Academy Awards 2015 - Oscar night...

[Crazydog7]

Three out of the last four awards were movies about movies and/or movie people, and before that you had a movie about a guy that had stage fright and is helped by an actor.

I really can't blame NPH for having a weak night as it was just written that way but that bullshit with his pants getting caught in the door was just about enough.

There are still some glimmers of the old stylle every year but Julie Andrews isn't going to be around forever. What always pisses me off are the endless rounds of self congraulations

just because you get a movie produced about Martin Luther King or Alan Turing doesn't make problems like racial discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orgintation go away.

[lancerman]

That's an ignorant comment, it's like saying if Gravity hadn't used CGI, no one would like it. It Boyhood had not been shot over 12 years using the same actors, director and crew, it would have been an entirely different movie.

And you really think hundreds of people dedicated over twelve years of their lives for a "gimmick"? Specially considering it clearly did not paid that well, and every single one of them made more money elsewhere? And considering they risked the movie being stopped in the middle if the boy gave up, or died, or lost his left hand or something? And that since the script wasn't entirely ready at the start, they had no idea how the movie would turn out in the end?

Even considering this is the internet, the land of "every idiot thinks he knows everything" it wouldn't hurt to be more thoughtful and considering all the implications of what you're saying.

Three out of the last four awards were movies about movies and/or movie people, and before that you had a movie about a guy that had stage fright and is helped by an actor.

Not really. The gimmick of Boyhood was a behind the scenes tactic that ended up superseding the merit of it on the screen. The fact that it was the same kid, did not make the acting any better, it didn't make the screenplay any better. It gave more authenticity to the film, which IS an achievement. Buy I don't necessarily think that a film should be put on a pedestal because it looked more real. Would it really be an entirely different film if you took the exact same screenplay, the exact same director and crew, the same dialogue, and just substituted different actors for the kids and got similar performances? Or would it just look less real? It deserves praise for its ambition. But I think overall the merit of the film lived and died off the fact that it was filmed over 12 years, and not that everything about it was great.

I'll even go a step further. Birdman had a gimmick. It was edited to look like one shot. But that gimmick profoundly impacted the plot of the film, the pacing, the acting, the entire atmosphere of the film. But Birdman lived and died because the entire film thrived as a single work. It was getting praise for the entire film from the acting, the pacing, the cinematography, the directing, and the gimmick which facilitated all of that. But you didn't hear people go "oh wow, Birdman was amazing, that one shot thing was really ambitious" and you didn't see everything that people recognize the film for being about the one shot aspect.

[Kyoshi]

Not really. The gimmick of Boyhood was a behind the scenes tactic that ended up superseding the merit of it on the screen. The fact that it was the same kid, did not make the acting any better, it didn't make the screenplay any better. It gave more authenticity to the film, which IS an achievement. Buy I don't necessarily think that a film should be put on a pedestal because it looked more real. Would it really be an entirely different film if you took the exact same screenplay, the exact same director and crew, the same dialogue, and just substituted different actors for the kids and got similar performances? Or would it just look less real? It deserves praise for its ambition. But I think overall the merit of the film lived and died off the fact that it was filmed over 12 years, and not that everything about it was great.

I'll even go a step further. Birdman had a gimmick. It was edited to look like one shot. But that gimmick profoundly impacted the plot of the film, the pacing, the acting, the entire atmosphere of the film. But Birdman lived and died because the entire film thrived as a single work. It was getting praise for the entire film from the acting, the pacing, the cinematography, the directing, and the gimmick which facilitated all of that. But you didn't hear people go "oh wow, Birdman was amazing, that one shot thing was really ambitious" and you didn't see everything that people recognize the film for being about the one shot aspect.

:agree: with most of this.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Why is lady gaga singing the sound of music? Did they really feel like this telecast needed to be padded out?

Last year it was Pink singing Somewhere Over the Rainbow for the 75th anniversary of the Wizard of Oz. So, I suppose next year some other movie will have a same treatment.

[drawkcabi]

I know several people who watched Boyhood without knowing of the filming circumstances. One of my friends actually said it was a waste of her time since it was a movie about nothing, her words. Several other people feel that way until they discover the filming period, my dad being one of them. And maybe that's our fault as movie-goers--we've come to expect the traditional tale that often starts with ordinary circumstances, escalates into conflict, climaxes, and makes its way down into resolution. Boyhood offered none of those things. All it gave, all it gave that was satisfactory were the exceptional performances of Patricia and Ethan. As the kids got older, their acting got horrendous; and as the movie progressed it kind of got tiring to just a watch a kid get older. Overall, Boyhood was an unsatisfactory experience for most people and to reward it seems rather...unfair, especially in a year with such good movies.

That's interesting. My girlfriend watched Boyhood and said she didn't recommend seeing it, it was a whole lot of "meh". I haven't seen it yet and that's kind of put a damper on my wanting to do so, but I assumed she knew about the way it was filmed, I need to ask her now to be sure.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I'm loving the twitter comments:

JK Simmons should have gone to the stage while Levine was singing and kick him out of there.

The plot of Boyhood in IMDB is probably a blank page.

"Don't worry, adulthood will make it".

Selma is about Patty's sister? Is it good?

@TheTweetOfGod: MY SON! MY SON IS PRESENTING FOR BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS!!!

[Kyoshi]

That's interesting. My girlfriend watched Boyhood and said she didn't recommend seeing it, it was a whole lot of "meh". I haven't seen it yet and that's kind of put a damper on my wanting to do so, but I assumed she knew about the way it was filmed, I need to ask her now to be sure.

You never know. You might end up loving it; my brother did.

[lancerman]

I think Arquette was more saying that we made great strides in these social issues and this one hasn't really gotten the attention it deserves.

But to be honest, I really don't like when celebrities take award ceremonies and use them for social commentary. I respect actors and the work they put in. But I really don't need well off millionaires who get overpayed for what essentially amounts to playing pretend to lecture me on political issues. Even if I happen to agree with their points. It's like, your making millions, you already have fame and all that comes with it, and now you are getting an award so we can all tell you how great you are. Thanks but people just want to see you be happy and thank your family and collegaues.

It's the same reason Streep was getting some backlash on twitter. And why NPH mad that joke about her realizing that she's underpaid. Good message, but now what we're here for.

[Mladen]

Regarding the social issues in speeches, it is only acceptable if you do it right.The last year we have wonderful example of how to do it when Cate Blanchett talked about "female films" and how not to do it when Jared Leto started mumbling words like Ukraine and Venezuela without any actual idea. So, if done properly, it can actually mean something.

As for Birdman, I feel like this will be the Crash of 2010s, or even Gwyneth Paltrow. Simply, we talk about the movie that was absolutely amazing, but in no way unique snowflake, especially having movie like Whiplash in the same year. TGBH might be lighter, Boyhood might be more difficult to process due to pace and length, but these two movies are undoubtedly the 2 films that this year will be remembered for.

And lastly, every movie has some sort of gimmick. That is how they are recognized in the sea of Hollywood's mass production.

[Kyoshi]

In my eyes, and I understand this is an unpopular opinion, nothing gets worse than Slumdog Millionaire and The Hurt Locker. Nothing at all. Nothing. Note even the now unpopular Crash.

[Kyoshi]

Okay, maybe Argo. But nothing else.

[Mladen]

In my eyes, and I understand this is an unpopular opinion, nothing gets worse than Slumdog Millionaire and The Hurt Locker. Nothing at all. Nothing. Note even the now unpopular Crash.

I might agree for The Hurt Locker and Argo... Actually in the past 10 years, we have what 4-5 questionable winners? But I kinda feel bad because I really can't remember that Hollywood gave such a strong year in terms of great movies you need to see.

[TheKingoftheSevenKingdoms]

i dont get what you guys are complaining bout. Birdman is my third favorite film of the year behind DOTPOTA and Whiplash

[dooog]

Boyhood won't be remembered for losing. It was getting by off a gimmick and if it was filmed all at once with recasted kids giving the same performances it wouldn't even be up there.

The difference between Gravity and Boyhood is that one had a compelling story that was completely separate from the background/behind-the-scenes happenings while the other rests entirely on the uniqueness of that. I think what Lancerman is trying to say is that the most compelling thing about Boyhood, even more compelling that the movie itself, is the shooting duration and the casting choices. It ends there. The end product was nothing revolutionary in terms of cinema, it was just a movie that was shot over twelve years and somehow that became something to be cheered and rewarded. Which is completely fine, so long as we don't pretend the movie was a masterpiece and that it was better than its opponents, which at the end of the day is something quite subjective.

I know several people who watched Boyhood without knowing of the filming circumstances. One of my friends actually said it was a waste of her time since it was a movie about nothing, her words. Several other people feel that way until they discover the filming period, my dad being one of them. And maybe that's our fault as movie-goers--we've come to expect the traditional tale that often starts with ordinary circumstances, escalates into conflict, climaxes, and makes its way down into resolution. Boyhood offered none of those things. All it gave, all it gave that was satisfactory were the exceptional performances of Patricia and Ethan. As the kids got older, their acting got horrendous; and as the movie progressed it kind of got tiring to just a watch a kid get older. Overall, Boyhood was an unsatisfactory experience for most people and to reward it seems rather...unfair, especially in a year with such good movies.

I'll even go a step further. Birdman had a gimmick. It was edited to look like one shot. But that gimmick profoundly impacted the plot of the film, the pacing, the acting, the entire atmosphere of the film.

Completely agree with all of that ^

With the exception of Redmayne for best actor I think the awards were spot on for once.

Also thought Rosamund Pike was a shoe-in for best actress when I watched Gone Girl, but I haven't seen Still Alice so I can't really say on that one.

[Kyoshi]

I might agree for The Hurt Locker and Argo... Actually in the past 10 years, we have what 4-5 questionable winners? But I kinda feel bad because I really can't remember that Hollywood gave such a strong year in terms of great movies you need to see.

I agree. But I also think that the appreciation for some of the performances was far more questionable than that for the weaker movies. For the life of me, I can't understand how I anyone thought it was a good thing to hand Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar for SLP. I thought she was far more compelling in Winter's Bone.

Although the following did not win, I struggled to see the awesomeness in their performances: Jessica Chastain [Zero Dark Thirty] and Bradley Cooper [everything he did and was nominated for].

EDIT: I also thought Leo [The Aviator] and Ewan McGregor [Moulin Rogue] should have at least been nominated.

[Veltigar]

the bolded is so true. I've long felt that the Academy often creates a brand. They find a "star" and they really endorse him or her. Usually, said "star" is young and pretty and therefore relevant. It can never be someone like Viola Davis or Dame Judi Dench (who are in their own league of talent). I don't know, sometimes I question the validity of award shows...I mean, are they really the best measure for talent and for celebrating it :dunno:

No, they aren't. Especially not when the voting is anonymous and the voting body is so skewed towards one single group (rich old white men). But we know that of course. The reason why I give those assholes crap every year (despite promising myself not to get all worked up about it) is the fact that - at the end of the day - their opinion has some real consequence.

American Massmurder, tIG, tToE will earn even more money know because they can slap 'nominated/won academy award for ...' on the DVD cover. For casual moviegoers, they are still a hallmark of quality. And at the end of the day, money is what makes the wheels spin in Hollywood. Thus, those crappy films that earned a lot of money will be aped, while true art will have to do with less money.

[Mladen]

snip

V,, I hear you man... The interesting thing is that outside perception of Academy is that it is wonderful cultural event out-shined solely by the glamorous nature of it. The image that entire Hollywood carefully nurtures and protects it at all costs. But, when you scratch below the surface, you see the capitalist industry at its best and worst. For years we talk about Weinstein campaigning and what truly Oscar's worth. Last year, at this time, or a week or two ago, we had that Woody Allen fiasco which was passed as it came. Every year we speak about nominating one actress for "being in a movie". Then, I remember discussion from last year whether the voters at technical departments can actually push Sandra Bullock to win. The talk about race became inevitable. And the racist joke from last year was the saddest truth.

Then we speak attempts of being mainstream (as it can be more mainstream than it is now) and youth-orientated. Can anyone remember the James Franco hosting it with Anne Hathaway? That same thing brought us many of the pop culture names being nominated for the work that is basically laughable. And the list of those names is not short. We have Bradley Cooper who became accessory in actors' race. Jennifer Lawrence was a serious contender to win the second Academy Award. Second, FFS!!! And so on and on... Yesterday I rolled my eyes when I saw Dakota Johnson... So, instead of meritocracy, we got rather calculated decisions regarding who should win and how it will look in the news next day.

[eyenon15]

V,, I hear you man... The interesting thing is that outside perception of Academy is that it is wonderful cultural event out-shined solely by the glamorous nature of it. The image that entire Hollywood carefully nurtures and protects it at all costs. But, when you scratch below the surface, you see the capitalist industry at its best and worst. For years we talk about Weinstein campaigning and what truly Oscar's worth. Last year, at this time, or a week or two ago, we had that Woody Allen fiasco which was passed as it came. Every year we speak about nominating one actress for "being in a movie". Then, I remember discussion from last year whether the voters at technical departments can actually push Sandra Bullock to win. The talk about race became inevitable. And the racist joke from last year was the saddest truth.

Then we speak attempts of being mainstream (as it can be more mainstream than it is now) and youth-orientated. Can anyone remember the James Franco hosting it with Anne Hathaway? That same thing brought us many of the pop culture names being nominated for the work that is basically laughable. And the list of those names is not short. We have Bradley Cooper who became accessory in actors' race. Jennifer Lawrence was a serious contender to win the second Academy Award. Second, FFS!!! And so on and on... Yesterday I rolled my eyes when I saw Dakota Johnson... So, instead of meritocracy, we got rather calculated decisions regarding who should win and how it will look in the news next day.

I was 30 years old before I realized it was about movies and not a fashion thing.

My youth all I heard about the Oscars was "can you believe they wore THAT on the red carpet!!!! Blasphemy!!!"

[Annara Snow]

This truly is the year of the snubs. Pretty horrifying really. We have one of the best years in recent movie history and the academy awards wants none of it. I mean shit, wins for tToE and tIG and American Sniper? Movies that half of the time don't even deserve to be nominated.

No Under the Skin, no Damien Chazelle, no Calvary, no Scarlett Johanson, no Jake Gyllenhaal, no prize for Boyhood, etc. Terrible, terrible.

I haven't actually seen tToE yet. I refuse to watch at least three of the nominees for being shameless oscar bait (two of which have also very questionable ideological views in it), but I have to say that Redmayne has never ever impressed me in anything. I remember his stint on Pillars of the Earth well, how awful he was there.

This is an outrage. By rights this should have gone to Inherent Vice (Whiplash should have won in best original screenplay). The Imitation Game takes the great tale of Alan Turing and shits on it. They even make him a traitor for crying out loud.

Don't pay for that shit, just download it. The story they bring to screen is wildly inaccurate and insulting to just about every historical figure depicted.

The film with a compelling story was Boyhood. At the end of the day, Gravity was just a themepark ride. Visually a great experience, but man that story blew, with all the hitting you over the head with the rebirth symbolism and the fact that it was all just a collection of levels (pretty much like a videogame). All the while you had Sandra Bullock trying to act, even though she's unfit to do so.

Yeah, count me in as well. He has never really impressed me enough to earn a best acting award. He's sure to get one soon though, that's just how the Academy rolls.

Because she's likeable and America's special snowflake. Did you know that she stayed real despite all the fame? She's just superquirky and likeable, just like a normal person :ack:

JL is probably one of the most (if not the most) overrated actress working right now.

EDIT: Also, she wasn't black. That probably helped her win to. Quvenzhané Wallis was the most deserving of the candidates, but well she was young and black and not superquirky. Plus, she played a part in a movie that was actually good. All reasons to stop her from winning, because your typical academy voter doesn't like those things.

You got to be kidding me?! Wallis only got nominated because people love cute spunky children in movies. Which she was, and it worked for the movie, but to compare her performance to Lawrence's or Riva's is ridiculous. SLP was excellent, oh, and Cooper was fantastic in it - and I had never been his fan before.

But nothing is as ridiculous as people hating on Jennifer Lawrence for being liked by other people. Yeah, she's a great actress and very spontaneous and charming person. How disgusting! Why can't she be a bitch, or boring, or unlikeable... The bitch! Argh Argh :rolleyes: :lol:

[Mexal]

I'm on my phone so don't really feel like typing out all my responses right this moment but I think you guys are massively overreacting. Birdman was a very good movie, chalk full of great performances, incredible direction and unique cinematography. It was absolutely a deserving winner and no way it'll ever be considered in the same realm as Crash or Shakespeare in Love. It wasn't my favorite movie of the year but I absolutely understand why it won.

I have other thoughts on Redmayne, Imitation Game, Cooper and more but will have to get to that later.