2013 Oscar Discussion Discussion Thread

[blurayisnice]

I don't really care about awards (just a little bit ). I select movies based on what I like, not based on what someone else likes .

[TeamZissou]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

The point is they nominate films that aren't great just to prove a point or deliver a message in the moment. The Oscars are supposed to be the awards with the most honor and prestige. For a movie to be selected as the "Best Picture" it should be a truly great film on many levels and not be such a flash in the pan that it is forgotten by the next award season. This has been going on my entire lifetime starting with Star Wars and continuing through this year. Is there any doubt that Star Wars has a had a longer lasting better impact on society than whatever movie beat it in 1977? How did Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan? How did Hurt Locker beat Avatar? How did Crash or Chicago beat anything? The oscar voters try and prove a point that they wont appeal to the masses and in turn they allow average movies at best to claim the prize of "Best Picture"

I disagree with Saving Private Ryan. Shakespeare in love was the better film. War movies seem to rise above all others unjustly due to their source material.

Thin red line, apocalypse now, full metal jacket- all amazing

Private Ryan- average

I doubt you even watched Shakespeare in love- but all performances were perfect, a truly original film I watch again and again.

I know opinions are subjective and art is in the eye of the beholder, and that's why you can have your opinion and ill voice mine as well.

I agree - the artist was terrible

[Berek]

Originally Posted by TeamZissou

I disagree with Saving Private Ryan. Shakespeare in love was the better film. War movies seem to rise above all others unjustly due to their source material.

Thin red line, apocalypse now, full metal jacket- all amazing

Private Ryan- average

I doubt you even watched Shakespeare in love- but all performances were perfect, a truly original film I watch again and again.

I know opinions are subjective and art is in the eye of the beholder, and that's why you can have your opinion and ill voice mine as well.

I agree - the artist was terrible

Agreed on Shakespeare in Love. That movie deserved to win Best Picture. SPR was all hype and no emotion at all. It's hard to even watch that film, with the exception of the first 20 minutes.

[Buddy Ackerman]

I'll stick up for Saving Private Ryan. Shakespeare in Love is a good film but, for me, Saving Private Ryan was by far the better film. But, as is said, it's all opinion.

And The Truman Show should have won that year anyway.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

The point is they nominate films that aren't great just to prove a point or deliver a message in the moment. The Oscars are supposed to be the awards with the most honor and prestige. For a movie to be selected as the "Best Picture" it should be a truly great film on many levels and not be such a flash in the pan that it is forgotten by the next award season. This has been going on my entire lifetime starting with Star Wars and continuing through this year. Is there any doubt that Star Wars has a had a longer lasting better impact on society than whatever movie beat it in 1977? How did Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan? How did Hurt Locker beat Avatar? How did Crash or Chicago beat anything? The oscar voters try and prove a point that they wont appeal to the masses and in turn they allow average movies at best to claim the prize of "Best Picture"

But things like 'Avatar' shouldn't win either, if they aren't the best picture that year. 'Avatar' was massively overrated, had a plotline that was barely existent, and while a technical achievement, that doesn't make the film itself good. It's an alright movie, but far from best picture worthy. The fact that it was new and shiny in 3D really helped push people to see it, but I guarantee you the sequels won't have the same impact, and 'Avatar' will slowly be forgotten just as many other movies have. Things like 'Shakespeare in Love' are great, and while I wish 'Private Ryan' had won, the academy thought that one would be better. That's one of the best comedies I've ever seen, and I can see why they gave it the award. 'Chicago' was brilliant, and so was 'Crash', even though it was the upset and should have gone to 'Brokeback Mountain', but that was because the Academy was too scared to let it win.

Things like 'The King's Speech' and 'The Artist' will still be remembered years from now. It's funny that you want 'Avatar' to win, because it's the definition of flash in the pan. Is 'The Godfather' still remembered and did it leave an impact? How about 'Rocky'? 'The Departed', 'No Country' For Old Men', 'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King', 'Million Dollar Baby', 'Chicago', 'A Beautiful Mind', 'Gladiator', and 'Slumdog Millionaire' were all ones that have won from just over the last decade, and almost all of them have been crowd pleasing films that were looked on favorably critically as well. That's what you keep asking about, but then you're not happy unless it's something that you want to win. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The Academy has shifted gears and nominated plenty of crowd pleasing films that people have seen and loved, and given them their recognition that they deserve. All those films have left a lasting impact, at least in my opinion, and going through the list of pictures that won, so have a good portion of the others. I've said before, the Academy doesn't always get it right, but when they do, it's at least 70%-80% of the time. I'm sorry some of you can't appreciate the films that get nominated and want more "fun" films to be nominated and win, but looking at the past thirteen years, that is actually what has been happening, Plenty of crowd pleasing films, that even if you personally don't like it, doesn't mean that audiences don't. The Academy is noticing and listening to that, and it shows.

[Kevin Holly]

I'd say Saturday Night Fever should have won in 1977, but, that being said, I am glad than Annie Hall trumped Star Wars.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

But things like 'Avatar' shouldn't win either, if they aren't the best picture that year. 'Avatar' was massively overrated, had a plotline that was barely existent, and while a technical achievement, that doesn't make the film itself good. It's an alright movie, but far from best picture worthy. The fact that it was new and shiny in 3D really helped push people to see it, but I guarantee you the sequels won't have the same impact, and 'Avatar' will slowly be forgotten just as many other movies have. Things like 'Shakespeare in Love' are great, and while I wish 'Private Ryan' had won, the academy thought that one would be better. That's one of the best comedies I've ever seen, and I can see why they gave it the award. 'Chicago' was brilliant, and so was 'Crash', even though it was the upset and should have gone to 'Brokeback Mountain', but that was because the Academy was too scared to let it win.

Things like 'The King's Speech' and 'The Artist' will still be remembered years from now. It's funny that you want 'Avatar' to win, because it's the definition of flash in the pan. Is 'The Godfather' still remembered and did it leave an impact? How about 'Rocky'? 'The Departed', 'No Country' For Old Men', 'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King', 'Million Dollar Baby', 'Chicago', 'A Beautiful Mind', 'Gladiator', and 'Slumdog Millionaire' were all ones that have won from just over the last decade, and almost all of them have been crowd pleasing films that were looked on favorably critically as well. That's what you keep asking about, but then you're not happy unless it's something that you want to win. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The Academy has shifted gears and nominated plenty of crowd pleasing films that people have seen and loved, and given them their recognition that they deserve. All those films have left a lasting impact, at least in my opinion, and going through the list of pictures that won, so have a good portion of the others. I've said before, the Academy doesn't always get it right, but when they do, it's at least 70%-80% of the time. I'm sorry some of you can't appreciate the films that get nominated and want more "fun" films to be nominated and win, but looking at the past thirteen years, that is actually what has been happening, Plenty of crowd pleasing films, that even if you personally don't like it, doesn't mean that audiences don't. The Academy is noticing and listening to that, and it shows.

Of the films you mentioned Rocky, LOTR, Gladiator are great and deserved winning. The other ones are not memorable or deserving. I enjoyed Slumdog very much but it wasn't the best movie of the year and is not something that is really rewatchable on a regular basis. I am a HUGE Clint Eastwood fan and Million Dollar baby doesn't crack the top 20 of movies he has starred/Directed.

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Of the films you mentioned Rocky, LOTR, Gladiator are great and deserved winning. The other ones are not memorable or deserving. I enjoyed Slumdog very much but it wasn't the best movie of the year and is not something that is really rewatchable on a regular basis. I am a HUGE Clint Eastwood fan and Million Dollar baby doesn't crack the top 20 of movies he has starred/Directed.

I would tend to agree with all you said. I wasn't surprised that ROTK won, although I can't say it was what I was hoping for. And sweeing 11 like that was too much. And I find that, really, none of the Best Picture winners since No Country For Old Men are that memorable (and yes, I've seen them). And even then, I think in retrospect that There Will Be Blood was the better of those two choices. Mind you, I am glad The Dark Knight did not win in 2008. I am no Slumdog Millionaire fan, and I like TDK a lot more (not to say that came anywhere my favorite of 2008 either, by the way), but the result of a Nolan film winning is too vile a thought to bear. For 2009, it was a fairly weak pool as far as I am concerned. Except for Inglorious Basterds that is, that would have been my choice out of those, but The Hurt Locker was still a better choice than some of the other nonsense in the pool. Not very memorable though. 2010 had actaully a very strong pool, which is all the more impressive considering how weak the year as a whole was. The Fighter and The Social Network would both have been better choices. Again, I personally would also say I prefer Inception to The King's Speech, but I still would rather The King's Speech win, just because the fallout from a Nolan film winning would not be pleasant. Last year was also weak, but Moneyball would have been a nice choice (and if Pitt and Hill took home their respective acting Oscars, that would have been hilarious and awesome). Again, that is not to say that I dislike The Artist, but it's far from a memorable film. Looking back even further, The Departed was a good choice, even if it was just an apology for half a dozen previous snubs.

As for Gladiator, yeah it was memorable, but I think I prefer Traffic. As for Rocky, I think it's okay, and would certainly deserve to win any ceremony these days, but it did come out in the 1970s, meaning that there was a lot more competition. There were three nominees that year FAR superior to Rocky (Network, All the President's Men and Taxi Driver; and I am ashamed to say I have never seen Bound for Glory), not to mention at least a dozen other films from the year better than Rocky. I know a lot of people like the senitmentality though, and I freely admit I am no sports film fan, so that may have an effect on my opinon there.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Of the films you mentioned Rocky, LOTR, Gladiator are great and deserved winning. The other ones are not memorable or deserving. I enjoyed Slumdog very much but it wasn't the best movie of the year and is not something that is really rewatchable on a regular basis. I am a HUGE Clint Eastwood fan and Million Dollar baby doesn't crack the top 20 of movies he has starred/Directed.

You can't demand so much respect for you own opinion while completely disregarding the opinions of others. This is the great disconnect you are refusing to understand. Film as art is subjective, so who is the Academy for telling you what to like and who are you for reprimanding them?

Your stand makes completely no sense because we are dealing with subjective material.

From my experience I see that the people who complain the most about the Oscars are the people who complain the most about them. I follow them because I like guessing how the Academy is going to go. But do their views hold anything on my own opinions? Not really. They can give the award to whatever they want but I still pick my own best picture.

The Oscars have not, and will not exist to please you (the person reading this). Furthermore, do you not understand even if the Oscars bend to your every whim, in turn that would give other people cause to complain just as you did?

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Things like 'The King's Speech' and 'The Artist' will still be remembered years from now. It's funny that you want 'Avatar' to win, because it's the definition of flash in the pan. Is 'The Godfather' still remembered and did it leave an impact? How about 'Rocky'? 'The Departed', 'No Country' For Old Men', 'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King', 'Million Dollar Baby', 'Chicago', 'A Beautiful Mind', 'Gladiator', and 'Slumdog Millionaire' were all ones that have won from just over the last decade, and almost all of them have been crowd pleasing films that were looked on favorably critically as well. That's what you keep asking about, but then you're not happy unless it's something that you want to win. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe for YOU will "The King's Speech" & "The Artist" be remembered years from now, but while the first one was a very good movie, sure, to be remembered years from now? Not so sure. "The Artist", much less so. I know tons of people who believe THAT one was as overrated as it gets, & I agree. It was different yea, but nothing Amazing or ground breaking, or something I'll think about in 5-10 years, "OH Wait, let's watch 'THE ARTIST' !! I haven't seen it in Years!!"

THE GODFATHER, ROCKY, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, LORD OF THE RINGS (all 3), GLADIATOR, are All movies people still talk about & compare with in their all-time favorites, or Top movies of all-time.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

I like TDK a lot more (not to say that came anywhere my favorite of 2008 either, by the way), but the result of a Nolan film winning is too vile a thought to bear.

...Again, I personally would also say I prefer Inception to The King's Speech, but I still would rather The King's Speech win, just because the fallout from a Nolan film winning would not be pleasant.

What fallout? The fanboys? Internet forums? Do you really think it's fair to say a film shouldn't win because of the reaction it will get from geeks on forums? If the film really is 'deserving' - and you say you prefer it to The King's Speech - then what does it matter how other people react to the win?

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

If you see one movie this year. Let it be Oscar Gold.

[Falaskan]

I've never actually watched a complete awards show...but I hope Ann Hathaway wins something!

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by Foggy

You watched 15 ****ing minutes.

And he watched it on his computer I'm guessing from the "deleting it from his hard drive" comment. People who pirate stuff shouldn't or don't deserve to have their opinions counted or heard. That's just me though.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Michael Bay Fan

And he watched it on his computer I'm guessing from the "deleting it from his hard drive" comment. People who pirate stuff shouldn't or don't deserve to have their opinions counted or heard. That's just me though.

Well you can legally download stuff, but I don't think it goes onto a hard drive so you're probably right.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Snicket

You can't demand so much respect for you own opinion while completely disregarding the opinions of others. This is the great disconnect you are refusing to understand. Film as art is subjective, so who is the Academy for telling you what to like and who are you for reprimanding them?

Your stand makes completely no sense because we are dealing with subjective material.

From my experience I see that the people who complain the most about the Oscars are the people who complain the most about them. I follow them because I like guessing how the Academy is going to go. But do their views hold anything on my own opinions? Not really. They can give the award to whatever they want but I still pick my own best picture.

The Oscars have not, and will not exist to please you (the person reading this). Furthermore, do you not understand even if the Oscars bend to your every whim, in turn that would give other people cause to complain just as you did?

While I have obviously never made a full length feature film I am sure that making something like the Avatar, Avengers, Dark Knight, etc is more of a challenging task then something like the Hurt Locker or the Artist, etc. Reward should be given when movies of that magnitude are actually done well in regards to critics and the masses. While I have not seen Zero Dark Thirty I am sure it was much easier to make than Lincoln. Movies and Directors should be rewarded for taking on more challenging projects and making them succesfull. I understand they can't please everyone but they clearly go out of their way only to please the minority.

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

What fallout? The fanboys? Internet forums? Do you really think it's fair to say a film shouldn't win because of the reaction it will get from geeks on forums? If the film really is 'deserving' - and you say you prefer it to The King's Speech - then what does it matter how other people react to the win?

No, I was exagerrating. Honestly, I guess I should thank you for actually reading that ridiculously long paragraph, looking back I don't know what I was thinking typing that monstrosity.

Yes, I like The Dark Knight more than Slumdog Millionaire. I also like Inception more than The King's Speech. In both cases, there are also films from that year I like even more, however.

All that to say, no, I don't think the reaction of Nolan worshippers should impact how the Academy voters vote (and I don't think it does, anyway). I just find it hilarious when they see their idol not win the big one.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Well you can legally download stuff, but I don't think it goes onto a hard drive so you're probably right.

Yeah, I know. But I'm sure the person would have said I can't believe I spent so and so for that movie. but who knows.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

While I have obviously never made a full length feature film I am sure that making something like the Avatar, Avengers, Dark Knight, etc is more of a challenging task then something like the Hurt Locker or the Artist, etc. Reward should be given when movies of that magnitude are actually done well in regards to critics and the masses. While I have not seen Zero Dark Thirty I am sure it was much easier to make than Lincoln. Movies and Directors should be rewarded for taking on more challenging projects and making them succesfull. I understand they can't please everyone but they clearly go out of their way only to please the minority.

Well you've heard it here first, clever writing and thought and emotion provoking moving pictures should come second to pyrotechnics

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Berek

Agreed on Shakespeare in Love. That movie deserved to win Best Picture. SPR was all hype and no emotion at all. It's hard to even watch that film, with the exception of the first 20 minutes.

LOL at SPR had no emotion. GMAFB.