The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Oscars - ulanshad is the pool winner
Dalboz
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
I don't know if there is a thread for this already, but I didn't see one and with search disabled, well, you know...
So, the Oscars. The Academy Awards. Those little gold statues that Hollywood gives out every year. Some say they are often given out for the wrong reasons. For example, I agree with what some said that Nicole Kidman won the Oscar for "The Hours" pretty much because she wore a fake nose.
Then in 1997 the Oscars changed a bit. For a long time, they focused mostly on a bunch of big budget films and stars. Then, one year, a bunch of small arthouse films, the only big name movie being nominated for Best Picture that year being Jerry Maguire. And it's mostly stayed that way since, with a greater focus on arthouse faire than blockbuster films.
Still they do sometimes get it wrong. IMO, "Crash" was a horrible movie. I've never wanted two hours of my life back so badly. Still, I try to make an effort to see the nominated films so that I can make an educated, albeit personal, opinion as to the nominees. I still haven't seen "No Country for Old Men" or "Atonement." I even do what I can to see the documentary features and foreign language films (I haven't found a good venue for short films, though, but I would really like to).
As there are too many categories and nominees to list, I'll just link here. This is not about the red carpet. This not about the production and the musical numbers. This thread is about the films themselves, their merits, and which of the nominees in each category should win based on that.
So, the Oscars. The Academy Awards. Those little gold statues that Hollywood gives out every year. Some say they are often given out for the wrong reasons. For example, I agree with what some said that Nicole Kidman won the Oscar for "The Hours" pretty much because she wore a fake nose.
Then in 1997 the Oscars changed a bit. For a long time, they focused mostly on a bunch of big budget films and stars. Then, one year, a bunch of small arthouse films, the only big name movie being nominated for Best Picture that year being Jerry Maguire. And it's mostly stayed that way since, with a greater focus on arthouse faire than blockbuster films.
Still they do sometimes get it wrong. IMO, "Crash" was a horrible movie. I've never wanted two hours of my life back so badly. Still, I try to make an effort to see the nominated films so that I can make an educated, albeit personal, opinion as to the nominees. I still haven't seen "No Country for Old Men" or "Atonement." I even do what I can to see the documentary features and foreign language films (I haven't found a good venue for short films, though, but I would really like to).
As there are too many categories and nominees to list, I'll just link here. This is not about the red carpet. This not about the production and the musical numbers. This thread is about the films themselves, their merits, and which of the nominees in each category should win based on that.
Dalboz on
0
Posts
People in film history classes 50 years from now will mock the "Academy" as a huge dinosaur that just wouldn't die
they'll probably note that while a lot of the actual best stuff wasn't recognized, some great stuff was given honor, albeit in a somewhat over the top spectacle.
I hear people complain about the academy awards a lot but rarely specifically about what they'd rather see get honored. I'm not saying it's perfect by a long shot but I also wouldn't quite consider it offensive.
unless you're just anti awards period, which I actually totally understand... but I don't mind lists/award shows that might get some people out there to see a movie that's slightly better than what they're watching. I mean it's not like the award goes to the fast and the furious or aliens vs. predator or hostel or some shit. especially the makeup/costume/special effects awards are interesting.
I liked Crash, even though it's not something I'll watch again. Brokeback was just okay. Had it not been about a gay relationship, it would have come across as horribly cheesy.
I agree.
I feel that if no picture really deserves Best Picture, no film should get it.
They give The Departed Best Picture after shafting Scorcese for his breakthrough films that did deserve awards, and making a huge show of how he finally "did it"
Well if the Departed is that brilliant, why wasn't Infernal Affairs, the film from which it takes its plot pretty much piece for piece not even nominated for best foreign film (When it really was the best film Hong Kong made in almost a decade, and one of the best films when it came out in 2002)
I could go on about films like The Last Samurai and Memoirs of a Geisha even getting any awards/nominations at all, but my point is there is a stench of bullshit like this pretty much every year.
Having seen both, I appreciate that O'Toole does an excellent job in Lawrence of Arabia, but Gregory Peck's Atticus Finch is one of the classic film characters of all time. I don't see how you can make the argument that Peck didn't deserve the Oscar.
On the other hand, it's pretty inexcusable to prefer Oliver! over 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Apartment to Psycho, Cavalcade to King Kong, and How Green Was My Valley to Citizen Kane.
Jesus. That's a tough call.
Meh, I like them. Though apparently the "indy" thing to do now is to shoot down the people who like the pseudo-indy films. You know, to be non-conformist and such.
That said, I enjoyed Juno and Junebug a lot. Hated Napoleon Dynamite and Little Miss Sunshine. I judge them based on how much I liked the film, not by how quirky it was/wasn't trying to be.
Exactly. But the article included that comparison in a section titled, "What was Oscar thinking?"
I think it's pretty obvious what Oscar was thinking.
I think it's obvious that an Oscar statue is an inanimate object and I'd really wish they'd stop fucking referring to it like that.
I'd probably go with O'Toole, but I couldn't disagree with Peck.
Eh, if you take away the fact that they were gay, there was no movie. Heath Ledger's character repressing his emotions his whole life was the entire thing.
I mean that's a weird criticism. "If this movie was a different movie it would have sucked balls."
Also, Princess Mononoke wasn't nominated for anything.
That Time article better have mentioned this, because Carrey not even getting a nom for Eternal Sunshine is IMO the biggest oversight in their history.
I feel that L.A. Confidential is the better film (show me someone who doesn't?), but I also feel that Titanic gets a lot of hatred it doesn't deserve. The dialogue was somewhat hammy at parts, but for the most part I found it a really enjoyable film.
It's nothing against Titanic. .... Ok, not MUCH against Titanic.
But seriously, there's no way it should have won versus one of the best films of the past few decades.
Nothing beats Goodfellas not winning. Nothing. Well, maybe skipping Raging Bull for Ordinary People.
Some would say Rocky ousting Taxi Driver is as bad, but I disagree. I actually like Rocky better.
They've got a good field this year.
I think any number of them could win it, and I would feel more "Hmm, interesting choice" rather then "You idiots". There's at least 2-3 deserving nominees in every category. Same goes for the acting categories too.
This is the first time I've seen every film pre-Oscars and I agree with pretty much every nom. Some feel that Juno doesn't deserve a spot, I feel that it does but at the same time am confident that it won't win. Same with Michael Clayton and Atonement. Nope, this year goes to No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. I'm hoping for No Country myself, with an Actor for Daniel Day-Lewis and Supporting for Javier Bardem.
yeah I'd love to see it go like that, though I haven't seen some of the nominated movies
The movie was commonly discussed as a love story, especially to people who were iffy or intolerant on the issue of homosexuality. I think the same kind of conflict could have existed while having one of the character's as a female. Obviously, a lot of the movie would change [most of the movie, really], but I don' t think it would take too much re-writing to replace Heath Ledger with a black male and Jake Gyllenhaal with a white woman (obviously the time period would need to be adjusted accordingly). I basically saw the movie selling itself with controsvery. Not that it was bad, just that it wasn't amazing. For example, Heath Ledger's character pissed me off the same way that many characters in less-serious romantic movies piss me off.
Also, Princess Mononoke is an incredible film. The copy at the local blockbuster has been rented 83 times. That's just for that one copy. Mind boggling. I only wish that they'd re-scan all of the cels and do a blu-ray release, not that I ever expect that it to happen.
Goodfellas was pretty good, what beat it out? Those mob movies were a bit incestuous with the casts though.
Borat was nominated for best adapted screenplay.
A movie that had no script. A movie where most of the performances are ad libbed, and 90% of the people involved thought it was real. It's not like the TV Borat segments were scripted in any way either.
So, if an Academy thinks, that as an authority on film it's ok to just do that, they're patently fucking stupid.
If anyone that calls themselves a film scholar, or even someone whose job involves working with films think that's okay, they should be fired and out of a career.
An interracial couple wouldn't be able to hit on some of the things BM touched on, like the fact that both of them were married. And Heath Ledger's character wouldn't have worked.
Something about the way his movies come together; it's almost comparable to a good mario game. The music compliments everything well, the characters' actions aren't blatantly THIS IS WHY I AM DOING THIS HURRAY and they're not completely predictable. To each his own, I guess. I still don't see how anyone could enjoy Steamboy.
I think Michael Clayton, and it's various ancillary nominees for Best Actor/Supporting Actor, deserves to be up in that "worthy of winning the Oscar" circle.
Actually, I feel any of the five are worthy of winning the Oscar. Yes, even Juno. What I'm saying is I really, really doubt any of those three will win.
-No Country deserves best picture/best director/best adapted screenplay/& best supporting actor. It has director and possibly supporting actor basically in the bag, best adapted could possibly go to TWBB, though I personally disagree.
-There Will Be Blood easily deserves best actor. Also - why the fuck was Paul Dano not nominated for best supporting? He deserves a nomination for that easily. Day-Lewis has best actor with zero competition that can even begin to come close. Also why was this not considered for best score?
-Michael Clayton, really really enjoyed it, it deserves all the nominations it is getting, but it's only real shot at pulling down an oscar is with best supporting actress, which is a bit of a longwhat when compared to the fact that Blanchett is so going to win best supporting for playing Bob Dylan. Wilkinson did a fantastic job also and would be my second choice for best supporting, that is under the place in my heart reserved for Paul Dano.
As far as cinematography goes, Deakins is taking this one. Whether it's for No Country or Assassination of blah blah blah I'm not sure.
Original screenplay is a crapshoot. I don't think Juno deserves it, but that's probably the category where the academy will fuck with the hardon they seem to have for Diablo Cody and that whole movie. It wasn't bad, but it definitely wasn't as good as Little Miss Sunshine, and Page being nominated for best actress cheapens the entire thing IMO. (That category better be won by Cotillard, by the way. She did an incredible job and there is no serious competition.)
I was surprised she was nominated for best actress though. that didn't seem right to me.
Having seen both No Country and There Will Be Blood I'd be very disappointed if No Country won Best Picture over There Will Be Blood because I feel the latter far outclasses No Country in almost every single way.
I far preferred Atonement to No Country but few people seem to like Atonement, so I'm aware that I'm alone in this opinion.
But There Will Be Blood was amazing cinema, everything was outstanding (except I found the music a little overbearing in places).
Goodfellas got beat by Dances With Wolves. Competing against The Godfather III probably didn't help it's chances of winning either.
The problem with the Oscars is that utterly rubbish films get elevated when the industry has had a bad year (1998 - Shakespeare in Love..uurfgh), when films that all would make deserving winners end up competing against each other (1999 - American Beauty beat out The Green Mile and The Sixth Sense). Plus, if you had the bad luck to come up against one of the monster titles than sweep loads of awards in one year, you are utterly screwed (1994-The Shawshank Redemption was absolutely mugged by Forrest Gump).
The National Film Registry is a better judge of great films. They induct up to 25 films each year, and they can add any film older than 10 years whenever they like - more of a Movie Hall of Fame.
Oh, and To Kill a Mockingbird and Lawrence of Arabia are both deserving members.
Forrest Gump is an excellent movie.
It's saccharine sentimental crap, and also advocates unquestioningly following orders- Gump does nothing and blindly follows orders, culminating with going to 'Nam. Jenny, who is intellectually curious and anti-war becomes a coke whore while Forrest becomes a millionaire. So it has a shit message at its core too.
A movie based on mixed race issues wouldn't work as a modern love story, though. Yes, the film could work with another taboo like you just mentioned, but no group is as actively discriminated against today in Western culture as homosexuals. Which is why Ledger's plight actually tugs at the heart. You couldn't make a movie about Heath Ledger being a black man and then pretending not to be one his whole life, and having it cost him true life, happiness, a family etc etc.
Yes it'd work as a period piece, but I don't know, I think saying that a movie could work as something else and that something else would be inferior isn't a valid criticism of what the movie actually is.
And Dances with Wolves was ass and fuck Kevin Costner.
Edit: And that's a freakishly common misinterpretation of Forrest Gump. It's a pretty narrow minded view, I think.
To quote Ebert: "As Forrest's life becomes a guided tour of straight-arrow America, Jenny (played by Robin Wright) goes on a parallel tour of the counterculture. She goes to California, of course, and drops out, tunes in, and turns on. She's into psychedelics and flower power, antiwar rallies and love-ins, drugs and needles. Eventually it becomes clear that between them Forrest and Jenny have covered all of the landmarks of our recent cultural history, and the accommodation they arrive at in the end is like a dream of reconciliation for our society. What a magical movie."
Gump works more as a symbol of that straight-arrow America, not as a Fascist's Guide on How to Live Your Life.