• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

The Oscars (Academy Awards, Oscar, BAFTA, Golden Globes etc)

I really have to see all quiet on the western front and top gun ! I love Steven Spielberg but I am so lazy to see the fablemans!
 
Top Gun Maverick is fine, but its nomination (and Avatar’s too) was a just a bone tossed to those that say the Oscars is out of touch with audiences, in my opinion.
 
This was such a painful oscar season full of virtue signaling. Everything, everywhere, all at once? Best picture? Really?
Jeez. It's a fun movie, but it's hardly groundbreaking. Might as wel make the avarage Marvel movie best picture.

Banshees of Inishirin was greatly robbed of awards. The only movie to deserve the award for 'best picture'. Reason? Because I watched it without even thinking about what could be done better. It's a flawless film. It also had a far superior supporting actor than Short Round.
 
The oscars are all a panderfest, have been for years. I kinda watch to see what gets an award that isn't to the panderfest. I was happy that Brendon Fraser got his oscar, the man has been grateful and humble in every award he's been giving for the past few months, I enjoy seeing that.
 
zeonicfreak said:
The oscars are all a panderfest, have been for years. I kinda watch to see what gets an award that isn't to the panderfest. I was happy that Brendon Fraser got his oscar, the man has been grateful and humble in every award he's been giving for the past few months, I enjoy seeing that.
Click to expand...

Yeah but to be fair I dont think he was actually deserving of the oscar. As good as he was I think Colin was just simply better.

But Brendan is just the nicest guy so I'll let this one slide lol.
 
I appreciate that Everything Everywhere swept everything, because you can tell the media covering it were baffled it had even got to that point. Unlikely actors got their just due. And besides...it's Short Round, faneditors here spend a lot of time on Temple of Doom, rofl.

Angela Basset being a sore loser told an even more convincing story than Wakanda Forever ever did. Cope and seeth. The MCU phase four downfall is complete.
 
Remember feeling rather indifferent to "Everything, Everywhere" (the only film of this awards season I've watched) when I went to see it, though there was much I could respect it just didn't particularly affect me. Probably didn't help to have high expectations after all the great reviews, and the fact that I went to see it right before attending a showing of the immortal "RoboCop"!
 
I thought the best movies I saw in 2022 were bardo and banshee - easily! But yeah the academy seems to be staying away from artsy for the big awards. I haven’t seen on the western front yet, but even that looks like a better choice. Nothing against everything, it was a breath of fresh air and a very fun movie - but not the best picture.
 
One final thought - most of my coworkers and family and frimds watch about 10 movies a year if I had to guess - and it’s usually the big blockbuster movies. We here are movie obsessed and if we want the film industry to continue we have to accept taht it’s the casual movie watchers that will save the movie industry. So maybe these awards are just to keep casual movie watchers interested - if they gave the awards to artsy movies that nobody watched it will only push away them away even more. And I think that steaming series at home have stolen away too much of the audience.
 
Ke-Huy-Quan.jpg


Can’t be upset about this.

We should remember that these awards are industry awards that almost every industry gives out. I have a few for marketing. Obviously the Oscars is higher profile but it’s really the same concept. And any industry has its politics, etc. I don’t think it’s something to get too worked up over.
 
DonkeyKonga said:
This was such a painful oscar season full of virtue signaling. Everything, everywhere, all at once? Best picture? Really?
Jeez. It's a fun movie, but it's hardly groundbreaking. Might as wel make the avarage Marvel movie best picture.

Banshees of Inishirin was greatly robbed of awards. The only movie to deserve the award for 'best picture'. Reason? Because I watched it without even thinking about what could be done better. It's a flawless film. It also had a far superior supporting actor than Short Round.
Click to expand...

Speaking generally: awards are voted on by the people within that industry. If they want to see some people who've been overlooked far too long get their due, what's the problem? I don't fault awards voters for "virtue signalling" rather than the alternative: checking any virtue at the door and awarding douchebags who are misogynistic or racist or predators or just jerks to work with. All things being equal, sure, I'd award based on virtue rather than award a jerk, too.

Getting specific: so many of the films come down to taste. Everything Everywhere might not have been for some people, but it's hard to say there's ever been a film like it that won Best Picture. It's groundbreaking in terms of casting, story, technique, and so many other ways that if it needs explanation, I wouldn't even know where to start.

Personally, some of my favorite films weren't even nominated, and I never like to see the lion's share of awards heaped on just 2 or 3 films. But I'm not going to disparage the winners just because I preferred some other ones. Art is subjective, and I don't need my personal taste to "win". No film is owed anything, so no film gets "robbed".

Besides, it's cooler to have your favorites not be the majority favorite anyway, right?
 
People who get upset that the Best Picture award goes to the movie they didn't personally think was the best seem to think that the Oscars are in some way an objective statement of what "best" means. Everyone doesn't have to have the same favorite color, or food, or movie.
 
mnkykungfu said:
Speaking generally: awards are voted on by the people within that industry. If they want to see some people who've been overlooked far too long get their due, what's the problem? I don't fault awards voters for "virtue signalling" rather than the alternative: checking any virtue at the door and awarding douchebags who are misogynistic or racist or predators or just jerks to work with. All things being equal, sure, I'd award based on virtue rather than award a jerk, too.

Getting specific: so many of the films come down to taste. Everything Everywhere might not have been for some people, but it's hard to say there's ever been a film like it that won Best Picture. It's groundbreaking in terms of casting, story, technique, and so many other ways that if it needs explanation, I wouldn't even know where to start.

Personally, some of my favorite films weren't even nominated, and I never like to see the lion's share of awards heaped on just 2 or 3 films. But I'm not going to disparage the winners just because I preferred some other ones. Art is subjective, and I don't need my personal taste to "win". No film is owed anything, so no film gets "robbed".

Besides, it's cooler to have your favorites not be the majority favorite anyway, right?
Click to expand...
How is it groundbreaking in storytelling? It's a basic multiverse storyline. We've seen marvel do it the same year. If this deserves it then any jack chan movie deserves it tbh.
 
DonkeyKonga said:
How is it groundbreaking in storytelling? It's a basic multiverse storyline. We've seen marvel do it the same year. If this deserves it then any jack chan movie deserves it tbh.
Click to expand...

To answer you specifically about storytelling: the film lays out inter-generational family trauma along with mid-life identity crises and cultural confrontations about what's traditionally considered "strength" or "success". Then it flips to a sci-fi story whose multi-versality references films as varied as Buckaroo Banzai and the works of Wong Kar Wai and Pixar. Each different universe is actually lit and shot differently, much less performed differently. And if you can name any other "basic multiverse" movie that takes 5 minutes to have the characters have a subtitled philosophical conversation on the meaning of life while they exist as motionless rocks, I'd sure like to know.

None of that is "virtue-signalling", that's just gutsy cinema.

Equating this to a Jackie Chan movie is mind-boggling to me (and kinda racist? Like "any" Jackie Chan movie is all the same??) Same for Marvel. They squandered all the "multi-verse" ideas and did the old Star Trek evil flip of a familiar character in the Dr. Strange sequel while featuring a one-other-verse of predictable, bland backgrounds. I'm not really invested in turning this into some kind of "Let me teach you about cinema" moment though, so I'll let others chime in if they want to note other ways the film broke ground.
 
mnkykungfu said:
To answer you specifically about storytelling: the film lays out inter-generational family trauma along with mid-life identity crises and cultural confrontations about what's traditionally considered "strength" or "success". Then it flips to a sci-fi story whose multi-versality references films as varied as Buckaroo Banzai and the works of Wong Kar Wai and Pixar. Each different universe is actually lit and shot differently, much less performed differently. And if you can name any other "basic multiverse" movie that takes 5 minutes to have the characters have a subtitled philosophical conversation on the meaning of life while they exist as motionless rocks, I'd sure like to know.

None of that is "virtue-signalling", that's just gutsy cinema.

Equating this to a Jackie Chan movie is mind-boggling to me (and kinda racist? Like "any" Jackie Chan movie is all the same??) Same for Marvel. They squandered all the "multi-verse" ideas and did the old Star Trek evil flip of a familiar character in the Dr. Strange sequel while featuring a one-other-verse of predictable, bland backgrounds. I'm not really invested in turning this into some kind of "Let me teach you about cinema" moment though, so I'll let others chime in if they want to note other ways the film broke ground.
Click to expand...
OK I'll admit the Jackie Chan comparison was a bad look lol. It reeks like that black panther best picture nomination. It's a fun movie, but yes there are multi verse stories. Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse, Multiverse of Madness, Spider-Man no way home.
It was a fun movie, but there are plenty of scenes that are hardly world class cinema. (looking at you, butt plug fight)
Having a rock monologue does not equate to a masterpiece. This isn't Parasite lol.
 
DonkeyKonga said:
OK I'll admit the Jackie Chan comparison was a bad look lol. It reeks like that black panther best picture nomination. It's a fun movie, but yes there are multi verse stories. Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse, Multiverse of Madness, Spider-Man no way home.
It was a fun movie, but there are plenty of scenes that are hardly world class cinema. (looking at you, butt plug fight)
Having a rock monologue does not equate to a masterpiece. This isn't Parasite lol.
Click to expand...
Sometimes being awarded "best film" doesn't mean you have the objectively, indisputably, highest-quality cinema product possible. Sometimes it means people liked it more or thought it was important for the time, sometimes it means other things.
 
addiesin said:
Sometimes being awarded "best film" doesn't mean you have the objectively, indisputably, highest-quality cinema product possible. Sometimes it means people liked it more or thought it was important for the time, sometimes it means other things.
Click to expand...
Well that's where I disagree with the oscars I guess. The quality should always be the benchmark imo. A better solution would be a 'most fun' catagory I guess, which everywhere would be absolutely qualified to win. But that doesn't make it the most impressive piece of cinema.

Otherwise Hot Fuzz should've also won best picture back in the day lol.
 
Harrison Ford looked and sounded ooooollllllllldddd. I think there is going to have to be a lot of CGI body doubles and/or puppeteers operating him, if he's still going to be the action star in his new Indy movie.
 
TM2YC said:
Harrison Ford looked and sounded ooooollllllllldddd. I think there is going to have to be a lot of CGI body doubles and/or puppeteers operating him, if he's still going to be the action star in his new Indy movie.
Click to expand...

I think most people arent holding their breaths for the new indy movie.
 
DonkeyKonga said:
Well that's where I disagree with the oscars I guess. The quality should always be the benchmark imo. A better solution would be a 'most fun' catagory I guess, which everywhere would be absolutely qualified to win. But that doesn't make it the most impressive piece of cinema.

Otherwise Hot Fuzz should've also won best picture back in the day lol.
Click to expand...
This has been a discussion point for probably as long as the Oscars have been around. It's a vote and the people voting have specific criteria they meet to qualify, but they aren't unbiased and are not primarily critics. Most of them, one must assume, have not even watched all the nominations.

As far as the most fun movie idea, in the past few years they tried to add the Popular Film category which is basically what you're describing, an Oscar acknowledging that people enjoy blockbusters. But that was not a well received idea so they stopped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom