Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Oscars 2010



 
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old June 27th, 2009, 9:17 am
Hysteria's Avatar
Hysteria  Undisclosed.gif Hysteria is offline
Registered Animagus
 
Joined: 5084 days
Location: Far away from you...
Posts: 4,146
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
freelantzer
I'm wondering if this is true. Do you guys think having twice as many choices might split the votes, giving a different type of film a chance to win?
Not a chance. Some black sheep will get into the nominations but they wont win. That's now how the Oscars work unfortunately.


__________________
liebe ist für alle da
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old June 27th, 2009, 9:48 am
Klio's Avatar
Klio  Female.gif Klio is offline
Winning Teamster
 
Joined: 3905 days
Posts: 3,647
Re: Oscars 2010

Indeed. It's the same voters voting.

Hitherto, there would be the nominations vote first, and it would be something like this:

1. Oscar fodder (big movie)
2. Oscar fodder (big epic movie)
3. Oscar fodder (smallish movie)
4. Oscar fodder (small heartwarming movie)
5. Oscar fodder
6. Oscar fodder
7. Big genre blockbuster which is also good
8. Oscar fodder
9. Annual pixar movie
10. really good foreign movie

(or something along these lines).

Now, we never saw the bottom of the list, and we'll see it now.


Then the SAME people will vote again. Campaigning and the awards season can change the order of the list a bit, but I'd think that it would be hard for any of the films in 6-10 to move up to first place. That would presumably be a HUGE upset.... you have to think that those ten movies get a decreasing number of votes, and we have to assume that in most years very few movies (far fewer than ten) get an overwhelming number of votes.... which means that moving up from, say, 8. in the nominations vote to 1. in the Oscar vote (with the same voters!!) would be a HUGE upset.


__________________

haiku by Silwe Elessan

Proud to be in Ravenclaw
I served on the campaign which got Hermione and Neville elected as co-ministers of Magic
  #23  
Old June 27th, 2009, 10:15 am
freelantzer's Avatar
freelantzer  Female.gif freelantzer is offline
Hiding under Johnny's bed...
 
Joined: 4617 days
Location: ...waiting to pounce!
Posts: 3,587
Re: Oscars 2010

So what do you guys make of Return of the King's BP win?


__________________
BREAKING BAD
Unstable. Volatile. Dangerous. And That's Just The Chemistry.


Avatar from mcakeface
  #24  
Old June 27th, 2009, 12:59 pm
Klio's Avatar
Klio  Female.gif Klio is offline
Winning Teamster
 
Joined: 3905 days
Posts: 3,647
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by freelantzer View Post
So what do you guys make of Return of the King's BP win?
OK, here's my take.



Essentially, LotR was 'genre', and therefore a non-starter.

However, the production values were so stupendous, and the box office was so big that it was difficult enough to overlook it completely.

Once you actually saw FotR (and that's where the story starts), it would have felt more like a 'historical epic' than a 'genre movie'. Don't forget that fantasy was stereotypically thought as a genre that produces rather cheap-looking films. This was genre, but it *looked* like typical Oscar fodder. Well made, high-production value historical epics with good actors attached tend to be about as certain a bet for an Oscar nomination as you could ever have.

I think that's what paved the way. Don't forget that FotR was nominated for Best Picture, too - whuch emans that even then a significant number of Academy members had thrown over board their 'fantasy' prejudice in order to reward the 'Oscar bait' 'historical epic' look of the thing.


The way to Rotk's win continued with TTT. I was following the Oscar race closely that year, for obvious reasons. No-one (me included) gave TTT much chance for any major nomination. They would get nominated in every technical category going, obviously (as they were), but not for any of the majors. It was a 'middle film', after all.

And then, to everyone's surprise, it got a BP nomination. I think tht's when many people realised that it had a good chance to win the Oscar for RotK.

Why? Because there wasn't just a significant number of Academy members who had overcome the 'genre' prejudice - there was also a significant number who found it important enough to stick with LotR for another year.

It seemed likely that (assuming a good quality of RotK), they would use their vote one more time. Combine that with the predictable wave of enthusiasm for the grand finale of the trilogy, and that pushed LotR from the significant base it had ever since FotR (enough votes to get into the top five) to the win.


One factor is crucial here, too - note the lack of acting nominatiosn for RotK. The actors nominate the actors' categories - so they werent sufficiently impressed. But everyone votes for BP - and the sweep in nominations as well as wins would suggest that most other branches of the Academy were overhwhelmed by that stage.


So - I think that's how one might explain RotK's win. Without the nominations for FotR and especially TTT it would hardly have happened, IMHO.
Moreover, there needed to be an extremely strong incentive to overcome the genre prejudice. As we saw with Dark Knight, this hurdle is extremely high - but whether one likes the story or not, I think it would be difficult to argue that the LotR films weren't a jawdropping achievement of film making. And they just couldn't overlook it, it seems.


__________________

haiku by Silwe Elessan

Proud to be in Ravenclaw
I served on the campaign which got Hermione and Neville elected as co-ministers of Magic

Last edited by Klio; June 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pm.
  #25  
Old June 27th, 2009, 2:39 pm
lcbaseball22  Male.gif lcbaseball22 is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 3892 days
Age: 31
Posts: 5,657
Re: Oscars 2010

Hmm, I actually didn't know the first 2 received any Oscar nominations. I'd always thought they'd held off till the end and just showered RotK with all the awards and basically honor the entire trilogy. And I figured the same might come true for the Harry Potter film series, IF the final installment, Deathly Hallows, lives up to the potential of the source material. Although I admit I think splitting it hurts it's chances.

Of course, RotK was an excellent film too and probably deserving. I'd say it's in my top 10 of all time but I didn't expect it to win. And it didn't just win a few Oscars...it swept the entire friggen awards show, didn't it? With the exception of the acting categories, which I heard they were deliberatly snubbed in order to prevent it possibly winning every single award. Kinda lame, but that's the Academy for ya.


BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "genre film", Klio. Cause doesn't every film fit into a genre? Drama, Comedy, Fantasy, Romance, etc...those are all genres, aren't they? Of course, the Drama genre seems to be most favorable amongst critics and the Academy. Far as I know only 3 non-typical films have ever won BP- RotK obviously was one...and then Braveheart and Gladiator are the other 2 I believe.


__________________



I've been wrongly sorted into Gryffindor!
  #26  
Old June 27th, 2009, 4:45 pm
Klio's Avatar
Klio  Female.gif Klio is offline
Winning Teamster
 
Joined: 3905 days
Posts: 3,647
Re: Oscars 2010

LC, it's worth checking the slow (but very noticeable) accumulation of awards and nominations for the three LotR films to understand what happened with RotK.

Are you saying you were arguing about HP Oscar chances on the basis of what happened to LotR, without actually knowing the correct record of LotR awards? Because the record is very different, and in itself remarkable. I am not saying this as a LotR fan - I am saying this as an Oscar-watcher. LotR nominations in themselves set all sort of new records.... so it really doesn't compare to HP. Neither can it, really, because LotR was finished as a trilogy when the first awards season came round. Everyone knew not only that there would be three movies, but also when they were going to be released.

HP 1 came out when the book series wasn't even finished, so it should have been judged on its own merits, rather than people thinking about holding off to the last one.


Anway - it's also worth looking beyond Oscars if you want to understand the awards dynamics - note that nominations add to the buzz, and guild nominations (actors' guild, editors, directos, etc.) are also an important indicator, because those people show how the individual branches of the academy might vote.

FotR awards & nominations

TTT awards & nominations

RotK awards & nominations

And here are the Oscars specifically:
I am underlining the ones that REALLY made people watch out early on.... but note that cinematography, best adapted script and best score are also always nominations that get people's attention - they are more than 'mere techicals'.


FotR:
Won:
Best Cinematography
Best Effects, Visual Effects
Best Makeup
Best Music, Original Score


Nominated:
Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Ian McKellen
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design
Best Director
Best Editing
Best Music, Original Song
Best Picture
Best Sound
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

(13 nominations, 4 wins)


TTT:
Won:

Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects


Nominated:
Best Art Direction-Set Decoration
Best Editing
Best Picture
Best Sound

(6 nominations, 2 wins)

RotK:
won
Best Art Direction-Set Decoration
Best Costume Design
Best Director
Best Editing
Best Makeup
Best Music, Original Score
Best Music, Original Song
Best Picture
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay


(11 nominations, 11 wins)


Complete tally: 30 nominations, 17 wins.


As you can see, there was a LOT of momentum before RotK. Personally, I think there is no way RotK could have won all these prizes if it hadn't gained that certain sense of inevitability because of the earlier nominations.

Think about it

- for three years, LotR hogged the SFX prize, and it wasn't even controversial.

- FotR (!!) was nominated for 13 Oscars, which was some sort of record in itself, IIRC, and 13 noms/4 Oscars won is a respectable result under any circumstances - and that in spite of being the first part of a trilogy which had already been shot at the time and which already had clear release dates (unlike HP when it started).

- TTT was obviously a 'middle film', and still won two and was nominated for Best Picture. That particular nomination was probably the most remarkable indicator of them all. The Oscra Watch boards were completely floored by that one, I remember it well. This was just weird.

- By the time RoTk came round they already had six Oscars in the bag (and a further thirteen nominations, of those five major: acting, directing, score, 2 Best Picture), and somehow everyone felt that the Academy were still holding back because they wanted to wait for part 3.

I am not sure whether RotK really WAS the best film in all those categories it won. In some cases, I don't think it was, actually. But really, it was inevitable at that stage. The thig was so big, had done a few new pioneering things (SFX-wise, back-to-back filming, world wide release, internet marketing, just to name a few - those things are normal now. In 2001 they were unheard of, by 2003 they were industry standard).



Concerning acting prizes:
I wouldn't say that there was a deliberate plan to snub RotK for acting. There can't be a deliberate plan, you see, because the actors, individually send in nomination ballots. Thus, all talk about 'deliberate snubs' should always be dismissed immidiately. It doesn't hold up. The Screen Actors Guild actually gave them the ensemble prize, so they appreciated the acting - but there was no role that really stood out. It's an ensemble piece.

However, if RotK with its insane momentum couldn't get any acting nominations, in spite of the fact that actors demonstrably LIKED the acting as an ensemble piece, you can be sure that Harry Potter hasn't very much chance, either. Young male actors simply don't get nominated for lead role (if Radcliffe could do such a great job in DH2 that it might be an option) - but Harry, IMHO, is the only one who might have a part that's showy and substantial enough in DH2. No-one else will have enough screen time, IMHO, even for supporting parts.


Concerning 'genre' films

You are right, almost all films belong to a genre (and it is extraordinary if a film doesn't fit into any genre properly). That's why I used the inverted commas. It's shorthand for films of specific genres - superhero films, SFX, horror, fantasy.... that sort of thing.

Genres which, by definition, aren't valued as much by critics and awards bodies.

Any film of that kind has to have an extra-strong case to win the big awards.
Note that 'genre' movies do win technicals - the tech branch people who nominate in these categories often work on those films and appreciate them more easily. SFX, the sound categories, set, hair, makeup, editing - that sort of stuff. It gets trickier with score, song and cinematography. ANd the major categories (director, screenplay, acting, best picture) are almost impossible.


HP in some ways doesn't really fit any genre, either, but it seems to have been banished to the 'genre films' nieche anyway (and don't jump at me for saying this, I don't agree - I am just observing what seems to be going on).


I hope the lists above, and the fact that Dark Knight was pretty much snubbed, tell you what it takes to overcome the 'genre movie' label and actually win a Best Picture Oscar.


__________________

haiku by Silwe Elessan

Proud to be in Ravenclaw
I served on the campaign which got Hermione and Neville elected as co-ministers of Magic

Last edited by Klio; June 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pm.
  #27  
Old June 27th, 2009, 5:49 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5463 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by freelantzer View Post
So what do you guys make of Return of the King's BP win?
Like the truly awful Titanic the franchise had become too big to ignore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klio View Post
I hope the lists above, and the fact that Dark Knight was pretty much snubbed, tell you what it takes to overcome the 'genre movie' label and actually win a Best Picture Oscar.
London to a brick Heath Ledger wouldn't have been nominated had he lived.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #28  
Old June 27th, 2009, 9:33 pm
Klio's Avatar
Klio  Female.gif Klio is offline
Winning Teamster
 
Joined: 3905 days
Posts: 3,647
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
Like the truly awful Titanic the franchise had become too big to ignore.
yup!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
London to a brick Heath Ledger wouldn't have been nominated had he lived.
Absolutely. Although he'd been in line for one once he hit 45 or so.


__________________

haiku by Silwe Elessan

Proud to be in Ravenclaw
I served on the campaign which got Hermione and Neville elected as co-ministers of Magic
  #29  
Old June 27th, 2009, 9:47 pm
cardinalguy's Avatar
cardinalguy  Male.gif cardinalguy is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 4099 days
Location: Cardinal Nation
Age: 34
Posts: 829
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
London to a brick Heath Ledger wouldn't have been nominated had he lived.
IMO, he would have been nominated but wouldn't have won.


__________________
Official CoS sponsor of the 2015 NL Central Champion St. Louis Cardinals

I believe in a hill called Mount Calvary.
  #30  
Old June 27th, 2009, 11:59 pm
leah49's Avatar
leah49  Female.gif leah49 is offline
Ron's Pygmy Puff
 
Joined: 4080 days
Location: Weasley's Wizard Wheezes
Age: 36
Posts: 6,390
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klio View Post
Now, we never saw the bottom of the list, and we'll see it now.


Then the SAME people will vote again. Campaigning and the awards season can change the order of the list a bit, but I'd think that it would be hard for any of the films in 6-10 to move up to first place. That would presumably be a HUGE upset.... you have to think that those ten movies get a decreasing number of votes, and we have to assume that in most years very few movies (far fewer than ten) get an overwhelming number of votes.... which means that moving up from, say, 8. in the nominations vote to 1. in the Oscar vote (with the same voters!!) would be a HUGE upset.
It's not going to give a win to nos. 6-10, but perhaps having 6-10 there will effect who does win. Maybe 6-10 can pull enough votes away from what would've won with less competition.

You're discussing Return of the King. I think Lord of the Rings being a trilogy and being filmed at the same time helped it with its win. I am just one person, but I don't believe it was that good to win so many awards.

I pay attention to the Oscars, but I'm not that big into them. I'll watch them from time to time, but not every year. They're not that exciting to be honest. It's like everything else it's all political. You don't see movies sweep categories. Niche movies (I think like that term better than "genre" movies as you were using) don't win. I think what really needs to be taken into account is the popularity of the movie. Sure, it can be a whole bunch of fangirls like Twilight, but I think we can tell when a movie really has mass appeal and when it's just a bunch of fangirls and fanboys. Usually (but not always) the more mass appeal a movie has the less likely it will win an Oscar. I could be wrong, but it does seem that way.


__________________



I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3:14

My Graphics|Aftermath|Goodreads|My Blog
I may disagree with you politically, religiously, and/or on Snape but that doesn't mean I dislike you.

Last edited by leah49; June 28th, 2009 at 12:07 am.
  #31  
Old June 28th, 2009, 4:10 am
freelantzer's Avatar
freelantzer  Female.gif freelantzer is offline
Hiding under Johnny's bed...
 
Joined: 4617 days
Location: ...waiting to pounce!
Posts: 3,587
Re: Oscars 2010

Klio, thanks for posting the info on the LotR movies and Oscar. Very enlightening. I had also forgotten that FotR and TTT were both nominated for BP. I was surprised to see Ian McKellen nominated for FotR. It is very rare for a genre film to be nominated in a major category. Hopefully, the expanded BP category will give more of a chance for "unusual" nominees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
London to a brick Heath Ledger wouldn't have been nominated had he lived.
I disagree. I think he would have been nominated; don't know if he would have won, but I do think he would have been nominated because that performance was so transforming. They did nominate Johnny Depp for his role as Jack Sparrow, after all. Ledger's performance as the Joker is similar. Both actors completely transformed themselves.


__________________
BREAKING BAD
Unstable. Volatile. Dangerous. And That's Just The Chemistry.


Avatar from mcakeface
  #32  
Old June 28th, 2009, 4:52 am
lcbaseball22  Male.gif lcbaseball22 is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 3892 days
Age: 31
Posts: 5,657
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klio View Post
LC, it's worth checking the slow (but very noticeable) accumulation of awards and nominations for the three LotR films to understand what happened with RotK.

Are you saying you were arguing about HP Oscar chances on the basis of what happened to LotR, without actually knowing the correct record of LotR awards? Because the record is very different, and in itself remarkable. I am not saying this as a LotR fan - I am saying this as an Oscar-watcher. LotR nominations in themselves set all sort of new records.... so it really doesn't compare to HP. Neither can it, really, because LotR was finished as a trilogy when the first awards season came round. Everyone knew not only that there would be three movies, but also when they were going to be released.
Yeah, I admit I uncharacteristically didn't check the facts on this. I don't recall why, but I was under the impression that FotR and TT hadn't received any Ocar noms, let alone wins. But then again, I've never really followed the Oscars much. Can't say I watched before this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freelantzer View Post
I disagree. I think he would have been nominated; don't know if he would have won, but I do think he would have been nominated because that performance was so transforming. They did nominate Johnny Depp for his role as Jack Sparrow, after all. Ledger's performance as the Joker is similar. Both actors completely transformed themselves.
Yep, I agree Nominated, but possibly not won.


__________________



I've been wrongly sorted into Gryffindor!
  #33  
Old June 28th, 2009, 7:54 am
Klio's Avatar
Klio  Female.gif Klio is offline
Winning Teamster
 
Joined: 3905 days
Posts: 3,647
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by leah49 View Post
It's not going to give a win to nos. 6-10, but perhaps having 6-10 there will effect who does win. Maybe 6-10 can pull enough votes away from what would've won with less competition.
Possibly. With campaigning. Don't forget, it's the SAME voters, just two months later. Some voters change their mind on the basis of seing screeners and so forth. But it would still be Oscar bait at the top - perhaps more so, if the vote of those who won't mind genre films will be split.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leah49 View Post
You're discussing Return of the King. I think Lord of the Rings being a trilogy and being filmed at the same time helped it with its win. I am just one person, but I don't believe it was that good to win so many awards.
If you read my post you might notice that this is pretty much exactly what I said. Except that I think that it was pretty good. Though not the best movie in all categories it won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leah49 View Post
I pay attention to the Oscars, but I'm not that big into them. I'll watch them from time to time, but not every year. They're not that exciting to be honest. It's like everything else it's all political.
I haven't seen the show in years.
But I'd rather understand the politics behind it than get annoyed about decisions I don't like each year. It's easier not to be angry if you try to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leah49 View Post
You don't see movies sweep categories.
You don't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leah49 View Post
Niche movies (I think like that term better than "genre" movies as you were using) don't win.
You can't just redefine terms because you 'like them better'. These terms have a meaning, an while you can use them as you like, you can't be expected to be understood if you use these terms randomly. Niche movies are called that because they are not made for mass appeal - while most genre movies are made with tme mass market in mind. They usually defy genre, don't mind about intelligibility or ratings (=accessibility), or have some unusual features which somehow aren't typical things you'd do to attract a mass audience. They are usually small movies, often genre-defying movies, too. Few ever have a big budget (obviously, if they don't expect big box office). Once they have big box office they are hardly niche any more. I guess Passion of the CHrist could be called niche in terms of its movie-qualities, because it was completely in two foreign (and dead!) languages AND extremely violent. But obviously, its Christian theme brought it out of the niche. Apocalypto did the same thing witout the Christian focus. That really WAS niche. Still, some niche films, if they manage to attract attention, have more chance than your typical genre movie. It depends on what makes them 'niche'.

Very few genre movies could be described as niche movies (some are, but usually not the really big ones you'd think of - I guess Sin City could perhaps be called niche, because of its style). So, Harry Potter, Batman or X-Men are definitely not niche movies.




Quote:
Originally Posted by leah49 View Post
I think what really needs to be taken into account is the popularity of the movie. Sure, it can be a whole bunch of fangirls like Twilight, but I think we can tell when a movie really has mass appeal and when it's just a bunch of fangirls and fanboys. Usually (but not always) the more mass appeal a movie has the less likely it will win an Oscar. I could be wrong, but it does seem that way.
I don't think that this is true. Popularity is NOT a negative indicator.
Actually, it's a very recent phenomenon (last five years or so) that more movies with small box office made the list and even won. But the majority of films which get nominated for any Oscars at all will have big (though perhaps not huge) box office.

The problem with mass appeal is that in order to have huge box office many films are made to please particularly the male audience between 14 and 25. I am not sure what the Academy's average age is, but it can't be much below 50 - although it's definitely a pretty big majority of men.




I am always amazed how many people (not specificaly Leah) say 'I am not interested about the Oscars' and at the same time express some strongly felt grievances about their favourite movies not winning. I have to say, I can't understand how so many people complain that the movies that win are never any good. I see many films in the theatre, and the nominees usually make it into theatres, so I get to see them (often long after the Oscars are over). They are usually worth seeing. I think that sometimes they go for rather uncontroversial choices which aren't the best movie of the year (like last year's Slumdog Millionaire which really is a mass appeal feelgood movie with some problems once you look deeper), but most times, the five movies on the list tend to be good films in terms of story-telling, acting and (or)production values. SOmetimes they are weighty serious things, but there are also always films with entertainment value and mass appeal. But saying that, I still don't say that a movies have to have Oscars to prove that it is good. There are obviously far too many movies which are great and never get a look in.

Ultimately, it's usually not exactly the list I'd pick - but it's rarely a list worth being annoyed about.


It's a sensible stance not to care about the Oscars, really, it's a few thousand people expressing an opinion, but then it's a good idea to really not care about the outcome. And if you do care, it's a better idea to understand how they make those (sometimes balmy) decisions.


Funnily enough, I don't much mind the Oscars, or who wins, but I am very intrigued about the process - it's the political junkie view of the Oscars


__________________

haiku by Silwe Elessan

Proud to be in Ravenclaw
I served on the campaign which got Hermione and Neville elected as co-ministers of Magic

Last edited by Klio; June 28th, 2009 at 8:01 am.
  #34  
Old June 28th, 2009, 8:06 am
lcbaseball22  Male.gif lcbaseball22 is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 3892 days
Age: 31
Posts: 5,657
Re: Oscars 2010

Well, till now I've never really followed the race or watched the awards show. But I've watched quite a lot of the films that were winners and/or nominee's. I'd say I agree with the Academy about 80% of the time. Usually they pick incredible films, but occasionally there are some that have me scratching my head, like Titanic for example. While I think it is a very good film, I personally didn't think it Oscar caliber. And while I like a good drama, I'm always quite annoyed at how they tend to ignore the more popular action flicks, comedies, etc


__________________



I've been wrongly sorted into Gryffindor!

Last edited by lcbaseball22; June 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am.
  #35  
Old June 28th, 2009, 8:43 am
Klio's Avatar
Klio  Female.gif Klio is offline
Winning Teamster
 
Joined: 3905 days
Posts: 3,647
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 View Post
Well, till now I've never really followed the race or watched the awards show. But I've watched quite a lot of the films that were winners and/or nominee's. I'd say I agree with the Academy about 80% of the time. Usually they pick incredible films, but occasionally there are some that have me scratching my head, like Titanic for example. While I think it is a very good film, I personally didn't think it Oscar caliber. And while I like a good drama, I'm always quite annoyed at how they tend to ignore the more popular action flicks, comedies, etc
Yes. That about sums it up for me, too.

I think they like BIG films with grand emotions (Titanic as well as RotK)... although since RotK nothing 'big' and 'epic' has won, I'd say...

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
No Country for Old Men (2007)
The Departed (2006)
Crash (2004/I)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)

There were some really odd choices in the 1990s, when some companies (Miramax!!) perfected the art of campaigning. For example, Shakespeare in Love. I love that movie. It's a fluffy feelgood comedy with great production values. But the best movie of the year? You gotta be kidding me!


It was a great campaign, though. And it gave Judy Dench an Oscar for what seems like 5 minutes of screentime. You have to give it to the Weinsteins. They ruled the Oscars in those years!


__________________

haiku by Silwe Elessan

Proud to be in Ravenclaw
I served on the campaign which got Hermione and Neville elected as co-ministers of Magic

Last edited by Klio; June 28th, 2009 at 3:36 pm.
  #36  
Old June 28th, 2009, 9:39 am
lcbaseball22  Male.gif lcbaseball22 is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 3892 days
Age: 31
Posts: 5,657
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klio View Post

There were some really odd choices in the 1990s, when some companies (Miramax!!) perfected the art of campaigning. For example, Shakespeare in Love. I love that movie. It's a fluffy feelgod comedy with great production values. But the best movie of the year? You gotta be kidding me!


It was a great campaign, though. And it gave Judy Dench an Oscar for what seems like 5 minutes of screentime. You have to give it to the Weinsteins. They ruled the Oscars in those years!
Yeah, that was ridiculous and I don't care much for that film. Best picture should have def gone to Saving Private Ryan that year.


__________________



I've been wrongly sorted into Gryffindor!

Last edited by lcbaseball22; June 28th, 2009 at 11:08 am.
  #37  
Old June 28th, 2009, 3:44 pm
Klio's Avatar
Klio  Female.gif Klio is offline
Winning Teamster
 
Joined: 3905 days
Posts: 3,647
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 View Post
Yeah, that was ridiculous and I don't care much for that film. Best picture should have def gone to Saving Private Ryan that year.
I think so, too. even just for that incredible sequence at the beginning. People's opinions on what should have won are mixed - but I think most people agree that anything but Shakespeare in Love should have won!



Anyway - what does all this mean for the Oscars 2010..... I haven't yet quite a feel for the Oscarbait movies which usually all come out in November/December (and here in the UK often in January/February) five or more of these will come out of the woodwork and will make it, but we'll have yet to see what it'll be.

But of course, we haven't ever seen (or not for decades anyway) how the votes go below the top five. Still, IMHO (and as much as I like it) Star Trek is really no competition for Dark Knight in terms of quality, buzz and star power, and if DK didn't make the top five, will Star Trek make it? Doubtful, I think!



Up is another film with buzz. I haven't seen it yet.... I think it might have a better chance. People ave been feeling good about Pixar for a long time, and with ten movies on the list, perhaps more feel that it's OK to give their vote to an animated film, too..... I am curious whether it'll make it.

As for genre movies..... the summer isn't over yet, but in terms of critical reaction, box office success (not the biggest of the year, but a lot bigger than expected), and general buzz Star trek is the best bet at the moment. Will it make the list? I think only if the crop of the autumn/winter movies is rather on the thin side.


__________________

haiku by Silwe Elessan

Proud to be in Ravenclaw
I served on the campaign which got Hermione and Neville elected as co-ministers of Magic
  #38  
Old June 28th, 2009, 8:18 pm
leah49's Avatar
leah49  Female.gif leah49 is offline
Ron's Pygmy Puff
 
Joined: 4080 days
Location: Weasley's Wizard Wheezes
Age: 36
Posts: 6,390
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klio View Post
If you read my post you might notice that this is pretty much exactly what I said. Except that I think that it was pretty good. Though not the best movie in all categories it won.
Ah, I did read your post. I did not see that. My fault.
Quote:
I haven't seen the show in years.
But I'd rather understand the politics behind it than get annoyed about decisions I don't like each year. It's easier not to be angry if you try to understand.
Exactly. I don't get annoyed. I understand the voters are not twenty-something year old women.
Quote:
You can't just redefine terms because you 'like them better'. These terms have a meaning, an while you can use them as you like, you can't be expected to be understood if you use these terms randomly. Niche movies are called that because they are not made for mass appeal - while most genre movies are made with tme mass market in mind. They usually defy genre, don't mind about intelligibility or ratings (=accessibility), or have some unusual features which somehow aren't typical things you'd do to attract a mass audience. They are usually small movies, often genre-defying movies, too. Few ever have a big budget (obviously, if they don't expect big box office). Once they have big box office they are hardly niche any more. I guess Passion of the CHrist could be called niche in terms of its movie-qualities, because it was completely in two foreign (and dead!) languages AND extremely violent. But obviously, its Christian theme brought it out of the niche. Apocalypto did the same thing witout the Christian focus. That really WAS niche. Still, some niche films, if they manage to attract attention, have more chance than your typical genre movie. It depends on what makes them 'niche'.
But everything is a genre film because everything fits into a certain genre, so you have to go with something that is narrower. I don't like the term "genre film" being used in this situation because I don't think it accurately described what you're discussing. Maybe niche film is not the correct term, but I don't think genre film is either. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I do agree. I just didn't like the terminology. I'm not trying to redefine terms because I like them better. I'm not trying to redefine terms at all! All movies are genre movies.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I just thought the term you were using was too broad.
Quote:
I am always amazed how many people (not specificaly Leah) say 'I am not interested about the Oscars' and at the same time express some strongly felt grievances about their favourite movies not winning.
No grievance. I haven't really had any huge favorites lately that I've wanted to win which is why I haven't watched the Oscars much in the past few years, but that doesn't mean I don't pay attention.
Quote:
I have to say, I can't understand how so many people complain that the movies that win are never any good. I see many films in the theatre, and the nominees usually make it into theatres, so I get to see them (often long after the Oscars are over). They are usually worth seeing. I think that sometimes they go for rather uncontroversial choices which aren't the best movie of the year (like last year's Slumdog Millionaire which really is a mass appeal feelgood movie with some problems once you look deeper), but most times, the five movies on the list tend to be good films in terms of story-telling, acting and (or)production values. SOmetimes they are weighty serious things, but there are also always films with entertainment value and mass appeal. But saying that, I still don't say that a movies have to have Oscars to prove that it is good. There are obviously far too many movies which are great and never get a look in.
This is absolutely true. I just think that if a movie is selling tickets and always at or near the top of the box office it needs to get looked at, whether I like the movie or not. I think I may be mixing in my disdain for the Grammys with the Oscars, which isn't fair to the Oscars.


__________________



I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3:14

My Graphics|Aftermath|Goodreads|My Blog
I may disagree with you politically, religiously, and/or on Snape but that doesn't mean I dislike you.

Last edited by leah49; June 28th, 2009 at 9:02 pm.
  #39  
Old June 29th, 2009, 7:10 am
freelantzer's Avatar
freelantzer  Female.gif freelantzer is offline
Hiding under Johnny's bed...
 
Joined: 4617 days
Location: ...waiting to pounce!
Posts: 3,587
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by leah49 View Post
But everything is a genre film because everything fits into a certain genre, so you have to go with something that is narrower. I don't like the term "genre film" being used in this situation because I don't think it accurately described what you're discussing. Maybe niche film is not the correct term, but I don't think genre film is either. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I do agree. I just didn't like the terminology. I'm not trying to redefine terms because I like them better. I'm not trying to redefine terms at all! All movies are genre movies.
I think you two are using two different definitions of the term "genre." Leah, you're using the more traditional meaning of "genre" as "a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content" like drama, musical, comedy, etc. However, Klio is also correct in her definition of "genre" in relation to these specific types of films or television shows, for that matter. I've often heard the term used exactly the way Klio is using it.


__________________
BREAKING BAD
Unstable. Volatile. Dangerous. And That's Just The Chemistry.


Avatar from mcakeface
  #40  
Old July 29th, 2009, 11:58 am
lcbaseball22  Male.gif lcbaseball22 is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 3892 days
Age: 31
Posts: 5,657
Re: Oscars 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 View Post
Hmm, that's interesting they are expanding the ballot back to 10 nominees. And yeah, as with Ienjoyacidpops I too am annoyed they are doing this the year AFTER The Dark Knight

So, I'm looking at the list of films for 2009- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in..._2009_releases

Here are what I think are the potential nominees for Best Picture.

The "Typical Oscar Fodder"

The Lovely Bones (directed by Peter Jackson of LotR fame, should be interesting to see if he can make the genre switch)

Precious

Amelia
----------------------------------
Side Note- The next 4 films star Matt Damon

Invictus (The upcoming Nelson Mandela film directed by 4 time Oscar winner Clint Eastwood)

Green Zone

Margaret

The Informant
--------------------------------
The Road

Shutter Island (from Oscar winning director Martin Scorsese)

Nine (I don't know if musicals are typical, but there are FIVE Oscar winning Actor/Actresses in this...I'd say it has a shot )

Taking Woodstock

Julie & Julia

My Sister's Keeper

Public Enemies (director has 2 previous nominations)

Brothers

Avatar (I don't think this is necessarily typical material, but it's from the director of Titanic)





Longshots/Not Typical

Star Trek

Half Blood Prince (IF it lives up to it's potential)

Inglorious Basterds

Sherlock Holmes


Well, that's 20 right there (twice the number they'll nominate) Can you guys think of any others?
Somehow this one escaped me - But after watching the trailer, I'm adding The Time Traveler's Wife to this early Oscar potential list

Could go either (boom or bust) I gave my initial thoughts on the film here- http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=14


__________________



I've been wrongly sorted into Gryffindor!
 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 pm.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.