Oscars 2012

[Noldus]

Regardless of the quality, the title ("Harry Potter and...") pretty much ruined its chances before production started. You could have changed it dramatically and who knows? It could be equally if not even better cinematically, with emphasis on could. As I'm satisfied with what we got, I won't speculate about what could have been (for good or worse). I think Yates and co delivered a product so satisfying as a film and conclusion of the series that it's easy to give its shortcuts in adaptation a pass when evaluating the film as a whole. They didn't make the film to win awards, but sadly it seems you have to have that in mind if you're going to get nominated, hence the origin of the term "Oscar-bait". That's such a hypocritical and limited way of recognizing films. The AMPAS have demonstrated an unfair preference towards serious dramas with important subject matters, as exemplified by nominating the so-so The Help instead of excellent thrillers like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Drive.

Ultimately, to get DH: 2 a nomination in the big categories, adapting the book into one film would have been the starting point as well as bringing in a big name to direct. Or have David Yates direct, but credit Steven Spielberg and receive lots of noms.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by Wab

I fear that 9/11 movies may be the new Holocaust movies as Oscar bait.

Regarding DH2... I never expected it to get any major nominations in film categories. I did think a couple of Supporting Actor performances were legitimate Oscar bait. But I didn't really expect nominations, given the Ian McDiarmid snub in REVENGE OF THE SITH. (If ever a Supporting Actor in a fantasy film deserved a nod, it was him).

[Wab]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Pfft, the response of the critics and general public says otherwise.

Another difference between the general public and critics and the Academy is that, unlike the first two, the Academy has to consider every film, not just the homogenised Hollywood hokum leased in the googleplexes and popcorn palaces.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

Regarding DH2... I never expected it to get any major nominations in film categories.

Well as I believe I stated many times, I didn't either UNLESS it accrued over 90% positive reviews, which it did and then some, and when you combine those overwhelming reviews with the box office records, well to anyone in their right mind that would be too hard to ignore but the minds of the academy are clearly drifting in their own little world. I mean what makes Potter so different from Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Inception, and the other massively successful blockbusters that have been nominated and/or won in the past? Who knows.

I have to agree with Noldus though...if it had been one film and the director's name was more prestigious (like Spielberg or Scorsese...or heck Daldry, apparently they love him, he's 4 for 4 and all are mediocre films) then they probably would have looked more favorably on it.

Originally Posted by Wab

Another difference between the general public and critics and the Academy is that, unlike the first two, the Academy has to consider every film, not just the homogenised Hollywood hokum leased in the googleplexes and popcorn palaces.

Except the Academy shouldn't be all that different from the general public. Sure they may have some inside info or specialized knowledge but unlike critics it is not their job to evaluate films so they are limited by what they can watch in their free time, same as Joe Schmoe.
For whatever reason though the AMPAS have their biases. It's almost as if they meet together and conspire against or for certain films.

I mean how else do you explain this?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2- 96%, average rating: 8.4/10

Best Picture Winners of the Last 10 Years:

The King’s Speech- 95%, average rating: 8.6/10
The Hurt Locker- 97%, average rating: 8.4/10
Slumdog Millionaire- 94%, average rating: 8.2/10
No Country For Old Men- 95%, average rating: 8.6/10
The Departed- 93%, average rating: 8.2/10
Brokeback Mountain (’cause we all know this should have been the real winner) – 87%, average rating: 8.2/10
Million Dollar Baby- 93%, average rating: 8.2/10
Return of the King- 94%, average rating: 8.6/10
Chicago- 88%, average rating: 7.8/10
A Beautiful Mind- 78%, average rating: 7.1/10

Yeah, ’nuff said…

[Wab]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Except the Academy shouldn't be all that different from the general public. Sure they may have some inside info or specialized knowledge but unlike critics it is not their job to evaluate films so they are limited by what they can watch in their free time, same as Joe Schmoe.

No it isn't. The job of the nominating committee is to see every eligible film and distill from that a list which is then made available to voting members.

I mean how else do you explain this?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2- 96%, average rating: 8.4/10

Best Picture Winners of the Last 10 Years:

The King’s Speech- 95%, average rating: 8.6/10
The Hurt Locker- 97%, average rating: 8.4/10
Slumdog Millionaire- 94%, average rating: 8.2/10
No Country For Old Men- 95%, average rating: 8.6/10
The Departed- 93%, average rating: 8.2/10
Brokeback Mountain (’cause we all know this should have been the real winner) – 87%, average rating: 8.2/10
Million Dollar Baby- 93%, average rating: 8.2/10
Return of the King- 94%, average rating: 8.6/10
Chicago- 88%, average rating: 7.8/10
A Beautiful Mind- 78%, average rating: 7.1/10

Yeah, ’nuff said…

The difference is that all of them are better movies. I enjoyed the last 6 HP films but there's no comparison with the winners which have depth that was lacking in the HP movies.

If you don't like the system you can ignore it or stick to the Nickelodeon Awards.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Wab

No it isn't. The job of the nominating committee is to see every eligible film and distill from that a list which is then made available to voting members.

Do you honestly believe that say Eddie Murphy or Steve Carrell have seen all of the eligible films? I highly doubt it. You see, there is no "nominating committe", all of the members are mailed a ballot and if they so choose can vote in both the nominations and final awards. Perhaps a select few have seen all or most, but I'd hazard on average they see maybe 50 a year compared to hundreds for the critics. So again, it's not an everday job for Academy members to evaluate films. It's simply whatever they have got time for when they aren't busy making movies, and as such the Oscars are really more like the "Player's Choice Awards", which makes them pretty meaningless actually

The difference is that all of them are better movies. I enjoyed the last 6 HP films but there's no comparison with the winners which have depth that was lacking in the HP movies.

If you don't like the system you can ignore it or stick to the Nickelodeon Awards.

This is meaningless as it's pure subjection. The 96% approval rating with a very high average of 8.4 on the other hand is the best attempt we can make at objective reasoning and disregarding anything but the cold hard numbers the exclusion of the Potter finale is inexcusable.

BTW, this is laughable-

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/driv...s_nominations/

That rotten 48% sticks out like a sore thumb. Oh, and I guess this ridiculous new nomination process throws the 85+ BFCA rule of thumb out the window because THREE (yes 3) sub 85 films (War Horse, Tree of Life, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close) were nominated this year.

Nominated:

The Descendants - 92
The Artist - 91
Moneyball - 91
The Help - 89
Hugo - 87
Midnight in Paris - 85
************
War Horse - 80
The Tree of Life - 78
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - 66

Snubbed:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 - 93
Drive - 91
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - 87
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 85

[cgold]

The nomination of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is an embarrassment and disgrace to the oscars in my opinion.
I can live with every other nomination because there's some precursor for them but this just invalidates the quality of this award.
I strangely find this nom worse than the Tourist because at least everyone is aware of how the Golden Globes operates. How can you have this rated rotten movie on a best movie list when there have been so many, many movies with far more accolades this year. It is almost fraudulent.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

It's simply whatever they have got time for when they aren't busy making movies, and as such the Oscars are really more like the "Player's Choice Awards", which makes them pretty meaningless actually

If it's so meaningless why are you so bitter and twisted over the nominees?

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Wab

If it's so meaningless why are you so bitter and twisted over the nominees?

Because regardless of how meaningless they SHOULD be, they do mean something. For whatever reason the Oscars have been delegated the Superbowl of film awards. My question is, why not say the NBR who's been around for 103 years...practically since the advent of film.

Oh speaking of, the AMPAS fascination with Daldry's films (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Reader, The Hours, Billy Elliot) reminds me of the NBR's lover affair with Eastwood. I guess all groups have their biases...but maybe the Oscars should be chosen by the "experts"

[ccollinsmith]

I'm more annoyed with the Tinker Tailor snub than with DH2 not getting the nod. But snubs have always been a huge part of the Oscars. Think of them as bad referee calls that you get to complain about for many years.

BTW, since Oscar nominees are not selected on the basis of metrics, I'm wondering what relevance the metrics have. The Academy lends members copies of movies that the studios are pushing, and members typically watch them at home. I once watched an Academy copy of a Daniel Day-Lewis film when a member of the Academy lent it to a friend of mine.

At any rate, members of the Academy are not sitting around with spreadsheets comparing percentages in the Tomatometer. They're basically just watching movies at home in their leisure time. Of course, some of them will be more diligent in their movie viewing than others.

Regarding having "experts" select the films... The Academy is The Industry. The Industry is not going to outsource its award selection to journalists who write the reviews that feed the Tomatometer (if that's who you mean by "experts").

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

Regarding having "experts" select the films... The Academy is The Industry. The Industry is not going to outsource its award selection to journalists who write the reviews that feed the Tomatometer (if that's who you mean by "experts").

Major League Baseball does. The big awards (ie MVP, Cy Young, etc) are voted on by the Baseball Writers Association of America.

At any rate, the Academy should be more in tune with society and the critics.* Perhaps they should look at the charts to avoid making fools of themselves when they snub a film that got 96% approval (100% from Top Critics) in addition to becoming the 3rd highest grossing film.

Or making foolish decisions like Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan, Crash over Brokeback Mountain, etc. You know people make fun of the Golden Globes but in many respects (including those 2 cited examples) they have a better track record then the Oscars.


*If it were up to the fans-

A Separation
The Artist
Warrior
Hugo
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Drive
The Help
Moneyball

*If it were up to the critics-

The Artist
A Separation
Poetry
The Descendents
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Hugo
Drive
Take Shelter
Moneyball

You see, unlike the brainwashed Academy, critics and film fans aren't giving War Horse a pass just because Spielberg directed it, or a nod to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close because of some odd love affair with Daldry, nor to a recluse director who makes a "film" that lacks any remotely coherant or entertaining story and is really hardly a film at all but rather more fitting for an art installment. No, those spots would go to more deserving titles like Potter, Drive, and Dragon Tattoo. And as you can see, there's actually a good deal of overlap between the critics and film fans in regards to the 9 Best Films of the year. Perhaps the AMPAS members should have taken note of this...

[Hes]

I don´t want to read words like brainwashed here again. There are other ways of disagreeing with the Academy. Or maybe just ignoring it altogether and just enjoy watching movies.

And while we are at it, on CoS forums we bold our words, we don´t yell in caps.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Noldus

Regardless of the quality, the title ("Harry Potter and...") pretty much ruined its chances before production started. You could have changed it dramatically and who knows?

That is close to what A. O. Scott wrote yesterday. Whether it was the "F" word of "Fantasy" (Peter Jackson), the lingering memory of the Columbus films, or what, I do not think that it was ever being seriously considered.

Originally Posted by Wab

I fear that 9/11 movies may be the new Holocaust movies as Oscar bait.

That, and the Academy Dragon's soft-underbelly of vulnerability: sentimental goo!

People have looked, and it seems like this is the first "Rotten" film (courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes) ever nominated. The Blind Side came close a couple of years ago, but even that had nearly 70% favorable reviews at the time. One of the justifications for the expanded nominations was to get highly acclaimed popular films (like The Dark Knight or Deathly Hallows 2) shots; if nothing else, then having films people knew and liked would boost the ratings (as we saw with Lord of the Rings).

Instead, we seem to be getting more sentimental goo....

Worst.
Nomination.
Ever.


Drive, 50/50 and Martha etc. all would have been worthy noms. At least they actually got 8 BP (and one practical joke?): people expected the big field of "really good but maybe not quite great" films to cancel each other out and leave only 7 nominees, I think.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

People have looked, and it seems like this is the first "Rotten" film (courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes) ever nominated. The Blind Side came close a couple of years ago, but even that had nearly 70% favorable reviews at the time. One of the justifications for the expanded nominations was to get highly acclaimed popular films (like The Dark Knight or Deathly Hallows 2) shots; if nothing else, then having films people knew and liked would boost the ratings (as we saw with Lord of the Rings).

Instead, we seem to be getting more sentimental goo....

Because the new nomination process now favors passion...that's why sub-85 BFCA score films were nominated for the first time in 10 years. If a film was universally liked or even loved, but couldn't hit at #1 on ballots then it doesn't matter even if everyone had it in their Top 5. It doesn't make much sense, I know...but instead devisive films with a small percent of passionate supporters supplant the universally liked.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Instead, we seem to be getting more sentimental goo...

Well, the really good writers and directors are tending more towards big TV (cable usually) projects because they have more scope for artistic freedom.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

So with the mediocre and/or underwhelming Help, Midnight in Paris, Tree of Life, and War Horse along with the aforementioned Extremely Annoying and Incredibly Boring this is pretty much one of the worst set of nominees in recent years. I actually wouldn't mind an Artist sweep now; just saw it and at least it's pretty unique and well executed. Choosing it as the winner would somewhat rectify their poor judgement.

The way I see it, with any awards by any group, there's a subjective element (which itself changes depending on the voters' age, life experience, etc.). In my opinion, for example, Midnight in Paris was an excellent film -- well put together, lovely cinematography, solid performances, and a clever premise; and enjoyable to watch. But yet you felt quite differently. I think this happens in all voting groups/awards. And I'm disinclined to watch "The Artist" because it seems like it would be annoying to watch for me...while I no doubt would appreciate the creative element of it, I don't think I'd be able to watch it for very long. So there we have it in a microcosm -- voting will never be anything but an opinion that occasionally takes the facts into consideration. IMO.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

The way I see it, with any awards by any group, there's a subjective element (which itself changes depending on the voters' age, life experience, etc.). In my opinion, for example, Midnight in Paris was an excellent film -- well put together, lovely cinematography, solid performances, and a clever premise; and enjoyable to watch. But yet you felt quite differently. I think this happens in all voting groups/awards. And I'm disinclined to watch "The Artist" because it seems like it would be annoying to watch for me...while I no doubt would appreciate the creative element of it, I don't think I'd be able to watch it for very long. So there we have it in a microcosm -- voting will never be anything but an opinion that occasionally takes the facts into consideration. IMO.

It's not so much that Midnight in Paris is a bad film, it's not...it's a perfectly fine little film and probably the best of the ones that I singled out, but there was better to choose from. Of course, prestige rules the day with the Academy and I think it was really only chosen because Woody Allen finally made a worthwhile film again and they jumped at the opportunity to bring him back into the limelight*. Now as for The Artist, I really encourage you to give it a shot because I am by no means a fan of silent films and figured I would be annoyed by it much the same as you've presumed...and I was, for about the first 15 or so minutes but after that it really is a wonderful film...silent or not.

*Much the same goes for Spielberg, after messing around with another Indy film, producing Transformers, etc the AMPAS was vulnerable to even sentimental mediocrity by this legend. War Horse was good, but it's no Saving Private Ryan or deserving of any more then tech noms.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

It's not so much that Midnight in Paris is a bad film, it's not...it's a perfectly fine little film and probably the best of the ones that I singled out, but there was better to choose from. Of course, prestige rules the day with the Academy and I think it was really only chosen because Woody Allen finally made a worthwhile film again and they jumped at the opportunity to bring him back into the limelight*. As for The Artist, I really encourage you to give it a shot because I am by no means a fan of silent films and figured I would be annoyed by it much the same as you've presumed...and I was, for about the first 15 or so minutes but after that it really is a wonderful film...silent or not.

*Much the same goes for Spielberg, after messing around with another Indy film, producing Transformers, etc the Academy was vulnerable to even sentimental mediocrity by this legendary directory. War Horse was good, but it's no Saving Private Ryan.

If I recall correctly, in the beginning of his career, although directing very good films, Spielberg wasn't treated all that well by the Academy, it took ages for them to recognize him, let alone vote a win.

Sometimes the Academy is clearly making up for overlooking artists/directors for too long, and vote for a good, but not great, film to make up for it. And other years the field is packed with excellent performances and any way you look at it the system is inadequate in that sense (although the nomination is supposed to an acknowledgement).

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

If I recall correctly, in the beginning of his career, although directing very good films, Spielberg wasn't treated all that well by the Academy, it took ages for them to recognize him, let alone vote a win.

Well, this is a commonly held but mostly false belief...let me point out that Jaws, which was one of Spielberg's very first full length motion pictures was nominated for Best Picture, followed up by Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind which received a slew of nominations including one for Spielberg himself, a few years later Raiders of the Lost Ark was bestowed with nominations for Picture and Director and a slew of wins for its technical achievement, E.T. managed the same...should I continue? The only reason people say those things you noted are because Spielberg didn't actually win until 1994 with Schindler's List. But it's not like he was going unrecognized, and all of those mentioned prior to Schindler's are pointed to as anomalies in Oscar trends so it's no wonder they didn't win and a bit of a miracle they were even nominated!

Anyways, I feel the nomination for War Horse is the Academy rewarding him for returning to direct something better then Crystal Skull

And with the exception of The Artist and The Help, the field is dominated by prestige (Allen, Scorsese, Spielberg, Payne, Bennett, Daldry, Malick) and when you're up against these Academy favorites not much else stands a chance. Fincher was probably on the cusp but he made too dark of a film for the overly sensitive Academy. This article says it well- http://www.awardsdaily.com/2012/01/t...ont-look-back/

And so it was with this that the 2011 Oscar race dipped so deeply and distinctly into the nostalgia of the past it would be hard to tell what era we were living in. Films stripped of sexuality, stories about mostly white males – buttoned up collars, ladies in dresses – memories of mother, father, of the beginning and of the end. War horses from World War I, black maids from the Civil Rights South, Paris in the 1930s, Paris during the birth of film magic, Hollywood’s silent era, And then roaring forward to how it all looks like now – the echoes of 9/11, Baseball and what changed it – there’s Brad Pitt, sinewy biceps hugged by knit shirts, yet no hot sex in sight. There’s George Clooney as faithful sad sack to his unfaithful wife. His daughters need focus and he’ll provide it. But sex for either of the sexiest men alive? Forget it. There is no time for sex this year – not when you look back to then, not when you try to settle in to now.

At least when Martin Scorsese set out to make Hugo he specifically said he was making a movie his 13-year-old daughter would like. My own 13-year-old can’t decide which movie is her favorite of the year: Hugo or The Artist. These are movies made for her, all right. And the other seven too. What is it about movies lately? Is it the mood of the moment? Is economic uncertainty driving the box office to the economic security of “family friendly” films?

What is it about the Oscars lately? You know it’s an odd year when Alexander Payne’s most accessible film to date, The Descendants, is the only film in the Oscar lineup with ANY profanity in it.

And the Potter finale wasn't exactly "family friendly" either, was it?

The vanquishing of the Dark Lord is bittersweet really when you look back on all the bloodshed and characters who were killed off. Rowling didn’t play it safe like Tolkien where everyone lives happy ever after and virtually no important characters die. Aha, there we go…maybe that explains the difference of feelings by this group towards the 2; why LotR racked up nominations and wins while Potter got so little.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Well, this is a commonly held but mostly false belief...let me point out that Jaws, which was one of Spielberg's very first full length motion pictures was nominated for Best Picture, followed up by Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind which received a slew of nominations including one for Spielberg himself, a few years later Raiders of the Lost Ark was bestowed with nominations for Picture and Director and a slew of wins for its technical achievement, E.T. managed the same...should I continue? The only reason people say those things you noted are because Spielberg didn't actually win until 1994 with Schindler's List. But it's not like he was going unrecognized, and all of those mentioned prior to Schindler's are pointed to as anomalies in Oscar trends so it's no wonder they didn't win and a bit of a miracle they were even nominated!

Anyways, I feel the nomination for War Horse is really the Academy rewarding him for returning to directing something better then Crystal Skull

He wasn't nominated for directing War Horse. And The Adventures of Tin-Tin was snubbed in the animation category. And, he wasn't nominated for Best Director for Jaws or The Color Purple. Seriously.