The Big Picture: Oscars: The Grouse

[SnakeoilSage]

It's kind of curious the way Bob - perhaps frustrated with opinionated movie fans (which is ironic considering his title) - is starting to get more defensive of Hollywood and its antics. If it gets to the point where he's telling the rest of us to shut up because us pointing out the obvious flaws of Hollywood that Hollywood refuses to fix is getting tedious, and the irony passes completely over his head, then I guess all we can do is smile and watch him fade into Dennis Miller obscurity as a man who once shouted to the world "Are any of you buying this shit?" now begins cutting out coupons for the fecal goods store.

 

[praetor_alpha]

I was expecting a "MOVIES ARE WIERD!" at 0:21 or so.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I wouldn't say Winter is only for Oscar movies.
Its also the season of more family block busters
Like with Avatar release, Tron, and upcoming The Hobbit.

Concerning The Hobbit, don't forget, unless you don't remember, The Lord of the Rings movies played during the winter season and all three also were nominated for and won multiple Oscars. The Return of the King itself won 11 Oscars, including: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Score.

I always wondered why the first two films only won a few, but then I realized when the third movie got to the show, they had been saving all the prizes for it as a signifier for the whole trilogy.

Considering that The Lord of the Rings was an old area of fantasy that was only read by the younger crowd if their parents had read it and told them about it, or if it was an assignment in some class, I thinking that the movies were first made with the Oscars in mind, but then became blockbusters.

I for one knew The Hobbit existed because I had watched the old Hobbit cartoon before I had read the book, and the first time I actually read The Hobbit was back in college when it was the final big reading assignment in my Children's Literature class. I still haven't been able to read through all of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

Cool! Just the 11763873689398734634798634873463487963494639834527293489348783476348634 time that the subject is brought up in the internetz. Seriously, at this point would be better to discuss Helena Bonham Carter's hair.

Ps.: And Lord of the Rings is the Oscar bait of the ages. Think about, talking about world war without enter in the delicate subjects of the real war. Genius! Tolkien never admitted but...

 

[daxterx2005]

The *bleep*ing artist.

*golf clap*

You tell em bob

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I think that you're being somewhat unfair to Oscars.

I mean the descion to not nominate good films this year in favour of nomionating several bad ones is a couragous choice and they should get respect for that alone.

Wow. Just wow.

I always give props to understated sarcasm, but this has to take an award or two of its own. I skimmed it, missed the point completely, thought "wait a sec..." and went back to it, and ended up grinning from ear to ear. Well done indeed.

 

[Richard Norley]

-Annnnnnnd, I am posting here merely for the Marks Brothers' reference.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

What I find funny with this year's nominations is that the number of nominations was expanded to let in smaller films and popular films for best picture. But instead of allowing in a dark horse for people to pull for Hollywood just filled the extra nomination slots with more Oscar bait films.

Of course the best laugh is to come when they lament about how the ratings were down for the Oscar show even more this year and all the tears about how the common man doesn't watch the Oscars any more.

 

[Endocrom]

That one comment reminds me of this StrongBad Email [http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html] on "independant" films.

I only got the Mark Summers referance, fun fact: he's doing a "how it's made" kind of show on the Food Network now.

 

[Axolotl]

I think that you're being somewhat unfair to Oscars.

I mean the descion to not nominate good films this year in favour of nomionating several bad ones is a couragous choice and they should get respect for that alone.

They're not all bad! I went to see Hugo 2 days ago and it was actually rather damn good once it got past the usual flashback exposition. All the actors play their roles brilliantly and it also provides an incredible journey through the early history of filmmaking. Plus the comic relief station conductor was actually funny in some scenes!

Okay yeah they aren't all bad but there's no way The Descendants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Moneyball and War Horse should be being nominated. Especially given some of the other films that came out last year. Even things like The Artist and Tree of Life shouldn't be big contenders, just compare it to even last years list that had Black Swan, Inception, 127 Hours and True Grit to round out the nominations it's just a much better selection. I mean the Oscars have made so pretty legendary mistakes (1976 and 2005 leap to mind) but expanding the number of potential nominees to 10 and then still just allowing the safest tripe that gets made? They really should be better than that.

 

[kingmob]

Firstly, please stop using The Kings Speech as an example of a film being "Oscar Bait" as it detracts from the fact its a fucking good film. *puts Union Flag away*

Oscar bait is a derogatory term that does not imply bad quality, just bad intentions (and boredom in my case). There is nothing 'bad' about the Kings Speech, but it is a very bland movie made along very strict lines to ensure Oscars. The fact that it uses these rules makes them creatively uninteresting.

 

[Plinglebob]

Firstly, please stop using The Kings Speech as an example of a film being "Oscar Bait" as it detracts from the fact its a fucking good film. *puts Union Flag away*

Oscar bait is a derogatory term that does not imply bad quality, just bad intentions (and boredom in my case). There is nothing 'bad' about the Kings Speech, but it is a very bland movie made along very strict lines to ensure Oscars. The fact that it uses these rules makes them creatively uninteresting.

But as I mentioned above, there's no distinction between a film that sets itself up using lots of Oscar Bait (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) and a film that just happens to have a lot in. The Kings Speech was based on a book which was based on a true story that the film maker want to do because he also struggled with a stamma. The fact it includes Oscar Bait (Royals, British Actors, stuggle with a disability) is really beside the point. Compare this with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close which seems to have been adapted and released with the sole purpose of getting Oscars (9/11, little kid, dead parent, Tom Hanks).

 

[kingmob]

But as I mentioned above, there's no distinction between a film that sets itself up using lots of Oscar Bait (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) and a film that just happens to have a lot in. The Kings Speech was based on a book which was based on a true story that the film maker want to do because he also struggled with a stamma. The fact it includes Oscar Bait (Royals, British Actors, stuggle with a disability) is really beside the point. Compare this with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close which seems to have been adapted and released with the sole purpose of getting Oscars (9/11, little kid, dead parent, Tom Hanks).

I've seen the Kings Speech and I have a lot of trouble imagining this movie being made out of artistic interest Almost every Hollywood movie was a book first, the fact that it was based on a true story just makes it worse

There is nothing wrong with liking Oscar Bait, some movies just work and in the end you can not argue about taste. At the very least the winner is usually very competently made. But the Kings Speech was Oscar bait, which was what you were denying. I think the point that is argued by Bob regarding Oscar Bait is that the movie probably would've been much better without the Oscars and many oscar bait movies wouldn't be made because they are so forgettably similar. The Oscar's Ideally should have no influence at all or at the very least shouldn't have a clear cut way of appeasing them.

The positive side of an Oscar is completely negated by the fact that movies winning the oscar are usually very similar. It does not open the public to anything new that is good and it is not simply awarding the best picture. It is not even awarding the most popular one (I would be heavily opposed to that, but at least here would be a point, what is the point now really?)

 

[PH3NOmenon]

I'm spending most of bob's videos with a "No, really? I did not know that, tell me more."-look plastered on my face.

Edutainment is rarely this good!

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

I want The Artist to win. I loved it.

Sorry Bob; not everyone shares your opinion.

 

[370999]

snip

For me part of the reason I liked it was that the whole moral of doing your duty appealed to me. I like the fact the film was prepared to stand up and say that sometimes you will be asked to do soemthing in life you don't want to and probably aren't really suited too, certainly not the best choice, but the task falls to you and it's about how you accept that.

Anyways, Bob is a bit silly about the Oscars, I remember him saying anything to do with the second world war was oscar bait which I never agreed with. Also wasn't he rooting for Avatar? Hmm. I'm pretty sure that his "changes" to the Oscars will ahve at least oen thing I'm goign to raise my eyebrows at.

 

[Pipotchi]

Not really. It's incredibly cliched, has almost every major Oscar motif/theme/plot device, and it's completely over the top in terms of melodrama. As if we haven't ever seen a film about a rich guy who ends up living a more enriched life by getting the help of someone of another class, or a film about some dude with a "loveable" impediment that he has to overcome in order to achieve something important, etc.

Stammer and stage fright are not "loveable" impediments. The reason why 'The King's Speech' won Oscars was because it was a good film. It was popular with audiences, if you strip away the stuff about class, monarchy and everything else it is about two people who become friends through overcoming difficulty. The film managed to convey that through a good script, most notably in the scene with the model airplane. George is no longer a royal, he is just a man talking to a friend about his problems.

Also, on a personal level I found the opening scene of that film incredibly well-made. As someone who has acted on-stage I am all too familiar with that awful wrack of nerves before performing. That scene masterfully recreated that feeling by increasing the tension through the image of the blinking light and the extended silence before the disastrous speech, close-up shots of the speaker making it seem large and domineering. Also, Colin Firth was totally convincing in his portrayal of utter fear. I've seen people backstage, nervous about their imminent performance and it was haunting how similar Colin Firth's face was to those people backstage.

Also, here's to hoping'The Artist' wins Best Picture. I must admit I was rather sad to hear it got 10 nominations because then it will get a load of undeserved hate.

Agreed I'll take Best Picture for the Artist over some of the other twaddle that gets nominated, bugger all nominations for Drive or We need to talk about Kevin, nothing for The Skin we Live in and not even a best Documentary nod for Senna!

On top of that we have no Nominations for Ryan Gosling in either Drive/Ides of March, nothing for Albert Brooks or Tilda Swinton and most telling of all nothing for Mcqueen or Fassbender for Shame. Apparently to get an Oscar Nomination its a drawback being a Woman or Black when you can make a story about Kids in Paris or a horse.

No wonder Albert Brooks was ticked he didnt get a nomination in a category that included Jonah Hill, Christ!

EDIT and to add insult to injury they only picked Nine films for best Picture as if there were not any other good films this year, cretins the bloody lot of them...

 

[minuialear]

Not really. It's incredibly cliched, has almost every major Oscar motif/theme/plot device, and it's completely over the top in terms of melodrama. As if we haven't ever seen a film about a rich guy who ends up living a more enriched life by getting the help of someone of another class, or a film about some dude with a "loveable" impediment that he has to overcome in order to achieve something important, etc.

Stammer and stage fright are not "loveable" impediments. The reason why 'The King's Speech' won Oscars was because it was a good film. It was popular with audiences, if you strip away the stuff about class, monarchy and everything else it is about two people who become friends through overcoming difficulty. The film managed to convey that through a good script, most notably in the scene with the model airplane. George is no longer a royal, he is just a man talking to a friend about his problems.

Also, on a personal level I found the opening scene of that film incredibly well-made. As someone who has acted on-stage I am all too familiar with that awful wrack of nerves before performing. That scene masterfully recreated that feeling by increasing the tension through the image of the blinking light and the extended silence before the disastrous speech, close-up shots of the speaker making it seem large and domineering. Also, Colin Firth was totally convincing in his portrayal of utter fear. I've seen people backstage, nervous about their imminent performance and it was haunting how similar Colin Firth's face was to those people backstage.

Also, here's to hoping'The Artist' wins Best Picture. I must admit I was rather sad to hear it got 10 nominations because then it will get a load of undeserved hate.

It's "lovable" in the sense that it's real enough to invoke sympathy, but not serious enough to make the average viewer uncomfortable, or to give the average viewer reason to feel ambiguous about the character and how his impediment affects him. For example, the difference between Sean Penn in I Am Sam and Tom Hanks in Forest Gump; the latter is "loveable," the former was not. The latter got an Academy Award; the former did not. Or Natalie Portman in Black Swan versus Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind; they inject a ton of unnecessary sentimentality into the character's predicament in the latter and it gets Best Picture; the directors of the former allow the character's actions to speak for themselves, and it doesn't get the award. I could go on.

As if we haven't seen that trope countless times in other movies. But at least other (arguably better made) films don't bury that story in heaps of cliches and over-used symbolism. The opening scene doesn't make up for an otherwise uninspired plot that's only saved from utter banality due to the ability of the actors to vagely breathe life into a made-for-Hollywood story.

 

[Mischlings]

No wonder Albert Brooks was ticked he didnt get a nomination in a category that included Jonah Hill, Christ!

I will say that Jonah Hill is almost completely unrecognizable in Moneyball, mostly because the role was actually serious and he didn't do his normal semi-improv style because they had an Aaron Sorkin script to work with. He's admitted that he did this movie a lot differently because the script was so good that there was no reason to depart from it.

Long story short, he's not really recognizable as Jonah Hill in that movie.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

EDIT and to add insult to injury they only picked Nine films for best Picture as if there were not any other good films this year, cretins the bloody lot of them...

Just all part of the fun of modern Hollywood. They cry and wring their hands because the box office was down again last year but then they turn around and only nominate nine films because apparently they couldn't name ten films worth the title of best picture. Ah Hollywood, you got to love a place that doesn't get the irony of their situation.