"2017 National Film Registry inductions" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Movies Plus Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile Article Poker chips are back at the dollar store!
Featured Book Review
|
 Saginaw  | 14 Dec 2017 6:45 a.m. PST |
The list of this year's inductions for the National Film Registry have been released. This registry, the United States National Film Preservation Board's selection of films for preservation in the Library of Congress, has been in existence since its creation in 1989. The criteria for preservation states that the nominated film has to be ten years old or more and can be considered to be "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". Here's a list of this year's inductions: loc.gov/item/prn-17-178 And, from Wikipedia, is the complete list of all the films in the Registry: link So, would y'all agree about this year's nominations? |
| Coelacanth | 14 Dec 2017 7:21 a.m. PST |
|
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 14 Dec 2017 11:11 a.m. PST |
Like it or not, 'Titanic' (which is being re-released in theatres for its 20th anniversary) is one of James Cameron's greatest triumphs. Historical or not, its lasting cultural and aesthetic impact in the movie industry can't be denied, which was affirmed in its sweeping the Oscars that year with 11 statues out of 14 noms. Personally I think it's overwrought sappy soap melodrama, but I'm in the minority. The National Film Registry is the Hollywood equivalent to professional sports' Halls of Fame. It is a great honor to be inducted. Dave (amateur movie critic, check out my blog at link) |
| Winston Smith | 14 Dec 2017 11:38 a.m. PST |
It took this long for Spartacus? |
| Winston Smith | 14 Dec 2017 11:40 a.m. PST |
If Bladerunner ever makes the Grade, which cut will be included? This is typical Big Government arrogance! Can't the Private Sector do as good a job, or better???  |
ScottWashburn  | 15 Dec 2017 10:52 a.m. PST |
Well, I happen to love Titanic :) I remember going to the theater thinking: "Well, it's supposed to have great special effects, I'll watch it for that." But I got so caught up in the story of Jack and Rose that an hour into it, when they are at the raucous party with the steerage passengers, I was struck with the chilling thought: "My God, all of these people are going to die!" Your mileage may differ, but it really worked for me. |
| Ed Mohrmann | 16 Dec 2017 8:23 a.m. PST |
|
| Bowman | 17 Dec 2017 2:01 p.m. PST |
Like it or not, 'Titanic' (which is being re-released in theatres for its 20th anniversary) is one of James Cameron's greatest triumphs. Historical or not,…… You mean it didn't sink? |
| Saginaw | 18 Dec 2017 8:32 a.m. PST |
I've yet to see it, but someone please school me on this one: 'The Goonies'???
|
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 18 Dec 2017 10:39 a.m. PST |
You mean it didn't sink? No, but that doesn't mean it had no inaccuracies. link |
| Bowman | 19 Dec 2017 3:03 p.m. PST |
Well, I was being a bit facetious. But the "inaccuracies" are more common Hollywoodisms than outright misrepresentations. Water in all movies is pristine pool water, and not the dark, detritus filled liquid from reality. Molly Brown was not called "Unsinkable" in the film so that inaccuracy is a stretch. Same with the women wearing too much makeup, or not enough soot in the boiler room. I thought we were bad at rivet counting. One misrepresentation is the treatment of First Officer Murdoch. That's a fabrication to make a dramatic moment……at his memory's expense. Something I didn't know about until that link. |
|
