Oscars 2013

[lcbaseball22]

I'm not making up things;[staff edit] Even if you align with the Academy and don't think they are BP material...well the Academy at least admits the screenwriting has merit. Anyways, I don't think we should start a thread til you at least revisit Memento.


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...

And the award for Best Cinematography goes to...The Hobbit:    

---

Granted that may not be a true representation, but if it's even half accurate of the cinematography it's probably a done deal. Personally I've found that the last few years the cinematography category has become of particular interest to me. BTW, Roger Deakins is the Hitchcock of cinematography and is still looking for a win from the Academy, though it probably won't come this year since his film is Skyfall, the latest Bond. Then again one of modern cinema's best (Sam Mendes, director of American Beauty and Road to Perdition) is directing this one and the visual quality of the teaser trailer from a few months ago is quite impressive... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ4dAY3DW4c

[Wab]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

And that may be the ultimate example of the Academy's irrelevance.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Heh, that is so not true and it's funny that the script is the one aspect of Nolan's films that the Academy seems to appreciate, having nominated him 3 times, beginning with his first feature length film, Memento. Subsequently for The Dark Knight and Inception.

So which is it? Is the Acadmey irrelevant or should be pay heed to its nominations?

[lcbaseball22]

Well, when a deserving nominee doesn't win (or isn't even nominated in the case of the director snubs of Chris Nolan) I just remind myself that the Academy has a history of horribly bad taste and choices now and then and even greats like Hitchcock couldn't snag a win from 'em.

Plus, when they nominate the picture and/or script but not the director, despite the fact that the director was also the writer and producer (as was the case with Inception) that's just hilariously non-sensical. Such is also the case when you look at the stats for the HP finale.

[SnapesBane]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Well, when a deserving nominee doesn't win (or isn't even nominated in the case of the director snubs of Chris Nolan) I just remind myself that the Academy has a history of horribly bad taste and choices now and then and even greats like Hitchcock couldn't snag a win from 'em.

Plus, when they nominate the picture and/or script but not the director, despite the fact that the director was also the writer and producer (as was the case with Inception) that's just hilariously non-sensical. Such is also the case when you look at the stats for the HP finale.

I think Wab was pointing out an alleged inconsistency in your rhetoric in the thread. You appear to show incredulity towards the institution because certain motion pictures aren't being nominated for prestige. It looks like you think the Academy is a celebration in obsolescence and irrelevancy, yet you want certain films to been shown the appreciation and reverence they deserve. I think that's what he means. Maybe it was a tacit approach to point this out or on-the-nose. Would you mind clarifying, Wab?

[lcbaseball22]

That is because no matter what we think of them, the Academy Awards are still considered the ultimate honor that a film, director, actor, etc can receive. I don't know how this came about but it's just the way it is...and for us the viewers it's nice to see our favorites validated.

The more I think about it though, it's like the Player's Choice Awards for baseball rather than the MVP and Cy Young Awards. I mean look, the voting is self contained and the professional critics who are supposed to be the "experts" on film have no say in the matter really and the Academy often ignores them and goes their own way. On the other hand, in sports and other facets of entertainment, the members of the press who view and/or write about such for a living are the ones who vote on the most prestigious awards. I'd like to see something similar when it comes to film. Or maybe...the public should be given more credence since afterall we're the ones funding the industry.

[SnapesBane]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

The more I think about it though, it's like the Player's Choice Awards for baseball rather then the MVP and Cy Young Awards. I mean the professional critics who are supposed to be the "experts" on film have no say in the matter really and the Academy often ignores them. In sports and other facets of entertainment however, the members of the press who view and write about such for a living are the ones who vote on the most prestigious awards. I'd like to see something similar when it comes to film. Or maybe the public should be given more credence since afterall we're the ones funding the industry.

The Golden Globes represent the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Critics vote.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

The Golden Globes represent the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Critics vote.

Yes, but the Golden Globes are merely considered a pre-curser to the Academy Awards and nobody really remembers who wins it or any other critics awards. The Academy Awards for better or worse and for whatever reason have the designation of being the only one that sticks...

[SnapesBane]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Yes, but the Golden Globes are merely considered a pre-curser to the Academy Awards and nobody really remembers who wins those or any other critics awards...

That's not really relevant. You lamented the lack of a prestigious organization handing out awards by the press. It exists. I personally like the Globes more because television series are present. I do not like the Academy Awards because it is the ultimate celebration of excess in the film industry. And watching those in Hollywood self-congratulate and engage in boo khaki is not something that's entertaining.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Or maybe...the public should be given more credence since afterall we're the ones funding the industry.

There are already countless popular awards.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

That's not really relevant. You lamented the lack of a prestigious organization handing out awards by the press. It exists. I personally like the Globes more because television series are present. I do not like the Academy Awards because it is the ultimate celebration of excess in the film industry. And watching those in Hollywood self-congratulate and engage in boo khaki is not something that's entertaining.

No, it's most certainly relevant and that's not what I said so let me clarify for you. You see, I lament the fact that other awards are not considered prestigious. There's a big difference, and it's in how the Globes are perceived by most; that it is 2nd rate, not taken seriously, and easily forgettable.

I agree for the most part with your sentiments on the Academy Awards. The whole thing is very internal and self congratulatory and yet the general public is supposed to care about the outcomes, like it's the Super Bowl of film.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

I think Wab was pointing out an alleged inconsistency in your rhetoric in the thread. You appear to show incredulity towards the institution because certain motion pictures aren't being nominated for prestige. It looks like you think the Academy is a celebration in obsolescence and irrelevancy, yet you want certain films to been shown the appreciation and reverence they deserve. I think that's what he means. Maybe it was a tacit approach to point this out or on-the-nose. Would you mind clarifying, Wab?

That's pretty much it; the rhetorical inconsistency.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Wab

There are already countless popular awards.

[staff edit]I'm not talking about an awards show such as the People's Choice awards where Twihards can flood the balloting. It would obviously have to be very controlled in order to have credibility, but yeah I know you get it...

Originally Posted by Wab

That's pretty much it; the rhetorical inconsistency.

If there's any rhetorical inconsistency it's on the part of the AMPAS

[SnapesBane]

Do you know what rhetoric means? The AMPAS doesn't engage in rhetoric. It votes on nominees to get the winners.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

Do you know what rhetoric means?

[staff edit] You see, if there is any rhetorical inconsistency it's due to the AMPAS making some really great choices but also some extremely poor ones with no logical sense behind them. So yeah, we love 'em at times and hate 'em at others. Personally I think their decisions over the years have been more good than bad, but they have some typical biases and it's time they step into the 21st Century and appreciate more popular filmmaking...

On a few film sites I post under username Reform the Academy! and I feel if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences dropped the average member age about 40 years and kicked out those who are no longer relevant to the industry we would see more bold choices and appreciation for a wider variety of film. But as it stands the average age of the Academy is over 60 and membership is for life

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

On a few film sites I post under username Reform the Academy! and I feel if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences dropped the average member age about 40 years and kicked out those who are no longer relevant to the industry we would see more bold choices and appreciation for a wider variety of film.

I agree, we might see films like Drive, Shame, maybe even Take Shelter or We Need to Talk About Kevin, get nominated, as well as more exposure to lesser known films from various countries like Tyrannosaur, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, or even Le Havre.

Edit: I mean in the context of the past, like last year, predicting this year at this point is tricky.

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Err, those aren't the sort of bold choices I am referring to

The Hunger Games is a bolder choice than the films I mentioned? I suppose I can be a bit more direct with some of this year's choices for fairer comparison... Magic Mike is one of the boldest choices the Academy could go for from this year, and it'd be a deserving choice given it's relevance to the current economic status of the country that Soderbergh manages to sneak in his commentary of, as well as a darker, serious character examination of people in a line of work that many would find morally questionable.

The Hunger Games has mass appeal, sure, but I don't see much of the boldness in it that demands the Academy to stop and give it as serious consideration as some of this year's films that will surely find a nomination like Moonrise Kingdom, which I haven't quite yet seen.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

and Drive was awful, but yeah I suppose some of those could sneak in too...

Err, to each his own, but why did you find it so awful? It made the vast majority of critics and bloggers top 10's last year, on top of being one of the best reviewed films, so it was a definite snubbing given the status of it's general reception.

[SnapesBane]

The Hunger Games isn't a good movie, though, in my opinon. It wastes any sort of potential to connect us to the characters. It doesn't on any deep level. It's technically amazing, though, but that doesn't make it good.

I recall the comparison made between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games. Battle Royale, while gratuitous with its violence, has more to say than the Hunger Games does. The characters in Battle Royale are miles ahead in characterization than Katnis and the others. What does The Hunger Games say about the plight of those children being forced into the arena that people can pick up on an empathize with? They had some scenes that showed a little bit of that, like the destruction caused by that girls' father in his district, but it wasn't played out. I want to blame the source material, but I've never read it so I can't

There's no way The Hunger Games is bold enough to warrant any consideration by the Academy except for cinematography, which wraps you into the games. It's a safe teen flick with nothing ambitious as things that have been nominated last year, like Tree of Life.

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Bold choices for last year IMO would have been Deathly Hallows and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

I concur with The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, it has both an appeal factor that captivated millions in it's source material, and it was a generally well recieved film from both audiences and fans of the book. It's subject matter and the execution was certainly unflinching.

I see in no way shape or form what is so bold about nominating a Harry Potter movie, IMHO.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

I want to blame the source material, but I've never read it so I can't

And that right there is the problem. While the film is an excellent adaption of a very difficult to translate to screen first person POV story and it stands on its own, there's no question that it was made for the fans and if you really want the full effect you'll have to read the book.

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

And that right there is the problem. While the film is an excellent adaption that stands on it's own quite well managing to portray first person thoughts on screen, there's no question that it was made for the fans and if you really want the full effect you'll have to read the book.

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.