Escape to the Movies: The Kings Speech
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Entitled to your opinion of course.darkman80723 said:
However, like MovieBob says, you can't criticise a 'based on a real story' movie for a bad story cos, well, thats how it happened... (more or less)
There's no difference in relatability between real life "true story" setting or fictional setting. But both the fictional scenario or the real life setting, can still have a specific target.SpiderJerusalem said:
But you're probably right, there's no such thing as demographic, or target audience. Like I said, it's probably all just a big coincidence that The King's Speech is about overcoming something sad and sympathetic, in a morally uncomplicated setting about two people from different classes, and it's a true story! All of which just happens to be favorited by most of the people voting in the oscars.
And when did I say that Star Wars was?SpiderJerusalem said:
There can be subjective difference, but you can't as a rule say one thing is more relatable than another.
This was already addressed in the video.
And your welcome to pretend there's no bias at all, and everything pointing towards oscar bias is really just coincidence.
I still feel like watching it. Call me a snob. And if it does win, then at least we can have another one of Colin Firth's entertaining acceptance speeches. Fridges and midlife crises are far more interesting than "I want to thank my family and the crew..."
Fair enough, I haven't actually seen King's Speech yet, I was merely assuming that a pirate would be vastly different from a working class Australian speech therapist.spiffleh said:
So I guess I'll see what you mean when I go and see it.
You know the large irony? How much a lot of people have ignored even "listening" or "finishing" Bob's video. He never said The King's Speech was incredibly bad, it was just forgettable.
And you know what? I'd rather watch a movie I'd rather remember than watch a good movie which I will forget after a week has past. You know why? Because it felt like I've wasted 1-3 hours watching something that will never even be remembered nor contribute to my way of thinking.
EDIT: And why am I ignoring what he said as Oscar Bait? It's because the things he said about Oscar bait is incredibly inaccurate. But it doesn't mean I have to hate on him for being wrong.
For my final comment, there's nothing truly right or truly wrong in this discussion. It's all about people's opinions.
And you know what? I'd rather watch a movie I'd rather remember than watch a good movie which I will forget after a week has past. You know why? Because it felt like I've wasted 1-3 hours watching something that will never even be remembered nor contribute to my way of thinking.
EDIT: And why am I ignoring what he said as Oscar Bait? It's because the things he said about Oscar bait is incredibly inaccurate. But it doesn't mean I have to hate on him for being wrong.
For my final comment, there's nothing truly right or truly wrong in this discussion. It's all about people's opinions.
I really liked this movie. I watched the fighter and true grit and the social network and inception but this one had a more comical tone than any of them.
I don't think he was saying that Australians in the 40's were literally criminals, but that there was still enough of the 'colonial convict' attitude in England during that time for the relationship between the King and Logue to be even more lop-sided in terms of class mismatch than usual.RhombusHatesYou said:
That said, I'm pretty sure Australians at the time weren't looked down upon by the English nowhere near as much as compared to other groups such as the Irish.
Heh. It's true - this movie is made of 100% pure Oscar bait.
Still, this review made me pout a bit. I can't help but think, omg you joyless meanie Moviebob. I mean I know you gave it 3 stars which isn't actually a BAD review, but still. I thought the King's Speech was lovely. At least 4 stars, maybe 4 and a half. So there.
I know it's a bit of a perfect storm, and everything apart from the verdict is truefax. But still, speaking as a Brit, talking about the casting rubs me up the wrong way a little bit. Film about British people involves British actors (and one fabulous Australian). WHO WOULD EVER HAVE THOUGHT.
Still, this review made me pout a bit. I can't help but think, omg you joyless meanie Moviebob. I mean I know you gave it 3 stars which isn't actually a BAD review, but still. I thought the King's Speech was lovely. At least 4 stars, maybe 4 and a half. So there.
I know it's a bit of a perfect storm, and everything apart from the verdict is truefax. But still, speaking as a Brit, talking about the casting rubs me up the wrong way a little bit. Film about British people involves British actors (and one fabulous Australian). WHO WOULD EVER HAVE THOUGHT.
Out of interest I went and looked up the list of best picture nominees to see how accurate his 'guide' to Oscar bait was. You know the last time a film set in WWII won best picture was 1996 (The English Patient). Not only that but if you look at the losers since then it makes for some interesting reading:
-Atonement loses to No Country for Old Men
-Letters From Iwo Jima loses to The Departed
-The Pianist loses to Chicago
-and my personal favourite: generally considered one of the greatest WWII films ever, Saving Private Ryan loses to Shakespeare in Love.
Yeah I guess the academy just can't say no to WWII era films can it? In fact since 1970 only 4 WWII era films have won: Patton, The Last Emperor, Schindler's List and The English Patient. How the hell do you extrapolate a WWII bias from that?
Really if you look at the last decade in particular, none of this guide really holds up as the only points that are present in most of them (overcoming things, relationships that fall apart 3/4 of the way through only to reunite for the end) are endemic in movie-making as a whole and to say that they are characteristic of Oscar bait is about as fair as saying that sound or dialogue is Oscar bait.
The Academy does have it's preferences, that's true, but if there was some template for Academy success we would see the same film win year after year. It's up to you whether you think all these films are essentially the same:
- The Hurt Locker
- Slumdog Millionaire
- No Country for Old Men
- The Departed
- Crash
- Million Dollar Baby
- The Return of the King
- Chicago
- A Beautiful Mind
- Gladiator
But personally I think that list is pretty varied. But even if you ignore everything I've just said and hold that The King's Speech is Oscar Bait; then surely it's Oscar Bait we should applaud - a film that appeals to both the Academy and the majority of the viewing audience.
-Atonement loses to No Country for Old Men
-Letters From Iwo Jima loses to The Departed
-The Pianist loses to Chicago
-and my personal favourite: generally considered one of the greatest WWII films ever, Saving Private Ryan loses to Shakespeare in Love.
Yeah I guess the academy just can't say no to WWII era films can it? In fact since 1970 only 4 WWII era films have won: Patton, The Last Emperor, Schindler's List and The English Patient. How the hell do you extrapolate a WWII bias from that?
Really if you look at the last decade in particular, none of this guide really holds up as the only points that are present in most of them (overcoming things, relationships that fall apart 3/4 of the way through only to reunite for the end) are endemic in movie-making as a whole and to say that they are characteristic of Oscar bait is about as fair as saying that sound or dialogue is Oscar bait.
The Academy does have it's preferences, that's true, but if there was some template for Academy success we would see the same film win year after year. It's up to you whether you think all these films are essentially the same:
- The Hurt Locker
- Slumdog Millionaire
- No Country for Old Men
- The Departed
- Crash
- Million Dollar Baby
- The Return of the King
- Chicago
- A Beautiful Mind
- Gladiator
But personally I think that list is pretty varied. But even if you ignore everything I've just said and hold that The King's Speech is Oscar Bait; then surely it's Oscar Bait we should applaud - a film that appeals to both the Academy and the majority of the viewing audience.
This is exactly what I thought when I was watching. I've seen people ranting about the "Oscar-bait formula" before and it never holds true. I was thinking over all the Best Picture winners I have seen and none of them are like The King's Speech (which I have also seen).Kandon Arc said:
Yes, maybe the Academy prefer some types of films, but not with such bias that they quash creativity. I think a lot of people have seen Forrest Gump and think that's what all the Best Pictures have been like ever.
I also think it was unfair on all the people who worked on the film to suggest that they weren't looking to entertain, inspire, educate or even just make a decent movie.
Folks, regardless of your opinion of what Academy Awards are worth, at least give the argument presented in the video a bit of thought before going "omg, it's all just a sham, I never realized, it will be proven if this film that almost everybody likes wins".
Hitting it just as well as Bob did, I submit "Movie Title".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhrz1-4hN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhrz1-4hN4
The problem with this review is that you act like its a bad thing. As they say on tvtropes, "Tropes are not bad." Just because it is Oscar Bait material, even purposefully, doesn't mean its not good, not entertaining, and doesn't still make you feel good even if you've seen a thousand British people overcome something in WWII.
The King's Speech was brilliant as far as I'm concerned. This review was probably the most cynical thing i've ever watched. The oscars is a pantomime of course but saying they constructed this film with the sole purpose of winning an oscar stretches credulity somewhat.
Perhaps what you think is oscar bait is actually good movie bait. Who knows, maybe they do make movies from beginning to end with their only goal as picking up best picture in the oscars, but I doubt it. Maybe I just prefer not to think that there is some sort of conspiracy behind everything. There is no way to guarantee you'll win anyway. Even if your movie is really good.
For example I was stunned to discover that The Pianist, which is as close to movie perfection as you are likely to get (in my opinion) lost out to Chicago (yes, the musical) for best picture. Figure that one out of you can.
Anyway I think Black Swan will win, Colin Firth might get Best Actor.
Perhaps what you think is oscar bait is actually good movie bait. Who knows, maybe they do make movies from beginning to end with their only goal as picking up best picture in the oscars, but I doubt it. Maybe I just prefer not to think that there is some sort of conspiracy behind everything. There is no way to guarantee you'll win anyway. Even if your movie is really good.
For example I was stunned to discover that The Pianist, which is as close to movie perfection as you are likely to get (in my opinion) lost out to Chicago (yes, the musical) for best picture. Figure that one out of you can.
Anyway I think Black Swan will win, Colin Firth might get Best Actor.