2013 Oscar Discussion Discussion Thread

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by Foggy

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

If that was the case Michael Bay would have like 5 Oscars or so.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Foggy

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

In 2010 Toy Story 3 and Inception were both clever and thought and emotion provoking and way more so than Social Network and Kings Speech. But because they were extremely commercially successfull the critics leaned elsewhere.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

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.

Fair enough! And you're welcome - as much as I disagreed with your points (though I understand what you meant now) I thought that 'monstrosity' was pretty interesting.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

In 2010 Toy Story 3 and Inception were both clever and thought and emotion provoking and way more so than Social Network and Kings Speech. But because they were extremely commercially successfull the critics leaned elsewhere.

Gladiator, LOTR:ROTK and Titanic were all fairly successful. Hell, on their own terms (i.e. they were never designed to be blockbusters) Shakespeare in Love, Crash, King's Speech, Slumdog Millionaire, The Artist - all successful at the box office. You don't need to crack $200m to be considered a commercial success. It's all relative.

I think you're putting way too much stock into your theory. The Oscars don't deliberately avoid commercially successful films. Their tastes might not always align with the general public's but that's not the same thing as them having a mindset of "it made too much money, forget it!".

Also, I personally found The King's Speech and Social Network to be more emotionally stimulating than Inception and I found Social Network to be a much more intellectual film. But reactions to films like that are personal and subjective and so it's stupid you trying to use them as evidence for your conspiracy.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Gladiator, LOTR:ROTK and Titanic were all fairly successful. Hell, on their own terms (i.e. they were never designed to be blockbusters) Shakespeare in Love, Crash, King's Speech, Slumdog Millionaire, The Artist - all successful at the box office. You don't need to crack $200m to be considered a commercial success. It's all relative.

I think you're putting way too much stock into your theory. The Oscars don't deliberately avoid commercially successful films. Their tastes might not always align with the general public's but that's not the same thing as them having a mindset of "it made too much money, forget it!".

Also, I personally found The King's Speech and Social Network to be more emotionally stimulating than Inception and I found Social Network to be a much more intellectual film. But reactions to films like that are personal and subjective and so it's stupid you trying to use them as evidence for your conspiracy.

I've never used the word conspiracy. I am just saying that a group of people who's average age is 62, is 94% white, and 77% male is a hardly the group that should be deciding what the best picture of the year is.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

In 2010 Toy Story 3 and Inception were both clever and thought and emotion provoking and way more so than Social Network and Kings Speech. But because they were extremely commercially successfull the critics leaned elsewhere.

I disagree with them being more clever and thought provoking than Social Network (I do think King's Speech is cookie cutter compared to the rest, but I usually care more about the nominees than the actual winners).

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I've never used the word conspiracy. I am just saying that a group of people who's average age is 62, is 94% white, and 77% male is a hardly the group that should be deciding what the best picture of the year is.

As soon as you started suggesting unproven and unsubstantiated motives to sway the results one way or the other for unfair reasons then you were suggesting a conspiracy.

You're not just saying that though - that's a point you're made there (and I imagine Googled very quickly). You've been saying that more popular films should win, that box office should be a pointer as to what the general public think, that 'big', successful films are deliberately avoided and that expensive, SFX films should be considered more so than dramas and smaller films because they're more difficult to make (which is an absurd generalization).

At the end of the day the the Oscars are just the judge's opinions and the judges will vote for what they like. This isn't an award for 'the public's best film of the year' (or most popular). It's the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' best film of the year, as voted for by their members. It's up to them and their tastes. If you don't like their tastes, who gets to vote or what they choose then that's fine. But it is just their opinion, as are the other dozens and dozen's of 'best film' titles handed out over a year. Just because they have a bigger spotlight in the public's eye doesn't mean that the voters should cater their tastes towards them. They should be honest in their picks, even if they don't align with what made a billion dollars that year.

[SpartanX]

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.

You need to at look at the bigger picture here. Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, and it will be remembered just for that and the way it revolutionized 3D cinema. And years from now once the BluRay format becomes more and more popular people will be rushing to buy the Avatar BluRay. Whether you like it or not, I'm afraid that might be the case. Avatar will be remembered for decades to come.

I do agree that Avatar isn't best picture material, but the Academy chose the good, but forgettable "Hurt Locker" instead. I still think 2009 was Tarantino's year for "Inglorious Basterds".

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

As soon as you started suggesting unproven and unsubstantiated motives to sway the results one way or the other for unfair reasons then you were suggesting a conspiracy.

You're not just saying that though - that's a point you're made there (and I imagine Googled very quickly). You've been saying that more popular films should win, that box office should be a pointer as to what the general public think, that 'big', successful films are deliberately avoided and that expensive, SFX films should be considered more so than dramas and smaller films because they're more difficult to make (which is an absurd generalization).

At the end of the day the the Oscars are just the judge's opinions and the judges will vote for what they like. This isn't an award for 'the public's best film of the year' (or most popular). It's the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' best film of the year, as voted for by their members. It's up to them and their tastes. If you don't like their tastes, who gets to vote or what they choose then that's fine. But it is just their opinion, as are the other dozens and dozen's of 'best film' titles handed out over a year. Just because they have a bigger spotlight in the public's eye doesn't mean that the voters should cater their tastes towards them. They should be honest in their picks, even if they don't align with what made a billion dollars that year.

Of course I googled it. Do you think I have that kind of info memorized? You can feel like I am saying conspiracy if you want. That is your opinion. I just again feel like your asking a small sample size demographic of people (an out of touch sample size for that matter) to choose winners for awards and expecting it to matter. They seem confused on why they are losing viewers. They wonder why the average American puts little stock in the Oscars. Those are the main reasons why. I seem to be in the minority in this thread which was to be expected being that it is an Oscar prediction thread and am enjoying the discussion despite the fact that no one is going to change their opinions no matter what the other person types.

[Snicket]

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.

Sir, your opinion is not fact. You are making some very large assumptions here. Unless you were on set in the think of it you are in absolutely no position to reasonably assert the degree of difficulty.

Are you making the case that the script to Avatar was more difficult to compose than Hurt Locker?

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I just again feel like your asking a small sample size demographic of people (an out of touch sample size for that matter) to choose winners for awards and expecting it to matter. They seem confused on why they are losing viewers. They wonder why the average American puts little stock in the Oscars. Those are the main reasons why. I seem to be in the minority in this thread which was to be expected being that it is an Oscar prediction thread and am enjoying the discussion despite the fact that no one is going to change their opinions no matter what the other person types.

You're the one putting importance on the results by furiously debating what should have won, why it should have won, what the voters are doing wrong, etc. You seem more obsessed with what they got 'wrong' than many others on here (who are just guessing what might win this year). Anyone who debates them like that is suggesting that they 'matter'. If the results really don't matter then what does it matter to you or anyone that The King's Speech beat Inception or that The Hurt Locker beat Avatar?

And again, you've missed my point. Those people choosing the Best Picture film are just picking the one that they think is the best in their opinions. It 'matters' because people who debate it say it matters. Because the media says it matters. Because the general public says it matters. Because Oscar has a legacy on it as the 'top prize'. But none of that should make a difference to the voters. They should just vote honestly. And, as far as we know, they do. Just like anyone else picking their top films of the year. As I mentioned above, the fact that there is a bigger spotlight on the Oscars than other top film picks should have no bearing at all on the methods of voting.

Also, this 'out of touch' point is irrelevant. They are a group composed of members. That's their group. They vote what their favourite film is. Their answer isn't definitive, it doesn't make any difference and it's not like we all have to then accept that it's a fact that their choice is the best film of the year. It's the choice of the AMPAS group and it will cater to their tastes, regardless of what their group is made up of.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Sir, your opinion is not fact. You are making some very large assumptions here. Unless you were on set in the think of it you are in absolutely no position to reasonably assert the degree of difficulty.

Are you making the case that the script to Avatar was more difficult to compose than Hurt Locker?

Just look at the credits. Managing a significant amount more people, more sets, more blue screens, more editing and in this case a much longer script are going to be much harder. This is true 99% of the time. Being principal of a school of 10,000 kids will be harder than one with 500. Mayor of New York City is going to be harder to then mayor of some tiny rural town with 1000 people.

Even acting in a movie like that is going to be harder. When kids are taught to act in high school or younger you are taught to act with facial expressions with your peers. Show serious or comedic emotions to the person in front of you. Just like in the Hurt Locker. How do you learn how to act in front of a blue screen as if you are flying on the back of a dragon? Fighting in make shift space craft on an Alien world? I can sit here on my couch and act sad or angry but I would have a harder time jumping over imaginary objects looking terrified fighting aliens. I would feel like an idiot which would certainly make it challenging.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Sir, your opinion is not fact. You are making some very large assumptions here. Unless you were on set in the think of it you are in absolutely no position to reasonably assert the degree of difficulty.

Are you making the case that the script to Avatar was more difficult to compose than Hurt Locker?

I think the guys staying the more over the top the stuff is and how hard to shoot something is that the director/writers should be awarded. Don't think its fair to compare a small time movie to a summer blockbuster. A movie shouldn't get nominated just cause it cost millions and was harder to make compared to a smaller one.

I liked Silver Linings Playbook, probably one of my faves of the year. And I'm sure that didn't cost much to make. Anyway though you look at it making a movie is hard work. No matter if its a smaller budget film or a 200 million dollar one. But you could say though those on a smaller scale work harder cause they know they have too.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Just look at the credits. Managing a significant amount more people, more sets, more blue screens, more editing and in this case a much longer script are going to be much harder. This is true 99% of the time. Being principal of a school of 10,000 kids will be harder than one with 500. Mayor of New York City is going to be harder to then mayor of some tiny rural town with 1000 people.

Even acting in a movie like that is going to be harder. When kids are taught to act in high school or younger you are taught to act with facial expressions with your peers. Show serious or comedic emotions to the person in front of you. Just like in the Hurt Locker. How do you learn how to act in front of a blue screen as if you are flying on the back of a dragon? Fighting in make shift space craft on an Alien world? I can sit here on my couch and act sad or angry but I would have a harder time jumping over imaginary objects looking terrified fighting aliens. I would feel like an idiot which would certainly make it challenging.

You don't think there might be a difference in resources? That maybe Avatar had all the money, resources and manpower in the world to make it happen and that Hurt Locker might have had a tiny budget and limitations on locations, effects,, equipment, etc? Can't you see how that might factor into how easy it is for the film's vision to be met? Yes, a big film like that has challenges like the ones you mentioned. But smaller films have different challenges and it doesn't make them less or more difficult to make. It's all relative.

And with regards to your second paragraph which is just... odd. I'm pretty sure Daniel Radcliffe just put his arms in the air and shouted 'Wooooooo!' when he was riding Buckbeak in Harry Potter. I'm not sure that was more difficult than Jeremy Renner portraying the fractured inner psyche of an obsessed and damaged man in a way the audience could empathize with. Yes, that's a sweeping generalisation. But so is yours that greenscreen acting is more difficult than location acting.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Just look at the credits. Managing a significant amount more people, more sets, more blue screens, more editing and in this case a much longer script are going to be much harder. This is true 99% of the time. Being principal of a school of 10,000 kids will be harder than one with 500. Mayor of New York City is going to be harder to then mayor of some tiny rural town with 1000 people.

Even acting in a movie like that is going to be harder. When kids are taught to act in high school or younger you are taught to act with facial expressions with your peers. Show serious or comedic emotions to the person in front of you. Just like in the Hurt Locker. How do you learn how to act in front of a blue screen as if you are flying on the back of a dragon? Fighting in make shift space craft on an Alien world? I can sit here on my couch and act sad or angry but I would have a harder time jumping over imaginary objects looking terrified fighting aliens. I would feel like an idiot which would certainly make it challenging.

I disagree with your assumptions.

Why does this all matter so much to you personally?

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I disagree with your assumptions.

Why does this all matter so much to you personally?

And he's failed to realise one thing, all those members of crew get managed, but they also do the jobs. A low budget director has to use ingenuity to get around constraints, big budget directors don't have these issues.

It was Rian Johnson who said Looper was his easiest film to make because of the budget and the studio on his side, he had to fight to get films like Brick and Brothers Bloom funded, made and distributed, and they had no special effect shots at all.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Even acting in a movie like that is going to be harder. When kids are taught to act in high school or younger you are taught to act with facial expressions with your peers. Show serious or comedic emotions to the person in front of you. Just like in the Hurt Locker. How do you learn how to act in front of a blue screen as if you are flying on the back of a dragon? Fighting in make shift space craft on an Alien world? I can sit here on my couch and act sad or angry but I would have a harder time jumping over imaginary objects looking terrified fighting aliens. I would feel like an idiot which would certainly make it challenging.

And even for all that....they still came up with a doper, less imaginative script and less character development than one story set in the same dusty Baghdad neighborhood over a month.

Best Picture is given to the producers. They admire a producer who can come up with more USING less, as opposed to coming up with less using more.

Originally Posted by Snicket

I disagree with your assumptions.
Why does this all matter so much to you personally?

Because he's one of those fans who think Best Picture = Popularity.
Yeah, I remember when I was discovering movies in high school, too.
(Kind of like those people who throw a fit if some controversial figure gets Time's Man of the Year--"No way, he's not popular enough!")

In one of our older theaters, they used to decorate the long hallway with framed collage posters showing all the Best Pictures by decade--
The 40's one with GWTW and Casablanca, the 60's one with Sound of Music and Oliver, the 70's one with Patton and Rocky, etc. I can't even look at the 00's one--Having No Country For Old Men and Slumdog Millionaire on the poster just seems like graffiti. (And don't even get me started on trying to remember what "A Beautiful Mind" was about, now that it's been immortalized for all time.)
I see Best Picture as a sort of annual VIP-athlete Hall of Fame for the stats books, and I don't care whether it's an overpaid NFL player or a skinny baseball rookie, so long as they knocked their games out of the park that year.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I disagree with your assumptions.

Why does this all matter so much to you personally?

Im just having a discussion. I just find it hard to believe that so many movie buffs who in large part flock to the discussions of every Star Wars,LOTR,Harry Potter etc type thread, and many of which have list in their singatures of their favorite movies (many of which include films like Avengers, and Dark Knight) are so willing to sit back and see these films left of the discussions of Best Films of the year by movie critics. Each one of us owns hundreds or thousands of movies and I am sure most (please dont fry me if you are the rare individual who doesnt) sits down and chooses many of the films I have mentioned more often than they do movies like Crash, Slumdog, Million Dollar Baby, etc to watch when they have free time. Most of us could probably quote Star Wars, Jaws, Indianna Jones, Rocky word for word for a reason. It is because those movies were the best of there year and for many people the best of a generation.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And even for all that....they still came up with a doper, less imaginative script and less character development than one story set in the same dusty Baghdad neighborhood over a month.

Best Picture is given to the producers. They admire a producer who can come up with more USING less, as opposed to coming up with less using more.

Well said.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Im just having a discussion. I just find it hard to believe that so many movie buffs who in large part flock to the discussions of every Star Wars,LOTR,Harry Potter etc type thread, and many of which have list in their singatures of their favorite movies (many of which include films like Avengers, and Dark Knight) are so willing to sit back and see these films left of the discussions of Best Films of the year by movie critics. Each one of us owns hundreds or thousands of movies and I am sure most (please dont fry me if you are the rare individual who doesnt) sits down and chooses many of the films I have mentioned more often than they do movies like Crash, Slumdog, Million Dollar Baby, etc to watch when they have free time. Most of us could probably quote Star Wars, Jaws, Indianna Jones, Rocky word for word for a reason. It is because those movies were the best of there year and for many people the best of a generation.

There's a difference between favorite movies and movies that are the best made. Sometimes they cross and connect, but I do love the movies the academy chooses for different reasons I love my favorite films.