Author Topic: 2010 Academy Awards  (Read 15166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline redlandslide

  • Site Moderator
  • Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 5328
  • Gender: Male
  • "We want a shrubbery!"
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2010, 06:57:24 AM »
What's the point of the Oscars? To promote movies. That's why the best film category was doubled to 10 nominees, so twice as many films can boast "Oscar nominated" on their posters & DVD covers and twice as many movies can advertise the Oscars. Win - win.

I like The Hurt Locker, and it's not a bad movie, but in twenty years time people will look back scratching their heads at how such a ground-breaking movie as Avatar got left out.

I see the opposite. I think the academy are slightly embarrassed at how well Titanic did, which swept the boards with it's ground breaking CGI effects which were superior to what had been before. You're now hard pressed to find someone who admits to liking the film (which also out-grossed what had gone before.)

Just because a film does well at the box office doesn't mean it's an excellent film. People go to see hyped films to see what the fuss is about, it doesn't mean they think it's any better than the other films playing at the same time. You don't know how good or over-hyped a film may be until after you've seen it after all.

Offline dweez

  • Global Moderator
  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 11620
  • Gender: Male
  • Rebel Mod
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2010, 07:15:01 AM »
What's the point of the Oscars? To promote movies. That's why the best film category was doubled to 10 nominees, so twice as many films can boast "Oscar nominated" on their posters & DVD covers and twice as many movies can advertise the Oscars. Win - win.

Exhibit A:

Tonights the night! I completed my mission and saw almost everything that I wanted to see except for The Last Station and couldnt find it anywhere. Not even in a local cinema. Here are my pics. I got wishy-washy on 2 and just couldnt commit to a winner.

*NOTE* No dis to oc1 intended or implied.
--dweez

Offline smokester

  • Administrator
  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 15928
  • Gender: Male
  • Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo!
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2010, 07:15:23 AM »
What's the point of the Oscars? To promote movies. That's why the best film category was doubled to 10 nominees, so twice as many films can boast "Oscar nominated" on their posters & DVD covers and twice as many movies can advertise the Oscars. Win - win.

Do you think?  It seems very hit and miss marketing in my opinion.  I don't actually know anyone (outside the film and music industry) that watches the Oscars or reads the aftermath so it would have little influence on them.  Also, as the thing is 'filmed', wouldn't it be a breach of product placement, or embedded marketing rules... :)
Don't put off until tomorrow, what you can put off until the day after.

There is an exception to every rule, apart from this one.

Offline ohcheap1

  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 19082
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2010, 07:28:54 AM »
I absolutely take the recommendations of the Academy to heart. There are SO many films released in any given year and I am really picky about likes/dislikes. I like saddling up to films that I know have been reviewed and analyzed by people that have some kind of professional boundaries. But thats me. Are those the only movies I see? Oh hell no.....but I have seen many films that I wouldnt of otherwise watched due to the Oscar nominations.

Offline smokester

  • Administrator
  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 15928
  • Gender: Male
  • Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo!
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2010, 07:32:50 AM »
I absolutely take the recommendations of the Academy to heart. There are SO many films released in any given year and I am really picky about likes/dislikes. I like saddling up to films that I know have been reviewed and analyzed by people that have some kind of professional boundaries. But thats me. Are those the only movies I see? Oh hell no.....but I have seen many films that I wouldnt of otherwise watched due to the Oscar nominations.

Do you also follow and/or scrutinise the plethora of music award ceremonies as well?  I presume you have time to listen to music?
Don't put off until tomorrow, what you can put off until the day after.

There is an exception to every rule, apart from this one.

Offline ohcheap1

  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 19082
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2010, 08:18:41 AM »
I am extremely narrow minded in music so I would have to say, "No" as a whole. Although one year, several years ago, I listened to the best new artist of the year perform and was blown out of the water by her. She is now one of my favorite female musicians. Ms Melissa Etheridge.

Offline redlandslide

  • Site Moderator
  • Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 5328
  • Gender: Male
  • "We want a shrubbery!"
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2010, 08:22:52 AM »
Do you think?  It seems very hit and miss marketing in my opinion.  I don't actually know anyone (outside the film and music industry) that watches the Oscars or reads the aftermath so it would have little influence on them.

You'll probably find that the viewing figures in the US were probably very substantial. The 2008 "record low" viewing figures for the ceremony was 32 million, any other TV show would probably kill for those figures. The fact that it was 2am over here when it went out accounts for low UK viewing figures.

Also, as the thing is 'filmed', wouldn't it be a breach of product placement, or embedded marketing rules... :)

no.

Offline smokester

  • Administrator
  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 15928
  • Gender: Male
  • Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo!
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2010, 08:49:33 AM »
I am extremely narrow minded in music so I would have to say, "No" as a whole. Although one year, several years ago, I listened to the best new artist of the year perform and was blown out of the water by her. She is now one of my favorite female musicians. Ms Melissa Etheridge.

The reason I ask is I have been to a music award or two (MOBO and Mercury to be precise) and in truth it is just the industry massaging its own ego.  It is riddled with politics and dubious persuasion from even more dubious characters, and although it can give exposure to new talent - I wouldn't be influenced by who won what.

I have a hard time understanding why Slumdog won any Oscars as it might have been a sweet film but it didn't make much sense in the end, and I have found it true that many Oscar winning films rarely live up to the hype so I pretty much ignore it.
Don't put off until tomorrow, what you can put off until the day after.

There is an exception to every rule, apart from this one.

Offline ohcheap1

  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 19082
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2010, 09:59:18 AM »
Even though I think your opinon of Slumdog is completely off the mark and can agree that politics, etc do influence winners. Its not so much the winners that I am interested in as everything that is nominated as previously stated.

There is something to say for tradition as well. Its has always been a fun family evening mingling with the stars on Oscar night. Its fun for us.

Offline smokester

  • Administrator
  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 15928
  • Gender: Male
  • Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo!
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2010, 10:34:56 AM »
Even though I think your opinon of Slumdog is completely off the mark

Slumdog was a good sweet/bittersweet film but it failed miserably when...

Spoiler (hover to show)
Don't put off until tomorrow, what you can put off until the day after.

There is an exception to every rule, apart from this one.

Offline goldshirt*9

  • Super Hero
  • *******
  • Posts: 7369
  • Gender: Male
  • Who yous looking ats
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2010, 12:06:40 PM »
a decent result i think.
avatar received what it deserved and so did the hurt locker.
don't know either of the best actor / actress movies.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 12:10:53 PM by goldshirt*9 »

Offline goldshirt*9

  • Super Hero
  • *******
  • Posts: 7369
  • Gender: Male
  • Who yous looking ats
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2010, 12:37:33 PM »
I always believed it was on how big the
" gifts were "
from each production house.  :D :D


I don't believe a BEST can be agreed to.
everyone differs on their choice of what a good film is.
Avatar was great which I really loved and thought an excellent graphical film. story was so so but I went to be amazed and was not disappointed.

The Hurt locker I also loved but for different reasons.
Best for me is what I like .

Offline ohcheap1

  • Q
  • *
  • Posts: 19082
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2010, 02:39:34 PM »
Here, here Goldie!!

Offline redlandslide

  • Site Moderator
  • Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 5328
  • Gender: Male
  • "We want a shrubbery!"
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2010, 02:41:49 PM »
... is flat out wrong. There are tens of millions of people that still think that Titanic was a brilliant movie, it has a healthy rental market, and it is highly rated when it is on TV.

Not sure that's necissarily the case. Can't get the link to work, here's a cap of the page
Spoiler (hover to show)

Here's the relevant passage pertaining to Titanic.

Quote
BBC1 won more viewers over the day, although its wisdom in spending an estimated ?6 million to show Titanic looked questionable when the three-hour film attracted 9.9 million viewers. It was beaten by Coronation Street, EastEnders, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and even the ITV news.

Although a BBC spokesman claimed that they were delighted by Titanic's performance, ITV insiders said the BBC1 had almost as many viewers at the same time last year when it showed the film Jumanji, but paid only ?1 million for it. Lorraine Heggessey, the controller of BBC1, said: "Success is not just about ratings, it's about a rich and varied schedule that all generations can enjoy. It's good that BBC1 and ITV offered different viewing experiences which together provided something for everyone."

The academy is crap at picking popular movies, but that seems to me to be because they seem to be "uber-critics", and critics never seem to like the same films that the public do. Thus they pretend that popularity is vulgar, and the public don't understand what makes a good movie (see cheap's post above - )

I pretty much agree with this. I don't think a high grossing film should automatically be included in the nominations because it grosses well at the box office any more than I think good box office should discount it.

This is (for me) a fallacy - movie makers make movies for the public, not for each other.

Is sort of true. They make movies to make money. Appealing to the public is more a means to an end. Appealing to critics (and the Academy) is also another route to making money. The Hurt Locker just about broke even at the box office, yet I suspect DVD sales (and the price TV stations will have to pay to show it) will receive a healthy boost due to it's Oscar success.

Titanic (or Avatar) wasn't seen just by people that believed the hype - it was massively popular with a multitude of folks, and had a very high repeat viewership - you don't watch a movie several times because of the hype, you watch it again and again because you like it.

Also true, but a hugely hyped film will get much greater first time viewers than a low key one, increasing it's chances of capturing people in it's net who like it enough to view it multiple times who may otherwise not have seen it at all.

even if everything that you say is true, and I am simply being argumentative (always a possibility) what does that say about "best" - what do you consider the criterion (or criteria) by which the "best" motion picture is/ should be judged?

I think the best film should be judged on which has the better story, acting, direction, score, special effects etc. Certainly not necessarily the one that earns the most money - although the highest grossing one could just as easily be the best one as well.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 02:53:00 PM by redlandslide »

Offline Robin-Graves

  • Rev AJ's Grand Inquisitor
  • Homo Superior
  • *
  • Posts: 4278
  • Gender: Male
  • Power doesnt give you the right
Re: 2010 Academy Awards
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2010, 02:52:19 PM »
Waiting to Exhale and The English Patient were both good examples of the Acadamy being elitist.
They won all these awards BEFORE they were released, and appealed to just a small amount of people.
 They were relative box office flops, and not even remembered by anyone.
 While even though the newer Star Wars trilogy won alot of box office bank, they were not even concidered by the Acadamy due to the fact that they eschew anything popular. Mainly due to the fact that they beoieve that most people in America are " trailer Trash" and "Unartistic".
I personaly dont go looking for snobish artsy movies. I look for movies I find entertaining,, Popular or not.
I for one believe that John Leguizamo should have won an award for his performance as Chollo in Land Of The Dead.
And concidering ,George Romero should have won some award for his contribution to cinema.
I mean,, he did change the way things were done, as did George Lucas.
I keep my standards low.
That way im never disapointed.