They're great when you watch them with film-buff friends and some tequila.kitz said:
A bit dangerous, but fun.
The Oscars Are Going to Suck
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A bit dangerous, but fun.
As long as there is copious amounts of tequila (or any other alcohol) it can make awards shows moderately interesting (not gonna lie: seeing them bleep Meryl Streep at the Golden Globe's while they tried to sneak her glasses to her while I had a pretty good buzz made me giggle like a schoolgirl). The film buffs I know (myself included) tend to get either pissed at the Oscars (for being predictable and awarding all the 'safe' choices) or for being boring (for being predictable and awarding all the 'safe' choices).lacktheknack said:
I in fact called the opening gore 'plotless', not pointless. Its intent was to shock, and in my opinion it failed - making it shock-less (agreed on the missed dash) - and leaving us with a drawn out battle we have zero investment in. I also personally think you'd need to be rather squeamish to find anything of note during that oft-lauded opening.PhiMed said:
As for saying that SIL is overly impressed with itself, SPR is the classic example of a movie overly impressed with its own subject matter.
I'm not going to defend SIL as the greatest film of the age, but in a year of clearly poor contenders for the title, it deserved to win.
PS: 'All the chemistry of a noble gas' made me laugh, very witty.
Could you please explain what you mean by "women's films"?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or divisive, I'm honestly not sure.
Do you mean films in genres that are primarily associated with a female audience (mostly romance, romcoms and movies like Eat, Pray, Love, which was the uplifting story of a self-centered monster abdicating all social responsibility and bringing pain to everyone around her)? Because most of those that I've seen recently are on roughly the same intellectual level as Michael Bay.
Do you mean films by female directors? Because those are in short supply and subject to the same variation in quality as any other kind of film. I would love to have seen Punisher: Warzone up for something, though. I was really impressed with the woman who directed it after listening to the commentary track.
Do you mean films with female writers? The only ones I ever remember are that one woman and her friends who write all of those disgustingly sexist romantic comedies that people keep inflicting on me. To be fair, I rarely remember screenwriters unless they produce a large body of material which causes me pain.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or divisive, I'm honestly not sure.
Do you mean films in genres that are primarily associated with a female audience (mostly romance, romcoms and movies like Eat, Pray, Love, which was the uplifting story of a self-centered monster abdicating all social responsibility and bringing pain to everyone around her)? Because most of those that I've seen recently are on roughly the same intellectual level as Michael Bay.
Do you mean films by female directors? Because those are in short supply and subject to the same variation in quality as any other kind of film. I would love to have seen Punisher: Warzone up for something, though. I was really impressed with the woman who directed it after listening to the commentary track.
Do you mean films with female writers? The only ones I ever remember are that one woman and her friends who write all of those disgustingly sexist romantic comedies that people keep inflicting on me. To be fair, I rarely remember screenwriters unless they produce a large body of material which causes me pain.
Oh lord, even as sarcasm, the idea of the MTV movie awards becoming the new Oscars... terrifying, absolutely blood curdling.Bbleds said:
On topic: Yeah, I think the Oscars need to change guard and quickly, lest they do become obsolete, and god forbid, a situation like the one in the quote should arise.
You gotta figure with the majority of the Oscar people gettin' up there in years, eventually there's gonna be a mass extinction of sorts. Terrible thing to think of, I know, but the passing of time could eventually lead to a different, more in tune demographic rising.
I think the issue is this. Acting and Film making are arts in of themselves with their own standards and skill sets, and the Academy Awards serve to reward them. It's not supposed to be a general worship of pop culture despite what people have tried to turn it into, and as a result The Academy has tried to intentionally focus on the basics rather than what any paticular group's tastes are.
Awarding a good movie, that happens to be rooted entirely in current trends, is anathema because down the road that movie might not age well as trends change. In comparison period dramas tend to remain "relevent" having dealt with a documented period as opposed to "of the moment" pop culture.
Someone like Andy Serkis doesn't get more credit because his gimmick is relatively new, and it remains to be seen if it's still used or is even relevent 10 years from now. While he's talented at what he does, there are some questions as to whether he's actually skilled in the ways the Academy is supposed to evaluate... how much of his acting is simply wearing the digital tech well, and how much is actual acting? That's a valid question. Given time he might be recognized for a lifetime achievement if nothing else, but I can see why he's not loved by The Academy.
Current events, message movies, and chick flicks which are steeped in pop culture and current trends, all tend to fall under the same problem.... enduring relevence. What is a hot issue or something "everyone agrees with" now is not nessicarly going to endure. The Academy isn't opposed to the issues, but prefers to see yesterday's issues with a known resolution covered as they are thus timeless and part of history. Not to mention that touching on things like sexuality amounts fo playing politics, like it or not while the left wing is blowing it's own hard very loudly, the nation is divided almost 50-50 on a lot of those issues and it remains to be seen given the divide whether a lot of the victories being won are going to last. The Academy might applaud a movie about the gay rights crusade 20 years form now when the issue is over, but isn't going to laud praise on a political picture with huge amounts of opposition... especially if that message is the big thing selling the movie beyond anything else.
The point is that I understand what The Academy does, and why. I also understand why it's admissions criteria is so tight, after all if it started getting politically correct about it's membership so to have a membership indicative of current minority trends or whatever, it would become more about the politics and current trends than enduring movies and the art of acting and performance itself.
To be honest I kind of thing the Academy Awards should stay more or less like they are now. Though I think nowadays might be the time to try again to create competing awards shows based more around pop culture. Various networks/websites/etc... try this but none are universally accepted... and that's the big problem. If those people ever get together and try and create some kind of hybrid production regularly for pop culture, we might see something more currently relevent... but I think that would only really work if The Academy was still doibng it's thing to represent a traditional counterpoint and rate things in part based on their abillity to endure, and on the pure skill of the actor and/or film maker's craft.
See, I don't think The Academy watches a movie the same way the typical audience does. They aren't weighting things purely on entertainment value but in terms of skill and construction, but also whether or not a story/production is liable to remain relevent many years in the future. I mean you can pick up something like "The King's Speech" and even if it puts you to sleep, the story it tells deals with the kind of events that are going to be understandable and relevent 100 years from now. Some woman's movie, or chick flick about the enduring friendship of two women as they cope with modern society and find love... less so, even if well acted and well constructed 100 years from now jokes/entertainment based on say twittering or whatever probably aren't going to work, and people aren't really going to empathize with the point of the movie simply due to how the world has changed. Such movies rely on connection btween the female viewes and the protaganist that will no longer be achievable.
Awarding a good movie, that happens to be rooted entirely in current trends, is anathema because down the road that movie might not age well as trends change. In comparison period dramas tend to remain "relevent" having dealt with a documented period as opposed to "of the moment" pop culture.
Someone like Andy Serkis doesn't get more credit because his gimmick is relatively new, and it remains to be seen if it's still used or is even relevent 10 years from now. While he's talented at what he does, there are some questions as to whether he's actually skilled in the ways the Academy is supposed to evaluate... how much of his acting is simply wearing the digital tech well, and how much is actual acting? That's a valid question. Given time he might be recognized for a lifetime achievement if nothing else, but I can see why he's not loved by The Academy.
Current events, message movies, and chick flicks which are steeped in pop culture and current trends, all tend to fall under the same problem.... enduring relevence. What is a hot issue or something "everyone agrees with" now is not nessicarly going to endure. The Academy isn't opposed to the issues, but prefers to see yesterday's issues with a known resolution covered as they are thus timeless and part of history. Not to mention that touching on things like sexuality amounts fo playing politics, like it or not while the left wing is blowing it's own hard very loudly, the nation is divided almost 50-50 on a lot of those issues and it remains to be seen given the divide whether a lot of the victories being won are going to last. The Academy might applaud a movie about the gay rights crusade 20 years form now when the issue is over, but isn't going to laud praise on a political picture with huge amounts of opposition... especially if that message is the big thing selling the movie beyond anything else.
The point is that I understand what The Academy does, and why. I also understand why it's admissions criteria is so tight, after all if it started getting politically correct about it's membership so to have a membership indicative of current minority trends or whatever, it would become more about the politics and current trends than enduring movies and the art of acting and performance itself.
To be honest I kind of thing the Academy Awards should stay more or less like they are now. Though I think nowadays might be the time to try again to create competing awards shows based more around pop culture. Various networks/websites/etc... try this but none are universally accepted... and that's the big problem. If those people ever get together and try and create some kind of hybrid production regularly for pop culture, we might see something more currently relevent... but I think that would only really work if The Academy was still doibng it's thing to represent a traditional counterpoint and rate things in part based on their abillity to endure, and on the pure skill of the actor and/or film maker's craft.
See, I don't think The Academy watches a movie the same way the typical audience does. They aren't weighting things purely on entertainment value but in terms of skill and construction, but also whether or not a story/production is liable to remain relevent many years in the future. I mean you can pick up something like "The King's Speech" and even if it puts you to sleep, the story it tells deals with the kind of events that are going to be understandable and relevent 100 years from now. Some woman's movie, or chick flick about the enduring friendship of two women as they cope with modern society and find love... less so, even if well acted and well constructed 100 years from now jokes/entertainment based on say twittering or whatever probably aren't going to work, and people aren't really going to empathize with the point of the movie simply due to how the world has changed. Such movies rely on connection btween the female viewes and the protaganist that will no longer be achievable.
I was wondering what happened to the big film stars. My list was the same as yours. Of course for the Oscars to still be good, the people who are voting now still need to vote, the opinions of old people are a valuable and representative demographic and shouldn't be neglected just because it's hard to empathise, but I guess you probably agree with that and this article was just about the people who needed to be added to the pool too
Yeah, the minute I heard they were bringing back Billy Crystal to host again was the minute I lost all faith that the Oscars would even be watchable this year. Of course, that's not to say last year was any more watchable, but that was a horrific hosting choice of an entirely different sort.
some other examples of why the Oscars have been irrelevant for DECADES:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18460_5-reasons-oscars-matter-even-less-than-you-thought.html
Like Bob said a few years ago, the Oscars revolve around the tastes of old actors who seem to be behind on the times by a few decades. Seriously, just give fucking lifetime achievement awards if that's all the Oscars are to the voters.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18460_5-reasons-oscars-matter-even-less-than-you-thought.html
Like Bob said a few years ago, the Oscars revolve around the tastes of old actors who seem to be behind on the times by a few decades. Seriously, just give fucking lifetime achievement awards if that's all the Oscars are to the voters.
I really do not see why Oscars matter to anyone our age anymore. Academy voters do not care about us and nor should they. We do not matter to them because the movies we are interested in are beyond what they are used to seeing.
We really should have gotten that hint right around the time Fellowship of the Ring came out. Even though it was fun reading all the calls to not watch the shows and overt snobbery towards the shows, it should have told us that we did not matter to them.
There needs to be someone out there willing to fund and host a movie awards show for our generation and focus on the movies that we care about. Kind of like the MTV VMAsused to appeal to us when we were young and stupid and that particular form of pop music mattered to us was good.
We really should have gotten that hint right around the time Fellowship of the Ring came out. Even though it was fun reading all the calls to not watch the shows and overt snobbery towards the shows, it should have told us that we did not matter to them.
There needs to be someone out there willing to fund and host a movie awards show for our generation and focus on the movies that we care about. Kind of like the MTV VMAs
the first time I watched crash I though it was a good movie. Years later it actually turn out to be aweful, I liked the idea, but the follow through was just plain bad. Slumdog millioniare on the other hand I really liked, but eh to each there own. I think Bob brought up some valid points (although with some uneeded snark) but thats why I love yah bob keep it up.
I have pretty much ignored the Oscars for the longest time since it became apparent what they really were. Which is essentially what MovieBob has been saying about them, except before I knew he existed.
With all those old people on the Oscars committee, maybe someone should make a movie where an old man shouts at kids to get off his lawn.
With all those old people on the Oscars committee, maybe someone should make a movie where an old man shouts at kids to get off his lawn.
Of all those movies listed, I've seen Almost Every one of them (Haven't seen Moon, We Need To Talk About Kevin, or Senna.) Methinks I need to find this Kermode fellow and follow him. Also, I agree with A Scanner Darkly, because until I had seen Requiem for a Dream, I would have called that the best anti-drug movie ever made.coogs42 said:
OT: I watched my first oscars about two years ago, when it was Avatar or Hurt Locker being one of the winners. I remember my sister freaking out because she thought Avatar should have been the winner (to be fair, she was 18, and She hadn't seen the other 9 Nominees. Neither had I, but Avatar wasn't that good.)
