Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Snapper

  • 09-11-2011 9:09am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,390 ✭✭✭


    it was aired on TV will ruled it out from the oscars..

    hypothetically speaking how many oscars nominations and wins would The Snapper have got and what categories?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭Sonovagun


    Er none.

    As good as the snapper was it only appealed to an Irish audience. It would undoubtedly have cleaned up at the IFTAs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭Mental Mickey


    Saw it last night. P****d meself laughing. Colm Meaney is a briliant actor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I always knew there was something that didn't entirely sit right with me about that movie, and I figured it out last night. The girl playing Sharon doesn't look young. She looks about 30, in fact she was 25/26 making the movie. Sharon is supposed to be 20, and look it.

    Classic movie, still brilliant, but especially after reading the book I always knew there was some angle missing, and that was it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    errr, none? its not a very good film, has some funny moments but the acting is mostly woeful, the scenes with Sharon in the pub with her friends are painful to watch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    A good majority of Irish films suffer from poor acting (outside of the main cast)

    The Wind That Shakes The Barely is a prime example. Some of the acting from the supporting cast is truly woeful (not to mention how unsubtle the plot is)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Babooshka


    krudler wrote: »
    errr, none? its not a very good film, has some funny moments but the acting is mostly woeful, the scenes with Sharon in the pub with her friends are painful to watch.

    But worth the pain when you wait till the scene where Colm Meaney, urging on the Barrystown Wheelies to get a move on, looks at the fat kid who's last on his bike and mumbles "poor little f*cker, he'll saw the b*llix off 'imself". Worth all the pain for that one line.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    get outa me way ya dozey bollicks


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    If Taxi Driver couldn't win an oscar I seriously doubt The Snapper had a chance..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    A good majority of Irish films suffer from poor acting (outside of the main cast)

    The Wind That Shakes The Barely is a prime example. Some of the acting from the supporting cast is truly woeful (not to mention how unsubtle the plot is)

    really? like who, i thought they were all believable

    best snapper quote: "thats only your water breakin'. sure it could happen to a bishop"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,326 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Sonovagun wrote: »
    Er none.

    As good as the snapper was it only appealed to an Irish audience. It would undoubtedly have cleaned up at the IFTAs.

    Colm Meaney was nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance in the film.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,884 ✭✭✭WHIP IT!


    Sonovagun wrote: »
    Er none.

    As good as the snapper was it only appealed to an Irish audience. It would undoubtedly have cleaned up at the IFTAs.

    Well this is simply not true...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    really? like who, i thought they were all believable

    Look at the scene where they're debating the treaty in the courthouse, hilariously bad acting

    Not to mention the fella they shot up the hills for being a British informer

    It's little lines here and there from small parts that give it away

    Murphy and a few others are good in it but as a whole there's some very bad acting


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭ziedth


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    Look at the scene where they're debating the treaty in the courthouse, hilariously bad acting

    Not to mention the fella they shot up the hills for being a British informer

    It's little lines here and there from small parts that give it away

    Murphy and a few others are good in it but as a whole there's some very bad acting

    I must watch it again, usually poor acting puts me right off a film but I don't remember anything bad in that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,361 ✭✭✭YouTookMyName


    "Get outta way, ya dozy bollix"

    Class.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    Look at the scene where they're debating the treaty in the courthouse, hilariously bad acting

    Not to mention the fella they shot up the hills for being a British informer

    It's little lines here and there from small parts that give it away

    Murphy and a few others are good in it but as a whole there's some very bad acting
    have to disagree there. the debate scene was very believable


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,070 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    The Snapper is only worth watching for Colm Meaney's performance. It's made out to be a great Irish comedy but apart from Meaney it's not funny at all. Gimme the dark comedy of The Butcher Boy (best Irish film of all time for me) any day over it.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,520 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    One thing a I get a great kick from out of the Snapper is the window into a different time it provides. Back when someone could be heavily pregnant and smoke and drink as much as they liked without so much as dirty look from the general public. Good times :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    krudler wrote: »
    errr, none? its not a very good film, has some funny moments but the acting is mostly woeful, the scenes with Sharon in the pub with her friends are painful to watch.
    There's a tendency to consider Irish films (particularly from the late 80's/early nineties) as being boring or poorly acted, but that's because they didn't employ the same techniques as hollywood movies of the era, so they appear very raw. There's a tendency in Hollywood to overact somewhat, so if that's what you measure as a good performance, then looking at that era of Irish movies you'd be lead to believe that the acting lacked passion or emotion, when IMO it was a whole lot more "real" than the Hollywood overacting.

    That said, we also have tendency to make some poor casting choices (and we still do), due to the nepotism rampant in the Irish film & theatre scene.

    The Commitments is considered another great, but the lead character in that has some terrible acting. But it's saved by a great script and some great performances of those around him.

    Likewise in this, Sharon (who isn't actually the lead) has a very poor performance, but flanked by 3 of our greatest actors - Colm Meaney, Brendan Gleeson and Ruth McCabe - as well as a number of other good performances, you can kind of gloss over her weak points.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,326 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Gleeson's doesn't even have a scene with her. He's a great actor but you couldn't tell that looking at the Snapper, as he hams it up with the rest of them

    There's also no point in comparing acting in a serious drama to a comedy. Different films have different needs. Some charachters in the Snapper are dliberately OTT for comic effect. It isn't designed to be ultra realistic. They need to have comic timing and be somewhat belieavble. They all deliver


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    The Snapper is only worth watching for Colm Meaney's performance. It's made out to be a great Irish comedy but apart from Meaney it's not funny at all. Gimme the dark comedy of The Butcher Boy (best Irish film of all time for me) any day over it.

    thought the scenes with his pub mates were good although silly , billy meehan from fair city was one of them :eek:aswell as brendan gleeson of course , didnt like sharon but some of the other kids were good and the mother ( ruth mc cabe ) is a good actress and put in an understated but solid performance , sharons friends were the low point


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    One thing a I get a great kick from out of the Snapper is the window into a different time it provides. Back when someone could be heavily pregnant and smoke and drink as much as they liked without so much as dirty look from the general public. Good times :D

    the book must be from the 80,s as even in 1993 , ireland wasnt that innocent


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 691 ✭✭✭baddebt


    Saw it last night. P****d meself laughing. Colm Meaney is a briliant actor.



    they need to show more film's like this on TV .................given all the doom and gloom around , it sure would cheer people up


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 265 ✭✭DRose1


    Not a patch on the Van imo, but definitely worth another watch last night.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭saa


    Ah the nostalgia of it makes me happy, the decor, hoppin on an auld green bus.
    TK and a package of King Crips!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,390 ✭✭✭Bowlardo


    just look up the nominations and winners for the oscars in 1993....fairly big hitters in fairness

    http://boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?view=allcategories&yr=1993&p=.htm

    Should have got BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE PICTURE???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    DRose1 wrote: »
    Not a patch on the Van imo, but definitely worth another watch last night.


    only saw the van once , only bit that sticks out was when one particular customer opened his newspaper and the cod he ordered turned out to be something else

    its a :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,884 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    the book must be from the 80,s as even in 1993 , ireland wasnt that innocent

    It was written in 1990, not 1993.
    If you had to date it, its set around 1989. Basing this on the van being based around Italia'90


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,593 ✭✭✭theteal


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    only saw the van once , only bit that sticks out was when one particular customer opened his newspaper and the cod he ordered turned out to be something else

    its a :eek:

    "ah f*ck off, baldy conscience!"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭cython


    Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:



    I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    Mellor wrote: »
    If you had to date it, its set around 1989. Basing this on the van being based around Italia'90

    Well there is a scene when Sharon mentions that Dessie cried during the World Cup. So it probably starts in late 1989, passing the World Cup and finishing in around August/September 1990.

    If the films were like the books, The Van could probably sit between the The Commitments and The Snapper chronologically.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 bebostalker


    Intermission was the best Irish film ever, man.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,520 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Intermission was the best Irish film ever, man.

    Ara now....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 bebostalker


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Ara now....

    You just don't have the requisite Celtic soul, man.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,884 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    I always took it that that was a very intentional joke from fr ted writers


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,884 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Draupnir wrote: »
    Mellor wrote: »
    If you had to date it, its set around 1989. Basing this on the van being based around Italia'90

    Well there is a scene when Sharon mentions that Dessie cried during the World Cup. So it probably starts in late 1989, passing the World Cup and finishing in around August/September 1990.

    If the films were like the books, The Van could probably sit between the The Commitments and The Snapper chronologically.
    it wouldn't make sense for it to overlap the world cup, simply because that's when Colm Meeney had the chip van, plus Sharon has already had her baby by the van.
    Chronologically, the order is the commitments, the snapper and the van.
    I know the line you are referring to, and unless it refers to '86 or a different sport it's a mistake from the writers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭ziedth


    I don't think that Meaney in The Van and the Snapper are actually the same character Mellor. So I would take it that the snapper takes place just after Italy '90 too.

    Edit: actually ignore that. I see the different names are a copyright issue.

    Further edt: I just watched it with the wife and it shows the sons DOB as on the crib as '93


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 bebostalker


    Mellor wrote: »
    I always took it that that was a very intentional joke from fr ted writers

    Sorry Sheep...I'm gonna' have to put you down man.

    Is Meaney also meant to be same character in Intermission :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,326 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Mellor wrote: »
    I know the line you are referring to, and unless it refers to '86 or a different sport it's a mistake from the writers.

    Its not a mistake. its just artistic license

    The 3 films were seperately made and have little/no overlap at all. Colm Meaney plays the same charachter in each film but they're called Jimmy rabbitte, Dessie Curley and Larry rabbitte for example

    The "world cup line" was added into the screenplay (ie its not in the book) and it works well


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    That's exactly what I meant, they had already been forced to change the family name and lead characters name due to copyright issues. I think the movie timelines are a bit different to the literary version. I've read the trilogy and am aware that the timeline there is clear.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,884 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Dodge wrote: »
    Its not a mistake. its just artistic license

    The 3 films were seperately made and have little/no overlap at all. Colm Meaney plays the same charachter in each film but they're called Jimmy rabbitte, Dessie Curley and Larry rabbitte for example

    The "world cup line" was added into the screenplay (ie its not in the book) and it works well

    Mistake was the wrong word. After all Roddy Doyle did the screen play.
    Anachronism is more fitting. .

    And as a stand alone film, the line works well I agree. But I think of them a trilogy. and the line is out of place in that sense. Maybe due to the convoluted profuction, Doyle didn't think there ever would be a trilogy of movies. or that they'd be linked due to name changes.
    Draupnir wrote: »
    That's exactly what I meant, they had already been forced to change the family name and lead characters name due to copyright issues. I think the movie timelines are a bit different to the literary version. I've read the trilogy and am aware that the timeline there is clear.

    I get what you were saying, but imo you are mistaken.

    Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
    The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
    There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 304 ✭✭Arianna_26


    I'm kicking myself that I missed this the last night :o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭ziedth


    Mellor wrote: »

    Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
    The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
    There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

    I honestly don't think (in the film) it's suppose to be Sharon. Like I said earlier in the snapper when the baby is born it has his date of birth on the cot and it says 1993. I agree with you though that they obviously didn't know that they would get a chance to film the van then they would have changed the date and possibly even have left out the world cup joke. Although it's a great line.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,326 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    ziedth wrote: »
    I honestly don't think (in the film) it's suppose to be Sharon.
    Its the same charachter alright. Just different name etc
    Like I said earlier in the snapper when the baby is born it has his date of birth on the cot and it says 1993. I agree with you though that they obviously didn't know that they would get a chance to film the van then they would have changed the date and possibly even have left out the world cup joke. Although it's a great line.

    There's no 'they'. its 3 seperate films/production companies


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,943 ✭✭✭✭the purple tin


    cython wrote: »
    Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:



    I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too

    Georgie bleedin Burgess!:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭Rodger_Muir


    I caught it for the first time the other night and thought it was pants.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,998 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I also think it's ho-hum. And that's being generous to counter arguments of begrudgery!

    There are some funny moments - a handful - and there's a hint of darkness that never quite fully kicks in. But for a film made in the 1990s it's hopelessly dated already, and the characters are a hugely unlikeable bunch.

    Having been forced to sit through many apparently stellar examples of Irish cinema as part of college (this included), the only one that stands out as anything above average is The Butcher Boy. I haven't seen I Went Down, but have been led believe that is a fine piece of work too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 88,949 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    cython wrote: »
    Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:



    I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too

    No matter what I see him I always shout thats Georgie Burgess :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,326 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    No matter what I see him I always shout thats Georgie Burgess :p

    And I bet he thinks you're so original and funny ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 88,949 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Dodge wrote: »
    And I bet he thinks you're so original and funny ;)

    Yes I'm sure he can hear me through the screen :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Draupnir


    Mellor wrote: »
    Mistake was the wrong word. After all Roddy Doyle did the screen play.
    Anachronism is more fitting. .

    And as a stand alone film, the line works well I agree. But I think of them a trilogy. and the line is out of place in that sense. Maybe due to the convoluted profuction, Doyle didn't think there ever would be a trilogy of movies. or that they'd be linked due to name changes.



    I get what you were saying, but imo you are mistaken.

    Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
    The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
    There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

    The family in the Van only has 4 members, granted some could never be on screen but I think that would be a stretch since some of the girls in The Snapper are younger than the youngest boy, you'd assume they haven't moved out by the time The Van roles around.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement