|
Arkane posted:Are they demanding affirmative action for Oscar nominations? The answer is yes, from Spike Lee at least. https://twitter.com/GMA/status/689789550034423808 Presumably in a 5 white person field, the lowest white nomination drops out, and then the next highest person of color is nominated in their place?
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Arkane posted:The answer is yes, from Spike Lee at least. This is unbelievably stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
I wouldn't be for making a rule about the nominees, but I'd certainly love to take a look at the voters and try to get some youth and diversity in there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
The issue is with actors of color not getting prestige roles so that they are in position to be nominated. The Oscar Noms are not the main concern but a symptom of a larger issue that should be talked about.Basebf555 posted:I wouldn't be for making a rule about the nominees, but I'd certainly love to take a look at the voters and try to get some youth and diversity in there. This would also be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I wouldn't be for making a rule about the nominees, but I'd certainly love to take a look at the voters and try to get some youth and diversity in there. The Screen Actors Guild is young and diverse, and their nominees are virtually the same (39/40 white people in the acting races the past 2 years). Or the Critics Choice awards, another diverse group of people (and who like to hold themselves to a higher standard), who even had 6 slots instead of 5, nominated 24/24 white people this year. The problem isn't one of bias or lack of diversity for those choosing what they think are the best performances....whatever the problem is is endemic to the industry itself, and has nothing to do with the Oscars imho.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
29 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoqmCwp95Q8
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I wouldn't be for making a rule about the nominees, but I'd certainly love to take a look at the voters and try to get some youth and diversity in there. I doubt formally boycotting the Oscars will directly effect any change, but I'm all for it just for the "gently caress It; Just gently caress It" angle. I'm sick of the entertainment industry getting all the credit for the most toothless gestures of diversity and none of the blame for its systemic racism. Almost nobody gets fired for being racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:Beasts of No Nation. There is no chance in hell that a netflix movie is going to get nominated for at least 4 years
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
My brain has been boycotting the Oscars for a decade now because it won't stay awake for more than 5 minutes of the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:My brain has been boycotting the Oscars for a decade now because it won't stay awake for more than 5 minutes of the show. I'm still pissed at the idiotic tribute to musicals they did a few years back. Instead of performing all the nominees for original song they did 3/5 so they could shoehorn in a completely unnecessary tribute to Chicago because of course the producers of the show that year also produced Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Chicago has to be up there with the most inexplicable Best Pictures, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Chicago has to be up there with the most inexplicable Best Pictures, right? They only get it right about half the time, so there's a pretty long list of inexplicable Best Picture winners. Crash comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Chicago has to be up there with the most inexplicable Best Pictures, right? No? Chicago is pretty good. To me stuff like Crash or A Beautiful Mind is a little harder to justify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:No? Chicago is pretty good. There were at least two much better options they could have chosen, Gangs of New York and the Pianist. And that's leaving out Lord of the Rings, which I'd put on the same "pretty good" level as Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
I haven't seen The Pianist, but have you watched Gangs of New York lately? It's like bottom tier Scorsese.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:I haven't seen the Pianist, but have you watched Gangs of New York lately? It's like bottom tier Scorsese. Its very good, whereas Chicago, by your own admission, is only pretty good. Check and mate. It was a weak year I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
The Pianist is very, very good. And Gangs of New York has Daniel Day-Lewis in an incredible role. Bottom-tier Scorsese is still rock solid filmmaking. Haven't seen Chicago, though, so I don't know how much it deserved it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
I guess I just don't really have as high expectations for a musical made in 2002 (God how I wish Bob Fosse would have still been around to direct it though) than I do for Scorsese, who's best ranks as some of the greatest films ever made. It really is just kind of a weak year I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
The Daniel Day-Lewis factor really does take Gangs of New York to a different level though. If it weren't for him it would probably be regarded as Scorsese's worst film. But in any given year if Day-Lewis does something its inevitably going to be the best thing to watch of that year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Maybe I dislike Gangs more than you guys too since I've never really been on the DDL train. I've never disliked him in anything, but he's never really elevated a movie for me either. EDIT: Like honestly he probably does the most for me in The Age of Innocence. Raxivace fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:I haven't seen The Pianist, but have you watched Gangs of New York lately? It's like bottom tier Scorsese. Man, I love Gangs. I guess I can't say that it's great filmmaking, but I've watched it far more often than any other Scorsese joint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAiif-W04Ig It just feels so alive, and in general I think it holds up under pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
The combination of Anderson's direction, Robert Elswit's cinematography, and Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood is what movies are all about. Just a perfect film in every way. In 2002 they were forced to choose between Gangs of New York, The Pianist, Lord of the Rings, The Hours and Chicago. In 2007 there was No Country For Old Men AND There Will Be Blood. Some years are stronger than others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:
That's the fuckin truth. I remember that year like it was yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The combination of Anderson's direction, Robert Elswit's cinematography, and Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood is what movies are all about. Just a perfect film in every way. Goddamn how does Adaptation not get in there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Oh poo poo Adaptation was a 2002 film, wasn't it. Yeah that would be my BP pick, even if it wasn't nominated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Yea Adaption was very under the radar in the year it was released, its taken some time for it to get the recognition it deserves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
shakespeare in love is the worst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
The Thin Red Line is even worse according to the academy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Chicago has to be up there with the most inexplicable Best Pictures, right? I think it's about 1997 (Titanic) that started up about a decade of best picture awards that seemed to pander to audience tastes with less regard to quality film making. Chicago (2002) followed momentum for that genre built up by Moulin Rouge! the year before and then the Return of the King did the same in 2003. RotK was probably worse because, as I recall it, there was a lot of talk of it getting so many wins as acknowledgement of the entire trilogy rather than on just its merits as a stand alone film. Best editing really stands out as an indicator of this since there was a general consensus by critics that the film overstays its welcome by 30 minutes. But back in the day poo poo like The Alamo got nominated, so whatever. And since I'm talking old, I think 1939 holds up with the strongest lineup of all time: Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach and a nod to Of Mice and Men which manages a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I don't really think that's worth all that much as Futurama: Bender's Big Score is apparently also "flawless" but it's a nice one to use to round out a top five for the year,
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I think what happened is that Fellowship of the Ring came out, and was legitimately a good enough to win for Best Picture, but the Academy snubbed it. They realized their mistake and kept trying to correct it(Two Towers was nominated but didn't win), and gave the nod to RotK because at least then they'd acknowledged the trilogy in some way. Had Fellowship been only decent like the following two films, or had won Best Picture in its year, I doubt Return of the King would have even been nominated. Edit: Just looked it up and Fellowship of the Ring lost Best Picture to A Beautiful Mind. I think A Beautiful Mind is an excellent movie but Fellowship of the Ring is more influential and will age a lot better. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I'm still pissed at the idiotic tribute to musicals they did a few years back. Instead of performing all the nominees for original song they did 3/5 so they could shoehorn in a completely unnecessary tribute to Chicago because of course the producers of the show that year also produced Chicago. That still wasn't as bad as the "Why We Love Movies" theme from a few years ago, or all the Sound of Music crap last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
The best tribute to musicals was that song and dance Hugh Jackman did with cardboard sets. I still crack up thinking of him almost losing it while doing an interpretive dance about "The Reader".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:The best tribute to musicals was that song and dance Hugh Jackman did with cardboard sets. I still crack up thinking of him almost losing it while doing an interpretive dance about "The Reader". Better yet, the song was about how he hadn't seen it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:They only get it right about half the time, so there's a pretty long list of inexplicable Best Picture winners. Crash comes to mind. Shakespeare in love is the strangest one to me. Especially given how very strong that year was. It was like all the good movies split the vote and the completely mediocre movie won. Vegetable posted:The Pianist is very, very good. And Gangs of New York has Daniel Day-Lewis in an incredible role. Bottom-tier Scorsese is still rock solid filmmaking. Gangs of New York never quite gels. It is, at the very least, though, a very interesting failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Looking over the previous winners of Best Picture, the Oscars just don't have a good track record. The only years that they maybe get it right are the ones with multiple deserving nominees (2007 stood out for me as a good choice in a good year; in 1994 Forrest Gump won, which is a fairly deserving movie that probably should have lost to Pulp Fiction). I'm not in a position to judge films over 25 years old as I haven't seen most of the nominees, but I feel like outside of clear masterpieces like the Godfather they are a pretty useless list. Holy poo poo people used to love the gently caress out of musicals. The past loving sucked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
It was cool when Hollywood kept patting itself on the back for giving an Oscar to Hattie McDaniel for playing a loving cartoon character. Then, after a couple of decades of playing dignified, handsome leads, they give one to Denzel for playing a loving cartoon character, and pat themselves on the back some more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
The Oscars are the industry's biggest marketing event and that's about it. Everyone knows that the award winners are crap half the time and that everyone in the audience would rather be at the Golden Globes or the after-party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Bridge of Spies is an important and timely morality tale. It's also expertly crafted and very funny. It's 20 to 30 minutes too long. It's been a while since I've seen it so I can't tell you what I'd cut but there was stuff that need to go. Spielberg's best movie making was between Jaws and Schindler List and the last time he really did something amazing on screen was the landing in Saving Private Ryan. Since then while he's made good movies they haven't reached the heights he was once able too. I'm not sure why so many people in this thread want Sicario nominated for anything beyond Cinematography given the movie falls apart in the last act and becomes something stupid and different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Bridge of Spies is an important and timely morality tale. It's also expertly crafted and very funny. Yeah I just recently watched it at the dollar movie theater and it was really good. But I'm also a sucker for Spielberg doing historical stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
The Oscars are so bad that I'm questioning whether Unforgiven was even good. It won an Oscar so how could it be? 2016 Oscars: Deserve's Got Nothing to Do With It Moxie fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:55
|
|