Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:47 pm




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ] 
The Oscars are pathetic! 
Author Message
Post The Oscars are pathetic!
Rourke didn't win Best Actor. The Wrestler wasn't even nominated for Best Picture, or even a nomination for Darren Aronofsky for Best Director, even though it got 98% positive reviews, yet The Reader which got 50% positive reviews got a nomination for both. The Reader was criticized for its story with what it conveyed, with what it tried to say, yet it gets a nod for Best Director and Picture.

It seems since The Wrestler deals with wrestling, it isn't a good to have it mentioned in either nomination.

The Oscars are a joke, well like 70% of the time it is...


Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:40 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
... and it was the same as it always is :-)
Rob


Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:43 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Yep. Not to mention the praising of the nominees by prior winners that was meant to be inspiring and touching and instead was just overwrought. The "aren't we just the best!" smugness really showed through this year, another year where the Academy went for IMPORTANT! films over popular films, which makes it less fun to watch for those of us who go to the movies.

Yep, nothing's changed.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:41 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
I definitely didnt like the new format.

As for the awards, i really like Rourke in The Wrestler, but i didnt think it was one of the best pictures. So yes, he would have deserved the Oscar, butSean Penn also deserved it so at least one of those 2 got it.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:36 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
I actually didn't even watch the show. I knew I wasn't going to watch when I saw that Wall-E hadn't been nominated for best pic. :?


Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:42 pm
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Damaj wrote:
I actually didn't even watch the show. I knew I wasn't going to watch when I saw that Wall-E hadn't been nominated for best pic. :?


In my opinion, Wall-E was superior to at least half the films nominated for best picture, as were the Dark Knight and the Wrestler. But it comes down to this:

Bones wrote:
The "aren't we just the best!" smugness really showed through this year, another year where the Academy went for IMPORTANT! films over popular films, which makes it less fun to watch for those of us who go to the movies.


Although I don’t entirely agree that it all results from a bias against films that are popular, I do agree that they are prejudiced towards films whose subject matter and genre seem weighty, topical, or “important.” The Dark Knight could not have been nominated for best picture because of its origin as a comic book adaptation. Wall-E could not have been nominated because of the fact that it was animated. The Wrestler could not have been nominated because it is about something as eccentric as a washed up professional wrestler. The Oscars can’t be bothered by the small fact that all three films received better critical and general response than films like the Reader. They are too self important to take the quality of the respective films into account.

Personally, I’m consoled by my belief that people will still be watching Wall-E and the Dark Knight long after most of the films that were nominated for best picture are forgotten.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:02 pm
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
I've never understood the argument that the Academy is out-of-touch and doesn't nominate the "popular" films. Isn't that more of a problem with the distribution process and the formula Hollywood films that are relentlessly released throughout the year?

Slumdog Millionaire shows that people still like good movies. Why is it, then, that films like Milk, The Wrestler, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, etc. have had such small theatrical releases? They've opened up slowly nationwide, but most casual movie-goers are completely oblivious as to what they are and when they're released. I've seen more commercials for the new Street Fighter movie than any of the big Oscar movies, save Slumdog Millionaire, combined.

I don't agree with everything the Academy does, but I don't see any need to make an effort to incorporate more mainstream films into the ceremony. The shame, in my opinion, is simply the fact that these films ARE as unseen as they are. If you want to see the big collision of Twilight vs. The Incredible Hulk, perhaps the MTV Movie Awards is the show to be watching.

Also, I was rooting for Rourke as well. But lets face it, Penn deserved it too. I didn't find any of the winners this year to be unjust. Yes, I would've liked to see some different nominations, but I can't complain about any of the winners.

The Academy Awards are, as people point out, Hollywood patting itself on the back. But lets face it, we love these people too. While I have no interest in people reading a list of names no one cares about, I think it's always touching to see people genuinely thrilled to be awarded such a prestigious trophy. I'm not offended in anyway by, for instance, the short film winners who are being recognized for something they've worked their life for. Is it masturbatory? Sure. But it's still charming, in a way.

That being said, complaining about the politics behind the ceremony and nominees and that sort of thing is certainly fair. There's things to complain about, however I think people tend to focus on the least offensive parts of the whole process.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:30 pm
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
I agree about Wall-E being considered for a Best Picture nomination, but Best Animated Feature was created to push movies like Wall-E "out of the way" But I'm glad it won. I'm more angry that it didn't win either of it's Sound nominations. Pretty amazing considering it's a film built on sound. And I would have loved to see it take Best Original Screenplay but given the whole politics of Prop 8 in California I certainly understand why Milk took that prize.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:55 pm
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Loafer wrote:
I've never understood the argument that the Academy is out-of-touch and doesn't nominate the "popular" films. Isn't that more of a problem with the distribution process and the formula Hollywood films that are relentlessly released throughout the year?

Slumdog Millionaire shows that people still like good movies. Why is it, then, that films like Milk, The Wrestler, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, etc. have had such small theatrical releases? They've opened up slowly nationwide, but most casual movie-goers are completely oblivious as to what they are and when they're released. I've seen more commercials for the new Street Fighter movie than any of the big Oscar movies, save Slumdog Millionaire, combined.


That’s a great point about distribution, and I couldn’t agree more about giving films such as Doubt, Milk, and the Wrestler a wider release. If nothing else, audiences deserve the same chance to see these films as they have to see the more typical blockbuster fare.

Loafer wrote:
If you want to see the big collision of Twilight vs. The Incredible Hulk, perhaps the MTV Movie Awards is the show to be watching.


But that’s a bit of a mischaracterization of what people here seem to be suggesting, don’t you think? I haven’t seen any poster here express anything like the desire to see films like The Incredible Hulk or Twilight vie for awards based on their popularity. Since I’ve joined this forum, I’ve seen refreshingly little demagoguery.

At the same time, I don’t think films should be punished expressly for being popular; as I’ve seen some argue has been the case for the Dark Knight. Nor Do I think a film should be denied a nomination based on the fact that it is animated; as I would argue has been the case for Wall-E. And I notice that the OP was peeved over the fact that a film that received almost unanimously positive responses from critics was denied a best picture nomination over a film that had mixed reviews. So I don’t think that this has anything to do with the difference of highbrow vs. lowbrow tastes or the popular versus the obscure. I think this has to do with the difference between people who enjoy films as cinema and an academy that increasingly makes their nominations based upon whether a film is perceived as being relevant, politically correct, or socially important.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:57 pm
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
But what about the pretty frocks?


Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:49 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Ratel wrote:
At the same time, I don’t think films should be punished expressly for being popular; as I’ve seen some argue has been the case for the Dark Knight. Nor Do I think a film should be denied a nomination based on the fact that it is animated; as I would argue has been the case for Wall-E. And I notice that the OP was peeved over the fact that a film that received almost unanimously positive responses from critics was denied a best picture nomination over a film that had mixed reviews. So I don’t think that this has anything to do with the difference of highbrow vs. lowbrow tastes or the popular versus the obscure. I think this has to do with the difference between people who enjoy films as cinema and an academy that increasingly makes their nominations based upon whether a film is perceived as being relevant, politically correct, or socially important.



Exactly. This is what I meant to mean with the IMPORTANT! vs. popular distinction. The world champion example for this is Crash, a half-way decent movie trying oh so hard to SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIETY. The academy eats that stuff up and rewards it, which is a shame.


Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:41 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Meryl Streep got SHAFTED!


Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:37 pm
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
I liken the oscars to a beauty pageant and nothing more. I like women but it matters nothing to me which woman is wearing a pink sash at the end of the day. I like movies and it matters none to me which one gets elected as "best" by some "academy" that doesnt teach anything.

Now the Razzies....


Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:50 pm
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:17 pm
Posts: 525
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Moovy1 wrote:
Meryl Streep got SHAFTED!


Shafted? Hardly. I think her 15 nominations and 4 Oscars already sitting on her mantelpiece at home more than make up for her loss for Doubt. And I thought Kate Winslet was great in The Reader - IMO, she was the best part of that movie.

The Oscars is a popularity contest, and that's no secret. The Academy likes it when movies single-handedly sweep the awards, and they like it even more when its an underdog (Slumdog). It works just like anything else in this world does; it depends on who you know and how you take advantage of them. Its unfair, yes; but that's life.

We all know that The Dark Knight was the best. So it's OK that it lost.


Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:28 am
Profile
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
darthyoshi wrote:
Moovy1 wrote:
Meryl Streep got SHAFTED!


Shafted? Hardly. I think her 15 nominations and 4 Oscars already sitting on her mantelpiece at home more than make up for her loss for Doubt. And I thought Kate Winslet was great in The Reader - IMO, she was the best part of that movie.

The Oscars is a popularity contest, and that's no secret. The Academy likes it when movies single-handedly sweep the awards, and they like it even more when its an underdog (Slumdog). It works just like anything else in this world does; it depends on who you know and how you take advantage of them. Its unfair, yes; but that's life.

We all know that The Dark Knight was the best. So it's OK that it lost.


I thought Streep just had Oscars for Sophie's Choice and Kramer vs. Kramer.


Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:17 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Patrick wrote:
darthyoshi wrote:
Moovy1 wrote:
Meryl Streep got SHAFTED!


Shafted? Hardly. I think her 15 nominations and 4 Oscars already sitting on her mantelpiece at home more than make up for her loss for Doubt. And I thought Kate Winslet was great in The Reader - IMO, she was the best part of that movie.

The Oscars is a popularity contest, and that's no secret. The Academy likes it when movies single-handedly sweep the awards, and they like it even more when its an underdog (Slumdog). It works just like anything else in this world does; it depends on who you know and how you take advantage of them. Its unfair, yes; but that's life.

We all know that The Dark Knight was the best. So it's OK that it lost.


I thought Streep just had Oscars for Sophie's Choice and Kramer vs. Kramer.



you're right, she's just got 2. Hepburn's got 4.


Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:31 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
darthyoshi wrote:
Moovy1 wrote:
Meryl Streep got SHAFTED!


Shafted? Hardly. I think her 15 nominations and 4 Oscars already sitting on her mantelpiece at home more than make up for her loss for Doubt. And I thought Kate Winslet was great in The Reader - IMO, she was the best part of that movie.

The Oscars is a popularity contest, and that's no secret. The Academy likes it when movies single-handedly sweep the awards, and they like it even more when its an underdog (Slumdog). It works just like anything else in this world does; it depends on who you know and how you take advantage of them. Its unfair, yes; but that's life.

We all know that The Dark Knight was the best. So it's OK that it lost.


I agree with your point about the popularity contest. That's why I never watch these godforsaken shows anymore. However, I disagree with your comment about the Dark Knight. Though it's practically cliche at this point and everyones saying it, Ledger really did knock it out of the park. Just an awesome performance that, in my opinion, blew all previous incarnations of the joker out of the water. Yet, the movie itself has some serious flaws. Namely, the retarded growl that came out of Batman every time he opened his mouth. Despite great choreography and effects, and great performances by the cast, it still failed to engage on a level that would make it oscar worthy, in my opinion.


Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:16 pm
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
Strange how the Oscars are generally considered a meaningless popularity contest and yet people still feel something close to rage that BLANK or BLANK.2 didn't win. Hell, BLANK wasn't even nominated!

You could have DOCUMENTARY FOOTAGE featuring Jesus Christ on his 14th birthday opening presents and it could still lose to Kate Winslet's brave struggle as a bulemic widow. Screw the Oscars and any award show, at that. My Winnipeg was the best thing I saw last year and my head would have exploded if it got even a cursory nod as "Weirdest Fake Documentary". The Razzies, The Oscars... I'd love Sean Penn all the more if he'd spend 10 hours out of his day, even once, to cover me so I could sleep in.


Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:56 am
Post Re: The Oscars are pathetic!
majoraphasia wrote:
Strange how the Oscars are generally considered a meaningless popularity contest and yet people still feel something close to rage that BLANK or BLANK.2 didn't win. Hell, BLANK wasn't even nominated!

You could have DOCUMENTARY FOOTAGE featuring Jesus Christ on his 14th birthday opening presents and it could still lose to Kate Winslet's brave struggle as a bulemic widow. Screw the Oscars and any award show, at that. My Winnipeg was the best thing I saw last year and my head would have exploded if it got even a cursory nod as "Weirdest Fake Documentary". The Razzies, The Oscars... I'd love Sean Penn all the more if he'd spend 10 hours out of his day, even once, to cover me so I could sleep in.


Hi Majorapasia
Yee hah, My Winnipeg is awesome.
But nobody saw it :-(
Rob


Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:39 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr