Oscars 2013

[SnapesBane]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

I think you're missing my point...it's bold because it's so far outside their comfort zone of typical Oscar bait. And in that regard, Return of the King was a very bold Best Picture choice. Same goes for the others I mentioned.

Of course a movie made for teenagers is outside their comfort zone. It's a Teen Choice Award movie, not an Oscar movie. There are so many problems with DH2 that it likely sat with the Academy members the wrong way. There's no pop to it. It's just... there. These are of course my opinions.

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

I think you're missing my point...it's bold because it's so far outside their comfort zone of typical Oscar bait. And in that regard, Return of the King was a very bold Best Picture choice.

Not being oscar bait doesn't make it bold, in that regard, Battleship would be a bold nomination!

[SnapesBane]

I just don't understand why these awards matter much at all anymore. What matters is how you feel about a movie. What matters is how a film connects with you. What the Academy thinks should not be an influencing factor in your opinion. A film wins and award and another doesn't. Does that mean that the film that won is good and that the one what didn't is bad? Of course not. This very thread proves that! Leave the disappointing feelings to the filmmakers. Watch what you love and don't pay any credence to what others say.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Please do not call either The Hunger Games or Harry Potter "teen" movies and recognize that the box office demographic for both was primarily over the age of 21. Thanks.

the subject matter suggests that they are for teenagers and young adults.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by DML1991

If a film fails to captivate or provoke thought in the audience that isn't familiar with the source material, how exactly does it succeed? And most importantly, if it fails to the audience outside of it's inherent fanbase, how does it deserve such accolades on the level of Lord of the Rings? One can even argue that Potter failed in achieving many outside of it's own fanbase of the books, but that's a whole 'nother debate more relevant for the discussion threads for the movies.

Well ,even Wimsey loved and it and says it's deserving of Best Adaptation consideration. BTW, here's my review and yes I have read it-

The Hunger Games

Acting- 10
Script- 10
Visuals- 8.5
Sound- 10
Editing- 9.5

Score = 96

Verdict- I know this might be a knee jerk reaction but...The Hunger Games is my new favorite film of the decade!!!

It was fantastic. Pitch perfect acting, real hard hitting emotion with not a single cheesy moment, and some really great adapation choices. The only flaws have all already been mentioned. The shaky cam I was so concerned about was really effective at times and completely inappropriate at others (like before the games start) Also on the visual side of things for a film that is going to rake in so much dough some of the special effects could have been better. Oh, and yes, of course some things in the novel were left out but I think the film would have dragged if they had focused too much on life in the districts and not condensed the games and romance a bit (though the romantic in me would have been just fine with more of Katniss/Peeta! ) On the other hand, as I said there was some really great adaption decisions that fleshed out the novel in certain ways and made the film work even though it wasn't all first person pov like the novel was. Also quite frankly I think a lot of scenes play out better on screen then they read. For instance the feast at the Cornucopia and the final showdown with the mutated mutts in which Cato even displays a hint of some underlying humanity. And the ending didn't outrage me like the book; just pumped for the inevitable uprising to come! Oh yeah, and the old fart Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences better take notice!

At this point in the year only The Hunger Games and The Avengers should be in the running, IMO. I suspect there'll be a 3rd next week.

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Yes, it would, but it all depends on how you define "bold" and ones perspective and whatnot...and we don't need to get into semantics...

Well, I do see that Deathly Hallows Part 2 not getting a BP nomination will surely go down as one of the greatest snubs in Academy history. It is up there with The General, City Lights, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein, Love Me Tonight, Duck Soup, King Kong, The Black Cat, Bride of Frankenstein, Modern Times, Swing Time, Make Way for Tomorrow, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Bringing Up Baby, Fantasia, His Girl Friday, Pinocchio, The Shop Around the Corner, The Thief of Bagdad, The Lady Eve, Sullivan's Travels, Bambi, Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, Shadow of a Doubt, Meet Me in St. Louis, Brief Encounter, just to name a few from earlier in the past century (let alone the next half century and the past decade!).

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Please do not call either The Hunger Games or Harry Potter "teen" movies and recognize that the box office demographic for both was primarily over the age of 21. Thanks.

Subject matters and ticket buying demographics are completely different.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Moving on, here's a visually stunning banner for 'The Hobbit' that makes me think that it's already got Best Cinematography in the bag...

For sake of counting a smaller number, raise your hand if you don't think The Hobbit will strike Oscar gold and take home several trophies come Oscar night?

It's movies like The Hobbit that make me sad the Oscars doesn't have a Best Ensemble Cast category - Ian McKellen was the only one to receive an acting nomination out of all the actors of all the movies - and he got the nod in Fellowship of the Ring, not in Return of the King. It was a travesty that Sean Astin wasn't nominated, that Vigo wasn't nominated, that Ian McKellen wasn't nominated in RotK... travesty.

Originally Posted by DML1991

If a film fails to captivate or provoke thought in the audience that isn't familiar with the source material, how exactly does it succeed? And most importantly, if it fails to the audience outside of it's inherent fanbase, how does it deserve such accolades on the level of Lord of the Rings? One can even argue that Potter failed in achieving many outside of it's own fanbase of the books, but that's a whole 'nother debate more relevant for the discussion threads for the movies.

POA was the film that hooked me into reading the books and turned me into a huge fan - but then the films, IMO, all went downhill, stylistically (in production design and direction), in the acting, in the script adaptations... I don't even watch the movies anymore because they're so awful to me.

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

Of course a movie made for teenagers is outside their comfort zone. It's a Teen Choice Award movie, not an Oscar movie. There are so many problems with DH2 that it likely sat with the Academy members the wrong way. There's no pop to it. It's just... there. These are of course my opinions.

I agree. When I was in the theaters I felt like I was watching choreography and not watching a good, emotionally riveting movie. There wasn't enough emotional investment in the film characters to warrant it being such a fantastic movie that the Oscars would honor it with a Best Picture nomination. IMO, the films got what they deserved in terms of oscars: nominations in/recognition for visual effects, makeup, art direction, score... The scripts and the acting (with a couple of exceptions for the adults) were not strong enough to get nominations, the direction went all wrong, IMO, from GOF and on and IMO those three things are enough to derail Best Picture hopes. None of the HP movies deserved Best Picture, IMO.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Well ,even Wimsey loved and it and says it's deserving of Best Adaptation consideration. BTW, here's my review and yes I have read it-

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but Wimsey is not the be-all-end-all of film critique. Wimsey may have loved the film and thought it worthy of Best Adaptation but that doesn't mean that everyone else agrees. The fact is there were better -much better- adaptions than any of the HP films that could be and were nominated.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Please do not call either The Hunger Games or Harry Potter "teen" movies and recognize that the box office demographic for both was primarily over the age of 21. Thanks.

Originally Posted by DML1991

Subject matters and ticket buying demographics are completely different.

I'd point out that the first book was published in 1997/1998 (UK/US) and that Deathly Hallows part 2 was released 2011. If you began reading the series at the age of 11 (the target demographic of the first book), by DHp2 film release you would be 19 - younger than the average age you're citing above. The film demographic aged right along with the book demographic, delayed by book and film release dates so while the average age of the movie going audience may have been over 21 there's no question that the original target audience was meant to be children/young adults, the books are young adult novels, the main characters are all teenagers and the films, therefore, became very much targeted toward teens and young adults - the age group that was the original target demographic of the books.

The books do mature as they go on and they do deal at times with very adult subject matters such as prejudice and slavery but they have an equal amount of teenage melodrama going on in them, too. They are teen/YA books and the films are teen/YA films.

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

For sake of counting a smaller number, raise your hand if you don't think The Hobbit will strike Oscar gold and take home several trophies come Oscar night?

Why would it? It's only half a plot. That could be one of the reasons the Academy didn't acknowledge Deathly Hallows: Part 2 in the non-technical areas despite being one of the year's best critically received wide-release films; the plot was incomplete on its own. Now, if they honour The Hobbit that would be like confirming their (positive) preconceived notions about Tolkien's universe and Jackson's directorial abilities and their negative bias towards Harry Potter (Wimsey has a theory of why; the Columbus films) and unknown directors. It is not like they were going to celebrate a big-budget Harry Potter movie directed by a British television director which was split into two parts for the perceived reason (partially due to Part 1's reception) to cash in more money. The film was simply doomed come Oscar season long before it was released due to its brand name, the past and the lack of a recognized director.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but Wimsey is not the be-all-end-all of film critique. Wimsey may have loved the film and thought it worthy of Best Adaptation but that doesn't mean that everyone else agrees. The fact is there were better -much better- adaptions than any of the HP films that could be and were nominated.

He was talking about The Hunger Games, which I personally find undeserving of non-technical nominations.

On another note, I'd like to see these "facts" you are talking about. Please don't state your opinions as facts.

[canismajoris]

Here I also think we might distinguish between "Academy Award for Writing Adapted Screenplay" and the best adaptation of another work. The two don't always have to mean the same thing--for one thing the category as a rule includes sequels--and I think we could make several cases for what "best" means.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Noldus

On another note, I'd like to see these "facts" you are talking about. Please don't state your opinions as facts.

Fine. IMO there were better -much better- adaptions than any of the HP films that could be and were nominated. There have also been, IMO, better adpations than HG nominated in the past(yes, I have read it and seen the movie) - there have also been worse adaptions. The key for HG is whether something like The Hobbit just turns out to be a better adaptation. Whether Baz Luhrman's The Great Gatsby turns out to be a better adaption. Whether Kiera Knightly's upcoming Anna Karenina (which might be released later this year in time for Oscar season) turns out to be a better adaption. Also whether the other films nominated in the same category have more emotionally engaging stories. HG is a good movie, no doubt about that, it's even a good adaptation of its source material, but the story being told (in the book and in the movie), IMO, isn't as emotionally gripping as it could be and that could be that film's downfall when put up against competitors.

IMO, the Academy doesn't have anything specifically against Harry Potter and I don't think it would have anything specifically against HG, but they do have something against children's or young adult movies - that aren't linked to a huge producer or director like Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson (War Horse 2011, Avatar 2009 [Cameron], Lord of the Rings 2001, '02, '03) or a hugely sucessful production company like Disney/Pixar (Toy Story 3 2010, Up 2009, Beauty and the Beast 1991)


On a less hostile note, I'm really excited to see Baz Luhrman's The Great Gatsby! I'm thinking a nomination for costumes and art direction at the very least!

[Noldus]

I didn't suggest you needed to add IMO after every sentence. That's not necessary at all. However starting a sentence with "the fact is..." is not particularly humble when we are dealing with opinions.

Yes, Hunger Games was nothing more than an entertaining action movie...with disappointing action scenes. I thought it was a decent adaptation of the book (which I consider superior), but ultimately a mediocre film.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

IMO, the Academy doesn't have anything specifically against Harry Potter and I don't think it would have anything specifically against HG, but they do have something against children's or young adult movies - that aren't linked to a huge producer or director like Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson (War Horse 2011, Avatar 2009 [Cameron], Lord of the Rings 2001, '02, '03) or a hugely sucessful production company like Disney/Pixar (Toy Story 3 2010, Up 2009, Beauty and the Beast 1991)

That could be right and it isn't all that surprising really when even some Potter fans seem to be ashamed to admit that the books and films fall under children/young adult stories. Either way, regardless of your or my personal opinion of DH: 2, the fact is that it was one of last year's most critically acclaimed films. And considering most of the top critically acclaimed films get major Oscar nominations, it was a snub in that regard. However it's just Potter...a big-budget young adult series...directed by a TV-director. The possibility that it was snubbed simply isn't an interesting topic among film people.

[SnapesBane]

Well, it looks likes The Dark Knight Rises ma not be critically acclaimed enough to garner Academy nominations, at least the big ones.

[Goddess_Clio]

Hey! I forgot Dark Knight Rises was coming out! Not much for superhero movies personally but I'm looking forward to this one!

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

On a less hostile note, I'm really excited to see Baz Luhrman's The Great Gatsby! I'm thinking a nomination for costumes and art direction at the very least!

Gatsby won't be in the running for the 2013 Oscars. The release has been put back to next (northern) summer with the possibility of a Cannes premiere.

Gatsby release pushed back beyond Oscars

[freelantzer]

What does everyone think about Seth MacFarlane hosting this year?

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by freelantzer

What does everyone think about Seth MacFarlane hosting this year?

Mistep: it should totally have been Tom Bergeron.

[IenjoyAcidPops]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Mistep: it should totally have been Tom Bergeron.

Yeah, that better be a joke.


I don't know that I like the idea of Seth MacFarlane hosting the Oscars, I don't know that I dislike it. I hope this doesn't just turn into "look at all the voices I can do, watch my TV shows," but come on, of course it will, at least at some point. Really, although there have been great hosts, one is almost the same as the other: there are some very good sketch or live bits, a lot of blah material. Here's what'll happen: The show will be okay, uneven but okay, and the next day everyone will say it was awful, should have been an hour long (which makes no sense whatsoever), and the worst in years.

[freelantzer]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Mistep: it should totally have been Tom Bergeron.

I agree with you, AcidPops. It's usually the same every year, and there are always the same complaints. I just hope his characters are kept to a minimum, and by that I mean live actors interacting with his animated characters, not his voices. His voices are fine. The animated characters at the Oscars bug me.

[Wab]

Most Oscars are awful. Most award shows are. But the Oscars stand out because they should have access to the best writers and performers in the business but the lines are all almost lame and badly delivered.

The best host in recent years was Hugh Jackman.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by IenjoyAcidPops

Yeah, that better be a joke.

Did the smilie not make that clear?

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Wab

Most Oscars are awful. Most award shows are. But the Oscars stand out because they should have access to the best writers and performers in the business but the lines are all almost lame and badly delivered.

I think that is the problem right there. Why are these things scripted, anyway? I mean, OK, the introductions for best pictures, etc., sort of need to be because they are describing the film. However, the rest of it should just be introduction and quips: they'd be a lot funnier if they just ad-libbed things.