Jump to content
John

91st Annual Academy Awards Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Roma actor has been denied visas to US – and might miss the Oscars

Quote

Alfonso Cuarón's 1970s drama Roma is a critical darling with 10 Oscar nominations to its credit.

 

But one of its stars – Mexican actor Jorge Antonio Guerrero Martinez, who plays the brooding militant Fermin – has not been able to secure a visa to attend screenings and other industry events in the US, according to an interview the actor gave to the Mexican lifestyle magazine Quien.

 

Pretty bloody sad. He was excellent in the film, many shades of grey. At times you feel sad for him, other times downright hate him, but he really impressed me with his performance in the film.

 

I don't understand the grounds for visa denial if it's just to attend the Oscars and there's no criminal history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, crumbs said:

Roma actor has been denied visas to US – and might miss the Oscars

 

Pretty bloody sad. He was excellent in the film, many shades of grey. At times you feel sad for him, other times downright hate him, but he really impressed me with his performance in the film.

  

I don't understand the grounds for visa denial if it's just to attend the Oscars and there's no criminal history.

 

It is dangerous and disingenuous to suggest without evidence that something nefarious is at play here. US vets all visa applicants. Maybe something turned up in his background check. How would we know this? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who apply for visas to visit the US per year and they do get visas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fabulin said:

Why was 1982 so great? The first thing I notice is Vangelis winning over Williams and North. 

The Oscars for 1982 were held in 1983. 1982 was not just great. It was the greatest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John said:

Naw.

 

Raiders is a mighty fine adventure film score. Chariots of Fire is a masterpiece of electronic film scoring.

 

You said it! Totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John said:

Naw.

 

Raiders is a mighty fine adventure film score. Chariots of Fire is a masterpiece of electronic film scoring.

Chariots is hummable but Raiders is iconic. CoF isn't  even in its league.

Other than the main title is actually a bad electronic bit of noise.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a five-star score Vangelis Chariots of Fire is worthy of no more than two stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

No, indeed he did not. Williams deserved an Oscar for film years 1975 and 1993. Goldsmith deserved the Oscars in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1990. Powell deserved the Oscars in 2010, 2014, 2017 and 2018. 

Agreed, my good man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Chariots is hummable but Raiders is iconic. CoF isn't  even in its league.

Other than the main title is actually a bad electronic bit of noise.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a five-star score Vangelis Chariots of Fire is worthy of no more than two stars

 

Pretty clear you haven't actually heard CHARIOTS. "Eric's Theme" is my favourite, even more than the iconic main theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John said:

Raiders is a mighty fine adventure film score. Chariots of Fire is a masterpiece of electronic film scoring.

Yes, absolutely.

 

However, Raiders of the Lost Ark is probably still the better of the two. Granted I do quite like Chariots of Fire, both film and score, Raiders has so much more going for it (i.e. John Williams for one, it's an orchestral action/adventure score, it underscores an even more popular film, and it has more, with all respect, substance to it). 

 

But yes, your statement is absolutely true. It's just that while they are both scores, the latter is electronic. So it's a branch of film scoring but cannot be that easily compared to Raiders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thor said:

 

Pretty clear you haven't actually heard CHARIOTS. "Eric's Theme" is my favourite, even more than the iconic main theme.

Don't be silly. Like everyone else I bought the album in 81. It was short

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emily Blunt not being nominated for either Mary Poppins or A Quiet Place was a bit of a surprise but her brilliant performances speak for themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The outrage over the lack of diversity in movies today is illogical.

 

For example, only 13% of the US population is black. And only 17% is latino, hispanic etc. Therefore an expected ratio of 70% white and 30% being non-white in movies is acceptable based on the population. But of course different races and ethnicity's tend to stay within their own groups on the whole. Therefore all black casts and all white casts for films is also acceptable.

 

People complain about the stereotypical token cast member of a different race or ethnicity, yet that is the truth of social groups. In my group of roughly 15 friends, we have 1 black friend. That happened naturally. Not by design or by discrimination. So if a film was made about my life, then the cast would have only 1 black person in it. And zero Asian, hispanic etc. That wouldn't be a racist film, it would simply be the truth.

 

Having a token black friend in teen movies is the truth, unless the film explores a group of black teens. Then of course a token white friend may be present. Both are acceptable because both are normally true in todays world. An all black film is fine, as is an all white film or all asian film, if the film is set in their respective communities. But forced diversity in an attempt to 'include' all racial and ethnic groups in one film is simply a false view of the world, and is one of the reasons why people react negatively to films of that kind, because that view of the world isn't familiar to us, and we reject the unfamiliar or untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leeallen01 said:

The outrage over the lack of diversity in movies today is illogical.

 

For example, only 13% of the US population is black. And only 17% is latino, hispanic etc. Therefore an expected ratio of 70% white and 30% being non-white in movies is acceptable based on the population. But of course different races and ethnicity's tend to stay within their own groups on the whole. Therefore all black casts and all white casts for films is also acceptable.

 

People complain about the stereotypical token cast member of a different race or ethnicity, yet that is the truth of social groups. In my group of roughly 15 friends, we have 1 black friend. That happened naturally. Not by design or by discrimination. So if a film was made about my life, then the cast would have only 1 black person in it. And zero Asian, hispanic etc. That wouldn't be a racist film, it would simply be the truth.

 

Having a token black friend in teen movies is the truth, unless the film explores a group of black teens. Then of course a token white friend may be present. Both are acceptable because both are normally true in todays world. An all black film is fine, as is an all white film or all asian film, if the film is set in their respective communities. But forced diversity in an attempt to 'include' all racial and ethnic groups in one film is simply a false view of the world, and is one of the reasons why people react negatively to films of that kind, because that view of the world isn't familiar to us, and we reject the unfamiliar or untrue.

616303F1-1B3A-4C98-976F-F0397A90BA50.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likely a product of White Flight.

 

I've been around other ethnicities much of my life, especially once I left home. You notice because the Hispanic chicks have really wild curvy sex ready bodies, black people play loud music that sounds like Godzilla is approaching, Asians go to Disneyland in droves and stop to take pictures everywhere and Middle Easterners are in every convenience store and motel. Those percentages don't seem accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, leeallen01 said:

The outrage over the lack of diversity in movies today is illogical.

 

For example, only 13% of the US population is black. And only 17% is latino, hispanic etc. Therefore an expected ratio of 70% white and 30% being non-white in movies is acceptable based on the population. But of course different races and ethnicity's tend to stay within their own groups on the whole. Therefore all black casts and all white casts for films is also acceptable.

 

People complain about the stereotypical token cast member of a different race or ethnicity, yet that is the truth of social groups. In my group of roughly 15 friends, we have 1 black friend. That happened naturally. Not by design or by discrimination. So if a film was made about my life, then the cast would have only 1 black person in it. And zero Asian, hispanic etc. That wouldn't be a racist film, it would simply be the truth.

 

Having a token black friend in teen movies is the truth, unless the film explores a group of black teens. Then of course a token white friend may be present. Both are acceptable because both are normally true in todays world. An all black film is fine, as is an all white film or all asian film, if the film is set in their respective communities. But forced diversity in an attempt to 'include' all racial and ethnic groups in one film is simply a false view of the world, and is one of the reasons why people react negatively to films of that kind, because that view of the world isn't familiar to us, and we reject the unfamiliar or untrue.

what a complete pile of rubbish. Films are not made to some statistical demographic breakdown of society.

 

as stated before the white privilege is rather deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Oscar telecast in an effort to stay under 3 hours has cut 3 song performances. 

if they want to stay under 3 hours dont show the awards for shorts and documentaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

the Oscar telecast in an effort to stay under 3 hours has cut 3 song performances. 

if they want to stay under 3 hours dont show the awards for shorts and documentaries. 

 

Why should they get the boot. I would cut out all the song performances in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, leeallen01 said:

The outrage over the lack of diversity in movies today is illogical.

 

For example, only 13% of the US population is black. And only 17% is latino, hispanic etc. Therefore an expected ratio of 70% white and 30% being non-white in movies is acceptable based on the population. But of course different races and ethnicity's tend to stay within their own groups on the whole. Therefore all black casts and all white casts for films is also acceptable.

 

People complain about the stereotypical token cast member of a different race or ethnicity, yet that is the truth of social groups. In my group of roughly 15 friends, we have 1 black friend. That happened naturally. Not by design or by discrimination. So if a film was made about my life, then the cast would have only 1 black person in it. And zero Asian, hispanic etc. That wouldn't be a racist film, it would simply be the truth.

 

Having a token black friend in teen movies is the truth, unless the film explores a group of black teens. Then of course a token white friend may be present. Both are acceptable because both are normally true in todays world. An all black film is fine, as is an all white film or all asian film, if the film is set in their respective communities. But forced diversity in an attempt to 'include' all racial and ethnic groups in one film is simply a false view of the world, and is one of the reasons why people react negatively to films of that kind, because that view of the world isn't familiar to us, and we reject the unfamiliar or untrue.

 

I work in a pretty average warehouse in a pretty average American suburb and my department has eight white men, two white women, one black man, one black woman, four Hispanic women, and three Hispanic men. On weekends my usual group of friends over the last couple years has been four white men, a Hispanic man, and a white trans woman. My roommate is a white man and my dearest childhood friend is a black woman. Family get-togethers are mostly white people, except for my Hispanic and Indian aunts who married in and obviously the kids who are mixed race.

 

It feels ridiculous listing it out like that but I'm just saying that I'm a white guy with pretty limited life experiences, I like hanging out online by myself a lot and I have always grown up and lived in relatively well-off, conservative, predominantly white neighborhoods and diversity isn't much of a contrivance in my day-to-day life. Anyway, I don't think the idea is so much about picking on any individual movie as "racist" because it stars white people but just getting the overall film landscape to collectively reflect a range of experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this context I would like to mention something that happens too rarely: casually diverse movies

In Disney's 2000 film Dinosaur the main cast was 6 white and 4 black voice actors and it went completely under the radar. The score featured a fair number of African instruments and a Lebo M choir and again, nobody made a special or big deal of it

20 years "forward" and we see embracing this and embracing that as the main point of everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

Why should they get the boot. I would cut out all the song performances in a heartbeat.

Because people do like the songs but far fewer care about documentary shorts documentary long features

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 11:43 AM, Warrior of Wet Dreams said:

Blank Panther because it's a very empty movie you forget about two minutes after watching.

 

Shhhh.  White people are not allowed to hate Black Panther.  It's racist.

14 hours ago, leeallen01 said:

Having a token black friend in teen movies is the truth

 

I had no black friend until I was in college at 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Because people do like the songs but far fewer care about documentary shorts documentary long features

 

Oscars are definitely not a popularity contest. And I think attention from the general public is a losing battle and has been waning for decades now. It is more about its history and celebrating the best in cinema as much as they can. So to that end, they would maintain their integrity by keeping the shorts and non-fiction categories which have been part of every single broadcast.

 

I would actually propose eliminating the best song category. I don't think they add anything to the movies and are a relic of the times when there were like 30 musicals every year. Not anymore. Nowadays the songs are only played over end credits. It is a redundant category. Better to eliminate that. I know the want because the want music stars to attend and perform, but logically, they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about the song category. However I propose they return the special effect category to a special achievement Oscar for when they are exceptional and ground breaking. The same with makeup. Only give it when it pushes the art to the boundaries or beyond. I think that making the awards more accessible to the public is not a bad thing. I believe it can be done without selling out. I just think they should limited the categories for the main telecast and another telecast for lesser or secondary awards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

I disagree about the song category. However I propose they return the special effect category to a special achievement Oscar for when they are exceptional and ground breaking. The same with makeup. Only give it when it pushes the art to the boundaries or beyond. I think that making the awards more accessible to the public is not a bad thing. I believe it can be done without selling out. I just think they should limited the categories for the main telecast and another telecast for lesser or secondary awards. 

 

I would 

 

1. Eliminate Song

2. Fuse the 2 sound categories

3. Fold make-up into Costume Design

 

I would cut out the presentations of the best picture nominees. Really pointless. I would cut out clips for the acting nominees. Again pointless. I would cut out In Memorium. All of these would save time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...