• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MiddleGround17

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. MiddleGround17

    Why are comedies seldom recognized as Best Pictures?

    It's really the only solution to the problem, but it's a disappointing one. And even if it happened, you'd get the same bizarre choices you see at the Golden Globes with light-hearted dramas being 'marketed' as comedies. I completely understand that it's hard to put a comedy and a drama together in a category, because they're completely different, tonally. But if there's a comedy that has a great story, is excellently put together and says something (e.g. Annie Hall or Tootsie, both of which were nominated for Best Picture), I don't see any reason why it should not be in the running alongside all of the weepies. But, honestly, I welcome any solution to the pretentious "Comedy is Lowbrow" idea that so many members of the Academy seem to have. They need to sit down, watch Sullivan's Travels and understand (just as Joel McCrea does) that people need to laugh.
  2. MiddleGround17

    Why are comedies seldom recognized as Best Pictures?

    I see it as nothing more than a pretentious, nonsense belief -- "Comedy is not worthy of such a prestigious award." Comedy takes MUCH more technical skill, across all levels, to work than a Drama does. The Academy Awards have largely become a contest of 'who can cry the hardest?', as opposed to 'whose work was truly worthy?' Even comedy-dramas get pushed out unless it's almost entirely drama, like Up in the Air or any of Alexander Payne's movies. I think it's easy to suggest just separating the categories, but that just strengthens the idea of there being a segregation within the Academy Awards. Comedy is my favorite genre, so this is a particularly sore point for me. Ryan Gosling SHOULD be nominated next year for his pitch perfect Stan Laurel-esque performance in The Nice Guys, but we all know it will instead be someone in a true story biopic about someone famous with a serious illness struggling in a very bad time of history that gets through it with Hollywood movies. The Academy will eat it up, but it'll be forgotten in a few years.
  3. MiddleGround17

    Fleabag: New BBC-TV show

    I saw the first two episodes, and laughed more than I care to admit. It caught me by surprise a few times. Haven't gone out of my way to see any more though. I might eventually get around to it. It's not a bad Brit-com, but it's not Catastrophe -- which I guess is the gold standard for British comedies right now.
  4. MiddleGround17

    When does FilmStruck launch..?

    FilmStruck confirmed on their twitter account that the service would not overlap with the TCM network/on-demand service, so I'm 95% sure it will be almost entirely titles from the Criterion collection. There may be the occasional Warner movie, but I'd expect it to be almost entirely Criterion. The thing I'm completely confused about is that they're apparently going to offer an additional 'Criterion' tier which costs more? So I don't actually understand what kind of titles the main service will actually feature. It's all very confusing.
  5. MiddleGround17

    When does FilmStruck launch..?

    According to the Criterion site (https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/4032-introducing-filmstruck), Criterion will still be on Hulu "into the month of November". No idea when Filmstruck actually launches.
  6. The film reminds me of those old Bugs Bunny cartoons where it just becomes a complete game of one-upmanship and humiliation in creative ways. The questions it raises for me are all about what happened before and after, rather than understanding what is happening now -- why did this start? What will happen next? Who will win? From a structural perspective, it's a simple, brief story: the set-up (man waters plants with hose), the revelation/potential for conflict (a boy arrives), the conflict (boy messes with hose), and the aftermath (sprays man in face, gets chased). Who'd have thought three years of narrative studies would come in handy for a 45-second movie about a man spraying himself in the face? Looking forward to the next.
  7. MiddleGround17


    I remember seeing the remake first, and being downright terrified by the sight of the pod shells and just the whole final scene. But I agree, both are as good as one another. I remember having to watch the original movie multiple times to analyse the story in my film class. Despite the production code stuff, I still had nightmares about pod people for at least a week.
  8. MiddleGround17


    I watched Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. I have the pleasure of saying it was the first time I ever watched a Boris Karloff movie (yes, really) and I thought both were fantastic -- with the exception of the tacked-on happy endings.
  9. MiddleGround17

    Originals vs. Remakes

    And that's the problem, unfortunately. We'll never know if the desire is there unless the studios decide to make them in the first place. There ARE semi-screwball comedies being made but they're now very much of the overly-aggressive-raunchy variety and don't have that Grant/Hepburn, etc. charm. The joke seems to be more explicitly about sex than the underlying, subtle battle of the sexes that made classic screwball comedy so great. It's a shame, since that is probably my favorite kind of comedy.
  10. MiddleGround17

    Yet More Remakes

    ... That's what I think of AFTER Feral Ray Winstone. You didn't let me finish, Dargo! Also, I'm British so I must confirm that Webster's contributions regarding the superfluous nature of the letter U still have not reached my home shores! We still spell things weird for some reason.
  11. MiddleGround17

    Yet More Remakes

    Whenever I think of Noah (2014), I will always think of a Feral Ray Winston hiding in the ark, eating raw animal meat and yelling some overwrought monologue about something or other. I completely forgot about the bizarre talking transforming rock monsters. God, that was a weird way to tell the story.
  12. MiddleGround17

    TV action and drama programs today

    I don't know that it's all terrible, but most of it is. For sure. It's even worse when you're in the industry, trying to make something different. It's near-impossible. Studios/Networks don't have faith in the intelligence of their audience. Especially now that so many have phones. Which is why you see the ADD-like editing, stunt casting, needless 'cliffhangers', and the worst of all -- constant re-explanation (which takes up most of the running time of these kinds of shows). That being said, I'm in my twenties, so I wasn't raised on classic film or TV and have no idea how good things really were back then. I just discovered it in high school and enjoyed it hugely. So I'm not in any way biased for either side (I don't watch TV much, honestly, I do think it's pretty awful), I just think there's SOME good in the modern Film/TV Industry that's being ignored by Studios and Networks in favor of shock value and weak, 'modern' rehashes of old stories.
  13. MiddleGround17

    Davis & Crawford & "Feud"

    I'm 90% sure that people outside of the industry were aware of the feud long before Baby Jane and I'd assume that word got out because of two things. 1) People outside of Hollywood probably heard about the slowly-building rivalry through the gossip columns of Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, leading all the way up to production on Baby Jane. 2) People that worked on the movie talked about the experience, so it got spread around Hollywood and people within the movie industry. With the influence Hopper and Parsons had in their columns for so long, I think it's hard to ignore their surefire contributions to public awareness of the rivalry.
  14. MiddleGround17

    School's in!

    I'm in, too. Joined the forum just to join in with the discussions. I missed out on the Film Noir class, but there's no way I'm going to miss an opportunity to 'study' Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers and Lucille Ball.

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:


Having problems?

Contact Us