2013 Oscar Discussion Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by JavaJulien

To get off of the Best Picture discussion, I know one thing for sure, I hope either ParaNorman or Wreck-it-Ralph wins the animated award.

It's going to be one of those two. But I think the happy suprise I got from the nominees was the nomination of The Pirates! Didn't expect that one and I really like that film.

[menaceuk]

WOW...I see the Impossible got shafted.

[kurtis21]

Originally Posted by retablo

The Artist made $133 mil worldwide... yet "no one" saw it? Not to mention the others you listed that were box office hits... Wolves mad a LOT more than Goodfellas, so where's your argument there? C'mon, at least be reasonable with you're trying to make an argument, it'll help you sound more respectable.

I wouldn't call $133 milloin WORLDWIDE that great of a success! Plus...it made a lot of it's money AFTER the awards when people wanted to see what all of the fuss was about. And hey...i'm not trying to anger anyone here....i'm just stating my own opinion! After all...were ALL movie fans!

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Michael Bay Fan

Oh, *****, *****, *****! - YouTube

What everyone is doing cause their favorite blockbuster film or other fave film wasn't nominated. I haven't seen Avatar but yeah.

LoL!!!

[retablo]

Originally Posted by kurtis21

I wouldn't call $133 milloin WORLDWIDE that great of a success! Plus...it made a lot of it's money AFTER the awards when people wanted to see what all of the fuss was about. And hey...i'm not trying to anger anyone here....i'm just stating my own opinion! After all...were ALL movie fans!

I think $133 mil worldwide off a budget of $15 mil is a HUGE success. That's actually a bigger hit than The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises, when you look at receipts vs budget.

The most profitable film in recent memory is Insidious, which made $54 mil domestic and $97 mil worldwide off a budget of %1.5 mil. By that standard, it's one of the biggest hits in the last 10 years, when you compare budget to actual profit. Should itbe nominated for Best Picture too?

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by retablo

I think $133 mil worldwide off a budget of $15 mil is a HUGE success. That's actually a bigger hit than The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises, when you look at receipts vs budget.

That is a weak argument. It is not a bigger hit. No where in the world does 1 billion dollars seem less than 133 million. As stated above much of the business was done after it won. It took me about a year to work up the motivation to try and sit through it and I made it about 30 minutes before I was bored to death. Same will happen if Zero Dark Thirty wins. I don't think it has even been released yet or if it has it isn't playing where any of us normal folks can see it.

[Jasonic]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

That is a weak argument. It is not a bigger hit. No where in the world does 1 billion dollars seem less than 133 million. As stated above much of the business was done after it won. It took me about a year to work up the motivation to try and sit through it and I made it about 30 minutes before I was bored to death. Same will happen if Zero Dark Thirty wins. I don't think it has even been released yet or if it has it isn't playing where any of us normal folks can see it.

No director nod for ZDT, so Oscar history says it can't win.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

I think he meant cause they spent more on advertising for the Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises compared to the Artist. and the rule of thumb for films it has to atleast make double of what it cost to make a profit. Avengers cost what 200 million to make, plus probably another 100 million or more for advertising. And that's over 300 million or more spent there. Compared to the Artist only costing 15 million with only so little advertising. So they made a better profit when you look at it math wise.

Or atleast that's what I think.

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Julia Roberts has an Oscar. They mean nothing. With that I am still happy that The Dark Knight Rises didn't get nomintated in anything major. I won't be watching any of the broadcast but if Jennifer Lawrence were to pop out of her dress when rushing the stage to accept her award I might youtube it.

And I am happy that Avengers wasn't nominated for anything noteworthy. Why? Because all you Whedon fanboys are going to look pretty silly now that the hype has died down. There were seriously a ton of you loonies thinking that geek porn was going to win Best Picture.

[Tony208]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

And I am happy that Avengers wasn't nominated for anything noteworthy. Why? Because all you Whedon fanboys are going to look pretty silly now that the hype has died down. There were seriously a ton of you loonies thinking that geek porn was going to win Best Picture.

you're still throwing a tantrum over Avengers?

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

Exactly! The Oscars have always had a problem with mediocre movies...

Yeah, which is why they gave Best Picture to Crash, Shakespeare in Love, the Artist, King's Snooze, and countless other mediocrities. Mediocre is the Oscars bread and butter. Dark Knight Rises along with Django are the best films of the year.

[regnaD kciN]

Originally Posted by kurtis21

Once again the Oscars BLOW IT!!!! I'm tired of the films they pick every year that no one has seen! It's about time that they put rules on the Academy because they can't be trusted by themselves!! By rules I mean...The top 5 money making films of the year should automatically be nominated for best picture! That means this year (The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Skyfall, & Breaking Dawn) would automatically be nominated leaving the Academy to pick the other 5!! As you can see...NONE of these films were nominated this year!! Instead they always pick these "Artsy" films that no one has seen! I don't know about you guys...but i'm getting sick of it!!!

Thank you, Tom Laughlin. ;-)

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Yeah, which is why they gave Best Picture to Crash, Shakespeare in Love, the Artist, King's Snooze, and countless other mediocrities. Mediocre is the Oscars bread and butter. Dark Knight Rises along with Django are the best films of the year.

In your opinion.

[Jasonic]

Originally Posted by menaceuk

In your opinion.

Why was that needed? Every comment in this thread has been nothing more than an opinion. So that was blatantly obvious.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

And I am happy that Avengers wasn't nominated for anything noteworthy. Why? Because all you Whedon fanboys are going to look pretty silly now that the hype has died down. There were seriously a ton of you loonies thinking that geek porn was going to win Best Picture.

I have a creeping suspicion that you secretly love The Avengers. Why? Because you talk about it more than anyone on this forum.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

I have a creeping suspicion that you secretly love The Avengers. Why? Because you talk about it more than anyone on this forum.

It's always the ones you least suspect.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

That is a weak argument. It is not a bigger hit. No where in the world does 1 billion dollars seem less than 133 million. As stated above much of the business was done after it won. It took me about a year to work up the motivation to try and sit through it and I made it about 30 minutes before I was bored to death. Same will happen if Zero Dark Thirty wins. I don't think it has even been released yet or if it has it isn't playing where any of us normal folks can see it.

It's not weak at all, it seems more like you trying to justify something that doesn't really exist. 1 billion dollars isn't less than $133 million... if you'd actually READ what I wrote. In relation to cost, The Avengers made LESS OVERALL PROFIT in relation to cost because the budget was $250 mil (compared to $15 mil), plus another $100 mill in P&A.

It's called MATH.

$250 mil budget - $ 1 billion B.O = 4x profit (not counting P&A)
$15 mil budget - $100 mil B.O. = 6.7x profit

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by Jasonic

Why was that needed? Every comment in this thread has been nothing more than an opinion. So that was blatantly obvious.

cause it seems some of you forget that the Oscars are also based on opinion and just cause you think TDKR is the best movie of the year doesn't mean it was.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's not weak at all, it seems more like you trying to justify something that doesn't really exist. 1 billion dollars isn't less than $133 million... if you'd actually READ what I wrote. In relation to cost, The Avengers made LESS OVERALL PROFIT in relation to cost because the budget was $250 mil (compared to $15 mil), plus another $100 mill in P&A.

It's called MATH.

$250 mil budget - $ 1 billion B.O = 4x profit (not counting P&A)
$15 mil budget - $100 mil B.O. = 6.7x profit

Fine but I will still take a film that profited 750 million and was seen and enjoyed by so many people over a film that makes 85 million and was seen by nobody until it won an oscar and not enjoyed enough by those people to tell their friends to see it.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Fine but I will still take a film that profited 750 million and was seen and enjoyed by so many people over a film that makes 85 million and was seen by nobody until it won an oscar and not enjoyed enough by those people to tell their friends to see it.

Actually the Artist made over half its profit BEFORE it won the Oscar, so again, stop with the hyperbole of "nobody" seeing it. Again, if yo're going to make an argument, at least use facts to prove a point, not conjecture.