I am absolutly disgraced by Pearl Harbor not getting one single nomination at the BAFTAS. Fair enough, I didn't expect it to have any best film, director etc. nominations but what about the technical awards???
Lord of the Rings had many technical awards but lets face it, you could still tell those effects were done by CGI while PH looks so real.
Michael Kaplan was ignored for Best Costume Design. Another disgrace, seeing the amount of extras needed for the picture!
Best score? Nope, no Hans Zimmer!
Here is the real disgrace though....... not one cinematography nomination. John Schwartzman is probably the cinematographer ever and his work on PH was beautiful!
Why was the poorly made Harry Potter under these nominations?
If they didn't like the film then that's fine, but ignoring these artist's is f****** cruel! (watch the language please, modded)
__________________
www.myspace.com/throughsolace
Through Solace- The Stand out in March 08 on Holdfast Records
the incredible thing with this is that moulan rouge got actually one nominations for special effects....how is that possible??
Pearl should have gotten a couple og nominations. Anyway BHd got 3!
just because you guys like PH and all that, you can't come complaining about all the nominations it didn't get, because, to be honest most people don't like that film, the critics has few positive remarks about it, and that makes nominations hard to get.
hey man!!!
I dont say that Pearl h deserves best picture or something...I mean that it should be nominated for best special effects! Not mulan Rouge!
Get the point now?
special effects have to be scientifcally correct most of the effects in pearl harbor were unrealistic and impossible-for instance the bomb being released and falling at a angle and traveling slower then the plane ,a bomb would travel at the same speed as the plane at the point it was released , and the planes flying millimeters from walls and the ground
__________________ The Sweet Is Never As Sweet , Without The Bitter.
But planes DID fly low! Yes, I loved Pearl Harbor, but it's COMMON SENSE, that it should be nominated for visual effects. I agree with you that some of it was unrealistic, but let's face it, most of it was. Besides the only bad effect in my opinion was when the Arizona exploded, but that was due to CGI not being good enough yet.
Of course, everything in LOTR looks very realistic (my attempt of sarcasm).
__________________
www.myspace.com/throughsolace
Through Solace- The Stand out in March 08 on Holdfast Records
graphics dont mean anthing if a movie has a bad story ,unlike pearl harbor LOTR's had a great story to compansate for the lact of affects ,so no matter how you ,put,place or argue pearl harbor plain sucked
__________________ The Sweet Is Never As Sweet , Without The Bitter.
Just shutup every single one of you and stop being so narrow minded (apart from Thomas H- someone with common sense). Use your BRAINS!!!!!! The awards are about SPECIAL EFFECTS not bloody storyline and like it or not, PH had the best special effects of the year. It's not an opinion, it's a FACT!
! (moded, no need to call other posters certain things just because they dont see eye to eye with you)
__________________
www.myspace.com/throughsolace
Through Solace- The Stand out in March 08 on Holdfast Records
well the others doesn't seem to agree, so that makes it an opinion after all. I don't think PH had the best special-effects, not by a long shot. your opinion clearly comes from the fact that you like PH and see everything about it in a positive way, you can't see any negative sides because you love it so much.