2013 Academy Awards (Oscars) Discussion (2012 movies)

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Well if people don't want to see a film it's their problem. I think awards and similar shit shouldn't concern themselves with how many people went to see it.

clearly you don't know what you're talking about. You wrongly assume people don't see films because they don't want too. Perhaps it's because the film has no marketing, no publicity, perhaps it's not gotten a wide release, or it's not available for rental/purhcase/download. I guarantee that you're not fully versed in all the documentaries, and short films on the list, you having not seen them has nothing to do with your desire to see the film.

You might be right that the awards, and we're talking strictly the Academy Awards which is the top film awards out there, shouldn't necessarily concern themselves with a films popularity, however it's been proven by the ratings that when the Academy nominates a bunch of obscure films their viewership of the awards ceremonies suffers greatly. And despite what some people here want to believe, it's quite possible to have a great film that is greatly popular. And as I said earlier what is the point of making films if they are not going to be seen, for what ever reason. Film might be an art, but it is first and foremost a business.

Movies need to be seen to have any lasting value. It irks me when people say it's only a movie, well, Skyfall is a billion dollar movie, it's put a lot of money in peoples pockets and a lot of bread and food on the table. You could insert 13 other billion dollar films, not to mention all the film frnachise series and other successful films. Without some success films won't be made.

[Brónach 1,302]

You wrongly assume people don't see films because they don't want too. Perhaps it's because the film has no marketing, no publicity, perhaps it's not gotten a wide release, or it's not available for rental/purhcase/download. I guarantee that you're not fully versed in all the documentaries, and short films on the list, you having not seen them has nothing to do with your desire to see the film.

Yeah, but I'm a film addict. I bother to investigate. I collect names for lots of small films that look interesting to me, even in advance when nobody still cares about them.

The general public might have seen four or five movies but the awards shouldn't be limited to guesses about what the general public might have seen.

You might be right that the awards, and we're talking strictly the Academy Awards which is the top film awards out there, shouldn't necessarily concern themselves with a films popularity, however it's been proven by the ratings that when the Academy nominates a bunch of obscure films their viewership of the awards ceremonies suffers greatly.

If that influences what they nominate then they aren't or shouldn't be seen as the top awards. in the end, it's the industry promoting itself. Marketing. They give awards to themselves to make people think how good they are.

And despite what some people here want to believe, it's quite possible to have a great film that is greatly popular.

Yes.

Movies need to be seen to have any lasting value.

But that's true of... everything?

Some great works might become obscure. But they'd still be great.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

an unseen film that might be great is still unseen. don't you get that.

[Brónach 1,302]

You don't. It's not "an unseen film that might be great", it's "a film that I bothered to check out and turned out to be great so I totally include among my fvourites of the year". Or not.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you're so clueless, that was directed at Chacc but it works for bloodboil too. If fact more, as Chaac is higher on the evolutionary scale.

The Oscars work as a marketing ploy for some films that are worthy but lack the backing. That much is true.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

I'm calling it right now that Life Of Pi will take the cinematography award, leaving Roger Deakins robbed once again. Skyfall was revelatory man, it had been awhile since I experienced Deakins in the cinema. No one comes close to his genius.

I agree 100%, Skyfall's cinematography was excellent. There where times I wanted several of the establishing shots to carry on a bit longer.

Skyfall's cinematography was excellent. But before I officially start rooting for Deakins, I want to see Django. I loved Richardson's Inglourious Basterds (in fact, immediately after seeing it, I said that Tarantino should make a western).

[JoeinAR 1,949]

BB, why don't you muster up the boys to post a top 10 Jw score list. PLEASE

You wrongly assume people don't see films because they don't want too. Perhaps it's because the film has no marketing, no publicity, perhaps it's not gotten a wide release, or it's not available for rental/purhcase/download. I guarantee that you're not fully versed in all the documentaries, and short films on the list, you having not seen them has nothing to do with your desire to see the film.

Yeah, but I'm a film addict. I bother to investigate.

No you don't not really, we've discussed this before, If you're a film addict, go back to the 20's, the 30's( and all film history). See how film making came together in a very primitive, by todays standards, way. Look at the genre's you love today and see how those same genre's played in a time when anything wasn't possible. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

[Sandor 797]

an unseen film that might be great is still unseen. don't you get that.

Just because your average Joe(y) doesn't see these films doesn't mean they're unseen. There is a world out there you have no idea of.

The popular, mainstream stuff should be left to events like the MTV Awards.

Serious award committees should - without exception - simply nominate the best films of the year whatever their commercial or cultural appeal.

Case closed.

[Brónach 1,302]

BB, why don't you muster up the boys to post a top 10 Jw score list. PLEASE

You wrongly assume people don't see films because they don't want too. Perhaps it's because the film has no marketing, no publicity, perhaps it's not gotten a wide release, or it's not available for rental/purhcase/download. I guarantee that you're not fully versed in all the documentaries, and short films on the list, you having not seen them has nothing to do with your desire to see the film.

Yeah, but I'm a film addict. I bother to investigate.

No you don't not really, we've discussed this before, If you're a film addict, go back to the 20's, the 30's( and all film history). See how film making came together in a very primitive, by todays standards, way. Look at the genre's you love today and see how those same genre's played in a time when anything wasn't possible. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

Mmm I am under the impression you don't know me.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I know what you have admitted.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

But before I officially start rooting for Deakins, I want to see Django.

It's nothing new. It's just parody cinematography honestly. Hardly worthy of a nom.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

really, what do you think that specifically?

it's one of the films I was considering this weekend.

[Jay 37,369]

Just realized Hitchcock only got one award (for makeup)..... first its too bad if it got nominated for anything it got that category, because I actually didn't think the makeup was that terribly good in the film! Lincoln's for example was significantly better (yet didn't get nominated for makeup... snub indeed!)

Anyway, a nom for the score or the acting by Hopkins and Mirren would have been deserved, I think. Maybe even the screenplay. I wonder why it wasn't loved by the Academy?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Just realized Hitchcock only got one award (for makeup)..... first its too bad if it got nominated for anything it got that category, because I actually didn't think the makeup was that terribly good in the film! Lincoln's for example was significantly better (yet didn't get nominated for makeup... snub indeed!)

Anyway, a nom for the score or the acting by Hopkins and Mirren would have been deserved, I think. Maybe even the screenplay. I wonder why it wasn't loved by the Academy?

its on at least one worst films of 2012 list.

[Wycket 36]

But before I officially start rooting for Deakins, I want to see Django.

It's nothing new. It's just parody cinematography honestly. Hardly worthy of a nom.

Don't listen to this guy. The movie looks great. Personally, I think the flow is off, but that is likely due to Sally Menke's absence. Yes, there are some slow-mo shots in the film which seemed completely out of character for Tarantino, but the film looks great, especially the opening credit sequence.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I think it's important every Oscar season to watch this video:

[mrbellamy 6,287]

Just realized Hitchcock only got one award (for makeup)..... first its too bad if it got nominated for anything it got that category, because I actually didn't think the makeup was that terribly good in the film! Lincoln's for example was significantly better (yet didn't get nominated for makeup... snub indeed!)

Anyway, a nom for the score or the acting by Hopkins and Mirren would have been deserved, I think. Maybe even the screenplay. I wonder why it wasn't loved by the Academy?

its on at least one worst films of 2012 list.

Definitely not one of my favorites. Mirren was alright, I guess, probably the best thing about it. Hopkins was a caricature, and the writing did him no favors. The score went in one ear and out the other, just an unmemorable and disappointing movie all around, for me.

[Brónach 1,302]

I think it's important every Oscar season to watch this video:

"I got beaten up by Fellini" -> Classic.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Just realized Hitchcock only got one award (for makeup)..... first its too bad if it got nominated for anything it got that category, because I actually didn't think the makeup was that terribly good in the film! Lincoln's for example was significantly better (yet didn't get nominated for makeup... snub indeed!)

Anyway, a nom for the score or the acting by Hopkins and Mirren would have been deserved, I think. Maybe even the screenplay. I wonder why it wasn't loved by the Academy?

Maybe it's end of the era when they will only make up mr. Hopkins to look like some historical dignitary and hope everything will work out just fine...

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

really, what do you think that specifically?

it's one of the films I was considering this weekend.

I like cinematography that is deeply intertwined with the story telling. Movies where I can follow the narrative just and tell you exactly where you are in the story just by how the film looks. It's something rare. A wonderful example of this is Deakins' Skyfall actually. You can tell exactly where you are in the story just by the colors, lighting, even the type of lens at work.

In fact, Skyfall's cinematography is so tightly woven into the tapestry of the narrative that I could spout off colors and I bet you could remember what scene in the movie I'm talking about. Blue-Aqua? Orange-red? Cloudy-grey? Orange-black/blue?

Django Unchained is just same old Spaghetti Western and Blaxploitation cinematography with the occasional "Oooh pretty" wide landscape and sunset shot.

It sorely does not belong among the rest of the nominees.

Don't listen to this guy. The movie looks great. Personally, I think the flow is off, but that is likely due to Sally Menke's absence. Yes, there are some slow-mo shots in the film which seemed completely out of character for Tarantino, but the film looks great, especially the opening credit sequence.

This guy obviously hasn't seen very many movies and is easily impressed by the basic minimums ( required to be a functional cinematographer ) presented in Django Unchained

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I agree with Blume but probably not to his extreme. Tarantino has had much better looking films, but like he said, a lot of the establishing shots and landscapes are well done. I also thought everything from when they reach Candieland until the end looked really fantastic.

Pfister belongs on that list.

[Wycket 36]

Beautiful landscapes are beautiful landscapes. I saw the film in an older theater and could recognize there were some very interesting shots. As good as Skyfall? No, but I'm not going to dismiss it because there's a few shots that harken back to the blaxploitation era. I can't comment whether it deserves to be nominated as I have only seen about a dozen movies this year, but I probably would have given Pfister the nom as well.

But just because the cinematography isn't award winning doesn't mean the movie should simply be dismissed. Its not like he shot this movie like a grindhouse movie.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I said the cinematography ought to be dismissed.

I actually think it's a great movie for 2 hours and 20 minutes or so. Leonardo DiCaprio turns in his best performance yet towards the end of those 2:20 hours.

[Uni 306]

an unseen film that might be great is still unseen. don't you get that.

Just because your average Joe(y) doesn't see these films doesn't mean they're unseen. There is a world out there you have no idea of.

The popular, mainstream stuff should be left to events like the MTV Awards.

Serious award committees should - without exception - simply nominate the best films of the year whatever their commercial or cultural appeal.

Case closed.

Bingo.

- Uni

[JoeinAR 1,949]

an unseen film that might be great is still unseen. don't you get that.

Just because your average Joe(y) doesn't see these films doesn't mean they're unseen. There is a world out there you have no idea of.

The popular, mainstream stuff should be left to events like the MTV Awards.

Serious award committees should - without exception - simply nominate the best films of the year whatever their commercial or cultural appeal.

Case closed.

what a load of bullshit Roald, especially the MTV comment, the whole world is more stupid because of that specific comment. JFC

Roald you do realize there are 50000 films made each year. So a serious awards committee is going to sit and watch all those movies. That's quite a few movies to watch in a day.

You really think the Academy Awards, an awards based on an industry centered in LA is going to continually disregard the films made by said industry.

And who the FUCK is this serious award committee, tell us Roald? Is it made up of a select group of individuals with degrees.

Is there a doctorate degree that mandates an opinion with such a degree is superior to all others.

Is the movie going public right or wrong for liking terrible movies, or wonderful movies. What if that same audience loves a Transformers and a American Beauty?

So Roald tell us about how all these films find an audience, Please tell us.

Oh and Uni you're just a wrong.

[Ollie 1,059]

So sayeth our Joey, amen.........

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Cat fight!

[Brónach 1,302]

Roald you do realize there are 50000 films made each year. So a serious awards committee is going to sit and watch all those movies. That's quite a few movies to watch in a day.

No, watch the ones that you can know about, have access to, or catch your attention. We're not asking any body to be inconsistent, we're asking to take into account on equal footing some of these films that aren't widely marketed or that aren't box office hits. This watching more films lends more seriousness to one's opinion on the film's of a given year and might depare surprises.

A good or great film coming completely out of nowhere, is always a good experience for me. I like that. It's like when you encounter some awesome music from someone you haven't heard about in your life.

[Sandor 797]

an unseen film that might be great is still unseen. don't you get that.

Just because your average Joe(y) doesn't see these films doesn't mean they're unseen. There is a world out there you have no idea of.

The popular, mainstream stuff should be left to events like the MTV Awards.

Serious award committees should - without exception - simply nominate the best films of the year whatever their commercial or cultural appeal.

Case closed.

what a load of bullshit Roald, especially the MTV comment, the whole world is more stupid because of that specific comment. JFC

Roald you do realize there are 50000 films made each year. So a serious awards committee is going to sit and watch all those movies. That's quite a few movies to watch in a day.

You really think the Academy Awards, an awards based on an industry centered in LA is going to continually disregard the films made by said industry.

And who the FUCK is this serious award committee, tell us Roald? Is it made up of a select group of individuals with degrees.

Is there a doctorate degree that mandates an opinion with such a degree is superior to all others.

Is the movie going public right or wrong for liking terrible movies, or wonderful movies. What if that same audience loves a Transformers and a American Beauty?

So Roald tell us about how all these films find an audience, Please tell us.

Oh and Uni you're just a wrong.

Huh...?

I can't really follow your line of thought on this.

I'll keep it simple for myself: the Academy should nominate and award the best films of the year, according to their criteria which is different than let's say the MTV crowd who'll vote The Avengers as Best Picture of the year.

I think the Academy has always found a nice balance between 'Hollywood' and the more 'arthouse, artistic cinema'. Of course it's vastly different from the nominations seen at a Berlin film festival, but the Academy does uphold a certain class and 'quality control'.

That quality control is determined by the voters, yes.

I'm glad the Academy recognizes the - what you call - 'unseen' films. But they also surprise from time to time by having - for example - The Silence Of The Lambs win the five major awards. That was cool.

But if a more underground film like Whale Rider is deserving of an award, they don't shun it. By awarding that film (best actress, 2002) I'm convinced many people discovered the film.

In that sense, through the Academy the 'unseen' films get a much wider exposure and perhaps a part of the world will come to realise that there is actually more to cinema than Pirates Of The Carribean and Transformers.

The Academy plays a role in promoting good cinema. They always have. Sometimes they miss the mark (Shakespeare In Love anyone?), but mostly I'm very content with the criteria they follow.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Agreed.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Roald, what I call the unseen films sometimes get nominated, sometimes they don't. You have clearly mistaken me for someone else especially with your MTV comments, who in their right mind would name the Avengers best film of 2012, but bully for those that love the film. It has lots of entertainment value for certain crowds, just not me.

but my other comments regarding say The Hurt Locker, a film that went virtually unseen by the film going public, it was seen much more on home video release(that's where I saw it, good film, but not great, not the best of 2009 imho). In that sense there is a feeling among many filmmakers and filmgoer's that there is a disconnect and quite a few people were pissed off. Last year when the Artist won, few here concurred. Those that saw it were not exactly in line with the thought it was the best movie of the year(I don't think it was as good as several nominees, I'd select Hugo). As I stated very few times does the actual boxoffice champ win best picture. In fact looking back through years back to the 70's, (boxoffice info from before 1980 is sketchy)

and only 4 films since 1980 topped the boxoffice and the Oscars, In 1972 only the Godfather won both. So I'm not saying the Academy is a schill for the boxoffice winners, it certainly is not, but many believe, as do I that it's difficult to say a movie that few saw is the best.

I too thought Silence of the Lambs winning that quintet was fantastic. Especially since the film was released in what is generally regarded as the time period the dregs are release. Silence could have easily been forgotten as it was released on February 14, 1991 before the 1991 Academy Awards were on March 25, 1991, but they were for 1990 films. In March 30, 1992 Silence as you said swept the 5 biggies, a rare feat indeed. Somehow Silence of the Lamb survived over an entire year and won. but considering that it broke into the public conscience and has stayed there is part of it's true legacy.

[Uni 306]

what a load of bullshit Roald, especially the MTV comment, the whole world is more stupid because of that specific comment. JFC

Oh and Uni you're just a wrong.

*Do I say something? Do I even attempt to explain how rampant hyperbole weakens an argument? That his entire approach pretty much destroys the "h" in his "imho"? That this kind of thing is precisely the reason people don't take him very seriously?

Nah. Waste of time. Besides, what the hell do I know? I'm just a stupid wrong.

- Uni (to himself)*

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Joe....

Who is Roald?

[King Mark 3,631]

Sandor's True Identity

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Isn't it Sandor who is Roald's True Identity, actually?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

sandor sounds like a buffy the vampire slayer character.

[skyy38 21]

It does appear Spielberg is a shoo-in to win Best Director, yep.

Best Director, yes.......

Watch out for Best Picture though......

• "Les Misérables" Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward and Cameron Mackintosh, Producers
  
• Runner Up: Life of Pi
  

You don't think Lincoln will win Best Picture?

Nah. I don't think Lincoln has generated the right kind of buzz for that. Judging from recent Oscar winnders, Les Miserables fits right into the big emotionally fuzzy, "must-see" family experience. Which fits in with the likes of "The King's Speech" or "The Artist". And while the film, as great as it is, didn't have as big as the impact I expected. I still think its perfect for the Best Picture front-runner.

But then again, that would deviate from the tradition of having the Best Director and Best Picture category being awarded to the same film.

Which has been done at least once before-Shakespeare In Love ,Best Picture- Saving Private Ryan-Best Director-1999.

A lot of you seem to judge the Oscars for being "rigged" yet complain that Skyfall is getting a nom when Barry never did. How is that relevant at all to the year 2012? If you were all voters you'd be the rigged ones nominating composers for their careers instead of how they stack up against the competition.

Desplat should have gotten the nom for Zero Dark Thirty.

Mr. Savas, I cannot think of an analogy to your brilliant assessment of the above-All I can say is that you and the Late Bruce Lee certainly know the difference between a date and an appointment!

I am also quite sure that the word "irregardless" has never crossed your lips.

Bravo sir!

[mrbellamy 6,287]

It's been done often enough. Much more rare is a film winning Best Picture without the director even nominated. It's only occurred three times, and just once since the 1930's.

If any movie were to pull that off this year, it seems that it would be Argo, not Les Mis.

[skyy38 21]

There are some years where the Academy got it right, though.

1978.

Star Wars over Close Encounters for Best Score.

[Brónach 1,302]

I prefer Close Encounters.

[skyy38 21]

I think it's important every Oscar season to watch this video:

God, he IS in love with himself. And I thought it was just a "summer thing".....

[KK 3,307]

That video is hilarious! Never seen it before.

Compare that kid with today's Spielberg!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

so what film will win best visual effects?

Having seen the nominee's I don't think the Hobbit should win. It screams fake.

The Avengers is just Transformer 4 or 5

for my money it's Life of Pi

I thought the tiger was real, and sometimes it was

[Jay 37,369]

I haven't seen Life of Pi or anything, but I betcha that'll win too

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I will say that Smegal (sp?) looked better in this than in Lotr.

[crocodile 8,017]

I'm seeing Life of Pi tomorrow night. Can't wait, actually.

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I will say that Smegal (sp?) looked better in this than in Lotr.

It's Smaugull.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I will say that Smegal (sp?) looked better in this than in Lotr.

It's Smaugull.

looked it up, it's Smeagol, damn, who'd have thought BB would get something like this wrong.