|
Hakkesshu posted:I didn't watch 12 Years A Slave because I read about Brad Pitt's role in that film and it sounded loving laughably lovely but this discussion has made me want to give it a go. People played this up as "WHITE SAVIOR!!!!!" but Pitt's character is almost literally the same as in the book.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
GonSmithe posted:People played this up as “WHITE SAVIOR!!!!!” but Pitt’s character is almost literally the same as in the book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:They can both be true, you know. That's true, but I don't think it's wrong to fault the movie for using the character exactly as he was written.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
I think the distracting part is that its Brad Pitt, more than it being a white guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:So the movie was boring and dull but also too shocking, pornographic even? Bleh. Sorry they didn't sanitize the events of systematized human exploitation enough for ya! Oh, I knew you'd play the "they didn't sanitize it enough for you" card. But that wasn't the issue, because if you read my post (which doesn't look like you did, it just looks like you're annoyed because I don't like the movie you love) you'd remember that I read Northup's book before watching 12 Years a Slave. So yes, I expected all the evil and the brutality but what I didn't expect was the tone they chose to go for. The movie was dull (and it really didn't need to be, considering the excellent source material) because it felt like passion of the christ: slavery edition. This is not a "beautiful film" by any means and many critics, while unanimously praising the effort, did comment that the end result was somewhat uneven. Again I don't think it deserved all the awards it got. Amour was clearly the best movie of that year, to the point where they even gave it a rare double nomination (Best Foreign Language -winner - and Best Picture) to compensate, the same way Mad Max got 200 minor oscars to make us forget that Spotlight was bad. Though you could argue that Room was the best movie of last year and you'd probably be right. Now the 2013 Oscars weren't as controversial because no one had seen Amour and all the other nominees were inferior to 12 Years (just to name a couple, Zero Dark Thirty and Silver Linings Playbook -lol-), but my point still stands. I guess we strongly disagree! EDIT: the essay you linked is a good watch but obviously I don't agree with it either Kawabata fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Silver Linings Playbook lol! Spotlight bad! 12 Years A Slave dull! Maybe if we all assert our opinions as facts CD will be great again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Silver Linings Playbook lol! Spotlight bad! 12 Years A Slave dull! I didn't elaborate on Silver Linings Playbook or Spotlight because it seemed pretty clear at the time (in Silver Linings' case especially) that they weren't in the same league as the movies they were competing with. I did elaborate a bit on 12 Years because I don't think its tone quite worked. Amour was as difficult to watch as 12 Years on a more intimate level but it felt like a more cohesive work than what basically is a monotonous catalogue of brutality and torture. Which is an impressive feat considering Amour is a Haneke movie. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that my opinion on 12 Years is not the popular one and it's ok if you think it's dumb and wrong, but keep the MAGA jokes to yourself. Kawabata fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Zero Dark and Silver Linings were in the Argo year. 12 Years beat Her, Wolf of Wall St, Gravity and American Hustle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
CRINDY posted:Zero Dark and Silver Linings were in the Argo year. 12 Years beat Her, Wolf of Wall St, Gravity and American Hustle. They were? My bad then! In that case yes, it probably still was the best movie that year. It annoys me even more that Amour lost to Argo though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:Oh, I knew you'd play the "they didn't sanitize it enough for you" card. But that wasn't the issue, because if you read my post (which doesn't look like you did, it just looks like you're annoyed because I don't like the movie you love) you'd remember that I read Northup's book before watching 12 Years a Slave. I did read your post. I just disagreed with it, which is what I said. 12 Years A Slave only won 3 awards, duder, it didn't clean up in any way. One of those was for adapted screenplay, so there are definitely people who disagree with you about its particular relevance to the book, and I'm sure you understand that a film can adapt material in different ways while still respecting the core message, right? We can agree to disagree, but yeah, I think your 'tone' argument is absolutely fallacious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Not only is Pitt in the film for about five minutes at most, there's nothing bad about his performance except maybe the accent. Every time Pitt tries an accent he sounds like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krtnt191Drg
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Spotlight isn't a bad movie but I feel like there's something really strange about it winning Best Picture and nothing else. It's like, if we're not awarding movies based off of the things that make them movies, what are we awarding them for? A certain je ne sais quo? Even if they didn't want to give it to an action movie last year, Room was still more deserving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
I would have understood Spotlight winning if it had come out in 2005, though I don't think it would have aged super well. In 2015 it just feels blander than a movie about something so horrible should be- like it shouldn't be so easy to watch. I'll always think its funny that Tom McCarthy directed it though, considering the character he played on The Wire. Raxivace fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Spotlight isn't a bad movie but I feel like there's something really strange about it winning Best Picture and nothing else. Best Picture should not be understood as Best Film, but more like Best Record at the Grammys, a producer's credit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Spotlight isn't a bad movie but I feel like there's something really strange about it winning Best Picture and nothing else. Spotlight probably won because best picture is decided by a ranked/instant runoff vote which is why middling but inoffensive films often win. This video does a better job of explaining it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfIxihGOaQ8
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Spotlight was a hell of a lot better than The Revenant and The Martian at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Detective Dog Dick posted:Spotlight was a hell of a lot better than The Revenant and The Martian at any rate. I'm a bit surprised to say that I agree. edit; though I'd still take The Insider over spotlight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
The major political campaign for The Revenant at the Oscars was "this was really hard to make and a miserable shoot."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Mad Max probably deserved it but honestly I couldn't be mad about Spotlight winning, Spotlight was really good. If The Big Short had won like I thought it was going to, that'd be bullshit.BeanpolePeckerwood posted:edit; though I'd still take The Insider over spotlight. oh definitely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
I never really got the love for The Big Short. Inside Job gives a more concise and damning explanation of the collapse without feeling like a Very Special Episode of a sitcom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
The Big Short is a decent flick and shows something kinda different from McKay, but uh...it ain't award worthy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Detective Dog Dick posted:I never really got the love for The Big Short. Inside Job gives a more concise and damning explanation of the collapse without feeling like a Very Special Episode of a sitcom. Ditto Margin Call.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Detective Dog Dick posted:Spotlight was a hell of a lot better than The Revenant and The Martian at any rate. Detective Dog Dick posted:I never really got the love for The Big Short. Inside Job gives a more concise and damning explanation of the collapse without feeling like a Very Special Episode of a sitcom. Raxivace fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
I feel weird that I thought La La Land was good but didn't blow me away or anything. I unironically think that Zootopia, a Disney movie for children, was both more complex and more entertaining. I feel like Moonlight is probably a Very Good Movie and basically all the acting was spot on but I felt pretty disconnected from the film as a non-black non-American that grew up in lower-class suburbs that, while containing drugs, weren't dominated by them. Which I suppose is weird because I just mentioned a film that contains a city of talking animals. Maybe the disconnection was the intended effect? I just didn't feel a connection to Chiron. Anyway City of Stars shouldn't win best original song because Ryan Gosling is not a good singer and also that's not even one of the better songs in that movie. That also goes for Moana though since How Far I'll Go is worse than Where You Are and You're Welcome and Voyagers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Wish Jackie got more love. It's a genuinely different, hypnotic biopic. So gorgeous and well scored. The Oscars don't reward non-convention, of course, but it generally hasn't gotten much love across the awards circuit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Wish Jackie got more love. It's a genuinely different, hypnotic biopic. So gorgeous and well scored. The Oscars don't reward non-convention, of course, but it generally hasn't gotten much love across the awards circuit. Fox Searchlight bet big on Birth of a Nation instead which ended up having baggage in the PR sphere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
It's interesting that the video explaining why Oscar voting format rewards safe films finishes it up by saying that the year before they switched formats Crash won. Like clearly the voting format is not the issue here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
the problem is that working in Hollywood, at least in a capacity that allows you to get invited to join the Academy, doesn't require you to have any scholarly sense of what makes a film objectively good or bad. i remember Ben Lyons, a paid critic, saying that you only notice editing when it's bad. obviously he's a loving moron, but do you think most of the actors/actresses voting have any idea what makes good editing? extrapolate that to pretty much every category. the background in film history & theory that you need to properly appreciate & contextualize a film goes out the window when you spend your 20s at the Royal Tampa Academy of Dramatic Tricks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Food for thought:quote:The nominations for this Academy Award are determined by a ballot of the voting members of the Editing Branch of the Academy; there were 220 members of the Editing Branch in 2012.[4] The members may vote for up to five of the eligible films in the order of their preference; the five films with the largest vote totals are selected as nominees.[3] The Academy Award itself is selected from the nominated films by a subsequent ballot of all active and life members of the Academy. This process is essentially the reverse of that of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA); nominations for the BAFTA Award for Best Editing are done by a general ballot of Academy voters, and the winner is selected by members of the editing chapter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Film_Editing Given that you're never getting Film Editing nominees substantially different from the Best Picture nominees, it's clear that these aren't the Film Theory Awards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
it would still be possible to actually choose the best of the five nominees if the people voting on the winner (since everybody votes)...oscars.org posted:Finals voting is also conducted via online and paper ballots. ...made their choices based on objective criteria, rather than "it's their year for it" or "I just loved that movie, so I'll vote for it" edit: see also the Cannes Film Festival, where a jury of cinematic peers still make baffling choices china bot fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
china bot posted:the problem is that working in Hollywood, at least in a capacity that allows you to get invited to join the Academy, doesn't require you to have any scholarly sense of what makes a film objectively good or bad. quote:The last three ballots kind of cover the entire range of attitudes towards voting. There’s Voter #5 who gives us gems like “I didn’t get around to seeing any of them. You want the truth? I shouldn’t have voted, but I did.” about the Best Foreign Language Film category http://www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/more-brutally-honest-oscar-voters-confirm-all-your-worst-suspicions.php
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Sounds like democracy as usual.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Having watched a bunch this year, my top ten for '16: 1. Moonlight 2. 20th Century Women 3. I Am Not Your Negro 4. Paterson 5. Silence 6. Everybody Wants Some 7. The Fits 8. Arrival 9. The Lure 10. Manchester By The Sea Honorable: Fences, Hail, Caesar!, The Lobster, Toni Erdmann,
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
I'll throw in my top ten: 1. OJ: Made in America 2. Elle 3. Author: The JT LeRoy Story 4: Wiener-Dog 5. Don't Breathe 6. The Edge of Seventeen 7. Manchester By The Sea 8. Toni Erdmann 9. La La Land 10. The Nice Guys
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
http://www.theonion.com/infographic/onions-2017-oscar-picks-55372
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Oscar picks are also often bad because most people have bad taste
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Purple Monkey posted:Spotlight probably won because best picture is decided by a ranked/instant runoff vote which is why middling but inoffensive films often win. This video does a better job of explaining it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfIxihGOaQ8 I hate this video 1) It essentially makes the case that we need more movies like "Crash" to win best picture, because they're more "polarizing" 2) It paints preferential/instant runoff voting as guaranteeing "safe, boring" winners. Given that preferential voting would be a good choice for actual elections, this is not a brush that is worth painting preferential voting with, especially at this moment in history. 3) It makes an awful lot of guesses and overgeneralizations. If you had preferential voting in 2005, that does not mean "Good night and good luck" would have won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
If there were 10 total movies made a year, maybe they'd have a point. The nomination process already picks down to what the membership considers the 6 to 10 best of the year. Being the consensus 2nd or 3rd choice from a top 10 out of 500 is not a recipe for mediocrity or safety lol. Birdman was loving risky, I mean think about that screenplay and that production, that was an insane movie. Even Spotlight was dicey for the producers (reporters & priest sex is not a recipe for box office lol). *Nobody* wanted to make La La Land. If you give more than 30 seconds of thought to their video, it is idiotic. And yeah, Crash barely beat Brokeback that year, Good Night and Good Luck wasn't even in the picture. If they had instant runoff voting, Crash might've had an even better chance to win....it's unclear without knowing exact totals. One thing on that video...I have a fairly sophisticated method to predict what films will win Best Picture (I used to bet heavily on them), and one thing I was playing around with was a qualitative "home field" addition to certain films. Birdman, La La Land, even Boyhood would get "home field" bumps because they're essentially movies that play on the home field. poo poo even Crash could have some home field, because its set in Los Angeles, where a lot of voters reside. I never could quite crack the bonus, though, because the correlation was a little hazy (a lot of the films do not win).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
I'd like to hear some opinions of people who saw and liked Hacksaw Ridge. I'm doing the Best Picture Showcase and it seemed universally reviled. Everything just seemed amateurish. The tone is all over the place, the script is laughable at parts, and the endless Jesus shots wore thin by the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
Harlock posted:I'd like to hear some opinions of people who saw and liked Hacksaw Ridge. I'm doing the Best Picture Showcase and it seemed universally reviled. Everything just seemed amateurish. The tone is all over the place, the script is laughable at parts, and the endless Jesus shots wore thin by the end. I posted something like this earlier. I honestly think it just had a massive marketing campaign. I've never met anyone that liked it and the only love I've really seen for it online comes from chuds who just eat up any pro-military nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:07
|
|