|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Someone once told me a theory about the oscars, that the people who vote are sent DVDs and they sometimes watch them while they're doing other stuff, so films that lose nothing by being on a small screen do better than they should. Obviously doesn't apply 100% of the time but still. English Patient, anyone? Those anonymous Academy member interviews pretty much confirm this. Conservative middle aged people who can barely be bothered. They know when their tastes are being offended or when something viscerally displeases them but don't really seem to care one way or the other otherwise, as though watching these films to award them with Academy awards is an unpleasant chore.
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Marco Polo is a lot better than I was expecting.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Those anonymous Academy member interviews pretty much confirm this. Conservative middle aged people who can barely be bothered. They know when their tastes are being offended or when something viscerally displeases them but don't really seem to care one way or the other otherwise, as though watching these films to award them with Academy awards is an unpleasant chore. The part that shocked me about those interviews were academy members voting for actors based on how much they like them, and I don't mean their performances I mean in a "oh they seem nice!" kind of way, it's loving insane.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
cat doter posted:The part that shocked me about those interviews were academy members voting for actors based on how much they like them, and I don't mean their performances I mean in a "oh they seem nice!" kind of way, it's loving insane. Doesn't shock me at all. The best part about all this anonymous poo poo and especially the Sony leaks is that it's definitive proof that there is nothing special about any of these people. They have no particular insight, no claim to expertise. It's literally all about who you know and who you're connected to. The whole jazz about work ethic and whatnot is a weird mythology that persists like we're all trying to protect ourselves from stress-related mental illness.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Doesn't shock me at all. The best part about all this anonymous poo poo and especially the Sony leaks is that it's definitive proof that there is nothing special about any of these people. They have no particular insight, no claim to expertise. It's literally all about who you know and who you're connected to. The whole jazz about work ethic and whatnot is a weird mythology that persists like we're all trying to protect ourselves from stress-related mental illness. Work ethic is just a lie capitalists invented to convince workers that wasting their life on unhappy pursuits is somehow noble. I just waste my life on watching movies and shitposting, it's far more noble.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
There are no experts in anything and everyone is making it up as they go along. Everything is a lie. All we have are the movies of Kevin Bacon.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
cat doter posted:
When Gladiator won. Every time I watch that movie I dislike it more and more. Crouching Tiger 4 eva.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
There are plenty of reasons to think the Oscars are a crock but "movie I didn't like beat movie I liked" isn't really one of them
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:There are plenty of reasons to think the Oscars are a crock but "movie I didn't like beat movie I liked" isn't really one of them Yes, it is. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:When Gladiator won. Every time I watch that movie I dislike it more and more. Crouching Tiger 4 eva. Gladiator owns though, I believe you extremely mistaken. axleblaze posted:There are plenty of reasons to think the Oscars are a crock but "movie I didn't like beat movie I liked" isn't really one of them It's when they pick kinda bland crowd pleasers that I get annoyed, Titanic vs LA Confidential is a good example. One's a spectacle movie with a kinda lovely romance plot and the other is a full on noir that doesn't give a gently caress if you can't follow the plot and gets quite dark at points. That's not to belittle Titanic, it's an OK movie, but there's so much about it that's kinda middling and unremarkable.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
cat doter posted:Gladiator owns though, I believe you extremely mistaken. It is a rote, inspirational movie that relies so heavily on the orchestra to provide emotion that I could mistake it for another of Spielberg's paint-by-numbers movies. I love Ridley Scott as a director, but he is pretty hit or miss. His most Oscar worthy film is Kingdom of Heaven , which is probably in my top 10.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I love Ridley Scott as a director, but he is pretty hit or miss. His most Oscar worthy film is Kingdom of Heaven , which is probably in my top 10. Well I get that you're probably excluding Alien and Blade Runner because their sci-fi, but they are both just as Oscar worthy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well I get that you're probably excluding Alien and Blade Runner because their sci-fi, but they are both just as Oscar worthy. Those two movies are amazing, but they don't fit into the Oscar genre. I definitely love them though. Kingdom of Heaven is still my favorite.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
cat doter posted:It's when they pick kinda bland crowd pleasers that I get annoyed, Titanic vs LA Confidential is a good example. One's a spectacle movie with a kinda lovely romance plot and the other is a full on noir that doesn't give a gently caress if you can't follow the plot and gets quite dark at points. That's not to belittle Titanic, it's an OK movie, but there's so much about it that's kinda middling and unremarkable. It's still just all a matter of taste. you're still just saying "the Oscars are a crock because think this one movie is bland and this other movie isn't" which isn't a really compelling argument tome. I haven't even seen Titanic but I've seen alot of people around here say that it actually is really quite good. Also of the two movies it's the one that made far greater of a cultural impact. The Oscars are a crock because of the patterns of what they reward and ignore, and rarely for any individual year. There are exceptions (Brokeback Mountain not even being viewed by alot of the judges is what killed the Oscars for me) but mostly the real badness of the whole thing is that you can look at a movie like Beasts of the Southern Wild, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Black Swan and instantly say "well that's not going to win" and you'd know you'd be right. It's also the fact that you can look at a movie like Argo, Crash, Forrest Gump or Slumdog Millionaire and easily predict that they will win. Things like this shouldn't have an easily predictable pattern. Things like this shouldn't be able to symbolically give someone an award for a greater meaning outside of the merit of the work being considered. It's all about the way the whole machine operates and the fact that it somehow is a machine that makes this whole thing a crock. It's also the fact that as predictable as it all is that it's still subject to the shitheadedness of the old school elites that make up the voters. It's all of this and not just that the lesser film sometimes wins. That will always be true to someone no matter what wins.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:It's still just all a matter of taste. you're still just saying "the Oscars are a crock because think this one movie is bland and this other movie isn't" which isn't a really compelling argument tome. I haven't even seen Titanic but I've seen alot of people around here say that it actually is really quite good. Also of the two movies it's the one that made far greater of a cultural impact. Thank you for pointing out that subjectivity is a thing. Gladiator is objectively dweeby though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
fishtobaskets posted:I finally watched Harold and Maude for the first time thanks to Netflix suggesting it. It's just a delight of a movie. Morbid, hilarious, sweet, slightly sad, yet oddly light and uplifting given the subject matter. I'm kind of shocked that it didn't turn Bud Court into a bigger star. He's the best kind of peculiar. Ruth Gordon is amazing too. Love that movie. I think Hal Ashby never really got his due as a director. He made a bunch of great movies, they're all different, but they all have a very distinctive style that no one else could create. It's also worth watching to see where Wes Anderson got his ideas from.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:It's still just all a matter of taste. you're still just saying "the Oscars are a crock because think this one movie is bland and this other movie isn't" which isn't a really compelling argument tome. I haven't even seen Titanic but I've seen alot of people around here say that it actually is really quite good. Also of the two movies it's the one that made far greater of a cultural impact. You're just proving my point though, they pick well made bland crowd pleasers so often you can kinda pick them out as best picture winners without even thinking. Titanic is exactly that sort of movie. There's a spectacle to it that's impressive and it looks real nice but there's not much to it. The academy should be picking movies that are challenging and look amazing where actors are firing on all cylinders. By all means watch titanic to get a feel for what I mean, you'll probably like it, but it's a prime "most picture" winner. Anyway I feel like most of us are on the same page anyway we're just disagreeing on semantics. We can always leave Oscar bitching for the next Oscar season.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
A big crowd of voters being pleased with a crowd-pleaser makes sense to me. The real trick is not caring about the Oscars beyond trivia and as a sometimes-pleasant look back on the year's movies.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:Those two movies are amazing, but they don't fit into the Oscar genre. You are suppose to be imagining the world where any movie could win an oscar, don't get caught up in the oscar genre. That means... they have already won.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
cat doter posted:I can't quite remember the first time I thought the academy were full of poo poo, I remember being pretty pissed Crash won and I was probably about 17 when that came out I think. That movie was convenient when it came out,because you could easily weed out really dumb people when they started talking about how it blew their mind.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
I remember someone being upset that Forrest Gump won a special effects Oscar the same year Jurassic Park was up for it ( because in Jurassic Park you couldn't even tell which dinosaurs were real and which were fake).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
mr.capps posted:You are suppose to be imagining the world where any movie could win an oscar, don't get caught up in the oscar genre. I'm not caught up in it at all, I haven't watched or followed the Oscars in years. I just wanted to make the point that there is clearly a genre of Oscar movies. Movies that anyone who is more than passably acquainted with film can immediately identify as being Oscar grabs. The very existence of that genre is proof the Academy is a sham. I just started Vanilla Sky and even though I'm only 20 minutes in I feel comfortable declaring it a more entertaining and interesting film than The King's Speech. I've never seen The King's Speech.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
I like you most of the time Chiche but calling Spielberg paint by numbers is too far!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
the King's Speech is okay. it's neither a movie that deserves the fawning praise of the Academy nor the heavy backlash from Oscar haters. it's just a serviceable little movie.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:the King's Speech is okay. it's neither a movie that deserves the fawning praise of the Academy nor the heavy backlash from Oscar haters. it's just a serviceable little movie. The King's Speech is fine, yeah. It's sort of like The Mighty Ducks, but with speech impediments instead of hockey.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
The King's Speech doesn't really deserve hate like Crash, but it really is such an uninteresting movie from pretty much every angle outside of the performances.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Sarchasm posted:The King's Speech is fine, yeah. It's sort of like The Mighty Ducks, but with speech impediments instead of hockey. Well The Mighty Ducks, as we all know, is one of the Oscars greatest oversights. Joshua Jackson really deserved that Best Supporting Actor nod.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:The King's Speech doesn't really deserve hate like Crash, but it really is such an uninteresting movie from pretty much every angle outside of the performances. four top shelf performances from folks like Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Guy Pearce have salvaged worse movies.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
I think in general The King's Speech falls into my least favorite Oscar Bait category: Historical Biopic that tries to act like a moment of history or an aspect of an historical event was far more significant than it actually was. There are certainly FAR worse examples of this category though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I remember someone being upset that Forrest Gump won a special effects Oscar the same year Jurassic Park was up for it ( because in Jurassic Park you couldn't even tell which dinosaurs were real and which were fake). Which is funny because JP won the year before, the two coming out in different years.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Which is funny because JP won the year before, the two coming out in different years. Hmmm maybe I'm very, very confused
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I like you most of the time Chiche but calling Spielberg paint by numbers is too far! Yeah, really. If Spielberg is paint-by-numbers, it's because he's the dude that drew all the outlines and the numbers. And Gladiator ownz bonez.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I like you most of the time Chiche but calling Spielberg paint by numbers is too far! I mainly hold this stance because Warhorse is a thing that exists. X-Ray Pecs posted:Yeah, really. If Spielberg is paint-by-numbers, it's because he's the dude that drew all the outlines and the numbers. It is possible that he has now become a caricature of himself. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Lincoln is great
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
If you wanna go with biopic Oscar winners then Ghandi pretty much owns. I don't like that Forrest Gump won over The Shawshank Redemption but to be honest I don't even remember what else that year would be in the running.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
That Works posted:If you wanna go with biopic Oscar winners then Ghandi pretty much owns. The year Pulp Fiction famously got robbed of everything.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The year Pulp Fiction famously got robbed of everything. That's right. It was it and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Speaking of Four Weddings, watched that again and man does it suck. There's like 2 well acted scenes in the whole thing and the rest is just watching the 2 main characters being loathesome.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
I like King's Speech. I kinda have a soft spot for movies that are just straight up about friendships though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
War Horse is good.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
axleblaze posted:War Horse is good. It's definitely not by the numbers, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:57
|
|
