- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 2/24/15 at 2:48 pm to Baloo
Posted on 2/24/15 at 2:48 pm to Baloo
quote:
Your argument, I believe, is that the Oscars should honor films you like, which runs towards mediocre big budget summer blockbusters. That's a horrible idea. It would render the awards meaningless. Though I do think you can honor great films while also considering public tastes. I think popular films with critical support tend to stand the test of time (your Raiders of the Lost Ark and such).
But I think it's ridiculous you're stumping for Batman when it ACTUALLY WAS NOMINATED. It WAS honored. So what's your complaint? You wanted it honored more? Man, fanboys are impossible to please.
Well said. Comic fanboys should be satisfied that they've already taken over the studios. You aren't taking our awards shows too. It was amazing how much complaining I saw about Guardians of the Galaxy not being nominated/winning this year.
1
Posted on 2/24/15 at 2:50 pm to Baloo
quote:
Well, that's a point they are dumb. Doubt is a fricking fantastic movie and I recommend you watch it. It also didn't win any Oscars, so I'm not sure why you're holding it up as this grand mistake. It got nominated for a bunch of acting awards, and it had some great actors doing some of their best work.
it's 2 good performances and a whole lot of nothing else. it's an example of movies made to feature a performance or performances
quote:
Completely no true
quote:Which is it? and it's a lot of them.
I'm not saying there aren't movies made with the thought of winning awards
quote:
, but you really can't accuse the frontrunners this year of that
I think it's pretty clear my criticism extends beyond this year, well beyond it in fact.
quote:you're making my point here
It tells me the awards are political
...yes, the Oscars aren't about the best movies, actors, etc. It's Hollywood politics...yay! I can't wait to see that. quote:is that what I'm saying? Or is that what you'd be more comfortable with me saying. I'm not concerned with box office, that's the academy. I'm saying movies that are memorable, that stick with you, that are the reason people love the movies get shite on because they don't pass muster in what is probably the most random and absurd criteria that the academy has crafted particularly in the last 15 years. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to the rule, but you know it's true.
Are you saying audiences did not respond to the winning films? Even though they didn't bring in the same amount of money as films aimed at teenagers and their repeat business and less than discerning taste, they all had very high audience approval scores, indicating audience satisfaction when they did watch the film
quote:doubt is such a perfect example for me because (while a decent movie) it doesn't do anything exceptional. On top of that, it has nothing in it that will resonate with the movie goer much later. It's forgettable in every way. it was nominated for probably every fricking award they could nominate it for. Doubt is perception being very different from reality. It has two great and notable actors...and again, a whole lot of nothing.
Again, not sure why you're using a movie than won zero Oscars as your exemplar, but Doubt really did have fantastic performances in service as an interesting plot. I had a good hour-long conversation with the friend I saw the movie with, as we argued about the final scene's meaning.
While not really relevant, Doubt is an outstanding movie. It might not be visually pleasing enough (it's a lot of static two shots, showing off that this was a stage play), but it is a gut wrenching film. Viola Davis totally SHOULD have won an Oscar for her single scene. It's the best single scene performance I've seen outside of Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glen Ross. It's that good.
quote:I saw one movie this summer. ONE.
hich runs towards mediocre big budget summer blockbusters.
ONE.
ONE
It's possible I saw two, but it must've been a late show or a movie I didn't give a shite about. July 2nd, I went to see dawn of the planet of the apes. If you think that is a "dumb" blockbuster than whatever...it's not.
you keep making it a "you're stupid" retort because you're a fricking handjob that gets all riled up at the thought someone doesn't like the same thing you do (and in this case, a whole lot of people)
frick off
This post was edited on 2/24/15 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 2/24/15 at 2:55 pm to DelU249
quote:
doubt is such a perfect example for me because (while a decent movie) it doesn't do anything exceptional. On top of that, it has nothing in it that will resonate with the movie goer much later. It's forgettable in every way. it was nominated for probably every fricking award they could nominate it for. Doubt is perception being very different from reality. It has two great and notable actors...and again, a whole lot of nothing.
So what you are saying is Doubt, which won the fricking Pulitzer and the Tony for Best Play, has no story or doesn't resonate with people?
Maybe you're just too dense to get it.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:01 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:actually I resent this as well. It doesn't help the all or nothing approach we're getting. The 80s knows what I'm talking about
Comic fanboys should be satisfied that they've already taken over the studios
I prefer science fiction, or adventure to superheroes.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:09 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
Movies are entertainment to us, not the public face of some cultural movement. Sunday night wasn't as bad as it has been in the past, but people don't want to turn in and be preached to about unjustices. Again, movies are meant to be an escape and having super rich actors stand up and potificate is not what people want to see.
quote:
People get tired of seeing rich celebrities pat themselves on the back over and over again.
This X999999999999
I quit watching the Oscars because I got tired of seeing all the celebs stare and smile at each other in such a conceited smarmy way. Its sickening. Then to hear them sermonizing about economic/social injustices was just too much for me.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:11 pm to Baloo
quote:I cant disagree with you more. Me, my wife, and my Dad, who have completely different humor, can watch it over and over again. I think it stands up unbelievably well for a comedy
And honestly, Dumb and Dumber hasn't stood the test of time. I mean, it's got some great pull quotes, but have you actually sat down and WATCHED it recently? It's horribly paced and the five jokes you remember are about the only laughs in the movie.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:26 pm to magildachunks
I don't see how any of that shite matters when we're talking about the fricking movie. Jesus this is like the fricking crowd that hates that you don't think the hunger games is any good...well you just didn't read the book. The theater and the movies are two very different things. Let me know when they release a live film in the movie theaters.
yes, everyone is stupid. we didn't watch the academy awards because we're stupid or we turned it off because we're stupid, we thought it was boring because we're too stupid. We wondered what the frick patricia arquette was going on about because we're too stupid.
quote:I imagine this is what the academy tells themselves when nobody gives a frick about half of the movies up for a gazillion nominations.
too dense to get it.
yes, everyone is stupid. we didn't watch the academy awards because we're stupid or we turned it off because we're stupid, we thought it was boring because we're too stupid. We wondered what the frick patricia arquette was going on about because we're too stupid.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:26 pm to DelU249
quote:
I think it's pretty clear my criticism extends beyond this year, well beyond it in fact.
I don't thin kyour argument is clear at all, but I keep using specific examples to show how baseless it is. This year works, because it just happened, but look at the list of recent Picture winners: not really an "Oscar bait" kind of list. In fact, Oscar has gotten much better at honoring films that are a bit off the beaten path, to varying degrees of success. Look, I thought The Artist was a terrible choice, but I can't criticize them for playing it safe. The King's Speech was Oscar bait, but it was good Oscar bait, even if it denied superior films the award. And that came off a run of The Departed, No Country for Old Men, Slumdog Millionare, and Hurt Locker... none of which follow the template for an Oscar bait film.
quote:
you're making my point here ...yes, the Oscars aren't about the best movies, actors, etc. It's Hollywood politics
Well, the movie has to be good first, but yes, all awards in every line of work are political. Sorry to burst your bubble. So is the MVP. As one insider said, and Oscar cannot be bought, but it is paid for.
quote:
Or is that what you'd be more comfortable with me saying. I'm not concerned with box office, that's the academy.
I think the one thing we can establish is the Academy doesn't give a frick about box office. If anything, it goes out of its way to reward films with smaller box office.
quote:
I'm saying movies that are memorable, that stick with you, that are the reason people love the movies get shite on because they don't pass muster in what is probably the most random and absurd criteria that the academy has crafted particularly in the last 15 years.
And I'm saying that's substituting your judgment for others. Because we honestly don't know what a movie's reputation will be in 20 years, lacking a time machine. And I love movies, and the Academy, I fell, does a pretty decent job of trying to honor the things I love: quality work. Now, I don't always agree with them. In fact, I don't think I've agreed with a Best Picture winner since No Country, but that doesn't invalidate their choice. I'm just one opinion, and they have a voting body of thousands. It's hard for quirk to win. It's got to be something that appeals to a wide body of industry pros, which I don't think is such a bad thing.
For example, I'm not a real visual guy so I don't go ga ga over pretty movies that don't say anything. But I'm likely to love a movie that relies heavily on character and dialogue. A large voting body would act as a check on my personal biases, so it's not just a writer's award. But what's memorable to me might not be memorable to you. Clearly, as you keep bringing up Doubt, which is a movie that has stuck with me more than most.
The rest of your argument is kinda incoherent. I honestly don't know what you're arguing. I don't see the Academy shitting on any particular kind of film except bad ones. And I love big summer blockbusters, too, and have argued for them to be nominated.
quote:
oubt is such a perfect example for me because (while a decent movie) it doesn't do anything exceptional. On top of that, it has nothing in it that will resonate with the movie goer much later. It's forgettable in every way. it was nominated for probably every fricking award they could nominate it for. Doubt is perception being very different from reality. It has two great and notable actors...and again, a whole lot of nothing.
I don't want to make this about Doubt, but I could not disagree with you more. It has resonated with me and I've not forgotten it, or the stellar performances. It has two great and notable actors, and they don't even give the two best performances in the film. Amy Adams carries that thing. But I find Meryl Streep's head nun to be a fascinating character. She's set up to be the villain, and she is a cold, harsh woman. But she probably has more love for her flock than any other character. She's not warm, but her love is seemingly boundless. Yet at the same time, she's confounded by a changing world. A stunning character, and one of the most interesting in recent movies. It's why I go to movies. For a character like that.
quote:
you keep making it a "you're stupid" retort because you're a fricking handjob that gets all riled up at the thought someone doesn't like the same thing you do (and in this case, a whole lot of people)
I haven't said you're stupid. I said your taste run towards the big blockbuster. Then again, I said I stand in defense of the middlebrow. Also, you brought up dumb people to me, I simply responded on the terms of the arguments you chose. Now, you complain of those very terms.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:28 pm to lsupride87
Harry: I expected the Rocky Moutains would be a little rockier than this.
Lloyd: I was thinking the same thing. That John Denver's full of shite, man.
Lloyd: I was thinking the same thing. That John Denver's full of shite, man.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:28 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I cant disagree with you more. Me, my wife, and my Dad, who have completely different humor, can watch it over and over again. I think it stands up unbelievably well for a comedy
me too, but that's because we're too stupid.
we just line up for transformer movies and go bots and ninja turtles
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:33 pm to DelU249
quote:
I don't see how any of that shite matters when we're talking about the fricking movie. Jesus this is like the fricking crowd that hates that you don't think the hunger games is any good...well you just didn't read the book. The theater and the movies are two very different things. Let me know when they release a live film in the movie theaters.
You are the one who said it didn't have a good story, which is just idiotic.
Maybe you didn't like the story, but it is there.
I called you dense bc you keep bringing up stupid people.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:33 pm to DelU249
I think a big reason was the lack of drama about who was going to win the big awards. Simmons, Arquette and Moore were all 100% stone cold locks to win their respective awards. Redmayne was a pretty strong favorite to win over Keaton as well. So the only awards with any surprise element to it was best director and best picture. However, the two favorites to win those awards were films the general public didn't care about. Boyhood has only made $44 million at the box office and Birdman has made only $76 million. The Hurt Locker is the only Best Picture winner in the last 25 years to make less money than two movies at the box office. So no drama + no rooting interest = crappy ratings.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:34 pm to DelU249
quote:
Just because the wal mart shoppers love it, doesn't make it an unworthy film.
...right?
"22 Jump Street" was ROBBED!!
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:41 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
owever, the two favorites to win those awards were films the general public didn't care about. Boyhood has only made $44 million at the box office and Birdman has made only $76 million. The Hurt Locker is the only Best Picture winner in the last 25 years to make less money than two movies at the box office. So no drama + no rooting interest = crappy ratin
The whole BO numbers argument is retarded.
Let's all remember, Shawshank was a horrendous flop at the BO.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:42 pm to Baloo
quote:
I think the one thing we can establish is the Academy doesn't give a frick about box office.
quote:
If anything, it goes out of its way to reward films with smaller box office.
Kiff! We have a conundrum quote:
I don't thin kyour argument is clear at all, but I keep using specific examples to show how baseless it is. This year works, because it just happened, but look at the list of recent Picture winners: not really an "Oscar bait" kind of list. In fact, Oscar has gotten much better at honoring films that are a bit off the beaten path, to varying degrees of success. Look, I thought The Artist was a terrible choice, but I can't criticize them for playing it safe. The King's Speech was Oscar bait, but it was good Oscar bait, even if it denied superior films the award. And that came off a run of The Departed, No Country for Old Men, Slumdog Millionare, and Hurt Locker... none of which follow the template for an Oscar bait film.
so I'm sitting here telling you that 1/2 the field is bait and 1/2 the time the best picture doesn't win...and your response is to say ostensibly the same thing but in an argumentative manner. riiiight
quote:sure, there are some you cannot foresee being appreciated later down the line (wizard of oz, even though it was victor flemming)
Because we honestly don't know what a movie's reputation will be in 20 years
but I can say there are a shitload of movies that you just know instantly. when an image sticks to you, a line, a phrase...it's not like an annoying commercial jingle that wears on you (co-stanza)it usually hits you right away. Did anyone walk out of TDK thinking Heath Ledger's joker wasn't an instant classic. just the image of him is burned into your brain...what about the first time you saw a dinosaur in Jurassic park or saw the animatronic t-rex in profile turn to the screen and roar? the backyard in ET with the light coming out of the shed? you can go on all day. even movies that came out before you were born, you don't need to be told those are great moments, you just know
and I realize a shitload of the best movies that fit what I'm talking about aren't technically superior (or even marginal) to innumerable films
This post was edited on 2/24/15 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:46 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Harry: I expected the Rocky Moutains would be a little rockier than this.
Lloyd: I was thinking the same thing. That John Denver's full of shite, man.
I wonder what kind of mindset you'd have to be in when writing that movie. If someone here could intentionally come up with that much stupid shite, then I will admit there is nothing special about dumb and dumber
frick, I need to get some work done
Posted on 2/24/15 at 3:52 pm to DelU249
This has kinda been all over the place. I haven't agreed with a lot of what you've said, nor have I really been able to follow your argument, but I have to give you props: I've never seen someone stay on top of a thread this well. Out of 96 posts, you have 27 of them. Well done, and yes, you probably need to get some work done.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 4:07 pm to DelU249
quote:
so I'm sitting here telling you that 1/2 the field is bait and 1/2 the time the best picture doesn't win...and your response is to say ostensibly the same thing but in an argumentative manner. riiiight
I don't think half the field is bait, and have said no such thing. And just because I wouldn't have voted for the winner doesn't mean it's "wrong" per se. Again, the Oscars are not Baloo's Favorite Movie Awards.
You're arguing that certain movies should NOT be included. And I'm arguing for a bigger tent. See the massive difference in argument. Yours is exclusionary, and mine is inclusive.
Also, you're the one making an argument. I'm merely rebutting it.
quote:
ut I can say there are a shitload of movies that you just know instantly. when an image sticks to you, a line, a phrase...it's not like an annoying commercial jingle that wears on you (co-stanza)it usually hits you right away. Did anyone walk out of TDK thinking Heath Ledger's joker wasn't an instant classic.
And sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes we think a role will be iconic, and it fails to be. Who knows? But using Ledger again... he won. It seems odd to criticize the Academy for failing to recognize iconic performances and use an iconic performance that won the award.
I do think they give out a few too many Lifetime Achievement Awards in which they don't really honor a guy for this film, but for his whole body of work. Julianne Moore got a bit of that this year. But that's a problem with any award, and dealing with people and sentiment, which I'm not against because I'm not a robot. They also tend to give too much credence to playing a real person, but then again I loved DDL as Lincoln, giving him life instead of making him a perfect icon.
.
quote:
what about the first time you saw a dinosaur in Jurassic park or saw the animatronic t-rex in profile turn to the screen and roar?
There's no category for special effects. I argued for one earlier. Though it did win three technical Oscars. so, what's the problem?
quote:
the backyard in ET with the light coming out of the shed?
You won't find a bigger fan of ET than me. It was nominated for NINE Oscars, including Best Picture, and it won 4. Again, what's the problem?
quote:
you can go on all day. even movies that came out before you were born, you don't need to be told those are great moments, you just know
Yet they seem to have won Oscars, or at least got nominated. They aren't batting a thousand, which is an unreasonable standard, but you seem to be criticizing the awards for something they aren't guilty of. They DID honor these films.
Memento is probably my favorite film of this century. It didn't win, but it was nominated for two Oscars, including screenplay, the unofficial Ugly Duckling Award. I'm okay with that.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 4:08 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
This is just my opinion, but I think the political stuff needs to be cut down. Nearly every single winner gets up there and cries about something. I don't care if they are right or wrong but it turns people off. Movies are entertainment to us, not the public face of some cultural movement. Sunday night wasn't as bad as it has been in the past, but people don't want to turn in and be preached to about unjustices. Again, movies are meant to be an escape and having super rich actors stand up and potificate is not what people want to see.
Overcompensation, especially now since people get content from everywhere.
Posted on 2/24/15 at 4:21 pm to Baloo
quote:
I was talking straight Best Picture there. There are 10 slots: use them. Those extra 2 slots could've gone to some combination of Guardians, Captain America, Gone Girl, and Interstellar (or Selma, but I'm just using $100mm films right now).
I do think more categories would help genre films, though that might extend the run time. Still, best choereography (put fight and dance up against each other!), best special effects, and best stunts would open up some awards for the summer blockbusters.
But, above all, STOP BEING ASHAMED OF WHAT THE OSCARS ARE. Go all out on glitz and glamour. Stop being so dour and depressing. Have fun, wear outrageous dresses, and get drunk. And I hate to say it, a few more montages of prior winners wouldn't kill you, particularly in the in memorium section. Stop telling us movies are great. Instead, show us.
Some good ideas, they do take themselves far too seriously.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News