|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Jul 18, 2020 10:55:42 GMT
Julia Roberts is the ultimate proof. The world would have been better served had she gone on to a career as a waitress in a greasy truck stop on Interstate 80 near the Iowa-Nebraska border. At least she mostly quit making movies to raise her children.  Too little too late. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jul 18, 2020 10:59:42 GMT
Susan Sarandon wore little or no makeup in Dead Man Walking and cried when she saw how ugly she looked in the dailies while her significant other was directing the film. She won an Oscar. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 18, 2020 11:34:03 GMT
Denzel already had a previous Oscar win. He was either the alternate choice to Crowe, a back to back would have been sensational hype, or it came down to Academy grandstanding for two major black wins. Sensational also. Did all the voters in the acting branch feel this way that year? Best Actress was a weak year too. Then why weren't the Supporting Actor/Actress winners black too? Surely there were roles in 2001 to choose from? Again, if you haven't seen 1 of the 2 performances when talking about who deserved it more, then you can't have much credibility. Look at me. I'm not discussing MONSTER'S BALL because I haven't seen it. At the time, it was a lot less common than today for a foreign film to be popular among the masses, making AMELIE an exception. It would've been sensational hype for it to win Best Foreign Film, but it didn't. Poitier’s was an Oscar for his contribution to film, although he wasn’t on the screen much throughout the latter part of the century, and for his dignity in industry representation. Why Poitier? Because he's considered to be one of the best actors of his generation. If you don't like him, that's fine, but you're a minority. These awards are only given when the person is old. As they get older, they get less job opportunities. Also, he's not the only person receive one, so it's not like he had some kind of preference over other more-deserving candidates. Whoa!! Hold on - I didn’t say that it was the only Oscar he’d ever won. I said he deserved Oscars for other movies (which I think he did) but I think he got attention from some of the viewers for playing a bad guy. You can’t prove he didn’t get attention this way. I don’t think it’s an accident when beautiful actresses get Oscars for appearing ugly in movies. My opinions are just as good (or not good) as your opinions. There is no way to objectively analyze something as subjective as the Oscars, but we’re all entitled to our opinions. Don’t call my opinions myths and expect to use the scientific method to prove this. Susan Sarandon wore little or no makeup in Dead Man Walking and cried when she saw how ugly she looked in the dailies while her significant other was directing the film. She won an Oscar. Sorry, I wasn't dismissing you. By "myth" I meant "Something people often say because they're heard it from someone else but can't actually be proved." You say that it's not objective or a science, yet you and others have reached this conclusion because you've found a pattern. What am I disagree with are the numbers themselves. The amount of actresses who have won for an unglamorous role isn't the majority. In fact, there are plenty of actresses with unglamorous roles who didn't even get a nomination, despite Oscar buzz (Emma Thompson in STRANGER THAN FICTION immediately comes to mind). And as I said before, the actresses that have won for that (including Susan Sarandon) have also won/gotten nominated when they've looked beautiful. Now, if the argument was that, without makeup or sexy outfits, the actresses focus more on grit and it complements the raw atmosphere of the movie... That would make sense. It would mean that the voters are judging realism and the emotional factor, as opposed to being shallow. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jul 18, 2020 15:24:36 GMT
VitsWell, I still think beautiful actresses playing ugly or unattractive women get some people’s attentions. Who would want to be filmed when they aren’t looking their best? It takes guts (and millions of dollars in paychecks).
|
|
|
|
Post by bd74 on Jul 18, 2020 18:26:10 GMT
Julia Roberts is the ultimate proof. The world would have been better served had she gone on to a career as a waitress in a greasy truck stop on Interstate 80 near the Iowa-Nebraska border. Huh? I feel she was great in Erin Brockovich and she deserved the win. I'd say it's her career-best performance. It had all the makings of an undeniable Oscar win: a great performance, a box office hit, and a great way to cap off her run as THE female movie star of the 90s.
Sandra Bullock's win on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jul 18, 2020 18:46:09 GMT
Does anybody really take the Academy Awards seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2020 18:57:04 GMT
Does anybody really take the Academy Awards seriously? They've been irrelevant to me for decades, probably since the 1970's. Can't get myself interested in awards being given for products I mostly could care less about. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jul 18, 2020 19:17:07 GMT
Does anybody really take the Academy Awards seriously? They've been irrelevant to me for decades, probably since the 1970's. Can't get myself interested in awards being given for products I mostly could care less about. At the very least, the 1970s telecasts were entertaining. And, personally speaking, those movie stars were so much more interesting and fun than they are now. Of course, this is on me as I do not make much of an effort of catching up on new releases. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2020 19:23:14 GMT
They've been irrelevant to me for decades, probably since the 1970's. Can't get myself interested in awards being given for products I mostly could care less about. At the very least, the 1970s telecasts were entertaining. And, personally speaking, those movie stars were so much more interesting and fun than they are now. Of course, this is on me as I do not make much of an effort of catching up on new releases. Same here. I'm pleased when occasionally a film, or more likely these days documentary, I've enjoyed takes an Oscar, but I just can't be arsed to watch the whole bloated thing any longer. And yes--the stars of the 70's were more charismatic and entertaining to watch on award night than these interchangeable male and female poptarts of today who are mostly completely vacuous both in film roles and in their 'real' personas. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 19, 2020 1:04:58 GMT
Denzel already had a previous Oscar win. He was either the alternate choice to Crowe, a back to back would have been sensational hype, or it came down to Academy grandstanding for two major black wins. Sensational also. Did all the voters in the acting branch feel this way that year? Best Actress was a weak year too. Then why weren't the Supporting Actor/Actress winners black too? Surely there were roles in 2001 to choose from? Again, if you haven't seen 1 of the 2 performances when talking about who deserved it more, then you can't have much credibility. Look at me. I'm not discussing MONSTER'S BALL because I haven't seen it. At the time, it was a lot less common than today for a foreign film to be popular among the masses, making AMELIE an exception. It would've been sensational hype for it to win Best Foreign Film, but it didn't. Poitier’s was an Oscar for his contribution to film, although he wasn’t on the screen much throughout the latter part of the century, and for his dignity in industry representation. Why Poitier? Because he's considered to be one of the best actors of his generation. If you don't like him, that's fine, but you're a minority. These awards are only given when the person is old. As they get older, they get less job opportunities. Also, he's not the only person receive one, so it's not like he had some kind of preference over other more-deserving candidates. There were no black supporting roles for 2001. They used the lead category for the agenda. I haven't seen Monster's Ball either and never will.
Nowhere did I say did I not like Poitier. I used the example of his inexplicable honorary Oscar as part of the variable of what is contextually transparent with the 2002 Oscar ceremony. Poitier had only starred in 4 cinematic features since the mid 70's, when he came out of semi retirement. He had not been "denied" an Oscar win and was hardly active in the industry on the visual front line for over 2 decades. He was also responsible for directing Ghost Dad. The Academy went for a black image.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 19, 2020 1:24:29 GMT
Looking at part of the telecast from 1973--this was the year when the blockbuster was around the corner.
But when you think how many movies and companies existed back then, the Oscars seems rather provincial.
Did Vincent Price ever present at the Oscars (I know he hosted an oscars related show in the early 80s)?
He was starring in movies through the 60s and early 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 19, 2020 10:11:31 GMT
There were no black supporting roles for 2001. I know there weren't black nominees, but surely there were black actors who could've been nominated that year. Since it didn't happen, I fail to see this agenda. I haven't seen Monster's Ball either and never will. Why? Nowhere did I say did I not like Poitier. I used the example of his inexplicable honorary Oscar as part of the variable of what is contextually transparent with the 2002 Oscar ceremony. Poitier had only starred in 4 cinematic features since the mid 70's, when he came out of semi retirement. He had not been "denied" an Oscar win and was hardly active in the industry on the visual front line for over 2 decades. He was also responsible for directing Ghost Dad. The Academy went for a black image. It's not inexplicable. They felt he had reach a point where they could look back on his career as a whole and acknowledge it. Getting what's essentially a lifetime achievement award while you're young would be weird. Sure, not every project he participated in was good, but that didn't prevent the general public from seeing him as a cinematic legend, so why would Academy voters think differently? They give out these trophies every single year, so Sidney would've gotten one eventually anyway. Also, I just double-checked and he wasn't the only recipient that year (which has become the standard practice since the 2009 ceremony). |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 19, 2020 14:00:04 GMT
There were no black supporting roles for 2001. I know there weren't black nominees, but surely there were black actors who could've been nominated that year. Since it didn't happen, I fail to see this agenda. I haven't seen Monster's Ball either and never will. Why? Nowhere did I say did I not like Poitier. I used the example of his inexplicable honorary Oscar as part of the variable of what is contextually transparent with the 2002 Oscar ceremony. Poitier had only starred in 4 cinematic features since the mid 70's, when he came out of semi retirement. He had not been "denied" an Oscar win and was hardly active in the industry on the visual front line for over 2 decades. He was also responsible for directing Ghost Dad. The Academy went for a black image. It's not inexplicable. They felt he had reach a point where they could look back on his career as a whole and acknowledge it. Getting what's essentially a lifetime achievement award while you're young would be weird. Sure, not every project he participated in was good, but that didn't prevent the general public from seeing him as a cinematic legend, so why would Academy voters think differently? They give out these trophies every single year, so Sidney would've gotten one eventually anyway. Also, I just double-checked and he wasn't the only recipient that year (which has become the standard practice since the 2009 ceremony). You would have to go through the films released that year to see if any support black acting roles were worthy of a nomination. As it stands, they used the lead category as a prop. Poitier fitted in well with the agenda of favouring black performers. Nice transparent pitch they got going that year. I have seen parts of Monster’s Ball. It didn’t excite me, it didn’t interest me and life’s too short. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 19, 2020 14:37:23 GMT
You would have to go through the films released that year to see if any support black acting roles were worthy of a nomination. And I'm willing to do that, just as I've double-checked everything so far. I believe in the importance of doing research when discussing topics. I don't really feel that coming from you, though. they used the lead category as a prop. Poitier fitted in well with the agenda of favouring black performers. But the other recipient wasn't white. And I'm sure there were plenty of black screen legends that were still alive in 2002. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jul 19, 2020 16:40:41 GMT
At least she mostly quit making movies to raise her children. Too little too late. I don't like her, either. Her big laugh is so damn fake. Most people think that Ellen Burstyn should have won the Oscar over Roberts. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Jul 19, 2020 17:50:11 GMT
Yep Oscars have become too political and snobby. Movies like parasite, moonlight, Argo, Shape of water and Spotlight have no business being awarded the best picture of the year given there are more quality popular movies which will have longer lasting legacies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 19, 2020 22:59:06 GMT
You would have to go through the films released that year to see if any support black acting roles were worthy of a nomination. And I'm willing to do that, just as I've double-checked everything so far. I believe in the importance of doing research when discussing topics. I don't really feel that coming from you, though. they used the lead category as a prop. Poitier fitted in well with the agenda of favouring black performers. But the other recipient wasn't white. And I'm sure there were plenty of black screen legends that were still alive in 2002. All you are further endorsing, is how meaningless the awards are and how your defensiveness is meaningless too, because you want for meaning to be attributed to them. |
|
|
|
Post by loofapotato on Jul 20, 2020 21:35:04 GMT
Film is art. Acting is art. Art is subjectional. Hence awards for all art is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jul 21, 2020 3:24:32 GMT
Is there any reason why the AA are meaningful?
|
|
