Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 13:30:28 GMT
One reason I learned this is because of Sly Stallone not winning Best Supporting Actor for “Creed” (2015)
He was winning at every major award show. But during his Golden Globe speech on national TV he didn’t thank Ryan Coogler the director or Michael B. Jordan his co-actor.
So it was also during the #OscarsSoWhite trend. So the voters at the Academy didn’t give it to Stallone because of his controversy surrounding his speech. If he deserves it, then it’s about his acting not a damn speech.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jul 15, 2020 14:45:47 GMT
I would say it's because it's more politics than anything else is why they are mostly meaningless, especially lately. but with that said... they have nominated some top notch movies that the wide public likes once in a while (but I suspect it's mainly a attempt to get people watching their BS). but in terms of 'winners' many of those are suspect as more often there are movies among the nominee's in a random year that the wide public ends up liking more and the movie that won is largely forgotten. to give some examples where things are clearly screwed up in terms of winner... 2019... Parasite won. but should have been Ford v Ferrari/Joker/The Irishman etc. for the record... I thought Joker was average but I can't deny it's likely to have solid appeal among the wide public for years/decades to come and Ford v Ferrari is my #1 movie of 2019 straight up. 2012... Argo won. but should have been Django Unchained as it will be easily the most remembered/like movie as time passes from 2012 nominees. 1999... American Beauty won. but should have been The Green Mile as nothing else can even remotely challenge The Green Mile among the nominees besides 'maybe' The Sixth Sense, but I suspect people don't like that to a higher degree like they do with The Green Mile to this day. so I still think The Green Mile is the clear winner this year overall and in the long term as I suspect The Green Mile will still be a movie people like to a higher degree decades from now. 1998... Shakespeare in Love won. but obviously Saving Private Ryan is the clear cut true winner this year as Shakespeare was probably forgotten shortly after release. 1996... The English Patient won. but Jerry Maguire or Fargo (personally I think Jerry Maguire is the clear cut winner but I am acknowledging people seem to like Fargo to. so it's in the conversation.) are more of the obvious choices as I suspect The English Patient would probably be the 3rd option among the five movies nominated as the other two seem to be pretty obscure straight up. because while I don't know if there is a 'perfect' way for those awards shows to function, just off the top of my head, I would try to aim for public popularity/movie quality combo and what movies might have more long term appeal etc. but I realize even this is not something you can get perfectly accurate either (but I do think some years are pretty obvious though even as they happen on what movie will have more long term appeal and what will be mostly forgotten shortly after), but it's definitely a better basic attempt than the BS they use now where it's more about politics than movie quality/all around enjoyment for the most part. but one last thing... just looking at the Oscars from the 1990's to date, you can see lately the quality of nominees has generally declined as it's became more politics etc vs back in the 1990's, and maybe the 2000's on some level, you could tell they generally made better choices as I would say over the last decade or so things started to take a hit especially in terms of what movie won in relation to the nominee's. because while there have been some solid movies nominated from around 2010 to date, you can see in terms of winners things started to get skewed in the wrong direction vs say 1990's and probably a fair amount of the 2000's also etc just as a quick observation. but with that said... this debate will go on and on. but I guess for some people they like to check out what movies are nominated for Oscars that they might have never otherwise seen. but, at least in my opinion, they usually bring attention to movies that are pretty middle-of-the-road or so. but I have a feeling this skews peoples opinions overly positive in their favor just because they are nominated for 'Best Picture' (so people are "obligated" to give it a high score because they are told the movies are supposed to be better than average) even if the movie is pretty average/forgettable as many Oscar nominated movies are (hell, I would say the easy majority (if not vast majority) are forgettable especially in more recent memory). p.s. for those who want to quickly look at the 2010's Oscar nominee's/winner's etc can view it here... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture#1990s ; just scroll down
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 15, 2020 15:12:12 GMT
I wouldn't think the Academy cared all that much about his speech. Besides, he was up against a tough crowd that year. Rylance, Hardy, Bale, Ruffalo.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 15, 2020 16:14:50 GMT
So, the proof that Oscars are meaningless is because the actor you wanted didn’t win. Sorry, but that’s not a very compelling argument. Also, the reason you give – that his Golden Globes speech offended some people – seems to hint at the widespread perception that only a small handful of people get together to pick the winners and makes choices who they will snub or who will win. That is an erroneous perception. It is an election. The different guilds – Oscar branches – like actors, directors branches – chose the nominees. That’s people nominating their peers. Then, the entire voting population of almost 10,000 individuals cast ballots for the winners. As for mslo79 and the “politics” complaint, that is just boilerplate stuff that he puts up whenever the Oscars are mentioned. The “politics” the “decline in the quality of nominees” – well, that is all conservative dog whistle for “people of color are being nominated and winning displacing white people.” Also, he has a long section, again, “proving” that Oscars are meaningless because his own choices (which he claims are “clear”) did not win. The fragility of white conservatives is what is clear. Maybe, in some ways, the Oscars ARE meaningless, but not in any of the ways mentioned so far in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 15, 2020 17:11:51 GMT
That is the reason you came up with?
There are so many better examples of why the Academy Awards are meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 15, 2020 18:47:57 GMT
The Oscar voters watch other award shows with a list of everyone involved in each movie and they make sure the winner thanks all of them? What you're saying is nonsense, but it would be more tolerable nonsense if you had said "It's because Sly said something bad about them."
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 15, 2020 20:26:38 GMT
So, the proof that Oscars are meaningless is because the actor you wanted didn’t win. Sorry, but that’s not a very compelling argument. Also, the reason you give – that his Golden Globes speech offended some people – seems to hint at the widespread perception that only a small handful of people get together to pick the winners and makes choices who they will snub or who will win. That is an erroneous perception. It is an election. The different guilds – Oscar branches – like actors, directors branches – chose the nominees. That’s people nominating their peers. Then, the entire voting population of almost 10,000 individuals cast ballots for the winners. As for mslo79 and the “politics” complaint, that is just boilerplate stuff that he puts up whenever the Oscars are mentioned. The “politics” the “decline in the quality of nominees” – well, that is all conservative dog whistle for “people of color are being nominated and winning displacing white people.” Also, he has a long section, again, “proving” that Oscars are meaningless because his own choices (which he claims are “clear”) did not win. The fragility of white conservatives is what is clear. Maybe, in some ways, the Oscars ARE meaningless, but not in any of the ways mentioned so far in this thread. Mike dropped the mic.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jul 15, 2020 20:44:50 GMT
Sometimes the winners make no sense to me.
I don’t know what these people are thinking when they vote.
I don’t regard the winners as giving the best performances, that’s for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jul 16, 2020 4:11:48 GMT
Because 2019 was the first time a non-english language film was considered "in their eyes" the best film of the year. (Possible "technical" exception being The Artist)
They should either be "truly" international, that is have multiple non-English language films nominated every year (if deserving) and win regularly (if deserving) OR they should concede they are an American Awards ceremony similar to the country specific awards ceremonies just about every other country has and limit the scope to American films. The scarcity of nominations for non-English language films makes it appear tokenistic.
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Jul 16, 2020 4:24:35 GMT
Because 2019 was the first time a non-english language film was considered "in their eyes" the best film of the year. (Possible "technical" exception being The Artist) They should either be "truly" international, that is have multiple non-English language films nominated every year (if deserving) and win regularly (if deserving) OR they should concede they are an American Awards ceremony similar to the country specific awards ceremonies just about every other country has and limit the scope to American films. The scarcity of nominations for non-English language films makes it appear tokenistic. This I completely agree with. It’s possible that, with the bug push for diversity in membership over the past few years, we are beginning to see positive changes. Until two years ago no non-English-language film had won Best Director, and now we have two back-to-back, and last year saw Cold War doing well along with Roma. Parasite’s victory is nothing but a good thing imo - for me it’s the first time since Annie Hall that my actual no. 1 film of the year won the Oscar. Responding to the original post I don’t think Stallone would have won in the end anyway. He won the Golden Globe but wasn’t even nominated by the SAG or BAFTA - the only organisations aside from the Academy voted by the industry. And like Eddie Murphy before him, Stallone is mostly associated with a certain type of movie that doesn’t appeal to voters. Murphy was a much heavier favourite and he lost too. Also, it’s not like Mark Rylance came from nowhere that year - he had done very well in critics awards, won the BAFTA and was a highly respected actor in a well-liked Best Picture nominee.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 16, 2020 5:34:10 GMT
Sometimes the winners make no sense to me. I don’t know what these people are thinking when they vote. I don’t regard the winners as giving the best performances, that’s for sure. And maybe THEY are wondering what YOU are thinking liking someone other than the winner they voted for.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 16, 2020 8:32:17 GMT
Because 2019 was the first time a non-english language film was considered "in their eyes" the best film of the year. (Possible "technical" exception being The Artist) But the members haven't been the same ones for 90+ years. When a movie becomes the first to win something, it doesn't really tell us much. And like Eddie Murphy before him, Stallone is mostly associated with a certain type of movie that doesn’t appeal to voters. Murphy was a much heavier favourite and he lost too. If actors weren't chosen for being associated with certain types of movies, they wouldn't be nominated in the first place. Also, Sly appeared in a Best Picture winner, for which he was nominated too. In fact, he received the rare honor of an acting and writing nomination for the same movie.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 16, 2020 8:43:07 GMT
The entire concept of best art work is so subjective to begin with. Who judges?
Is the Mona Lisa a greater work than the School of Athens? If so, why?
Is Bach's Tocata and Fugue better than Beethoven's 9th? Why? You might be able to judge an artwork after 100 years, but deciding "best picture of the year" is entirely gimmicky and ultimately meaningless. Most winners are forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 16, 2020 9:45:26 GMT
The entire concept of best art work is so subjective to begin with. Who judges? Is the Mona Lisa a greater work than the School of Athens? If so, why? Is Bach's Tocata and Fugue better than Beethoven's 9th? Why? Film is a less subjective art form. You can tell when there is/isn't effort and creativity in the final product. Either you follow certain rules or you break them in a way that creates new rules. If you break the rules and it's clear that you're not aware, then you're not talented. You might be able to judge an artwork after 100 years, but deciding "best picture of the year" is entirely gimmicky and ultimately meaningless. Luckily, more and more award ceremonies have been created over the years. All kinds of people give their opinions and we can see how many of them match.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jul 16, 2020 9:51:39 GMT
Films are pretty subjective, too, in some ways. For example, some people are comfortable with 'shaky cam' filming all the way through a movie while others absolutely despise it. The Bourne movies do shaky cam, and it didn't really bother me until I thought about it. The Bourne Legacy movie with Jeremy Renner does NOT use shaky cam like that. They have a lot of short shots during a big chase scene but it's almost impossible to avoid that much. The rest of the movie lets you relax and just watch the characters without being jerked around so much. It's a matter of taste.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jul 16, 2020 10:48:14 GMT
If movies weren’t a matter of taste, film makers would know every single time if they were creating a blockbuster or a dud. Sometimes there’s absolutely no way to know. It’s a matter of taste and combinations of taste.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jul 16, 2020 11:18:17 GMT
Because 2019 was the first time a non-english language film was considered "in their eyes" the best film of the year. (Possible "technical" exception being The Artist) But the members haven't been the same ones for 90+ years. When a movie becomes the first to win something, it doesn't really tell us much. I'm talking about the institution as a whole. If in 90 years it's only once deemed a non-English language film "the best of the year" it's not an institution I'm personally going to put too much credence in when it comes to judging films. It may be changing, we'll see, but even in the past 5 years how many non-English language films have even been nominated for BP. As I said if they want to concentrate on US films, that's fine, but it seems like they want to have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 16, 2020 12:38:11 GMT
If movies weren’t a matter of taste, film makers would know every single time if they were creating a blockbuster or a dud. Well, if their priority is a movie that makes money, they may not focus on making something good.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jul 16, 2020 12:42:21 GMT
If movies weren’t a matter of taste, film makers would know every single time if they were creating a blockbuster or a dud. Well, if their priority is a movie that makes money, they may not focus on making something good. There’s that.
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Jul 16, 2020 13:55:49 GMT
It's always been like this. The academy judges actors not only by the quality of their performances, but also by their public persona and off-screen behaviour.
It's an open secret that Russell Crowe lost out to Denzel Washington in 2002, because of an incident when he threw a phone at a hotel employee.
|
|