2013 Oscar Discussion Discussion Thread

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by victim

Entertainment Weekly is saying it'll be between Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain.

Is J. Lawrence's performance really that great in SLP?

She has been the front runner (and will most likely win).

[remake]

Originally Posted by Snicket

She has been the front runner (and will most likely win).

I would be so happy for her. I love Chastain as well so I'd be happy with either one.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by victim

I would be so happy for her. I love Chastain as well so I'd be happy with either one.

Same boat. They are both capable of doing amazing work.

[TheForce8686]

My prediction is the best movies of the year won't win or be nominated and many awards will go to movies that aren't even good enough to attract viewers.

[Snikt]

No love for Hugh Jackman or Bradley Cooper? I'm hoping they at least get nominated.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

My prediction is the best movies of the year won't win or be nominated and many awards will go to movies that aren't even good enough to attract viewers.

What does "good enough to attract viewers" mean? How do you measure that? Are the best films ones that only the majority sees?

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Snicket

What does "good enough to attract viewers" mean? How do you measure that? Are the best films ones that only the majority sees?

I don't know about everyone else, but the films getting the most awards attention...I can't stop hearing about them from everyone. To me, they're plenty 'popular' enough.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Snicket

What does "good enough to attract viewers" mean? How do you measure that? Are the best films ones that only the majority sees?

Well if they aren't good enough to attract viewers or repeat viewings I find it hard to believe they are the best movies. I certainly don't think the Oscars should be given out based on box office receipts. There is a reason movies like the Hurt Locker, Crash, Beautful Mind, Chicago, etc don't get re-rereleased, sindicated, large box office numbers. I have seen the critics best list this year and there are movies on it that 99% of the public hasn't heard of. Hundreds and hundreds of movies are released each year, and I feel the "Best Picture" should be one that will be remembered for a long time. A movie that stands out and entertains to the point people will see it.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Well if they aren't good enough to attract viewers or repeat viewings I find it hard to believe they are the best movies. I certainly don't think the Oscars should be given out based on box office receipts.

Huh?

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Huh?

What are you confused by? Movies should be able to attract and audience but just because a movie makes the most money doesn't mean it's the best. It needs to have a balance. Movies are entertainment and are made to be seen and if a movie is so boring or forgettable that most people won't see it or recommend it how can it be labeled the "Best"?

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

What are you confused by? Movies should be able to attract and audience but just because a movie makes the most money doesn't mean it's the best. It needs to have a balance. Movies are entertainment and are made to be seen and if a movie is so boring or forgettable that most people won't see it or recommend it how can it be labeled the "Best"?

Well, that's part of what the Academy Awards does, is get people to watch these movies, if they already haven't. But this year, it actually looks like a lot of the potential films, like the last few years, have been films audiences have actually seen. I definitely don't think that a bunch of movies people haven't seen are going to get nominated. I think people just like to assume that, and it's a stupid myth that has come with the territory of the awards show.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Well, that's part of what the Academy Awards does, is get people to watch these movies, if they already haven't. But this year, it actually looks like a lot of the potential films, like the last few years, have been films audiences have actually seen. I definitely don't think that a bunch of movies people haven't seen are going to get nominated. I think people just like to assume that, and it's a stupid myth that has come with the territory of the awards show.

I just know that most people didn't see the Artist before the Oscars last year. Most people still haven't seen it and it is basically forgotten already. How was that the best movie of the year? Same thing with the Hurt Locker over Avatar. Avatar was so much bigger, better, and had such an impact on the movie watching community. It was succesfull and well received. The Hurt Locker is already forgotten.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I feel the "Best Picture" should be one that will be remembered for a long time. A movie that stands out and entertains to the point people will see it.

How in the world do you measure that? There is zero way to tell what film will be remembered from this year 20 years from now.

The Oscars have never been about rewarding films that we predict will be relevant in the future, they are all about rewarding films now that are noteworthy.

I just know that most people didn't see the Artist before the Oscars last year. Most people still haven't seen it and it is basically forgotten already. How was that the best movie of the year? Same thing with the Hurt Locker over Avatar. Avatar was so much bigger, better, and had such an impact on the movie watching community. It was succesfull and well received. The Hurt Locker is already forgotten.

You think Avatar is still well received today? So your criteria is that to be the best you have to be "bigger and better"? Avatar was a flashy FX show with a narrative than ran skin deep. Hurt Locker is a contemporary character study of why people put themselves in life threatening situations.

You realize of course this is all subjective. The Academy does not exist to please the masses.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I just know that most people didn't see the Artist before the Oscars last year. Most people still haven't seen it and it is basically forgotten already. How was that the best movie of the year? Same thing with the Hurt Locker over Avatar. Avatar was so much bigger, better, and had such an impact on the movie watching community. It was succesfull and well received. The Hurt Locker is already forgotten.

'Avatar' may have been bigger, that doesn't mean better. That film was a boring, drawn out mess in my opinion. It may be a technical achievement, but it's definitely not an instant classic. It did nothing to set it's self apart from many other sci-fi movies, and it's just not a great film. Saying it's had a huge impact is a stretch in my opinion as well, other than forcing 3D onto the masses, and it's seemed to actually outstay its welcome in many circles. That's great some love it, but I thought it was easily the most overrated movie the year it came out. I thought that 'The Hurt Locker' was a much better film, and one where I actually felt something for the characters and the situation they were in. It was the the better movie that year, at least in my books. But I still think 'Inglorious Basterds' should have gone home with the trophy that year.

I enjoyed 'The Artist', and it's a great movie. Did it deserve best picture? Maybe not. It could have easily gone to 'The Help', 'Hugo', or 'The Descendants', but 'The Artist' wasn't a bad movie, and I see why it was chosen. It was the safe choice, and it was a very beautifully made film that honored and loved film. The whole thing was a giant love letter to film, and that's why it won. I think it at least deserved the nomination that it got. It's not about what's the most popular movie, it's about what the academy, ultimately, connects with most. That's why the films that win, do. That's why something like 'The Artist' wins over the others, because the academy connects with it.

This isn't a people's choice award show, this is The Academy Awards. It's a whole different ballgame and can't be measured the same way something like a people's choice award show is.

[CoolRanch]

Best Picture

Zero Dark Thirty
Lincoln
Life of Pi
Les Miserables
Silver Linings Playbook

Argo
Django Unchained
The Master
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Moonrise Kingdom

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Snicket

How in the world do you measure that? There is zero way to tell what film will be remembered from this year 20 years from now.

The Oscars have never been about rewarding films that we predict will be relevant in the future, they are all about rewarding films now that are noteworthy.



You think Avatar is still well received today? So your criteria is that to be the best you have to be "bigger and better"? Avatar was a flashy FX show with a narrative than ran skin deep. Hurt Locker is a contemporary character study of why people put themselves in life threatening situations.

You realize of course this is all subjective. The Academy does not exist to please the masses.

Avatar made so much money because everytime a person saw they told a friend how great it was who then told another and so on. Of course not everyone liked it. No opinions are unanimous but it was clear that it was an instant phenomenon while the Hurt Locker gained momentum at the end and then vanished. Seriously nobody sits around with their friends thinking "Lets watch the Hurt Locker, its been too long"

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

'Avatar' may have been bigger, that doesn't mean better. That film was a boring, drawn out mess in my opinion. It may be a technical achievement, but it's definitely not an instant classic. It did nothing to set it's self apart from many other sci-fi movies, and it's just not a great film. Saying it's had a huge impact is a stretch in my opinion as well, other than forcing 3D onto the masses, and it's seemed to actually outstay its welcome in many circles. That's great some love it, but I thought it was easily the most overrated movie the year it came out. I thought that 'The Hurt Locker' was a much better film, and one where I actually felt something for the characters and the situation they were in. It was the the better movie that year, at least in my books. But I still think 'Inglorious Basterds' should have gone home with the trophy that year.

I enjoyed 'The Artist', and it's a great movie. Did it deserve best picture? Maybe not. It could have easily gone to 'The Help', 'Hugo', or 'The Descendants', but 'The Artist' wasn't a bad movie, and I see why it was chosen. It was the safe choice, and it was a very beautifully made film that honored and loved film. The whole thing was a giant love letter to film, and that's why it won. I think it at least deserved the nomination that it got. It's not about what's the most popular movie, it's about what the academy, ultimately, connects with most. That's why the films that win, do. That's why something like 'The Artist' wins over the others, because the academy connects with it.

This isn't a people's choice award show, this is The Academy Awards. It's a whole different ballgame and can't be measured the same way something like a people's choice award show is.

As a fan of Walt Disney just like you seem to be, I know when he made his first movies it was to entertain. It was to get people to watch and enjoy. If a movie can not do that for more than a specific group of people it simply can't be labeled the best. Every movie out their has a following but for a movie to be considered the best (not just a great movie but "the best") it needs to entertain more then a select few.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

What are you confused by?

You saying movies that attract viewers should get awards, and then saying movies that make the most money shouldn't get awards. Although I guess you answered that just now by saying you want a balance of the two. I understand.

Anyway, personally I don't care who else sees a movie I like. As long as I think it's the best, I won't let anyone else's opinion change it. I don't like most of the more successful movies of the year, and just because they're loved doesn't mean I even want to see them.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Avatar made so much money because everytime a person saw they told a friend how great it was who then told another and so on. Of course not everyone liked it. No opinions are unanimous but it was clear that it was an instant phenomenon while the Hurt Locker gained momentum at the end and then vanished. Seriously nobody sits around with their friends thinking "Lets watch the Hurt Locker, its been too long"

I say that.

If you want an awards show that will please Johnny Everyman, you have sooo many, MTV Movie awards, Teen Choice awards, People's Choice Awards, and the Golden Globes. Don't pick on the Oscars because they play to a different crowd.

But then why does Avatar need to win an Oscar? It already has fame in its own right. Hurt Locked was much more needy of that Oscar bump. The only thing an Avatar win would have done is inflate the already massive ego of the world's most egotistical man.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

As a fan of Walt Disney just like you seem to be, I know when he made his first movies it was to entertain. It was to get people to watch and enjoy. If a movie can not do that for more than a specific group of people it simply can't be labeled the best. Every movie out their has a following but for a movie to be considered the best (not just a great movie but "the best") it needs to entertain more then a select few.

Plenty of the films that get nominated entertain, not just a select few. Things like 'The Social Network', 'The King's Speech', 'Inglorious Basterds', 'Up', and the list goes on and on. Just because it doesn't win doesn't mean anything. The fact it got nominated at all means they see something special in the movie. It's not about being the most flashy and entertaining, but it's not about being the most artsy and prestigious either. It's about being the best of the best, and bringing something to the table that people can connect with. I'd say that the academy is right about what they choose about 80% of the time. They've adjusted to the complaints many have lobbied against them in recent years, but we can't expect it to turn into the people's choice awards or the Golden Globes. We have those separate awards for that reason. Those are the places that some of these more blockbuster type films will get to shine, and while every once in a while that's the ones that get chosen by the Academy, usually they're looking for something else entirely than that.