Jump to content

tawasal

Weekend actuals - NUT (12,1) RIDE (21,29) LONE (12,9) FROZ (9,118) WOLFIE (5,48)

By tawasal, in Numbers and Data

Recommended Posts



riczhang Global Phenomenon

riczhang

Posted
Posted

Can we all agree Meryl Streep got an undeserved nomination (literally she could star in Avatar 2 and they'd probably give her a nomiation)? Just because the Weinsteins buy nominations (oops did I say that out loud?...), doesn't mean Meryl gave an Oscar-caliber performance. She didn't deserve it for Iron Lady either (a mediocre film) but because as riczhang says, she's Meryl Streep so she steals a nomination from someone who deserved it more (Emma Thompson)Saving Mr. Banks: 81% RTAugust - Osage County: 65% RT I'm pretty sure it's obvious which one had the better acting in it... And I've always been annoyed with the mentality that a certain actor should get preference for a nomination over someone who gave a far superior performance.

Well how bout no. Meryl totally deserved her mom and she deserved that win for the Iron Lady. And Meryl would get a non for Avatar 2 because she would elevate the acting beyond what the adequacy of Sam and Sigourney did. That's why she gets nommed. She brings acting to another level and makes the film better. And Harvey hasn't really bought anything since Daldry in 08, which is all sorts of awful but at least it stopped TDK so that kinda evens things out. And besides the fact that RT scores don't really mean all that much, a lower RT score doesn't necessarily mean that the film has lesser acting. Does Virginia Woolf have worse acting than Kane? Garret Hedlund's performance in On the Road is better than the combination of everything in Zero Dark Thirty but I don't see OTR having a better score than ZDT. And what about WOWS compared to AH. And I might remind you that the industry votes for who they think is best and have you ever considered the possibility that they just might know a little more than they do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


grim22 Global Phenomenon

grim22

Posted
Posted (edited)

OSAGE certainly had the *loudest* acting.

 

I forget who said this, but the statement was that, for categories that members don't understand replace "Best" with "Most". So the awards are actually given to "Most Acting", "Most Visual Effects", "Most Editing" and so on just because it is visible. If something is done well, then it should never be visible to a viewer.

Edited by grim22
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


kowhite Global Phenomenon

kowhite

Posted
Posted

Well how bout no. Meryl totally deserved her mom and she deserved that win for the Iron Lady. And Meryl would get a non for Avatar 2 because she would elevate the acting beyond what the adequacy of Sam and Sigourney did. That's why she gets nommed. She brings acting to another level and makes the film better. And Harvey hasn't really bought anything since Daldry in 08, which is all sorts of awful but at least it stopped TDK so that kinda evens things out. And besides the fact that RT scores don't really mean all that much, a lower RT score doesn't necessarily mean that the film has lesser acting. Does Virginia Woolf have worse acting than Kane? Garret Hedlund's performance in On the Road is better than the combination of everything in Zero Dark Thirty but I don't see OTR having a better score than ZDT. And what about WOWS compared to AH. And I might remind you that the industry votes for who they think is best and have you ever considered the possibility that they just might know a little more than they do?

What exactly does Meryl Streeps butthole taste like.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
riczhang Global Phenomenon

riczhang

Posted
Posted

I forget who said this, but the statement was that, for categories that members don't understand replace "Best" with "Most". So the awards are actually given to "Most Acting", "Most Visual Effects", "Most Editing" and so on just because it is visible. If something is done well, then it should never be visible to a viewer.

 

I said that about the techies. I don't believe that it's true for the above the line categories, but it certainly is true for the techies. Though I would dispute that the best should never be visible. Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, your editing winner at the 84th Oscars most certainly had the most editing, but did that by any means make it not the best? Certainly not. It won because it had the most, because it had the best. (and probably because the AMPAS felt it had to reward it somewhere)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


kowhite Global Phenomenon

kowhite

Posted
Posted

I said that about the techies. I don't believe that it's true for the above the line categories, but it certainly is true for the techies. Though I would dispute that the best should never be visible. Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, your editing winner at the 84th Oscars most certainly had the most editing, but did that by any means make it not the best? Certainly not. It won because it had the most, because it had the best. (and probably because the AMPAS felt it had to reward it somewhere)

You can't claim Girl With The Dragon Tattoo had the most editing when it came out in the same year as a Michael Bay movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
riczhang Global Phenomenon

riczhang

Posted
Posted

You can't claim Girl With The Dragon Tattoo had the most editing when it came out in the same year as a Michael Bay movie.

 

:rofl: well that didn't get nominated. And thank-god noms are done by the branchs which might actually know a little something about the craft. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




mahnamahna Box Office Gold

mahnamahna

Posted
Posted

Well how bout no. Meryl totally deserved her mom and she deserved that win for the Iron Lady. And Meryl would get a non for Avatar 2 because she would elevate the acting beyond what the adequacy of Sam and Sigourney did. That's why she gets nommed. She brings acting to another level and makes the film better.And Harvey hasn't really bought anything since Daldry in 08, which is all sorts of awful but at least it stopped TDK so that kinda evens things out.And besides the fact that RT scores don't really mean all that much, a lower RT score doesn't necessarily mean that the film has lesser acting. Does Virginia Woolf have worse acting than Kane? Garret Hedlund's performance in On the Road is better than the combination of everything in Zero Dark Thirty but I don't see OTR having a better score than ZDT. And what about WOWS compared to AH.And I might remind you that the industry votes for who they think is best and have you ever considered the possibility that they just might know a little more than they do?

If there ever was a total shill for an actor, it'd be you. If someone were to say every performance of Johnny Depp or Daniel Day Lewis should be nominated, I'd resoundingly say NO (Nine and Lone Ranger are two dreadful films from each) 

 

Meryl phoned it in like she has in most of her films of the 21st century (Lemony Snicket, Mamma Mia, Julie and Julia, etc)... and I could care less what some pompous windbags think is best because that's what the Academy has shown themselves to be - a bunch of out-of-touch, older white males who play it safe. 

 

Saving Mr. Banks had stellar performances from Emma Thompson and Colin Farrelll along with solid turns by Paul Giamatti and Tom Hanks... August appears to be a contest between Streep and Roberts over who can be the most like Honey Boo-Boo's mom  :lol: and baloney that she'd "elevate" Avatar 2... with Cameron writing, it's always going to sound retarded even out of a thespian's mouth. Plus as mentioned, she's been in subpar films before. 

 

It also doesn't help that she badmouthed the studio that's feeding her (she singled out Walt Disney as a sexist, racist pig... as if no other studio heads back then expressed such feelings  B) ) 

 

Into the Woods is one I'll make sure not to see since she'll likely ham it up and steal another Oscar nod from a lesser-known, more warranted person.

 

The Academy has proven time and time again (Greatest Show on Earth, How Green Was My Valley, The Life of Emilia Zota, Gigi, My Fair Lady, Oliver!, Ordinary People, Chariots of Fire, Gandhi, Out of Africa, Driving Miss Daisy, Dances With Wolves, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, CRASH - contender for one of the worst of all time... won BP... -, The King's Speech) it simply has no idea what it's doing. If each of those years were to have a retrospective ceremony with new nominees and winners, I'd guarantee half of those wouldn't even have gotten a BP nod

 

Explain how screaming F-bombs at the top of your lungs and yelling at each other is "great acting" while making a cold, unlikable author who won't budge on the rights to her story a lovable curmudgeon is not..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
riczhang Global Phenomenon

riczhang

Posted
Posted

If there ever was a total shill for an actor, it'd be you. If someone were to say every performance of Johnny Depp or Daniel Day Lewis should be nominated, I'd resoundingly say NO (Nine and Lone Ranger are two dreadful films from each) Well Depp isn't on the same level as Goddess and DDL should be nominated for every film because he is really that great. 

 

Meryl phoned it in like she has in most of her films of the 21st century (Lemony Snicket, Mamma Mia, Julie and Julia, etc)... and I could care less what some pompous windbags think is best because that's what the Academy has shown themselves to be - a bunch of out-of-touch, older white males who play it safe. If you don't care what some pompous windbags think, then you should stop getting so upset about Thompson. Showing that you care about Thompson's snubs necessarily dictates that you care about the AMPAS. So either admit that you care or just drop the subject. I admit that I care about the AMPAS for a multitude of reasons. At least I own up to that fact. And I disagree that she's phoned it in for most of her films. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Mamma Mia, but that's Mamma Mia and that was never meant to be a serious piece. 

 

Secondly, it's better to be an out-of-touch group that plays it safe than a group that nominates transformers and idolises bad superhero flicks. (hint, hint, look in a mirror). 

 

Saving Mr. Banks had stellar performances from Emma Thompson and Colin Farrelll along with solid turns by Paul Giamatti and Tom Hanks... August appears to be a contest between Streep and Roberts over who can be the most like Honey Boo-Boo's mom  :lol: and baloney that she'd "elevate" Avatar 2... with Cameron writing, it's always going to sound retarded even out of a thespian's mouth. Plus as mentioned, she's been in subpar films before. I wouldn't define anything in Mr. Banks as Stellar. It was boring, mediocre and tried to tell too grand of a scope to really explore anything. By trying to explore Travers's Past as well as chronicle the making of the movie, the movie failed to tell either of them superbly well. And she would. She'd bring up an otherwise mediocre movie to the next level: at least when she's on screen. 

 

It also doesn't help that she badmouthed the studio that's feeding her (she singled out Walt Disney as a sexist, racist pig... as if no other studio heads back then expressed such feelings  B) ) Free Speech. Plus voting was pretty much done at that point. Nothing she did would've changed the inevitable outcome. And Walt is singled out because he's remembered. Most of the poor unfortunate peasants (oops...... citizens) don't have any idea who the four Warner Bros are (Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack/Jacob fyi) or Dintenfass or Stronheim (who was an actor-director, starred in Sunset Boulevard and directed Greed). Disney gets singled out because he's remembered. Simple as that. Why do we shit on Genghis Khan or Hitler or Caligula or etc. when there are countless others who espoused similar beliefs such as Sobekhotep who surely killed indiscriminately and massively? Because the formers are remembered and the latter isn't. Simple as that. This case is simply another facet of history. 

 

Into the Woods is one I'll make sure not to see since she'll likely ham it up and steal another Oscar nod from a lesser-known, more warranted person. Oh yeah. I'll enjoy rubbing it in your face again next year when everyone will say 'x is locked' only for me to say 'I'm not sure' and be right on nomination morning. I've been in this game a long time, I see things coming and I take my victories. 

 

The Academy has proven time and time again (Greatest Show on Earth, How Green Was My Valley, The Life of Emilia Zota, Gigi, My Fair Lady, Oliver!, Ordinary People, Chariots of Fire, Gandhi, Out of Africa, Driving Miss Daisy, Dances With Wolves, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, CRASH - contender for one of the worst of all time... won BP... -, The King's Speech) it simply has no idea what it's doing. If each of those years were to have a retrospective ceremony with new nominees and winners, I'd guarantee half of those wouldn't even have gotten a BP nod That's a matter of opinion. I happen to love quite a few of those films you mentioned and a some of those are just victim of a very vocal minority. Have you even seen Life of Emile Zola? The only truly awful films on there are probably Greatest Show and My Fair Lady. And Greatest Show would win had there been a retrospect. It was the AMPAS's last chance to reward DeMille, so of course he'd win. I doubt your guarantee would hold up. Your ideas of merit =/= the AMPAS's collective idea of merit =/= precisely what the Academy Awards do. Sometimes achievement awards are necessary and isn't indicative of the AMPAs having no idea what it's doing. They know pretty damn well what they're doing. 

 

Explain how screaming F-bombs at the top of your lungs and yelling at each other is "great acting" while making a cold, unlikable author who won't budge on the rights to her story a lovable curmudgeon is not. Well that was violet for you. Go watch the play at the Steppenwolf or on the West End. That was the character. Meryl played her perfectly. I'd also like to point out that Tracy Lett's Mother (or was it Grandmother) was just like Vi. 

 

I don't see how Travers was a lovable curmudgeon. She was an ice cold bitch throughout the movie, until maybe the end but that just reeked of historical inaccuracy and emotional manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Plain Old Tele Cinematic Universe

Plain Old Tele

Posted
Posted

:rofl: well that didn't get nominated. And thank-god noms are done by the branchs which might actually know a little something about the craft. 

 

At least for editing, though, is that it's almost impossible to tell what is "best". Something can be immaculately cut so that it doesn't have a wasted frame and just quietly glides along (like SOCIAL NETWORK), or it can have tons of jittery cuts from a ton of angles that still fit seamlessly together (Greengrass movies), or it can be long takes that don't have cuts at all (Tarkovsky, GRAVITY, etc); but without seeing the source footage, it's very hard to tell whether the editing was actually the "best" or not. If the footage is perfectly shot with angles that are carefully planned and where all the performances and action work exactly with the original intent, that can be a much easier job where many editors could produce a polished, beautiful version; whereas you might have mixed footage with subpar elements, or the concept/execution changed from production to post, and it might actually be more difficult to create a solid version (that wouldn't seem as "great" as the other example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites










Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept