OT: Let's talk about movies (and TV shows)... Part X

[Zorba]

Splendor in the Grass is not a Terrence Malick movie...

Also Malick's movies have been nominated twice for Best Picture (Thin Red Line & Tree of Life) so pump the brakes with "time and time again he gets the nod".

Yes, the Academy routinely rewards established directing giants like Eastwood and Spielberg with nominations that they probably don't deserve based on their reputation alone. NHL award voters do the exact same thing. And pretty much any annual voting polling from a field that remains generally unchanged from year to year. That's how it goes.

Personally, I don't want to live in a word where Guardians of the Galaxy and Mission Impossible are getting BP nods over The Tree of Life and The Artist. So I'll side with the Academy here.

I so meant days of heaven. Totally mixed up. Both way more entertaining than the artist or tree of life. Tree of life stunk. I went into the thin red line thinking wow this Malick guy is supposed to be a geniu, maybe it's gonna be like a Bridge over the River Kwai, ended up being terms of endearment.
I agree that the it's like the NHL awards but things need to change. People are tuning out of the oscars for these reasons

 

[hototogisu]

I'm not saying the critics are right 100% of the time but it's not like it's just one person or organization saying Thin Red Line is a good movie, it's routinely cited as one of the best American made movies ever. If you don't like it, that's fine and totally up to you, but it's a little wrongheaded to suggest everyone else is mistaken and the movie is actually a pile of garbage. Maybe it's a good movie and just not your thing. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Alexdaman]

I'm not saying the critics are right 100% of the time but it's not like it's just one person or organization saying Thin Red Line is a good movie, it's routinely cited as one of the best American made movies ever. If you don't like it, that's fine and totally up to you, but it's a little wrongheaded to suggest everyone else is mistaken and the movie is actually a pile of garbage. Maybe it's a good movie and just not your thing. Nothing wrong with that.

Loved the thin red line.

 

[Team_Spirit]

The Martian is confusing, why use Matt Damon AND Jessica Chastain who were both in Interstellar and had very important roles to make another space movie

''I'm going to science the **** out of this!''

 

[DangerDave]

You're describing the "People's Choice Awards", not the Academy Awards. Giving awards for films like Guardians of the Galaxy is like calling McDonalds haute-cuisine because lots and lots of people go there. Popularity and quality are two entirely different yardsticks. Sure, I'd never say the Oscars measure quality perfectly, but at least they make the attempt. On the other hand, there's nothing more meaningless than awarding a film for attracting gazillions of 15-year-olds.

It's just that the Academy does not realize there are films which are not dramas. It's as if a film has an ounce of humor or action, they completely disregard it. Look at the last 5 winners. Birdman, 12 years, Argo, Artist and King's Speech. Good movies yes but they were not necessarily the most enjoyable.

I have no problem saying that I have enjoyed movies like GOTG, Xmen, Nightcrawler, Edge of Tomorrow, Wolf of WallStreet, Dallas Buyers Club, Django etc more than any of those movies (Though Argo was amazing).

I swear the point of movies was to be entertained and many of the Oscar winners did not do that for me. Example: Forest Gump over both Pulp Fiction and Shawshank? Both Pulp and Shawshank are regarded as some of the very best of all time by most people who have seen them. I guess it's because the losing movies were not boring as hell and had humor and violence.

 

[Paul Dipietro]

''I'm going to science the **** out of this!''

That quote sums up the main character pretty well -> wiseass genius

The book was really entertaining. Looking forward to the movie

 

[Lshap]

It's just that the Academy does not realize there are films which are not dramas. It's as if a film has an ounce of humor or action, they completely disregard it. Look at the last 5 winners. Birdman, 12 years, Argo, Artist and King's Speech. Good movies yes but they were not necessarily the most enjoyable.

I have no problem saying that I have enjoyed movies like GOTG, Xmen, Nightcrawler, Edge of Tomorrow, Wolf of WallStreet, Dallas Buyers Club, Django etc more than any of those movies (Though Argo was amazing).

I swear the point of movies was to be entertained and many of the Oscar winners did not do that for me. Example: Forest Gump over both Pulp Fiction and Shawshank? Both Pulp and Shawshank are regarded as some of the very best of all time by most people who have seen them. I guess it's because the losing movies were not boring as hell and had humor and violence.

Oh, definitely agree. The Academy defaults to picking formula over innovation. Pulp Fiction is one of my top-10 all-time faves. But it was too groundbreaking and too many voters were uncomfortable voting for its brand of stylized violence. Not that Forrest Gump is a bad film by any measure, but it was the safe choice over the superior cutting edge.

Still, even with its formulaic picks, the Academy Awards are a much better measuring stick for quality than going by box-office numbers. Forrest Gump was still a better choice than the purely entertaining Speed and The Mask.

 

[LaP]

I'm not saying the critics are right 100% of the time but it's not like it's just one person or organization saying Thin Red Line is a good movie, it's routinely cited as one of the best American made movies ever. If you don't like it, that's fine and totally up to you, but it's a little wrongheaded to suggest everyone else is mistaken and the movie is actually a pile of garbage. Maybe it's a good movie and just not your thing. Nothing wrong with that.

Yup people often mistake "what i like" and "what i dislike" with "what is good" and "what is bad".

There's many movies i liked but i would consider average at best. We call this a guilty pleasure. Doesn't make them good movies. The opposite is true there's many movies i disliked that many people consider good. Doesn't make them bad movies.

I'm still trying to figure out what people liked about The Avengers. It's one of the worst popular super hero movie i've seen. But so many people liked it it must be at the very least a good pop corn flick even if it almost bored me to death. Still trying to figure out why the new Mad Max scored 8.4 on imdb too. I love Mad Max and i had a great time watching the new movie it's so over the top i loved it. But honestly it's not a great movie.

Anyway imo a movie should be rated based on it's technical merits (script, acting, directing, cinematography, music, ...). Liking a movie or not is purely a personal thing. I know some people who hated American Beauty ... but the still can admit it was a great movie.

 

[MaxLacoste]

You should take lightly every awards given by the peirs. They don't have the same criterias. They nominate movies or series they would have wanted to do or work on. Artists love what they do (an it's normal). The consumers nominate the movies they loved to watch. The consumers love what they love. It's more neutral. Of course, you get wierd nominations if the public get together and push for a goofy comedy. But most of the time, when everyone vote, you end up with the best movie. People love Ironman, but they know it's not the best movie. But if you let the artists vote, they will sometime nominate movies that are awful to watch because, i.e. the story is boring, but the director tried something bold and new with the montage and every movie geeks get crazy. Now, the movies that get nominated have director that takes more place than the story. The industrie doesn't understand that people don't go to the movie to see a director playing with his lences but to see a story and people.

 

[Zorba]

Yup people often mistake "what i like" and "what i dislike" with "what is good" and "what is bad".

There's many movies i liked but i would consider average at best. We call this a guilty pleasure. Doesn't make them good movies. The opposite is true there's many movies i disliked that many people consider good. Doesn't make them bad movies.

I'm still trying to figure out what people liked about The Avengers. It's one of the worst popular super hero movie i've seen. But so many people liked it it must be at the very least a good pop corn flick even if it almost bored me to death. Still trying to figure out why the new Mad Max scored 8.4 on imdb too. I love Mad Max and i had a great time watching the new movie it's so over the top i loved it. But honestly it's not a great movie.

Anyway imo a movie should be rated based on it's technical merits (script, acting, directing, cinematography, music, ...). Liking a movie or not is purely a personal thing. I know some people who hated American Beauty ... but the still can admit it was a great movie.

The avengers along with th dark knight are probably the 2 best comic book movies ever made. Add GOTG into that. Comic book or not those 3 movies were terrific

 

[MaxLacoste]

Yup people often mistake "what i like" and "what i dislike" with "what is good" and "what is bad".

There's many movies i liked but i would consider average at best. We call this a guilty pleasure. Doesn't make them good movies. The opposite is true there's many movies i disliked that many people consider good. Doesn't make them bad movies.

I'm still trying to figure out what people liked about The Avengers. It's one of the worst popular super hero movie i've seen. But so many people liked it it must be at the very least a good pop corn flick even if it almost bored me to death. Still trying to figure out why the new Mad Max scored 8.4 on imdb too. I love Mad Max and i had a great time watching the new movie it's so over the top i loved it. But honestly it's not a great movie.

Anyway imo a movie should be rated based on it's technical merits (script, acting, directing, cinematography, music, ...). Liking a movie or not is purely a personal thing. I know some people who hated American Beauty ... but the still can admit it was a great movie.

I think movies should be rated based on it's technical merits FOR AWARD SHOWS. But to do that you need knowledge and to pay attention to those things which most people don't. When they put a score on iMDB, it's base on how much they enjoy the movie.

About the Avengers, I can answer for myself. I like it because I wanted to see the heroes I love in action scenes. I got that. I was not expecting much more. I didn't like the Avengers 2, because it was a comedy with super heroes. For Mad Max, I loved it because it was over the top and the director just tried to capture that. A simple story in a crazy world with excellent visual effect. I was so easy to enjoy. I give it a iMDB 9. And an Oscar 7.

 

[Zorba]

I think movies should be rated based on it's technical merits FOR AWARD SHOWS. But to do that you need knowledge and to pay attention to those things which most people don't. When they put a score on iMDB, it's base on how much they enjoy the movie.

About the Avengers, I can answer for myself. I like it because I wanted to see the heroes I love in action scenes. I got that. I was not expecting much more. I didn't like the Avengers 2, because it was a comedy with super heroes. For Mad Max, I loved it because it was over the top and the director just tried to capture that. A simple story in a crazy world with excellent visual effect. I was so easy to enjoy. I give it a iMDB 9. And an Oscar 7.

You nailed it with the avengers. Couldn't agree more. Age of Ultron was not very good at all. Mad max was an amazing action movie with great chase sequences. Charlize Theron deserves a nomination. Unbelievable performance

 

[LaP]

The avengers along with th dark knight are probably the 2 best comic book movies ever made. Add GOTG into that. Comic book or not those 3 movies were terrific

I loved GOTG and all the Nolan's batman movies. Awesome movies. Dunno i was just not able to get into the Avengers. Watched it twice and hated it as much the 2nd time as the first time.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

The trick with the Academy Awards is to remember one rule: most films that are nominated for big prizes have the pre-packaged bait factor. Among the films nominated this past season, most of them are simply very well made films dominated by great performances. Boyhood was probably the most unique of all the films because the time involved in making it, yet the narrative is rather simple in nature. I would argue that only Grand Budapest Hotel was an intentionally entertaining film, maybe Whiplash to an extant.

Furthermore, marketing and connections play a huge role in award nominations. Most of the truly great art films are small and independent in nature, full of lesser known names, and its not by accident: taking risks is the only way to stand out in a playing field with little money involved to promote the films.

 

[Brainiac]

Oh, definitely agree. The Academy defaults to picking formula over innovation.

The academy is a bunch of old white men. What else should we expect from them other than conservatism?

 

[deandebean]

This debate has been going on for ages. When I was young, Gandhi won the Oscar for Best Picture. And while it was (and still is) an epic film, it came out the same year as ET.

Needless to say that when the first movie won the Oscars over the latter, A LOT of people (including myself) screamed injustice. Nothing against Sir Attenborough's movie. But the fact of the matter is 35 years later, EVERYBODY knows ET. While the first movie has been forgotten by the masses. And as a movie critic, ET did more to the evolution of movies as a whole than Gandhi. Not even close.

The same debates erupted at the time between Art (with a major A) and Entertainment (with a major E). Plus the fact that Spielberg, at the time, was not part of the Old Boys' Club called the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. At the time, Spielberg was seen as 'an outisder' making popular and financially sucessful movies (commercial movies, as they were called), while the Elite was more into the Deer Hunter/Taxi Driver/all movies that related to a depressing America post-Vietnam.

People can criticize Spielberg all they want, but the fact of the matter is him and Lucas went against the grain in the 70's and early 80's. Having FUN at the theater wasn't as fashionable amongst movie's Elite snobs at the time. Today they might look like commercial junkies, but it doesn't tell the true story. They were mavericks in a world of depressing intellos.

Today, at 48, perspective is a great tool. Movies that last in the minds of moviegoers over decades are movies that have become classics. Pulp Fiction broke out of the mold. It became a classic. To me, with the soundtrack, it's still Tarantino's best one. It will be the most enduring one for sure. Can we say the same about the movies that won the Oscars last spring? I have some doubts, really.

I dont' want 'commercial successes' being instant favorites at Oscars. But I surely don't think they should ALL be barred from winning BECAUSE of the success.

Question for you movie buffs: the year Titanic won all of its Oscars, which movies were in competition?

 

[deandebean]

Oh, definitely agree. The Academy defaults to picking formula over innovation. Pulp Fiction is one of my top-10 all-time faves. But it was too groundbreaking and too many voters were uncomfortable voting for its brand of stylized violence. Not that Forrest Gump is a bad film by any measure, but it was the safe choice over the superior cutting edge.

Still, even with its formulaic picks, the Academy Awards are a much better measuring stick for quality than going by box-office numbers. Forrest Gump was still a better choice than the purely entertaining Speed and The Mask.

I agree. Plus, even if it was a 'safe movie' technically speaking, it was groundbreaking in itself AND is, with Shawshank (lower level) and Pulp Fiction, the most remembered movies of that year. Heck, Forrest Gump still gets solid ratings when playing on TV. It might be bland for some, but FG is a very entertaining flick.

 

[DAChampion]

Some of you are seriously overrating the oscars.

They're not picking the best movies. They pick movies pretending to be great like Silver Linings Playbook, Hurt Locker, The King's Speech or apparently Birdman, Slumdog Millionaire, Crash, The Artist etc.

Nobody remembers The Artist three years later. Slumdog Millionaire is now routinely dismissed as poverty porn.

Stanley Kubrick anfld Martin Scorcese have always been snubbed by the Oscars.

Given these factors, the fact better movies like Dark Knight, Wall-E, The Wind Rises, etc have been snubbed is not defensible.

 

[DAChampion]

I sure hope Mad Max doesn't get anywhere close of an Oscar nod. I'm baffled at the reviews it got.

Mad Max is a great film and should definitely be nominated. It was well executed, and what it set out to achieve was very important in this era: it's primarily visual storytelling in a landscape dominated by dialogue-based storytelling.

 

[deandebean]

To add to what DAChampion wrote, the Oscars is A LOT about lobbying. Miramax anyone?

 

[mitchmagic]

Got around to watching American Sniper last week. Not bad, at least me and the wife liked it.

American Sniper horribly unwatchable. Just an awful succession of unrelated scenes that only scratch the surface of whatever they were trying to discuss.

What an awful film.

 

[mitchmagic]

The Academy Awards exist to reward SAFE and AMERICAN films. That's it.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

The Academy Awards exist to reward SAFE and AMERICAN films. That's it.

Pretty much. Emphasis on the safe.

They are a tiny bit more viable than the grammies and a decent reference list to things we may have missed, but most winners tend to have wind running underneath their sails. Once the wind dies down, most of these films drown into the ocean.

 

[DAChampion]

Cast having fun on the set of Suicide Squad.

This is the comic book movie I'm most looking forward to. Unlike Ant Man, Fantastic Four, and Avengers, it looks like it has genuine personality and creative vision and aptitude behind it.

 

[MasterDecoy]

Cast having fun on the set of Suicide Squad.

This is the comic book movie I'm most looking forward to. Unlike Ant Man, Fantastic Four, and Avengers, it looks like it has genuine personality and creative vision and aptitude behind it.

Looks alright! And I mean this in the nicest possible way

Coming from a guy who hasn't seen A goddamn comic book flick in well over 5 years, the one I am looking forward to, and by looking forward to I mean, I have an erection just thinking about it, is deadpool