2013 Oscar Discussion Discussion Thread

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Yeah, Lincoln is so unwatchable, it is an absolute mystery how it managed to pack audiences in, week after week after week. It definitely needed more explosions and hookers, maybe a UFC cage fight, or a panda that knows Kung Fu. That would liven things up and make that popcorn go down faster.

You just inadvertently torpedoed your own argument. I haven't seen Lincoln yet but I wager there's hardly a movie out there that couldn't benefit from more explosions, hookers, UFC cage fights and a panda that knows Kung Fu.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by metaridley

You just inadvertently torpedoed your own argument. I haven't seen Lincoln yet but I wager there's hardly a movie out there that couldn't benefit from more explosions, hookers, UFC cage fights and a panda that knows Kung Fu.

Sure...if you're 12 years old.

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Sure...if you're 12 years old.

Lighten up!

[arsenal_fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Yeah, Lincoln is so unwatchable, it is an absolute mystery how it managed to pack audiences in, week after week after week.

And that makes it good, how? Surely, then Transformers 2 is better than Lincoln for it grossed $400 million, right? That's a sarcasm fail right there.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It definitely needed more explosions and hookers, maybe a UFC cage fight, or a panda that knows Kung Fu. That would liven things up and make that popcorn go down faster.

Yup, this is exactly the kind of response you get from people whose opinions are all over the shop. You only ever get sarcastic responses like "Yeah, I bet that Transformers movie was real good".

[Ernest Rister]

Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. Lincoln "unwatchable"? Only if you have the attention span of a hummingbird on crack. If you don't have interest in the subject or American history, why'd you go in the first place?

Transformers and films like it make their money in about two weeks. Lincoln has been performing week after week after week, a huge surprise. Paramount passed on it, as Warner's took a bath on Empire of the Sun and Amistad, and they didn't think there would be a market for it. Now it's closing in on $200 million. Nobody saw that coming.

[arsenal_fan]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

I was not thoroughly engaged by Lincoln. But it's just one of those movies where you're not supposed to hate on, even if you disliked it. It's well made from a technical standpoint, and features outstanding acting, but the story and the way its presented makes for a snooze fest.

It's about President Lincoln, it was directed by Steven Spielberg, features a great performance from Daniel Day Lewis, and it's an Oscar favorite. Which means, even people that were bored by it will lie and say they loved it because that's just the way it is and that's the popular opinion. And they are so worried by what other people will think of their taste if they say they disliked a critically acclaimed film. It happens.

Yeah, I agree with everything you've just said. I'm not hating on it like it's some Adam Sandler movie but while I appreciate the effort put into making this movie, the subject, the performances etc, it should not mask the fact that it was terribly presented.

[arsenal_fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. Lincoln "unwatchable"? Only if you have the attention span of a hummingbird on crack. If you don't have interest in the subject or American history, why'd you go in the first place?

Thank you. I hope you enjoy the Oscars and try not to blow your wad when Lincoln wins Best Picture and Spielberg wins Best Director.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by arsenal_fan

Thank you. I hope you enjoy the Oscars and try not to blow your wad when Lincoln wins Best Picture and Spielberg wins Best Director.

Argo is winning Best Picture. Knowing the Academy, I have no confidence Spielberg will win Best Director, although the absence of Affleck makes that easier.

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by Snicket

73% of best picture winners win without their director winning? False.

The Academy Awards for Best Director and Best Picture have been very closely linked throughout their history. Of the 85 films that have been awarded Best Picture, 62 have also been awarded Best Director.[1] Only three films have won Best Picture without their directors being nominated (though only one since the early 1930s): Wings (1927/28), Grand Hotel (1931/32), and Driving Miss Daisy (1989). The only two Best Director winners to win for films which did not receive a Best Picture nomination are likewise in the early years: Lewis Milestone (1927/28) and Frank Lloyd (1928/29).

(emphasis added) source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy..._Best_Director

62/85 ≈ 0.7294 ≈ 73%

True.


Edit: Shit, I thought you wrote "with" not "without." In that case, the number is 37%.

[chris_sc77]

SO if indeed Argo wins best Picture at the Oscars (ugh) is it gonna be a film that ends up with only 1 oscar? I mean what the hell else could it possibly win? Could it really beat Lincoln or Silver Linings for Best adapted screenplay? Editing?

I still dont know why the only fun and rewatchable film nominated (Django) isn't a serious contender.

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

I was not thoroughly engaged by Lincoln. But it's just one of those movies where you're not supposed to hate on, even if you disliked it. It's well made from a technical standpoint, and features outstanding acting, but the story and the way its presented makes for a snooze fest.

I absolute agree. Although I found the movie okay, supposing that I did hate it, I would hate on it, even though I'm not supposed to.

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

It's about President Lincoln,

That's the first problem. There's enough movies about him. Everyone knows he was the greatest president (or one of them). Nobody likes slavery, everyone is glad he helped stop that. But there are other presidents, you know.

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

it was directed by Steven Spielberg,

That's the second problem. Spielberg is definitely okay at times, and sometimes even great, but on the whole is amomg the most overrated directors in Hollywood. If he was half as busy and you only looked at the better half of his films, then I would like him a lot more. But I'm far from the type of person who assumes Spieblerg is autmatic gold.

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

features a great performance from Daniel Day Lewis,

That's the first advantage. DDL is quite the talent, but I don't think he'll ever come close to topping Daniel Plainview.

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

and it's an Oscar favorite.

Yes it is.

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

Which means, even people that were bored by it will lie and say they loved it because that's just the way it is and that's the popular opinion.

That's the third problem. It's amazing that people feel the need to do this.

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

And they are so worried by what other people will think of their taste if they say they disliked a critically acclaimed film. It happens.

That's also an issue.


Nice post.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

The Academy Awards for Best Director and Best Picture have been very closely linked throughout their history. Of the 85 films that have been awarded Best Picture, 62 have also been awarded Best Director.[1] Only three films have won Best Picture without their directors being nominated (though only one since the early 1930s): Wings (1927/28), Grand Hotel (1931/32), and Driving Miss Daisy (1989). The only two Best Director winners to win for films which did not receive a Best Picture nomination are likewise in the early years: Lewis Milestone (1927/28) and Frank Lloyd (1928/29).

(emphasis added) source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy..._Best_Director

62/85 ≈ 0.7294 ≈ 73%

True.


Edit: Shit, I thought you wrote "with" not "without." In that case, the number is 37%.

I think no director nomination for Ben Affleck is going to make it very difficult for Argo to win best picture.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

I think no director nomination for Ben Affleck is going to make it very difficult for Argo to win best picture.

Don't bet against it. The producers guild and SAG have already chosen it (many of the same people who vote for best picture).

Keep in mind nominations are only done by about 6% of the Academy while actual voting is done by 100% of its members. So while unlikely, there is room for discrepancy.


Also, I like how this thread has become a battle for Lincoln, like you are just now discovering that art is subjective and people are allowed to have differing opinions. For film buffs some of you know shockingly little about the medium.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Don't bet against it. The producers guild and SAG have already chosen it (many of the same people who vote for best picture).

Keep in mind nominations are only done by about 6% of the Academy while actual voting is done by 100% of its members. So while unlikely, there is room for discrepancy.


Also, I like how this thread has become a battle for Lincoln, like you are just now discovering that art is subjective and people are allowed to have differing opinions. For film buffs some of you know shockingly little about the medium.

Well, I fail to see how a "film buff" could call Lincoln "unwatchable" and walk out of it after dropping a 10-spot and sticking around only for thirty minutes. That's redonkulous hyperbole.

"Sometimes errors of opinion are errors of fact." -- Roger Ebert

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Don't bet against it. The producers guild and SAG have already chosen it (many of the same people who vote for best picture).

The same as Shakespeare in Love "upsetting" Spielberg's deserving but unsuspenseful march to Best Picture with Saving Private Ryan.
By the end, snooty backlash kicked in and said "Well, it was Spielberg's movie, so Best Director covered it"--And then all the Acting and Producing community were free to personally gush over the feel-good plot, industry in-jokes and general populist surprise factor of Shakespeare suddenly appearing out of nowhere, but nobody could remember who directed it past the clever Original Screenplay and Acting nominations.

That's almost enough to make me change my vote for a split this year. Another week of it, and I might.

Also, I like how this thread has become a battle for Lincoln, like you are just now discovering that art is subjective and people are allowed to have differing opinions. For film buffs some of you know shockingly little about the medium.

No, he's trying to cling to the hype-weary "Eh, it wasn't that great!" backlash that Ryan got in the last few weeks, and discovering that Lincoln still has a little bit of populist support.
(That, and the reason our high-school English teacher announced he would penalize any use of "Dumb", "Boring" or "Lame" in any critical book appraisal, for the benefit of our own maturity.)

[arsenal_fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Saw Lincoln today. Full thoughts tomorrow. Brief thoughts? Curious how the film absorbs you, and when you smack yourself out of the spell, trying to study what Spielberg is doing, you're drawn right back into the spell again. This is the most visible/invisible Spielberg film ever. When Spielberg finally shows his hand, in the final seconds, it was jarring. But this mirrors the sfx opening, so they bookend.

You type this load of crock and call out others for their judgement? There's always a few of you in every forum who think of themselves as students of cinema and being capable of observing things others can't.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Well, I fail to see how a "film buff" could call Lincoln "unwatchable" and walk out of it after dropping a 10-spot and sticking around only for thirty minutes. That's redonkulous hyperbole.

"Sometimes errors of opinion are errors of fact." -- Roger Ebert

I'm not the only one to walk out of this film, which was basically a tedious talkathon with uninteresting conversations and really poor pacing. And yeah, I'm not a film buff, my lord. All I do is watch movies about talking robots and fighting pandas. That way I don't have to tax my brain and look for invisible stuff.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by arsenal_fan

And yeah, I'm not a film buff, my lord. All I do is watch movies about talking robots and fighting pandas. That way I don't have to tax my brain

Just so long as you're willing to own up to it.

[arsenal_fan]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Just so long as you're willing to own up to it.

Of course, I'm willing to own up to it. I don't have the time, the energy, the inclination and above all, the necessary knowledge to argue against connoisseurs of world cinema.

[spanky87]

I just want to chime in and say if you don't like something like Lincoln, that doesn't make you lose your film buff credibility. Being a film buff to me is having an extensive knowledge of the medium, spanning over different eras, countries, and watching a variety of genres and films from every decade. Actively seeking out obscure stuff is cool too.

I don't think it means you HAVE to like something. I haven't liked the 2 Goddard films I've seen. I don't think it makes me less a film buff just because I didn't. I sought them out, watched them, and I have my reasons for not liking them. I'll still try more Goddard in the future and it doesn't make me less interested in the French New Wave as a whole.

Walking out of Lincoln after 30 minutes is a different story though.

[MEB]

I've been reasonably successful in picking the Academy Awards Best Picture winner over the years. Last year a lot of people predicted that 'Hugo' would win. Those people poo-pooed 'The Artist'. I stuck to my guns and called it for 'The Artist'. The rest is history!

My updated predictions:

Best Picture: Lincoln
Best Director: Ang Lee (Life of Pi)
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Best Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway (Les Misérables)

Mark