88TH ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS Discussion Topic (LIVE! Today's discussion begins on pg 33)

[The Panda]

8 hours ago, Goffe said:

Actually, that's wrong. You can do the calculations yourself.

 

Also, I had forgotten that 2016 BP nominees didn't finish their runs yet (last year the post awards bump was around 48m, increasing the average by 6m).

 

pre post-awards bump

 

 

Youre doing the average though, not the combined total.  Average doesn't mean crap in this case.  For example, Avatar's 760m would be an outlier that boosted the average, but even if every other movie made 50m (which I know they didn't), that's still 760m worth of tickets of potential Oscar Audiences.

 

All I was saying is, the ratings were likely because of the controversy (plus as was said in the articles, people tuning out early) and the fact the movies weren't widely seen bar a few hits (which even the biggest, The Martian, wasn't that big compared to the highest grossing films of the last few years)

[filmlover]

It feels like every year people use "most people didn't see the movies" as the excuse for lower-than-expected ratings. It's funny to think that the outrage over The Dark Knight's snub more or less led to the expansion of the Best Picture field under the belief it would allow more blockbusters to get in, but instead has had the opposite effect by allowing for more "smaller" films to get recognized.

 

Heck, one could argue that this year the Academy showed they have no problem ignoring sentimentality and rewarding the work as witnessed by the Rylance victory.

[Blankments]

Find it really funny that suddenly wanting Stallone to win is the "sentimental" pick and I see lot of people on here claiming Rylance had a better performance. Besides Tree, I honestly don't remember seeing ANYONE with that opinion here.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

2 hours ago, filmlover said:

It feels like every year people use "most people didn't see the movies" as the excuse for lower-than-expected ratings. It's funny to think that the outrage over The Dark Knight's snub more or less led to the expansion of the Best Picture field under the belief it would allow more blockbusters to get in, but instead has had the opposite effect by allowing for more "smaller" films to get recognized.

 

Heck, one could argue that this year the Academy showed they have no problem ignoring sentimentality and rewarding the work as witnessed by the Rylance victory.

In 2009 and 2010 when it was 10 films nominated. Avatar, Up, Inception, and Toy Story 3 were nominated. Under new 5% rule changed that.  

[filmlover]

20 minutes ago, Darth Dexter of Hoth said:

In 2009 and 2010 when it was 10 films nominated. Avatar, Up, Inception, and Toy Story 3 were nominated. Under new 5% rule changed that.  

Avatar was a top 5 contender (Cameron was up for Director) so it's excluded from the others. I'm talking things that people wish would get nominated like Guardians of the Galaxy, which still wouldn't have been nominated in a field of 10.

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, Blankments said:

Find it really funny that suddenly wanting Stallone to win is the "sentimental" pick and I see lot of people on here claiming Rylance had a better performance. Besides Tree, I honestly don't remember seeing ANYONE with that opinion here.

Stallone wasn't even nominated at a bunch of precursors (SAG, BAFTA). I think people just got carried away (as usual regarding anything) with the notion of Stallone being an Oscar winner, especially after his Golden Globe (who are known for their star-fuckery) and BFCA (a shameless joke of an organization that just wants to predict the Oscars, made even more obvious by the after the fact inclusion of Star Wars in their Best Picture line-up just because it didn't screen in time for the deadline) wins.

[Jessie]

14 hours ago, Hatebox said:

 

Even if you subscribe to the dodgy mentality that the Academy should simply award the most popular films (why, exactly?) The Revenant had more than enough people who couldn't stand it.

 

 

 

 

 

Im not saying that at all, Best Director should have gone to the film that made less money than The revenant. I didn't even like Mad Max but its pretty evident which film was better directed, but they give the award to the most pretentious ass in Hollywood right now, no surprise when the award givers are of the same sort.

[Jessie]

11 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

You mean that movie that made like $1m? Wtf nobody cares about that one lol

 

It earned more than the likes of Room, another award nominated movie recognised for its performances. Hell it made more than hurt locker too, and that film took home best picture lol. Fact is, The Academy probably didn't watch it, meaning its pointless for them to say who was the best in which category when they miss out on the gems that outshine their nominations. Hardy in Legend was better than Damon in Martian, Fassbender in Steve Jobs and Leo in revenant, that's just a fact. Hell he was even better in Legend than he was in Revenant.

[filmlover]

9 minutes ago, Jessie said:

 

It earned more than the likes of Room, another award nominated movie recognised for its performances. Hell it made more than hurt locker too, and that film took home best picture lol. Fact is, The Academy probably didn't watch it, meaning its pointless for them to say who was the best in which category when they miss out on the gems that outshine their nominations. Hardy in Legend was better than Damon in Martian, Fassbender in Steve Jobs and Leo in revenant, that's just a fact. Hell he was even better in Legend than he was in Revenant.

The box office grosses of all of these movies:

 

The Hurt Locker: $17,017,811

Room: $13,474,429 (and counting)

 

Legend: $1,872,994

 

The moral of this story is...do your research next time.

[Webslinger]

3 hours ago, Blankments said:

Find it really funny that suddenly wanting Stallone to win is the "sentimental" pick and I see lot of people on here claiming Rylance had a better performance. Besides Tree, I honestly don't remember seeing ANYONE with that opinion here.

 

Granted, I'm always spotty with posting here, but I absolutely did. I loved Rylance's performance (and Bridge of Spies as a whole), but while I could appreciate the skillfulness in Stallone's work in Creed, I never thought it was on the same level as Rylance's work (or that of Benicio Del Toro, whom I would have selected as the best supporting performance of the year among everything I saw). And I saw both films over their respective opening weekends, so it's not like that's an opinion that formed just because of awards season.

[MinaTakla]

The most intriguing stat (or observation) for me is the power of TELLURIDE.
It's been what? 7 years of straight BP winners from it?
If it could do it with SPOTLIGHT which was very shaky esp with TBS and REV, then next year your BP winner could also be from there!

And btw I adore the REVENANT and am sure it will stand the test of time.

[Goffe]

8 hours ago, Goffe said:

Actually, that's wrong. You can do the calculations yourself.

 

Also, I had forgotten that 2016 BP nominees didn't finish their runs yet (last year the post awards bump was around 48m, increasing the average by 6m).

 

pre post-awards bump

 

 

Youre doing the average though, not the combined total.  Average doesn't mean crap in this case.  For example, Avatar's 760m would be an outlier that boosted the average, but even if every other movie made 50m (which I know they didn't), that's still 760m worth of tickets of potential Oscar Audiences.

 

All I was saying is, the ratings were likely because of the controversy (plus as was said in the articles, people tuning out early) and the fact the movies weren't widely seen bar a few hits (which even the biggest, The Martian, wasn't that big compared to the highest grossing films of the last few years)

I was using the average because there are years with 8, 10 or 5 nominees.

[Goffe]

Find it really funny that suddenly wanting Stallone to win is the "sentimental" pick and I see lot of people on here claiming Rylance had a better performance. Besides Tree, I honestly don't remember seeing ANYONE with that opinion here.

I think Rylance is better, I always did.

[The Panda]

5 hours ago, Blankments said:

Find it really funny that suddenly wanting Stallone to win is the "sentimental" pick and I see lot of people on here claiming Rylance had a better performance. Besides Tree, I honestly don't remember seeing ANYONE with that opinion here.

 

To be fair, I voted for Del Torro at the Boffies and Rylance was my second choice.  I had no complaints about Stallone winning, as he was a deserving winner, but I also have none about him losing to Rylance as he did just as good (if not a better) job.

 

Of the Oscar nominees, Rylance was my favorite performance (although I still haven't seen Larson).  It was genuine, honest, and a poster example of a great work of acting.  He was definitely a deserving winner, even if you preferred Stallone.

 

Of of all of the bad choices the Oscars made, Rylance wasn't one of them.

[ladyevenstar22]

personally i was for tom hardy , he's great in legend and the revenant , his turn will come he just needs to do a leo dish out good project year in year out ...

that said wouldn't have been disappointed with rylance or stallone 

 

i think it sucks how easy it is in actress categories for a newcomer of sorts to win the top prize but with the actors its real hard you gotta pay your dues and then some 

[Jessie]

4 hours ago, filmlover said:

The box office grosses of all of these movies:

 

The Hurt Locker: $17,017,811

Room: $13,474,429 (and counting)

 

Legend: $1,872,994

 

The moral of this story is...do your research next time.

 

Urghhh worldwide??? So do your research next time dickhead

Edited March 1, 2016 by Jessie

[filmlover]

2 hours ago, Jessie said:

 

Urghhh worldwide??? So do your research next time dickhead

Nice. Nothing says "I'm desperate to prove just how much smarter I am than you" by spewing profane insults.

 

And that's besides the point. The Academy Awards are strictly in North America. It doesn't matter how much it made or how much more it made worldwide (FYI: The Hurt Locker still ended up with a higher worldwide gross, so, you still skimmed over the facts). The movie made zilch in this country (its wide release was scrapped because the studio rightly figured if not even the Metropolitan areas could care to check it, no one else was). You're right to feel that he should've gotten a nomination for it and that the movie shouldn't have buried upon release (they probably should've moved it to early this year to capitalize on Hardy's prolific year), but if you feel his "snub" was the biggest injustice of the year, than that's just your opinion when not even the die hard Tom Hardy stans of the Internet (except @Telemachos and @CJohn) could be moved to care about the movie.

Edited March 1, 2016 by filmlover

[CJohn]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

Nice. Nothing says "I'm desperate to prove just how much smarter I am than you" by spewing profane insults.

 

And that's besides the point. The Academy Awards are strictly in North America. It doesn't matter how much it made or how much more it made worldwide (FYI: The Hurt Locker still ended up with a higher worldwide gross, so, you still skimmed over the facts). The movie made zilch in this country (its wide release was scrapped because the studio rightly figured if not even the Metropolitan areas could care to check it, no one else was). You're right to feel that he should've gotten a nomination for it and that the movie shouldn't have buried upon release (they probably should've moved it to early this year to capitalize on Hardy's prolific year), but if you feel his "snub" was the biggest injustice of the year, than that's just your opinion when not even the die hard Tom Hardy stans of the Internet (except @Telemachos and @CJohn) could be moved to care about the movie.

The movie is not good. Tom Hardy was great in it... but I can see why he wasn't nominated.

[BadAtGender]

Does anyone know if MMFR's 6 wins without a major award win (BP, BD, Acting, Screenwriting) is a record?

[Impact]

14 minutes ago, DamienRoc said:

Does anyone know if MMFR's 6 wins without a major award win (BP, BD, Acting, Screenwriting) is a record?

I believe so-btw only 6 films have been nominated with 6 nominations and no major awards!

(I was about to say Gravity then went "oh wait that got director")
 

Edit: Star Wars also won 6 with no major win.