|
Post by politicidal on Jun 11, 2019 23:59:06 GMT
The unnamed person remains unidentified but he is described as being a director. Anybody wanna play a game and take a guess who it is? I'll go with Ridley Scott.
TEXT:
First Man should have been nominated for Best Picture — it probably came in ninth or tenth — and its visual effects are pretty amazing. I think they were produced more on a stage — with models and old-school stuff — than the other nominees', which relied more on CGI, and I really respect that. There's just no way on earth that I will ever vote for anything with the word Avengers in the title; like a lot of people in the Academy, I don't respect money-grabs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 0:43:47 GMT
Two things come to mind: 1) he's announcing his prejudice, which is really too bad because how are filmmakers expected to work through knowing there's a man on the inside proudly working against them, and 2) there were eight nominees; there could have easily been ten like the past 10 years, but that's not any of the best nominee's fault. If he's in the academy, then if anything, it's his fault.
Considering that Hollywood, the film industry and the Oscars operate on a clockwork machinery made of money, I'd be curious to know who within that industry is calling it out for cash-grabs. Big words for a member of the Academy. Forget throwing stones from a glass house, that's throwing stones at the walls from the inside.
First Man was awesome. It could have easily been a nominee. There was room. But I don't respect this guy's bias at all.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 12, 2019 0:50:48 GMT
I did not care for First Man that much;it was certainly a technical achievement but I found it dull. But it had a lot the Academy likes so I was surprised it didn't get nominated. And as you said, that's on the voters. Not Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jun 12, 2019 0:50:54 GMT
The hard rhymer can't show his face? I don't respect a coward.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jun 12, 2019 4:12:56 GMT
The hard rhymer can't show his face? I don't respect a coward. Guys like summers8 would take that cowardly BS as absolute fact even if that guy turned out to be Adolf Hitler who somehow managed to survive after several decades.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 12, 2019 5:32:17 GMT
Clint Eastwood
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jun 12, 2019 5:54:25 GMT
Agree with the voter, Avengers movies are for MTV Awards, not the Oscars. Director is Oliver Stone.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Jun 12, 2019 8:52:54 GMT
Was First Man made without the intention of making money?
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Jun 12, 2019 8:57:15 GMT
How is CGI less valid as an art form than "models and old-school stuff?"
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 12, 2019 9:59:24 GMT
Oh well a coward admits to being biased...who gives a fuck?
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 12, 2019 11:53:18 GMT
2) there were eight nominees; there could have easily been ten like the past 10 years, but that's not any of the best nominee's fault. If he's in the academy, then if anything, it's his fault.
Actually since the 10 nomination option was introduced in 2009 there have only been 10 nominees in two years (2009 & 2010). There is a threshold number of votes, any film that get over that threshold of votes is a nominee...there have been less than 10 reaching that number most years.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 12, 2019 13:24:02 GMT
In this guy's defense, the mob would eat him alive. He's getting his point across without the bullshit. Cowardly? Maybe. But shoot...who wants to deal with that bullshit? Also, he's not exactly wrong, whoever he is. Actually, he is wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with using newer technology to make a movie. Walt Disney himself was constantly looking for innovative film making techniques. Let's be honest: the CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park sold the animals far better than old school stop motion could've. Also, plenty of movies use CGI to enhance their sets and are still nominated. So what exactly is the big deal?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 12, 2019 14:45:07 GMT
Two things come to mind: 1) he's announcing his prejudice, which is really too bad because how are filmmakers expected to work through knowing there's a man on the inside proudly working against them, and 2) there were eight nominees; there could have easily been ten like the past 10 years, but that's not any of the best nominee's fault. If he's in the academy, then if anything, it's his fault.
Considering that Hollywood, the film industry and the Oscars operate on a clockwork machinery made of money, I'd be curious to know who within that industry is calling it out for cash-grabs. Big words for a member of the Academy. Forget throwing stones from a glass house, that's throwing stones at the walls from the inside.
First Man was awesome. It could have easily been a nominee. There was room. But I don't respect this guy's bias at all.
Agree 100% with everything you say here. I can't stand the 'cash grab' argument, as if Forrest Gump or many other Best Picture winners weren't intended to be popular and make money.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 12, 2019 14:48:58 GMT
First Man wasn't nominated because the Academy didn't nominate it. What does that have to do with Marvel? Seems like his problem is with the Academy.
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Jun 12, 2019 14:52:40 GMT
In this guy's defense, the mob would eat him alive. He's getting his point across without the bullshit. Cowardly? Maybe. But shoot...who wants to deal with that bullshit? Also, he's not exactly wrong, whoever he is. Actually, he is wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with using newer technology to make a movie. Walt Disney himself was constantly looking for innovative film making techniques. Let's be honest: the CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park sold the animals far better than old school stop motion could've. Also, plenty of movies use CGI to enhance their sets and are still nominated. So what exactly is the big deal? All of this. James Cameron isn't concerned about advancing film technology? George Lucas wasn't? Both of them built their careers on doing exactly that, much of the time ignoring minor, annoying little aspects like story and character development along the way. I seem to remember Avatar getting a BP nomination, it sure wasn't for its original storyline so I'm assuming the voters were dazzled by the effects. And I suppose Cameron had the attitude that he was only doing it for the art, not to make a buck.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 12, 2019 15:09:17 GMT
Actually, he is wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with using newer technology to make a movie. Walt Disney himself was constantly looking for innovative film making techniques. Let's be honest: the CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park sold the animals far better than old school stop motion could've. Also, plenty of movies use CGI to enhance their sets and are still nominated. So what exactly is the big deal? All of this. James Cameron isn't concerned about advancing film technology? George Lucas wasn't? Both of them built their careers on doing exactly that, much of the time ignoring minor, annoying little aspects like story and character development along the way. I seem to remember Avatar getting a BP nomination, it sure wasn't for its original storyline so I'm assuming the voters were dazzled by the effects. And I suppose Cameron had the attitude that he was only doing it for the art, not to make a buck. Excellent point. Titanic, a Best Picture Winner, was loaded with CGI effects shots.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 12, 2019 16:03:08 GMT
First Man wasn't nominated because the Academy didn't nominate it? What does that have to do with Marvel? Seems like his problem is with the Academy. Doesn't want to rock the boat I guess. Too much anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 12, 2019 16:15:37 GMT
Can't like the popular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 17:31:51 GMT
Agree with the voter, Avengers movies are for MTV Awards, not the Oscars. Director is Oliver Stone. It's the principle. I know what it looks like here, a bunch of Marvel/MCU fans reacting bitterly, but from where I'm sitting, the revelation could have been about any type of movie.
What if this anonymous academy member came out and said they'd never vote for a Martin Scorsese movie? Or a Western? Or a woman for best director? Not good, right?
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Jun 12, 2019 18:56:47 GMT
Well the Academy had the option to nominate up to 10 films, but decided that only 8 were qualified. Black Panther was qualified, and First Man was not.
|
|