Slashdot Mirror
Slumdog Millionaire Takes Home 8 Oscars
Ben Burtt was robbed of his overly deserved Oscars for the sound on Wall-E, and Heath Ledger's Joker unsurprisingly got a posthumous statue, but the big winner for the night was Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire with Picture, Director, Song, and five others. Go ahead movie nerds: talk amongst yourself.
Britney kicks off her latest world tour on March 3... post an article about that while you're at it.
I'm not going to enter an extended rant. But I do wish this kind of story didn't make the front page on /.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Every year that goes by the Oscars become more of a farce.
Slumdog was the most cheesy and predictable film i have seen in years. The screenplay seemed like it was written by a 3 year old, the acting was horrendous, and you knew exactly how the film would end after about 8 minutes into it.
And that's what makes it such a revolutionary film by Hollywood standards. All the other movies literally were written by 3 year olds, and you knew how they ended just by watching the previews.
Your point is very valid. But in this case it's not the director. Danny Boyle wasn't a bankable name, or, indeed, a successful director. Or indeed, a good director. He's a hack who steals ideas from other movies. Slumdog would have been much better with a talented artist at the helm.
Note also that he had an Indian co-director who's had absolutely no credit whatsoever.
No. In this case it's the producer who got it its success-- multi-millionaire Paul Smith, realty TV hack, and expert publicist. Cashing in nicely on India.
Wouldn't a better /. story be about the Sci-Tech awards?
"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
Anyone else think that the Oscars are pretty much irrelevant? Anymore it's just about the movie industry patting itself on the back, and not at all about what was actually praiseworthy. Count me in the buck of "didn't watch, didn't care". What happened to news for nerds and stuff that mattered?
Thank you for those suggestions. Slumdog was a gangster movie with a love interest and a game show hook. It is by the numbers. If it had not been set in India everyone would have seen it for what it was. I was very disappointed to see it do so well. I saw it and Coraline on Saturday and Coraline was the much better movie, and Coraline had much potential that it did not take advantage of in the closing third. As I was watching Slumdog I could not stop thinking that this movie must be incredibly offensive to Indian people, and I don't know that much about India. I am glad I am not the only since everyone I have talked to seems very strongly opposed to me when I mention my point of view.
I wouldn't want to see much entertainment news on Slashdot, but I think it is OK to post annual articles on the Academy Awards and Grammys to discuss films and music in a Slashdot way.
Discussing films and music in a slashdot way is discussing the technical and legal ramifications. Who won a bullshit popularity contest designed to keep the masses of asses interested in media which pisses on their minds is not repeat not worthy news for nerds. Anyone who thinks it is obviously needs to take a deep breath and step away from the fucking television.
Los Angeles is going to be underwater soon anyway (not soon enough for me, but whatever.) The WB will have a hard time broadcasting shit from the Arizona Bay.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sweet justice that governs this world doesn't cease to astonish me. The kids from the slums that played main parts in the movie get paid with chump change, the movie is a success, gets 8 Oscars, the kids get a plane trip to the US for the Oscar gala and get dumped in the slum afterwards, producers sip lattes and count the profits, people are touched by a beautiful story of love while stuffing their faces with nachos, the kids are forgotten, continue to live in poverty.
Ahhh, the circle of life.
It is not degrading. It depicts vibrancy, spirit, hustle and bustle. Have you actually seen it? For an interview with Loveleen Tandan, the co-director, see http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/oscars/article5772395.ece The crew that made the film very much seems to have lived and worked together as a team. Storytelling is universal and knows no boundaries, and movies are not tourism commercials. Have you seen trainspotting, a movie more in the director's backyard? I think it is pretty impressive that Slumdog went on to win Oscar accolades, and that those voting looked beyond their own backyard. I'll make sure to watch the movies you mention though.
Right? I sometimes don't think that people really appreciate Slashdot when it comes to that stuff. Overall, you'll get a better discussion and less bullshit on Slashdot than many other sites of this nature.
Some of it has to do with the fact that the readership for Slashdot has gotten older along with the site, and some of it is that sites like Digg.com have sprung up to pull away a lot of the kiddies.
It's not all roses here, but I continue to use Slashdot because you actually can get some decent discussions going here, and there's a lot of actually funny responses too.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
We are talking about the same Danny Boyle aren't we, him off of Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, The Beach, 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Millions?
The term "substantial" trust fund, coming from the same person saying that the few hundred quid the kids got paid is a lot because it is three times the average salary of someone living in the slum, doesn't mean much, does it? Also the trust fund will be available to the children actors only if they stay in school until they are 18. Too bad that until then they will be living on one meal a day in makeshift shacks, one can only wonder if they will last until their 18th birthday to enjoy the "substantial" amount of money that has been put aside for them. Interesting, that Fox doesn't setup funds like that for their child actors in the States...
Yes, let's all be merry and celebrate the distributor's generosity. The fact is, that the kids still live in tents while the movie is making copious amounts of money (almost 160 000 000 $ so far).
Also, the diffusion of responsibility is a wonderful thing: those guys made more, those guys made less, those guys just work here, those guys have mortgages to pay and those just followed orders.
Was Slumdog the co-creation of an Indian director who is not getting sufficient credit? Or is it a Western director degrading India for profit? Both criticisms cannot be simultaneously true.
The idea that Slumdog Millionaire "degrades" India is offensive. It implies that any movie that shows the negative aspects of a society is inherently degrading. Thoughts like that come from a perspective that we have to treat some countries like "special" children--keep them from all harm and make sure they wear their helmet and kneepads all the time. Give me a break. No one would be complaining if this exact same movie was set in the U.S., where there are plenty of slums and gangsters and game shows. That betrays a subtle racism of low expectations toward India. In comparison I do not recall similar outcry when Western filmmakers began to use Hong Kong cast, crew, and concepts to make movies.
India has slums and violence, as many, many Indian movies have portrayed. Note that much of the production and acting crew of SM come directly from the Indian film industry, and are happy about their work in the movie. Including the Indian co-director.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You set yourself up for disappointment any time you show up at a theater with expectations. Couple that with advertising that "you don't get it" in a public forum, and I'm not sure I see the point of your post. *shrug* I rather enjoyed the show.