91st Academy Awards (2019)

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I predict a bunch of films that no more than 12 people have seen get nominated again next year.

What are you talking about?

All the nominations in this years awards were pretty big movies that I feel most people have seen.

I wish the Oscars would actually nominate super small, indie films that are leagues better than the eventual nominees.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

to preach Leftist BS

Location: Houston, TX


Yup. Makes sense.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

Location: Houston, TX


Yup. Makes sense.

Commie bastard!!!!

...go back to Moscow!

[Poya]

How is Emily Blunt in contention for a likely mediocre sequel?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Poya

How is Emily Blunt in contention for a likely mediocre sequel?

Because it's way too early for them to know who the real contenders will be.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by Poya

How is Emily Blunt in contention for a likely mediocre sequel?

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Because it's way too early for them to know who the real contenders will be.

According to a journalist at Deadline, Disney apparently has a lot of faith in this film and will be making a big awards push for it next year. Take that for what you will.

A top Disney exec told me flat out that they would be campaigning not only Black Panther for the big prize but also the upcoming Mary Poppins Returns (from director Rob Marshall), which he was raving about, particularly for star Emily Blunt. who he says knocks it out of the park in the role for which Julie Andrews already has an Oscar. Lin-Manuel Miranda co-stars. and he says there are a lot of great new songs in it as well. The teaser trailer broke in the first segment of last night’s show, but we have to wait until Christmas to see if the film lives up to Disney’s early prediction.

[imsounoriginal]

And that's fine. Any studio can make an awards push for any movie they want. But it doesn't mean it'll amount to anything (i.e. Wonder Woman, unfortunately).

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

According to a journalist at Deadline, Disney apparently has a lot of faith in this film and will be making a big awards push for it next year. Take that for what you will.

Yeah, so please explain this:

[jacobsever]

I'd love to see Emily Blunt with a nomination.


...for A Quiet Place.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by Poya

Yeah, so please explain this:

[Show spoiler]

I fail to see the comparison of a Transformers film campaign to the campaign for a sequel of a film that was widely recognized by the Academy, directed by an Oscar-nominated director whose films generally receive awards love whether they be nominations or winning those awards.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

Location: Houston, TX

Yup. Makes sense.

The same sad move, resorting to a character attack instead of staying on point. The Oscars are nowhere near objective anymore; they haven't been for at least 15 years. How else do you explain the major nominations going to movies that a very small amount of people see every year? If the Academy truly wanted to celebrate movies instead of Leftist politics, they'd stick with what the majority enjoys watching every year; that's just good business and common sense. Because like it or not, those of us in "flyover country" still comprise most of the revenue Hollywood makes; its not just L.A., Chicago, or New York.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

If the Academy truly wanted to celebrate movies instead of Leftist politics,

I'm talking about you continuously referring to things as "Leftist" and calling it "BS" in a negative light. Which makes sense, considering you're from Texas, a predominantly Red state. That's all.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

How else do you explain the major nominations going to movies that a very small amount of people see every year? If the Academy truly wanted to celebrate movies, they'd stick with what the majority enjoys watching every year

Also, I disagree 100% with this. The movies the Academy nominates are all pretty damn big movies seen by lots and lots of people. The films I think truly deserve Awards aren't even on the Academy's radar. They're actually small and unheard of films. And this isn't the "Give awards to huge Hollywood Blockbuster" event. Watch MTV Movie Awards if you want a popularity contest. This is about the QUALITY of film. Not how many people have seen it, or how much money it made.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

I'm talking about you continuously referring to things as "Leftist" and calling it "BS" in a negative light. Which makes sense, considering you're from Texas, a predominantly Red state. That's all.

Not trying to start a political argument and instead merely just stating the current situation, but Houston is now politically split and on the verge of tipping the other way compared to the rest of the state due to it being the most ethnically-diverse city in the United States.

Don't know if you've seen the show, but Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown has a great episode on Houston. I recommend checking it out.

[imsounoriginal]

The urban areas of the state in general, especially Austin. Good chance Texas will go blue in another couple of general elections.

[Talleyrand]

Moviefan, I'm probably more conservative than you, but Jacob is right here.

[AsOldAsRhyme]

I don’t buy the “Oscars should nominate movies people ‘actually see’” argument at all. 33 films made over $100M at US box office in 2017, and roughly 23 of them were remakes or franchise installments / sequels. I’d rather they nominate a bunch of movies that “nobody sees” rather than throwing accolades at a bunch of franchises. (That said, franchises can be just as award-worthy as any other film—it’s just that most of them... aren’t).

I think that the Oscars have been fairly consistent with the types of films they’ve recognized throughout the decades. The divide between what the Oscars nominate and what dominates the box office has come from a change in audience preferences. Most people go to the movies these days to be entertained by popcorn flicks full of action stunts, rather than to see a well-written screenplay brought to life by powerful performances. I mean, Schindler’s List or All About Eve would flop if released today... Does that mean they wouldn’t deserve Best Picture over the likes of a box office hit like Star Wars: The Last Jedi?

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

The Oscars are nowhere near objective anymore; they haven't been for at least 15 years.

They haven't been in 90 years. It's opinions.

Now, I don't even buy the line that "movies are completely subjective and there is nothing objectively better about Tokyo Story than The Love Guru" which I used to buy, however, the levels of objective ranking are so coarse that it may as well be completely subjective in 99% of cases. Certainly when it comes to Oscar films.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

How else do you explain the major nominations going to movies that a very small amount of people see every year?

Congratulations, there are two things wrong with this sentence: It is factually wrong, and even if it were right, it would still be missing the point/

A very large amount of people see the movies nominated for the big awards; Phantom Thread hit $40 million and that's by far the least. This notion that only impenetrable, unseen films no one has heard of get nominated is absurd, and has to die.

Moreover, even if you were right, and a "very small amount" of people saw them:

SO WHAT?

This isn't the MTV awards and it isn't the People's Choice Awards. This is the Oscars. This is the Awards for people who see a lot of movies...you know, go beyond scratching the surface.

It's frankly absurd. And it only happens to movies. No one was telling the Man Booker Prize to nominate the Twilight novels or the latest from Stephen King. They realize the books nominated for that award are a class above (note: I say that as a big Stephen King fan who owns all his books). But for some reason, people feel like because they saw some grown men in tights fighting each other a few times over the year, they suddenly have the right to comment on what kind of movies are "good"??? I honestly don't understand where that sense of ignorant entitlement comes from.

Like, there's lots of things I don't know about. For instance, gymnastics. What I don't do is go to gymnastics shows and tell the judges how they should be grading the performers.

The Oscars represent the opinion of the members of AMPAS. If that happens to align with the majority of people...okay. If not...okay. I don't see why it should be forced one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

If the Academy truly wanted to celebrate movies instead of Leftist politics,

I don't want to get to deep into politics because I've been suspended for it before, but, frankly, it was not as bad as I expected this year or last year. I find the Globes to be worse. Yes, there is some condescending prattle from Kimmel and some of the winners (honestly, the worst line of the night for me is one that I doubt anyone else even picked up on, because it was so subtle, but I really hated it), but, on the whole, it did not ruin the show for me. And if it did, I would have left.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

they'd stick with what the majority enjoys watching every year;

See above. This would be asinine. They are not trying to represent the majority and nor should they. They are presenting their own opinions.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

that's just good business and common sense.

That would be good business...the Academy is not a business and the Oscars are not a business transaction. They are the stating of the collective opinion of a few thousand people. It has nothing at all to do with "good business" or "common sense."

Again, there already exist shows that pander to your tastes, I don't see why you can't be happy with them.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Because like it or not, those of us in "flyover country" still comprise most of the revenue Hollywood makes; its not just L.A., Chicago, or New York.

Okay? Again, it's not the "Box Office Awards" show, otherwise the revenue would matter.

And I don't really think Texas is "flyover country" because it's too nice there. I certainly wouldn't mind moving there, although the way things are going Arizona would likely be a better choice for me at this point.

Originally Posted by AsOldAsRhyme

I don’t buy the “Oscars should nominate movies people ‘actually see’” argument at all.

That's because you're not an idiot.

Originally Posted by AsOldAsRhyme

33 films made over $100M at US box office in 2017, and roughly 23 of them were remakes or franchise installments / sequels. I’d rather they nominate a bunch of movies that “nobody sees” rather than throwing accolades at a bunch of franchises.

Again, this is because you are using your brain. It's sad that that someone makes you special in this day and age, but there you go. Anyways, this is exactly right.

Originally Posted by AsOldAsRhyme

(That said, franchises can be just as award-worthy as any other film—it’s just that most of them... aren’t).

They really can't be. Moreover, superhero films will never be worthy of Oscars, no matter how good they are. Look, I really hated The Shape of Water (my least favourite of 2017) and I thought Logan was pretty good, but if Logan took Best Picture it would have been a laughable affront and I would have been done with the Oscars.

Originally Posted by AsOldAsRhyme

I think that the Oscars have been fairly consistent with the types of films they’ve recognized throughout the decades. The divide between what the Oscars nominate and what dominates the box office has come from a change in audience preferences.

HAHA I LOVE THIS GUY!! THIS GUY GETS IT!!

People like to point out that in the 1970s and such the major contenders were also box office gold. The Godfather being the paramount example (I believe it was even the highest grossing film ever for a bit).

Well, are people seriously arguing Transformers: Age of Extinction or even Star Wars: The Last Jedi are as good as The Godfather?? It is to laugh.

People in the 1970's either had better taste, or they had shitty taste but they weren't making many comic films then so people had to see good movies. I don't know what the case is and I don't really care, to be honest.

Originally Posted by AsOldAsRhyme

Most people go to the movies these days to be entertained by popcorn flicks full of action stunts, rather than to see a well-written screenplay brought to life by powerful performances. I mean, Schindler’s List or All About Eve would flop if released today... Does that mean they wouldn’t deserve Best Picture over the likes of a box office hit like Star Wars: The Last Jedi?

Exactly. Although I think Schindler's List would do okay. The Spielberg brand would help it. But, yeah, All About Eve would flop hard.

And the sad thing is, yes, people like moviefan2k4 and stvn1974 would indeed think they wouldn't deserve Best Picture. Because muh flyover movie fans didn't like it!

[jlk5844]

Reading this thread is annoying. I'm just gonna back out....

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

What are you talking about?

All the nominations in this years awards were pretty big movies that I feel most people have seen.

I wish the Oscars would actually nominate super small, indie films that are leagues better than the eventual nominees.

Saying "only 12 people" are gonna see a movie is his tagline I guess.

He said the same thing about Spielberg's possible Leonard Bernstein biopic.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

Reading this thread is annoying. I'm just gonna back out....

Okay, thanks for the input. I must say, you will be missed due to how much content and insight you provided in the other 0 posts you made in this thread.

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

Saying "only 12 people" are gonna see a movie is his tagline I guess.

He said the same thing about Spielberg's possible Leonard Bernstein biopic.

I guess that's less annoying than harping on Nolan when he wasn't even being discussed? I mean, he might be wrong about "only 12 people" but at least he's talking about the topic at hand?