Starting a 2015 Oscar Thread

[Printer Bandit]

i take it you have never seen Savage Grace?

It has Eddie Redmayne, too.
http://youtu.be/lm5hxpeNOQQ

 

[purbeast0]

They aren't really personal opinions, but are, initially, generally based on rather quantifiable metrics that first gauge technical quality. Different stories certainly trigger individual's different taste, but it is a collective taste that is represented by the Academy, and this is why there is voting.

It couldn't be more different from the Grammy's, which is essentially the handful of recording studios patting themselves on the back. The Academy, while it certainly represents the interests of the film studios, isn't the studios. Oscar voting is done by Academy members, which includes not only executives, but also peers (directors, actors, writers), veterans and critics. The Grammys do not operate this way.

The Academy, overall, certainly has its tastes (which can make the choices somewhat predictable: Birdman was pretty much a shoe-in, for example, because it was about the film industry), but you can't always assume that one film will win simply because it sold the most tickets--though Best Picture does tend to favor high box office sales more often than it does not.

is there a quantifiable list as to what these metrics are?

 

[MongGrel]

American Sniper was terrible; glad it barely won anything. Same with Boyhood. Very happy to see Birdman and Budapest Hotel win so many awards.

I got 18/24 on my ballot. Feel ok with that. :hmm:

KT

+1, and Whiplash.

 

[zinfamous]

is there a quantifiable list as to what these metrics are?

A list?

Not sure if one exists, but if you have ever spent time studying how film is made, then it becomes very easy to spot.

I'm talking about basics of scriptwriting, general story craft (what you expect from strong characters vs weak characters), to the very technical: editing, mise en scene/lighting/camera work/set design, etc...

A lifetime of watching and understanding film, one understands what separates the good, from the bad, and from the merely mediocre. This is their industry, so they tend to know what they are doing.

It's no different from how anyone within their own particular industries can gauge quality work over shit work.

 

[purbeast0]

A list?

Not sure if one exists, but if you have ever spent time studying how film is made, then it becomes very easy to spot.

I'm talking about basics of scriptwriting, general story craft (what you expect from strong characters vs weak characters), to the very technical: editing, mise en scene/lighting/camera work/set design, etc...

A lifetime of watching and understanding film, one understands what separates the good, from the bad, and from the merely mediocre. This is their industry, so they tend to know what they are doing.

It's no different from how anyone within their own particular industries can gauge quality work over shit work.

i gotcha. i still think it's dumb, but i realize it's just a very small subset of movies then to meet those requirements.

i don't go into a movie like "American Sniper" expecting to compare it to a movie like "Major Payne", even though they are both movies about war. and i know they aren't even trying to be similar to each other in any sense.

there is a big difference between what is "good" and what is "bad" imo. it's the same with video games to me.

i love a game like geometry wars, but to compare it to something like uncharted is pointless since they aren't trying to be building a game on the same criteria. i just feel movies are the same way.

 

[dainthomas]

You did say that, right here:





No mention of patriotism whatsoever, and no possible other context to view your comments. However did you think that someone could read into what you wrote and think that you had anything to say about how patriotic the movie is?

If you think there should be a "most patriotic film" Oscar, then by all means lobby them for it. Until then, just because a film makes your patriotic heart go all aflutter, it doesn't mean it deserves an Oscar. Just like when I was in single figures, I would have recommended Mark Hamill for an Oscar because Luke Skywalker was FREAKING AWESOME.

I think he was basically saying that people kept going out to see this movie week after week, indicating that positive word of mouth was inciting more people to go. He's not saying it should win any awards, just that it resonated with a lot of people who went to see it.

 

[zinfamous]

i gotcha. i still think it's dumb, but i realize it's just a very small subset of movies then to meet those requirements.

i don't go into a movie like "American Sniper" expecting to compare it to a movie like "Major Payne", even though they are both movies about war. and i know they aren't even trying to be similar to each other in any sense.

there is a big difference between what is "good" and what is "bad" imo. it's the same with video games to me.

i love a game like geometry wars, but to compare it to something like uncharted is pointless since they aren't trying to be building a game on the same criteria. i just feel movies are the same way.

Agreed, and I think you made two good examples of how there are clearly noticeable differences among types of films. The Oscars is about the Academy's "accepted" formula for gauging what they see as good films. They were established ahead of Hollywood's "golden age," and have been around long enough to more or less set the standard in the industry world-wide. The good thing is that they have a tolerance for film that breaks the rules, as long as it's well-made and has something to say. Truly subversive stuff never makes their radar, though (Sorry, Ken Russell, Antonioni, etc...)

I think video games are really starting to hit that point where they are starting to do some seriously artistic things--the way we perceive reality, ways of solving problems. It would be nice to see an established, legitimate, "Academy" that manages to set a standard for high achievement in the field. You know, flawed but well-produced titles will still win: Dragon Age, Inquisition (Braveheart), but there is still room for the small, great, and inventive work: Two Brothers (Birdman).

 

[lupi]

sucks that keaton didn't win. other than that all the results seemed fine. Looks like budapest cleaned up most of the minor stuff and birdman took the tops with outliers here and there.

 

[zinfamous]

sucks that keaton didn't win. other than that all the results seemed fine. Looks like budapest cleaned up most of the minor stuff and birdman took the tops with outliers here and there.

yeah, I really wanted Keaton to take it--or even Cooper--but especially Keaton.

Glad though, that Birdman and Budapest got the bulk. Also happy for Arquette. Say what you will about Boyhood, but she was that flick.

 

[MongGrel]

yeah, I really wanted Keaton to take it--or even Cooper--but especially Keaton.

Glad though, that Birdman and Budapest got the bulk. Also happy for Arquette. Say what you will about Boyhood, but she was that flick.

I would have liked to have seen Keaton get it myself, but still have to even see The Theory of Everything.

My wife enjoyed it I was tired and fell asleep, still need to.

She even told me I probably wouldn't like it, but she's usually still not right movie wise on my tastes on movies sometimes i guess, she said it was a bit chick flicky

I hadn't even watched Boyhood, I've been shying away from that, but Arquette I had seen pretty much made that movie, and wasn't a category she looked she had a lot of competition in there, though I thought Kieara in Imitation Game did a good job.

I really liked The Imitation Game a lot myself, but it really wasn't strong enough compared to the others overall to pull in more than it did, IMHO.

It did seem a pretty balanced outcome to me.

 

[zinfamous]

I really liked The Imitation Game myself a lot myself, but it really wasn't strong enough compared to the others overall to pull in more than it did, IMHO.

It did seem a pretty balanced outcome to me.

Arquette was basically pushed to supporting actress, for no real reason, because the field was weak. It also helped to ensure that Moore would finally get the nod at best lead, which she has deserved several times.

It truly was a weak-ass year overall, and you can pretty much label the Moore/Arquette nods as career honors, and the categories were more or less set up to make that happen.

Any other year, Arquette would have been in the leading actress category. Think about it: Judi Dench, I think, won supporting for ~2 minutes of screen time. That old dude in Into the Wild won it for a single scene, of around 3 minutes screen time. Some actress, whom I forget, won best lead actress, recently, for ~15 minutes screen time? something absurd...was it the mom from The Fighter? :hmm:

anyway, there were some real shenanigans going on with making sure people got some statues this year, lol.

 

[dr150]

Can't believe nobody's brought this up. Travolta acting like lech.

 

[zinfamous]

Can't believe nobody's brought this up. Travolta acting like lech.

OMG!

The internet just may free Russia! :awe:

 

[MongGrel]

I think Paratus put it up in the Hume thread more or less earlier.

Is an odd one.

 

[dr150]

Poor Michael Keaton putting his acceptance speech away after losing. Gotta feel for him. He deserved the sympathy vote for being in the biz for a long time!
https://vine.co/v/OQwTawxZhI0


Johansson wasn't enough.....Now it's Cumberbatch as his next victim.

 

[MongGrel]

Poor Michael Keaton putting his acceptance speech away after losing. Gotta feel for him. He deserved the sympathy vote for being in the biz for a long time!
https://vine.co/v/OQwTawxZhI0


Johansson wasn't enough.....Now it's Cumberbatch as his next victim.

:sneaky:

 

[zinfamous]

that shit is gold!

 

[StrangerGuy]

I came here to do one thing.

SUCK IT BOYHOOD AND YOUR TWELVE YEARS OF LAME! Ahahahahaha.

 

[KeithTalent]

I came here to do one thing.

SUCK IT BOYHOOD AND YOUR TWELVE YEARS OF LAME! Ahahahahaha.

Hahaha.

KT