87TH ACADEMY AWARDS CEREMONY DISCUSSION THREAD AAAHHH! | Discuss It Live Here

[Walt Disney]

No way for Munich. Brokeback Mountain is without doubt the best film that year.

 

As for Catch Me if You Can - up against LotR, The Pianist, Chicago, I don't see why it should have won. Though clearly the snub there was Attack of the Clones.

 

Munich was excellent. Brokeback Mountain wasn't great to me.

[Avatree]

The increase in BP slots hasn't done much to allow bigger movies in.

My guess is adding more slots would bring us a bunch of Mr. Turners before we could get a superhero movie, a YA movie or a comedy.

My sense is that the academy believes their niche is intrinsically better than everything else. It's fine to have some bias, but that ruins any claim to judging quality

I don't think any reasonable person believes the Academy is the ultimate judge on quality. Judging films is purely subjective. Everyone has biases, even if you think they're ridiculous, but it doesn't make an opinion any less valid. It's why you should take the Oscars with a pinch of salt.

[Dementeleus]

Sandra Bullocks performance in Blind Side. I want more performances like that. Clearly not a baity performance. She was assigned to play Leigh anne Tuey, a southern, headstrong, soccer mom, and she did. Alot of actors nominated take who theyre supposed to be and go overboard, hence the shouting and yelling, and what feels out of characterness to me.

I know Im not a professional acot, and cant tell these people what to do, but its just something I notice year in and year out and I cant roll my eyes any harder. Just play your part, dont play the Academys part. The acedmy needs to diversify with that. Again, dont just pick the best thespian-esque performances from October-January, pick who paly their character the best, not the hammiest.

 

Who this year did you think was hammy and undeserving? Because (of the performances I saw, at least) they were all pretty good.

[MovieMan89]

Who this year did you think was hammy and undeserving? Because (of the performances I saw, at least) they were all pretty good.

Nothing "hammy" at all about squawking like a bird and talking like the cookie monster.

[Avatree]

Who this year did you think was hammy and undeserving? Because (of the performances I saw, at least) they were all pretty good.

Benedict Cumberbatch and (to a lesser extent) Bradley Cooper imo. They were okay performances but just way too over the top.

[Sam]

Sandra Bullocks performance in Blind Side. I want more performances like that. Clearly not a baity performance. She was assigned to play Leigh anne Tuey, a southern, headstrong, soccer mom, and she did. Alot of actors nominated take who theyre supposed to be and go overboard, hence the shouting and yelling, and what feels out of characterness to me.

I know Im not a professional actor, and cant tell these people what to do, but its just something I notice year in and year out and I cant roll my eyes any harder. Just play your part, dont play the Academys part. The acedmy needs to diversify with that. Again, dont just pick the best thespian-esque performances from October-January, pick who play their character the best, not the hammiest.

I agree with this. Sometimes the best performances are the simple, quiet ones. I thought Bullock did that very well. I was surprised about the backlash she got from winning BA.

[Empire]

Spielberg has 3 oscars and Hanks has 2. they're not exactly wanting.

 

btw I know St. James Place won't win because the exact same thing that happened with Lincoln... and War Horse... and Munich... and Catch Me If You Can, will happen. people are already all like "spielberg it's gonna win" like they were with those movies but naaahh.

Hey, let me dream. Munich should have won though. The rest.......nah.

[BadAtGender]

The feature animation category is weird. It's simultaneously showcasing how out of touch and (weirdly) in touch the Academy is.

 

I mean, from the brutally honest ballots its clear that many voters either don't care to watch or just vote for what their kids/grandkids go for. What this means it that generally whichever film is the highest grossing domestically is going to win. Ever since the award started that's been true for all years except two: 2002 (when Spirited Away was the lowest grossing of the five), 2004 (Incredibles over Shrek 2), and 2011 (when Rango beat Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots.)

 

But, because of this, that means that the animated feature almost always goes to the populist choice of the nominees. So, weirdly, in touch with the general public.

 

This year was strange because it seemed like the animation branch is out of touch by not nominating LEGO. Their nominating criteria doesn't take populist appeal into account. Which is fine, really.

 

(Edit: Forgot about 2004).

Edited February 23, 2015 by DamienRoc

[TalismanRing]

In the '90s, they were doing so well with the best picture category. Other than The English Patient and Shakespeare in Love (should have gone to Saving Private Ryan) winning, the '90s were an excellent decade for best picture winners.

 

It really started going down hill in 2004, and other than The Departed in 2006 and Argo in 2012, it really has been consistently bad for about 10 years now.

 

2004? Chicago beat The Pianist in 2002.

 

In the 90s people complained about Gump over Pulp Fiction as much as they did Crash over Brokeback Mountain in the 00s

 

There have ALWAYS been  things to complain about with the Oscars - back to and even before - cover your eyes Baumer - Citizen Kane losing. (though that at least had the excuse of one very irate and powerful Media King going against it)

[BadAtGender]

I wonder if TJ Miller was sitting in between the BH6 and HTTYD2 casts, so he could stand up and cheer regardless of which film won and not have it look awkward.

[Dementeleus]

Benedict Cumberbatch and (to a lesser extent) Bradley Cooper imo. They were okay performances but just way too over the top.

 

Hammy? That's not the word I would use to describe their performances, even if I felt others were better.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Telemachos

[MovieMan89]

The feature animation category is weird. It's simultaneously showcasing how out of touch and (weirdly) in touch the Academy is.

 

I mean, from the brutally honest ballots its clear that many voters either don't care to watch or just vote for what their kids/grandkids go for. What this means it that generally whichever film is the highest grossing domestically is going to win. Ever since the award started that's been true for all years except two: 2002 (when Spirited Away was the lowest grossing of the five), 2004 (Incredibles over Shrek 2), and 2011 (when Rango beat Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots.)

 

But, because of this, that means that the animated feature almost always goes to the populist choice of the nominees. So, weirdly, in touch with the general public.

 

This year was strange because it seemed like the animation branch is out of touch by not nominating LEGO. Their nominating criteria doesn't take populist appeal into account. Which is fine, really.

 

(Edit: Forgot about 2004).

But the most successful of the nominees did win, so once again it does seem they basically just give it to the highest grossing. I feel like aside from a small passionate faction in the Academy, most of them have next to no respect for the category and pay it no attention most years. Hence why they just vote for what's popular or a brand name (used to be Pixar now it seems to be WDA). It's like an award they just want to get out of the way without having to spend any time actually judging.

[DAR]

I don't think the problem is the awards but the show itself.  It's gotten beyond the point of stale.  Too long, lame bits, speeches that ramble and piss off half the viewers. 

[Dementeleus]

I feel at this point people (not here, just talking in general) are just raring to rage at something. 

[filmlover]

The first step they can take is by firing these two producers, who seem woefully out of touch with what people want from an awards show these days. Nobody cares to slog through a bunch of musical numbers on top of the Original Song performances.

[Walt Disney]

I don't think the problem is the awards but the show itself.  It's gotten beyond the point of stale.  Too long, lame bits, speeches that ramble and piss off half the viewers. 

 

I agree with all of that too.

[Walt Disney]

The first step they can take is by firing these two producers, who seem woefully out of touch with what people want from an awards show these days. Nobody cares to slog through a bunch of musical numbers on top of the Original Song performances.

 

I know people like the musical numbers, so I don't think that's a problem. I think having Broadway aspirations for the show is fine, but they need to make sure that it's Broadway quality as well. It also hurt them this year that there weren't really any monster songs this year.

[Jandrew]

Who this year did you think was hammy and undeserving? Because (of the performances I saw, at least) they were all pretty good.

Until I see all the movies I cant really talk on this year, but last year was a big eye roll. Meryl and Julia for August, everyone in AH except (maybe) for Adams. Carrie Coon shouldve been nominated this year, Sienna Miller was pretty good in Sniper, Woodley was good in Fault, Favreau was good in Chef, McC in Interstellar, and Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler. All deserving.

Carrells, Reese's, Streep's, and Emma's noms felt manufactured. And again, its not necssarily about the actor, but the style always chosen. All these performances are shouty, preachy, whiny. I want a good spirit performance like Sandras in Blind Side or Favreau in Chef, and I want more diverse look. Its always the same 5 movies getting all the picture, actor, director, writing noms. One reason it feels manufactured. If youre giving a movie BP, and BD, it almost feels and seems obligitory to give the actors in those movies noms.

I know some of the examples I said are a little shouty and preachy, but they still deserved looks, especially Coon. She didnt even come close to overacting and sucking the fun out of her performance. Cooper didnt blow me away with his acting in AS, but he played a believable Chris Kyle. Thats the performances I want nominated: actors playing who they are to the tee, not the "let me cry for half my scenes, punch some tables and walls, and deliver my lines really fast and stern in full scene or two to show people im awesome at remember my lines." Just my opinion. Yes, many were deserving, but then again.

[Ozymandias]

I don't think the problem is the awards but the show itself.  It's gotten beyond the point of stale.  Too long, lame bits, speeches that ramble and piss off half the viewers. 

 

Remember when the Oscars had some class and were actually fun to watch?  Now they're juvenile, stupid, tedious, and fill every possible cliche they can.  The show is like a Michael Bay movie now, they try to pander to every possible audience they can for higher ratings.

[Jandrew]

I feel at this point people (not here, just talking in general) are just raring to rage at something.

No, ive always had this qualm, but its awkward to bring it up in say June. Why would I randomly talk about my Oscar acting displeasure in June?