Oscar member: I vote for 12 years a slave... even though I didn't watch it. Me: YOU HAD ONE JOB!!

[Johnny Novgorod]

Its a film about slavery, fore gone conclusion it will win.

Okay, there has been Django Unchained and... what else?

Unless you're counting Roman slave movies like Spartacus and Gladiator.

I'm a little uneducated in critically-acclaimed movies (much less those that have to do with slavery) so enlighten me in that regard.

There's also Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013). It's not exactly about a slavery (though the movie begins in a bloodied cotton field), it's more about the oppresion of black people and their role in America throughout the 20th century as seen through a "black man's Forrest Gump". Based on a true story, too.

 

[sanquin]

And this is why I don't watch 'official' awards or read 'official' reviews. Heck, I hardly read reviews at all. I prefer to go by gameplay video's and a lot of random people's impressions.

 

[SargeSmash]

There's also Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013). It's not exactly about a slavery (though the movie begins in a bloodied cotton field), it's more about the oppresion of black people and their role in America throughout the 20th century as seen through a "black man's Forrest Gump". Based on a true story, too.

I remember that, too, but I can't stand Oprah Winfrey, for one, and secondly, there was a nice big blatant misrepresentation of Pres. Reagan in there. Oh, and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. Yeesh.

It was loosely based on a true story, though, you're right.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

There's also Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013). It's not exactly about a slavery (though the movie begins in a bloodied cotton field), it's more about the oppresion of black people and their role in America throughout the 20th century as seen through a "black man's Forrest Gump". Based on a true story, too.

I remember that, too, but I can't stand Oprah Winfrey, for one, and secondly, there was a nice big blatant misrepresentation of Pres. Reagan in there. Oh, and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. Yeesh.

It was loosely based on a true story, though, you're right.

From what I've read it seems they just took the premise of a black manservant serving in the White House from the 50s to the 80s, and invented absolutely everything else. I've never understood America's obsession with Oprah. She's a good actress and a good host but I don't know what exactly she brings to her trade that any other competent actor might as well do. Is it a race thing? Is she supposed to be the first black female TV host or something like that?

 

[EyeReaper]

Reminds me of an article I read on crunchyroll about the Oscar voters for the animated awards. I remember some quotes saying things like "Animation is for six year olds, so I refused to watch any of them" and "It was nice of The Committee to send dvds of all the animated shorts for free, but eh, not enough time in the day to watch cartoons"

So yeah, whatever dumb things happen, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Rariow]

It's the whole "Rich dark coffee" thing. When polled (or, in this case, voting) about their tastes, people will always go with the classiest option, even if it's not their actual preference. That explains why so-so films like The Artist or The King's Speech keep winning Oscars by the dozens whereas genre films that deserve these awards just as much or even more struggle to even get nominated. Remember how big a deal the fact Return of the King actually won Oscars was? I'm not saying that "Oscar-bait" films like 12 Years a Slave are bad (I really, really liked 12 Years a Slave and King's Speech, back when that was out, was my favorite film of the year), but they do get an unfair advantage over other films because people like to appear sophisticated and classy.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

Did everyone notice the terrible turn out for it? There were only about ten actors in the whole audience.

 

[faefrost]

I think the number of people who actually watch most of the Oscar nominated movies is in the low 4 digits. Certainly the general public almost never bothers with them. The Academy voters simply read the plot descriptions and vote for whatever sounds the most pretentious. Or for their friends where that fails them.

Personally I think the only way to actually fix the Oscars to put it more in tune with the general public and what we as a society agree is art, would be to ad a simple eligibility clause. "Must have made a PROFIT in the year of release". No more of this release in 2 theaters around Christmas on the hopes of getting a nod then surfing the nomination to a niche money making scam. The general audience votes with their $$$. If the film did not recoup its costs via paying customers in the year of its eligibility, it is not allowed in. How's that sound?

 

[RedDeadFred]

Well this is just stupid. I'm glad it won but I'd rather people actually see the movies they're voting for. Yes it was a hard movie to watch but if it's too much for you, obviously it's not your type of movie and you shouldn't be voting for it.

Also, how stupid do you have to be to admit something like this? No one is ever going to take that critic seriously again (at least I wouldn't).

 

[norashepard]

It is a little suspicious on the surface, but think about it. Can't you generally tell when a movie (or game) is good based on the public reaction to it. If it's a popular movie, chances are you'll already know everything about it that's really relevant by just listening to people talk.

I haven't seen 12 Years a Slave, but I already know it's really hard hitting, it talks about a difficult topic without much sugarcoating, the acting was generally phenomenal, and so on. It wouldn't be hard to say it's one of the best movies of 2013 based on that alone. (Of course, I personally would have given the Oscar to The Wolf of Wall Street.)

NOW, if they gave an award to actor/actress without seeing their performance, I'd have a bit more trouble believing it, simply because unless the acting is REALLY GOOD, most people never talk about it.

 

[Piorn]

No matter how safe the bets are, you don't judge something without checking it out.
You don't, because it invalidates your trustworthyness as a judge.
It doesn't matter what it is, a teacher has to read every homework before he grades it, and a court has to check the evidence before condemning a criminal.

 

[PortalThinker113]

Okay, I agree that the voting system within the Academy is very political and kind of stupid if you get right down to it. But can we please, PLEASE not throw 12 Years A Slave under the bus because of it?

This is once instance where the Oscars firmly and completely got it right. 12 Years A Slave is a genuine masterpiece and the first Best Picture winner who actually deserves the award in years. And I HAVE seen it. To write off 12 Years as "pretentious Oscar bait" is, quite frankly, foolish. You don't make a film as harsh, bleak, violent, and cutting as 12 Years A Slave just for the sake of sucking up to the Academy. You make something much softer and "feel-good" that is easy viewing, yet still "important" (see: The King's Speech, The Artist). 12 Years is many things, but soft is not one of them.

Now, if Wolf of Wall Street had won, that film would have equally deserved it. There were quite a few excellent films in 2013.

 

[Uhura]

I think the number of people who actually watch most of the Oscar nominated movies is in the low 4 digits. Certainly the general public almost never bothers with them.

Huh. How well versed are you in the Oscar movie history? A very large number of Best Picture nominees and winners are massively popular movies. Titanic, The Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart and Forrest Gump are all Best Picture winners. The Sixth Sense, Inception, LOTR movies, Django Unchained, Pulp Fiction, Juno, Apollo 13, Babe (yes, the pig movie) and Avatar are all Best Picture nominees. Oscar movies aren't generally some high brow films no one has ever heard of. Many of them are not aimed at teenagers but that doesn't mean they don't have audiences.

Personally I think the only way to actually fix the Oscars to put it more in tune with the general public and what we as a society agree is art, would be to ad a simple eligibility clause.

Oscars are not a People's Choice awards. The movies are nominated and the winners are chosen by the people who work in the industry. Their picks don't have to reflect the tastes of the general audiences (even though, as I already pointed out, they often actually do) and I think it would be pointless to change that. There are plenty of other award shows that cater to teen etc. audiences.

EDIT:
Btw, I just checked and during the past 10 years, 7 out of 10 Best Picture winners had earned their production budget back before they were even nominated for Best Picture. The Artist, The Hurt Locker and Million Dollar Baby were the only films that were doing poorly at the Box Office before the nominations.

 

[Parasondox]

Okay, I agree that the voting system within the Academy is very political and kind of stupid if you get right down to it. But can we please, PLEASE not throw 12 Years A Slave under the bus because of it?

This is once instance where the Oscars firmly and completely got it right. 12 Years A Slave is a genuine masterpiece and the first Best Picture winner who actually deserves the award in years. And I HAVE seen it. To write off 12 Years as "pretentious Oscar bait" is, quite frankly, foolish. You don't make a film as harsh, bleak, violent, and cutting as 12 Years A Slave just for the sake of sucking up to the Academy. You make something much softer and "feel-good" that is easy viewing, yet still "important" (see: The King's Speech, The Artist). 12 Years is many things, but soft is not one of them.

Now, if Wolf of Wall Street had won, that film would have equally deserved it. There were quite a few excellent films in 2013.

No one, including myself, is throwing 12 years a slave under the bus because in general it's a great film and deserve the win. The nominations were close this year but no one will disagree with whoever won, in the top 5... apart from that one person who did a thread about how he didn't see any of the movies nominated, hated the movies nominated anyways and angry that Star Trek Into Darkness weren't considered for anything. That was a strange thread.

Mostly I just think that a lot of people are just fed up of the Academy's half-arsed approach to movies. Not even bothering seeing the movie and not truly acknowledge and witnessing the work being put into the production of the movie.

 

[FPLOON]

No one, including myself, is throwing 12 years a slave under the bus because in general it's a great film and deserve the win. The nominations were close this year but no one will disagree with whoever won, in the top 5... apart from that one person who did a thread about how he didn't see any of the movies nominated, hated the movies nominated anyways and angry that Star Trek Into Darkness weren't considered for anything. That was a strange thread.

I actually like that thread, myself... mainly because I got to let out some pint-up frustration between what the Academy seems to be doing from an outsider's perspective and what certain movie goers think of them from a biased perspective... all through, what I think, was sarcasm from my end... *sighs* Personal sarcasm...

OT: I don't know if I should rage or laugh at how this all seems like virtual horse betting at the digital race tracks! What I find to me more funny about the Oscars, in general, is when any nomination is for a movie made independently and/or was funded by an independent production company... especially when those movies already have their own award show... (I would say the same for films that were exclusively made/distributed in other countries that are not the US, for example, but that's another story...)

Anyway, this is more of the battle between the Academy and the movie goers of the world, where both sides may not watch all the movies that do come out that particular year, yet still place their bets on which one should have the honor of winning solely based on "first impressions" and/or "word of mouth"... At least, in terms of the Academy, they are, inadvertently or not, shedding some light on certain movies that would have, otherwise, still be seen by a relatively small audience I call the "independent market"... or "niche audience", given the film's overall advertising...

At least a good chunk of us who have seen 12 Year A Slave can say that it deserved it's award for Best Picture, even if it came about in a way that not everyone really agrees with...

(I can't wait until my and, later, my children's generation ends up getting REALLY involved in the Academy voting rpocess... My great grandmother's generation would be flipping out more than they may do now... But, I digress...)

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Okay, I agree that the voting system within the Academy is very political and kind of stupid if you get right down to it. But can we please, PLEASE not throw 12 Years A Slave under the bus because of it?

This is once instance where the Oscars firmly and completely got it right. 12 Years A Slave is a genuine masterpiece and the first Best Picture winner who actually deserves the award in years. And I HAVE seen it. To write off 12 Years as "pretentious Oscar bait" is, quite frankly, foolish. You don't make a film as harsh, bleak, violent, and cutting as 12 Years A Slave just for the sake of sucking up to the Academy. You make something much softer and "feel-good" that is easy viewing, yet still "important" (see: The King's Speech, The Artist). 12 Years is many things, but soft is not one of them.

Now, if Wolf of Wall Street had won, that film would have equally deserved it. There were quite a few excellent films in 2013.

I don't think anyone's throwing it under the bus, but it's absurd to know that people voted it as the best picture of the year when they hadn't actually SEEN the movie.

I think what a lot of people are saying is that, since this is Hollywood, if you lined up these 5 (or is it 10 now? Shows how little I care about the Oscars) movies nominated for Best Picture, and none of these voting folks had seen any of them, what would they choose? I think they'd choose either:
A: Whatever makes Hollywood look the most classy and sophisticated (Amadeus, The King's Speech, The Artist, Shakespeare in Love, etc.)
B: Whatever makes Hollywood look the most progressive (Crash, Platoon, Dances with Wolves, 12 Years a Slave)

Frankly, I don't give a rip about the Oscars. I think the vast majority of the audience now just wants to see what people are going to wear and don't really care about the movies either.

 

[Padwolf]

Well, at least they admitted to it, that's something right?

The thread title made me giggle a bit, and you are right really, they had one job to do and failed to do it. It's a shame because it's extremely weird that someone voted for it as best picture and they hadn't actually seen the movie. I haven't seen the movie myself yet, but I have heard nothing but good things, but if I were in the situation to vote for it my vote wouldn't be quite as valid as those who have seen it. Ah well, they had one job!

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

That's pretty fucking terrible. For a start, not watching the movie, then voting for it despite not having watched it, and lastly, what annoys me and is a discredit to the work and the people behind it, the reason for voting for it was that it is (reportedly) socially relevant. I don't see how that is a fucking reason in the first place that would command a vote by itself, but to vote on that basis and nothing else is disrespectful to the actual movie.

 

[RA92]

Are you f***ing kidding me?! People would kill for your job to watch any movie for free and get paid doing it and YET you didn't see it but still voted for it? YOU HAD ONE JOB!!!

Nah dude, I'm pretty sure they watch them all.

Even the presenters have to watch all the nominees to have an appreciation of these amazing performances!

<youtube=XDvZrubaEwA>

Note Tommy Lee Jones' admiration of their critique at 3:37.

 

[PortalThinker113]

No one, including myself, is throwing 12 years a slave under the bus because in general it's a great film and deserve the win. The nominations were close this year but no one will disagree with whoever won, in the top 5... apart from that one person who did a thread about how he didn't see any of the movies nominated, hated the movies nominated anyways and angry that Star Trek Into Darkness weren't considered for anything. That was a strange thread.

Mostly I just think that a lot of people are just fed up of the Academy's half-arsed approach to movies. Not even bothering seeing the movie and not truly acknowledge and witnessing the work being put into the production of the movie.

Yeah, maybe I was getting a bit preemptively defensive of it. I was just very pleased with the results this year, despite what effort, or lack thereof, went into the choice.

Ehh, I enjoy the Oscars as a spectacle and a celebration of film more so than a serious assessment of the cultural standing and worth of various films. Time will decide what films are really something special, certainly more so than the statue. You're certainly right about how stories like this don't exactly put the Academy in the best light, though.