mother! | 09.15.17 | Paramount | Darren Aronofsky, Jennifer Lawrence | Razzie Awards frontrunner

[Valonqar]

14 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

I'm willing to bet most of the people who call The Reader Oscar bait haven't seen it (regardless whether it is or isn't)  

And War Horse. Not that they are not Oscar baits but the argument to see the movie first before judging it always comes up when some overhyped fan favorite makes a boxoffice bomb that isn't even critically that much louded (79 MC and 7.6 critical average on RT are mediocre for a hyped Oscar player). Like Detroit atm. 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Valonqar

[The Futurist]

Really hoping Darren will go deviant here.

[Nova]

You can't possibly have an Oscar bait film unless it has Oscar potential. For example, many folks assume that Buzz Aldrin biopic coming out next year is an Oscar "bait" film but if the people involved in making the film weren't involved, would it still be called Oscar bait? I don't think so. So that's where I believe the term comes from. I don't need to see that biopic to know that it was made to get awards season love. Does that mean it will? All depends on the execution of the film. 

 

Do I think studios purposely green light films for the purpose of generating awards season buzz? Absolutely. You'd be naive to think otherwise. Do I think there are certain types of films that are more awards friendly? Sure. Do I think any of this is a bad thing? No. Why would it be a bad thing to want to make films that are viewed very highly from an industry stand point? Just like I don't think it's a bad thing that a studio green lights a blockbuster film, throws a ton of money at it, all for the purpose of starting a franchise. 

 

There are two aspects to the industry. Money and Acclaim. Some films manage to make money AND get the awards love/acclaim. Some films manage to just get money. Some films manage to just get awards love. And the really bad films are the ones that get neither. 

 

The problem isnt that films are called Oscar bait. The problem is that the term Oscar bait has a meaning attached to it that coincides with negativity. Oscar bait films do exist. But Oscar bait films are not a bad thing. Nor should studios be called out for releasing films that are Oscar bait/have Oscar potential. 

[Valonqar]

8 minutes ago, Nova said:

You can't possibly have an Oscar bait film unless it has Oscar potential. For example, many folks assume that Buzz Aldrin biopic coming out next year is an Oscar "bait" film but if the people involved in making the film weren't involved, would it still be called Oscar bait? I don't think so. So that's where I believe the term comes from. I don't need to see that biopic to know that it was made to get awards season love. Does that mean it will? All depends on the execution of the film. 

 

Do I think studios purposely green light films for the purpose of generating awards season buzz? Absolutely. You'd be naive to think otherwise. Do I think there are certain types of films that are more awards friendly? Sure. Do I think any of this is a bad thing? No. Why would it be a bad thing to want to make films that are viewed very highly from an industry stand point? Just like I don't think it's a bad thing that a studio green lights a blockbuster film, throws a ton of money at it, all for the purpose of starting a franchise. 

 

There are two aspects to the industry. Money and Acclaim. Some films manage to make money AND get the awards love/acclaim. Some films manage to just get money. Some films manage to just get awards love. And the really bad films are the ones that get neither. 

 

The problem isnt that films are called Oscar bait. The problem is that the term Oscar bait has a meaning attached to it that coincides with negativity. Oscar bait films do exist. But Oscar bait films are not a bad thing. Nor should studios be called out for releasing films that are Oscar bait/have Oscar potential. 

 

Great post!

 

I think that mocking Oscar baits, at least I do it for that reason, is in big part a reaction to predictable noms/wins. Very little in the way of diverse genres. You know exactly what will be left out (TDK, Deadpool) and what will get in by multiple(TIG,TOE, Selma trifecta of forgettable biopic mediocrity). or that sci fi (Gravity, Mad Max) will never win as long as there's an important political film (12YS, Spotlight) that they'll always dig up somehow to save them from another ROTK.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Valonqar

[Harley]

This is going to be this years La La Land. Calls for Oscar nominations without even seeing it. Oscar for you and an Oscar for you

[Alli]

I think the movie will be good. they wouldn't go to film festivals if they had a stinker, no?

Edited August 8, 2017 by Alli

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, Alli said:

they wouldn't go at film festivals if they had a stinker, no?

Clearly you've never followed film festivals before.  We don't know where mother! will land (hopefully on the positive side) but plenty of stinkers have opened at festivals before.

[Noctis]

3 hours ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

I just didn't see the appeal of the trailer.  I'll still see it of course, but I'm not really all that impressed by the trailer.

 

That's so weird knowing your taste. I think you'll end up loving the film.

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

Why is there Oscar talk for this?  LOL.  Because of JLaw?  Come on guys.  There was oscar talk for Live by Night at one time.  Lets see how the reception is first.

Mainly because of the director:

 

Oscar nominations

Noah: 0

Black Swan: 5

Wrestler: 2

Fountain: 0

Requiem for a dream: 1

 

60% of is post Pi output got Oscar nomination (even for an NC-17/unrated movie that never reached 100 theater because it did got an R-rating like Requiem for a dream).

 

The cast and crew being on the academy radar and the movie playing in festival also push the narrative obviously.

 

Aronofsky (1), Wiig (1), Lawrence (4), Barden (3), Harris (4), Peiffer (3), Jóhannsson (2), Weisblum (1), Libatique(1),  Glicker (1), etc... People in many guild will probably watch it with having an "in consideration" open mindset.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Barnack

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, Alli said:

I think the movie will be good. they wouldn't go to film festivals if they had a stinker, no?

Big name with an relationship like Arofonsky can get in Venice/Canne (see Sean Penn last movie) because of the value they have publicity wise, red carpet and so on and keep them good friend.

Toronto accept almost anything.

 

The movie is probably very little tested (Don't think it played in front of any audience yet), they will learn a lot at the same time people will see it in those festival.

[Fancyarcher]

So it's about a cult, huh? This looks fascinating & potentially good. I'm not sure it'll get a best picture nom, but I could see Lawrence getting nominated nonetheless.

[Valonqar]

I'm annoyed by the lack of Ireland Gods, the Gleeson Triplets. They are in the movie but not in the trailer. I've noticed that each triplet is in several movies this year. 

[filmlover]

3 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

I'm annoyed by the lack of Ireland Gods, the Gleeson Triplets. They are in the movie but not in the trailer. I've noticed that each triplet is in several movies this year. 

You can spot at least one of them in the trailer.

[Valonqar]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

You can spot at least one of them in the trailer.

Screen cap or it didn't happen! 

[The Futurist]

Rest assured academy, movies from and for grandpas are coming in droves for the Holidays  !

 

Spielberg, Scott, Woody, Clint, Sorkin (is he tho ?), the biopics etc

 

OSCAH !

Edited August 8, 2017 by The Futurist

[nick64]

7 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

I'm annoyed by the lack of Ireland Gods, the Gleeson Triplets. They are in the movie but not in the trailer. I've noticed that each triplet is in several movies this year. 

Who are these so called Gleeson Triplets? I know there's 34 year old Domhnall and his 29 year old brother Brian.

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, Valonqar said:

Screen cap or it didn't happen! 

Go to 1:39.

[filmnerdjamie]

3 hours ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

I just didn't see the appeal of the trailer.  I'll still see it of course, but I'm not really all that impressed by the trailer.

I think it looks great... but also the GA will despise this. 

[Valonqar]

17 minutes ago, nick64 said:

Who are these so called Gleeson Triplets? I know there's 34 year old Domhnall and his 29 year old brother Brian.

Actually, they are quadruplets. There are Fergus and Rory too. I love that all 4 have traditional Irish names. OK, I'm joking that they are triples and quadruplets, there's age difference but since all are appearing in several movies I call them triplets.  

 

@filmlover LMAO! I thought that was de-aged Bardem but it's indeed one of Gleesons. Hux or Not!Hux? 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Valonqar

[Barnack]

4 hours ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

I just didn't see the appeal of the trailer.  I'll still see it of course, but I'm not really all that impressed by the trailer.

If they keep the high concept secret (or if there is none) I suspect that it will be the reaction of many it is still more a longer teaser than a trailer, it will probably only play for the very frequent movie goers (the 39 million people that goes in average 16 time a year) and not reach those those who go in theater around 4 time a year.

 

All the marketing having been in theater in trailer playing in front of other movie, show that at least as for now they are not trying to really reach them either. But you just need to convince around 5-6% of those frequent movie goers to go in theater that weekend and for that movie to be a huge success (20m OW).

Edited August 8, 2017 by Barnack