjective and individual of things. You liked Return of the King more than Lost in Translation, so it's the better film to you. Spike liked Lost in Translation more, so it's the better film to him.
A tip, generally speaking? Not exactly good form to correct someone's taste. Mock it all you want. Just don't attempt to correct it.
Re: Hate to point this out, but-ursakoMarch 1 2004, 23:41:11 UTC
I'm not correcting anyone's taste. Having seen exactly neither of the two films, I don't really have an opinion on the matter. I do, however, find it amusing that someone impersonating a fictional character has the chutzpah to argue with what is, admittedly, the 'opinion' of a large body of real-life industry professionals. Now, if it were called the William The Bloody Award, it wouldn't be an issue.
Just saw Lost in Translation the other day. I'll give you this, it was a strange little film, that was definitely quite different from anything I'd seen in a while. Sophia did a great job conveying how strange it felt, to not just be in a place so different (yet oddly the same in some ways) as here, but they (the characters) were as odd a fit within their own lives, as they were in this place. In some sort of way, that made them a comfortable fit with each other.
I'll give her that, she made some good choices throughtout the storytelling process and dynamic.
However (and I haven't even seen this yet) the choices that Peter Jackson had to make for a movie (trilogy, actually) of this scope had to be much, much more significant.
I'm afraid that at the end of the day, when talking of Oscar-worthy movies, size does matter.
Comments 30
Sun
Reply
Reply
See, kids, that's the funny little thing about taste. There's really no point arguing about it, because at the end of the day there's no changing it. Taste is the most subjective and individual of things. You liked Return of the King more than Lost in Translation, so it's the better film to you. Spike liked Lost in Translation more, so it's the better film to him.
A tip, generally speaking? Not exactly good form to correct someone's taste. Mock it all you want. Just don't attempt to correct it.
Reply
Reply
Now, if it were called the William The Bloody Award, it wouldn't be an issue.
Reply
Reply
In your opinion. Not Spike's. And his opinion is as equally valid as yours.
Lost in Translation deserved that Oscar as much as Return of the King did. There are no "more-deserving" films.
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'll give her that, she made some good choices throughtout the storytelling process and dynamic.
However (and I haven't even seen this yet) the choices that Peter Jackson had to make for a movie (trilogy, actually) of this scope had to be much, much more significant.
I'm afraid that at the end of the day, when talking of Oscar-worthy movies, size does matter.
Reply
Leave a comment