Academy Awards 2018: Oscar Night

[Leofric]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. A great example is Stairway To Heaven. It’s a total rip off. And then there’s this one which ruins my favorite childhood movie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion

I'm only a few years younger than Matthew Broderick and I also remember watching Kimba the White Lion when I came home from school when I was a kid.  Roger Allers and his main collaborators are all about 10 or 15 years older so it's conceivable they were never exposed to it.   Rob Minkoff is the only one named in the article in the right age group who might have seen it as a child, but he denies it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Leofric said:

I'm only a few years younger than Matthew Broderick and I also remember watching Kimba the White Lion when I came home from school when I was a kid.  Roger Allers and his main collaborators are all about 10 or 15 years older so it's conceivable they were never exposed to it.   Rob Minkoff is the only one named in the article in the right age group who might have seen it as a child, but he denies it.

I read that, but it's hard to believe. I was watching a Youtube video last night and it went over how there are so many shot for shot scenes recreated in The Lion King. 

[Darth Richard II]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I read that, but it's hard to believe. I was watching a Youtube video last night and it went over how there are so many shot for shot scenes recreated in The Lion King. 

Yeah if that isn't plagiarism then there is no such thing and I should start my word for word copy of Game of Thrones.

[DMC]

And here I thought if Lion King was plagiarizing anything, it was Hamlet.  Oh wait, it still is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, dmc515 said:

And here I thought if Lion King was plagiarizing anything, it was Hamlet.  Oh wait, it still is.

It's not Hamlet.  It has never been Hamlet.  There is no Rozencranz and Guildenstern.  Scar didn't marry Niobe.  Hamlet didn't flee Denmark because Claudius convinced him he was responsible for Old Hamlet's death.  Simba doesn't kill Nalla's Father.  Scar doesn't convince Nalla's brother to attempt to kill Simba with poisioned claws for the death of his father.  Simba doesn't die at the end after killing Scar.

I hate the comparison with Hamlet.  

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is no Rozencranz and Guildenstern.

That's cuz they're dead.  Seriously, I think you're taking the comparison with a kids cartoon a little too..seriously.  Hakuna Matata!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That's cuz they're dead.  Seriously, I think you're taking the comparison with a kids cartoon a little too..seriously.  Hakuna Matata!

[Annara Snow]

On 8.3.2018. at 7:58 AM, Risto said:

I agree... I really loved "This is Me" and it has amazing energy.

The bigger issue is that Oscars are becoming culturally irrelevant. Simply, who cares anymore? In 1998, people cared because everyone in the world watched Titanic. Same in 2004, with LOTR:ROTK. In 2010, Avatar drew some numbers. People were invested. Now, it seems that the movies that get nominated and awarded are not something a lot of people are drawn to. Every year we have that the fewer and fewer people have watched the movies that are nominated. 

Funny you mention Titanic, IMO one of the worst films to win the Best Picture Oscar.

I don't think the Oscars were any more relevant 20 years ago when they were awarding overrated, hyped popular movies like Titanic than now that they are awarding more obscure critical darlings  In either case, it's a measure of who had the best lobbying campaign with Oscar voters, more than anything. People were also explaining why Oscsrs are irrelevant 20 years ago. I remember a conversation on BBC World many years ago where some critics, journalists and industry people were commenting on how out of touch the Academy is, and that many of them don't even watch movies they vote on (one guest thought many of them are more likely to give their ballot to their grandkids, gardeners or others to fill ). I also remember how many times Oscar predictions in media included a variation of the phrase "This movie/actor has a strong chance because Harvey Weinstein always has a lot of influence with the Academy"...

I guess Emmys now are like Oscars 20 years ago - equally irrelevant as a measure of quality rather than lobbying, equally unable to think outside the box, but much more inclined to honor overrated hit shows, rather than less popular projects.

[Mladen]

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

Funny you mention Titanic, IMO one of the worst films to win the Best Picture Oscar.

I don't think the Oscars were any more relevant 20 years ago when they were awarding overrated, hyped popular movies like Titanic than now that they are awarding more obscure critical darlings  In either case, it's a measure of who had the best lobbying campaign with Oscar voters, more than anything. People were also explaining why Oscsrs are irrelevant 20 years ago. I remember a conversation on BBC World many years ago where some critics, journalists and industry people were commenting on how out of touch the Academy is, and that many of them don't even watch movies they vote on (one guest thought many of them are more likely to give their ballot to their grandkids, gardeners or others to fill ). I also remember how many times Oscar predictions in media included a variation of the phrase "This movie/actor has a strong chance because Harvey Weinstein always has a lot of influence with the Academy"...

I guess Emmys now are like Oscars 20 years ago - equally irrelevant as a measure of quality rather than lobbying, equally unable to think outside the box, but much more inclined to honor overrated hit shows, rather than less popular projects.

I don't disagree about that, but it does remain one of the world's most watched movies. 

I started watching Oscars as a kid. Here, in Europe, as you know, you have to stay awake all night in order to do so. And I haven't missed one. I still remember Whoppi and Martin and many others who made me laugh during those monologues. I do agree that lobbying has been through the roof in the past decade or two. Harvey Weinstein started it all (or brought it to a whole new level) with "Shakespeare in Love". But, in debate pop movies vs critical darlings, what you can't deny overrated popular movies such as Titanic, LOTR: ROTK, Avatar etc is the investment of people. Yes, the true moviegoers will get invested in the right movie, but not so many people will. And then the words "Academy Award winner" mean so little. At what point does obscure, niche preference turns into out-of-touch position? That was my point. Not that movies like Titanic were better winners.

[Cas Stark]

Is Titanic really one of the worsts films to win best picture?  Is it worse than Around the world in 80 days?  Gigi?  The Greatest Show on Earth? Or for that matter Birdman?  Is it even worse than the nominees it was up against, LA Confidential aside?  Its well acted, the editing, cinematography and direction are good.  There is nothing wrong with the screenplay either.  It also benefited from having been assumed to be a flop due to it's production problems and delays...and then was a massive global hit.

It seems that people hate it just because it was insanely popular.  

Oscars problem is less that it rewards critically acclaimed films instead of blockbusters and more that the divide BETWEEN blockbusters and critical darlings has become a huge gaping chasm, and since so few people go see movies at the cinema for anything other than a blockbuster it makes the audience for these art house films upon their release vanishingly small...  The program itself has also become pretty bad.  In their desire to streamline it, they took out all the campy elements that were fun, as well as the shorts they used to do about 'movies' and then add in the santimony....it's a recipe for irrelevance.

[Winterfell is Burning]

This year, you had as nominees for Best Picture huge hits like Dunkirk and Get Out, as well as movies that crossed the $100 million worldwide mark like Darkest Hour, The Post, The Shape of Water and Three Billboards. I'm not sure popularity of the films had anything to do with the ratings.

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Is Titanic really one of the worsts films to win best picture?  Is it worse than Around the world in 80 days?  Gigi?  The Greatest Show on Earth? Or for that matter Birdman?  Is it even worse than the nominees it was up against, LA Confidential aside?  Its well acted, the editing, cinematography and direction are good.  There is nothing wrong with the screenplay either.  It also benefited from having been assumed to be a flop due to it's production problems and delays...and then was a massive global hit.

It seems that people hate it just because it was insanely popular.

Well, with Shakespeare in Love. Crash, Argo, KIng's Speech, Birdman and many uninspiring nominations, one has to put it into perspective. I wouldn't put Titanic anywhere near the best movies but one simply can't deny the investment people had with every single Oscar it got. As you said, it was a story set to fail and somehow it succeeded.

I think that we have become insanely cynical which is why Titanic remains the last great love story to get people in the cinemas.

4 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Oscars problem is less that it rewards critically acclaimed films instead of blockbusters and more that the divide BETWEEN blockbusters and critical darlings has become a huge gaping chasm, and since so few people go see movies at the cinema for anything other than a blockbuster it makes the audience for these art house films upon their release vanishingly small...  The program itself has also become pretty bad.  In their desire to streamline it, they took out all the campy elements that were fun, as well as the shorts they used to do about 'movies' and then add in the santimony....it's a recipe for irrelevance.

I couldn't agree more. Even I am at fault of this. Simply, cinema is for the likes of MCU, DCU, SW and the rest of the known Universes. I like watching the "small" movies at home, alone or with some friends. The audience is getting smaller and smaller. Anytime I start with Oscars, most people here in Serbia have not heard let alone watched those movies. And in the age of Internet, the sadness and anger over exclusion of Blade Runner from main category becomes more vocal.

[Mladen]

18 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

This year, you had as nominees for Best Picture huge hits like Dunkirk and Get Out, as well as movies that crossed the $100 million worldwide mark like Darkest Hour, The Post, The Shape of Water and Three Billboards. I'm not sure popularity of the films had anything to do with the ratings.

Well, answering to Trump, Kimmel said that Netflix changed the ratings and how they should be counted. That is true, as the manner in which people watch television has changed for everyone. I wasn't speaking about ratings, more of people's general investment in Oscars. Perhaps I am older, but I don't see it as it was 10 or 15 years ago. One of the reasons probably is a number of televised award shows which in the past several years awarded the same people that at the end, Oscars simply become almost redundant. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

On 10/03/2018 at 9:31 PM, Risto said:

Well, answering to Trump, Kimmel said that Netflix changed the ratings and how they should be counted. That is true, as the manner in which people watch television has changed for everyone. I wasn't speaking about ratings, more of people's general investment in Oscars. Perhaps I am older, but I don't see it as it was 10 or 15 years ago. One of the reasons probably is a number of televised award shows which in the past several years awarded the same people that at the end, Oscars simply become almost redundant. 

That is true. There wasn't a single surprising winner this year. As the same people keep winning the same awards- partially because there is some crossover between the Guilds, the BAFTAs and the Academy, partially because of herd mentality- there's no point in watching. 

I don't know the solution to that- perhaps the Academy could adopt the same model it uses for BP to all the categories to make it different from the other awards, but then again, apart from Moonlight, that model didn't generated a single surprising BP winner (and I think the winners in the main categories this year would be the same). Also, it's likely the other awards would just copy it anyway.

[Annara Snow]

On 10.3.2018. at 9:10 PM, Cas Stark said:

Is Titanic really one of the worsts films to win best picture?  Is it worse than Around the world in 80 days?  Gigi?  The Greatest Show on Earth? Or for that matter Birdman?  Is it even worse than the nominees it was up against, LA Confidential aside?  Its well acted, the editing, cinematography and direction are good.  There is nothing wrong with the screenplay either.  It also benefited from having been assumed to be a flop due to it's production problems and delays...and then was a massive global hit.

It seems that people hate it just because it was insanely popular.  

Oscars problem is less that it rewards critically acclaimed films instead of blockbusters and more that the divide BETWEEN blockbusters and critical darlings has become a huge gaping chasm, and since so few people go see movies at the cinema for anything other than a blockbuster it makes the audience for these art house films upon their release vanishingly small...  The program itself has also become pretty bad.  In their desire to streamline it, they took out all the campy elements that were fun, as well as the shorts they used to do about 'movies' and then add in the santimony....it's a recipe for irrelevance.

I never said Titanic was the worst movie to win a Best Picture Oscar  - but one of the worst, at least from what I've seen: yes, I stand by that. I found it to be cliché-ridden, too melodramatic and boring.

It's nowhere near as bad as Braveheart, though. I finally saw that movie a couple of years ago - and god, what an absolute pile of garbage. That's what was considered a great movie at the time?!

Looking at the list of winners over the years, especially since the late 1980s, once or twice a decade they surprise you positively by choosing something that's great and not by the numbers, most times the choice is underwhelming and you end up thinking "well, it's a decent movie, but is it really something you would consider Best Picture?", and sometimes you are just left wondering "Really?!"

Also, comparing the winners with other nominees is misleading. The bigger problem is that there are always many great movies that don't get nominated, which are often much better than some or all of the nominees.

[TheKitttenGuard]

29 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

It's nowhere near as bad as Braveheart, though. I finally saw that movie a couple of years ago - and god, what an absolute pile of garbage. That's what was considered a great movie at the time?!

Yes, it was when Mel Gibson was very likeable. The very graphic depiction of battlefield violence was very new at the time (3 years before Saving Private Ryan). It was a solid story with strong acting all around.

Historical inaccuracies did not matter and few cared how the English were demonized. I did find watching the movie at the time how the virulent anti-gay it was and that unnerved me some though I still liked the movie. Also the premodial torture porn scene did not give too much of arise at the time.

The movie had dropped for me greatly since I am a person who gives a damn of history and stopped giving the Anti-gay moments. I still find some scene done incredible well and I can find them on YouTube if needed. The movie as a whole is terrible.

[Darth Richard II]

Oh man Braveheart. Same thing here, it's great til you start to think about it then look up the actual history. It makes 300 look like a documentary.

id also like to throw out randomly that I fucking HATE Forest Gump. 

[Mladen]

6 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

That is true. There wasn't a single surprising winner this year. As the same people keep winning the same awards- partially because there is some crossover between the Guilds, the BAFTAs and the Academy, partially because of herd mentality- there's no point in watching. 

I don't know the solution to that- perhaps the Academy could adopt the same model it uses for BP to all the categories to make it different from the other awards, but then again, apart from Moonlight, that model didn't generated a single surprising BP winner (and I think the winners in the main categories this year would be the same). Also, it's likely the other awards would just copy it anyway.

No one really does. The other awarding bodies have competed to be the one that predicts the Oscars best. And in doing so, they made the Oscars completely redundant. At the end, we all know winners.

2 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Historical inaccuracies did not matter and few cared how the English were demonized. I did find watching the movie at the time how the virulent anti-gay it was and that unnerved me some though I still liked the movie. Also the premodial torture porn scene did not give too much of arise at the time.

Isn't this kinda of thing for movies/TV shows that are done from historical Scottish POV? I haven't read Outlander books, but until Lord Grey, the English in the series were rather terrible. 

2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

id also like to throw out randomly that I fucking HATE Forest Gump. 

Well, as much as some of you hate Forrest Gump, Titanic, Braveheart, etc. in comparison to the latest Academy's blunders, they are at least memorable. I simply can't understand so many uninspiring choices in the past decade. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

5 hours ago, Risto said:

Isn't this kinda of thing for movies/TV shows that are done from historical Scottish POV? I haven't read Outlander books, but until Lord Grey, the English in the series were rather terrible. 

Well, yes I can understand the English being the bad guys, and many times I am for it, yet Gibson is someone who make them worst than needed

 Braveheart has elements that standout due to later films. The English in Braveheart you had the "First Night" myth, and that became English soldiers burning people in Churches in The Patroit. Wallace graphic torture and execution scenes became The Passion. The graphic depiction of violence and not caring much of historical accuracy are also constant in Gibson other works.

[Cas Stark]

Another possible reason for the declining audience is that the nature of celebrity has really changed the last decade.  Celebrities are more accessible than ever, they tweet, they selfie, they instagram...so a TV show of celebs behaving formally is actually less engaging than what is available on everyone's phone all the time.  It used to be a rare thing, and having all the celebs there at one event was a big deal.  Social media combined with eleventy billion awards show makes it not very special anymore.