The Oscars 2017 on ABC | 89th Academy Awards | Discuss It Live Here | Super Sale to Honor the Steve Harvey moment! (p124)

[That One Girl]

15 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

Okay, so that's two people. But a shit ton of people are doing the whole "Moonlight sucks" deal without seeing it. 

 

I also didn't like it.  None of the performances outside of Harris really did anything for me, and the last act dragged like crazy IMO.  First act was ok, second act was better, but it really went downhill in its 3rd act.  I felt like it just resolved his story arc into a big ball of almost nothing.  It just didn't feel like proper closure at all.  It's probably a C+ for me.

[aabattery]

 

[stripe]

Can we have an emoji with amazing Meryl Streep face during BP mistake?

[filmlover]

5 minutes ago, stripe said:

Can we have an emoji with amazing Meryl Streep face during BP mistake?

You could make emojis out of everybody's faces, honestly. It really is the Where's Waldo of the Oscars.

Edited February 28, 2017 by filmlover

[titanic2187]

conclusuin: The oscar cannot accept a best picture without winning screenplay award.

The once, director and best picture will be the same myth, is totally gone.

If u wish to get best picture, try grab best screenplay category 1st!!

[filmlover]

In a way I'm glad La La Land didn't win just because the backlash against it was starting to reach unbearable levels of annoying and would've continued long after it won. Remember a few days ago when someone posted an article in the film's thread by some actor saying he's auditioned to play a terrorist 20+ times and if La La Land wins he's quitting acting? Talk about grasping at the straws.

 

At least Moonlight won't be subjected to such since it didn't have to go the entire season as the assumed frontrunner and its only backlash will be primarily from bigots (who should be ignored anyway).

[BirdMan]

47 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

conclusuin: The oscar cannot accept a best picture without winning screenplay award.

The once, director and best picture will be the same myth, is totally gone.

If u wish to get best picture, try grab best screenplay category 1st!!

Well, there is the The Artist so ....

[RandomCat]

...I feel like I'm the only person who liked The Artist.

[filmlover]

15 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

...I feel like I'm the only person who liked The Artist.

I liked it more than most people did as well, even if it's still my least favorite of the Best Picture winners this decade.

[The Stingray]

Whoa! Had no idea Mahershala Ali was the first Muslim to ever win an acting Oscar.
 

[DAR]

6 hours ago, That One Guy said:

 

I also didn't like it.  None of the performances outside of Harris really did anything for me, and the last act dragged like crazy IMO.  First act was ok, second act was better, but it really went downhill in its 3rd act.  I felt like it just resolved his story arc into a big ball of almost nothing.  It just didn't feel like proper closure at all.  It's probably a C+ for me.

I liked it a little more than you probably because I liked the first two acts equally.   But I agree that third act  was just sort of shrug worthy.  

[misafeco]

Honestly this preferential ballot system needs to go. Tactical vote can make a difference. Frontrunners are always more vulnerable which makes the outcome unpredictable. If I want my favorite movie to win, I just leave every other frontrunners off my list. It makes the show exciting but I'd just prefer the popular vote which is the case in every other category.

[Plain Old Tele]

I feel the opposite. I think preferential balloting has made the Oscars way more interesting -- and potentially more relevant -- than they've been in quite awhile. 

[75Live]

This just shows that smartphones and social media keep messing up the world 

 

if the guy wasn't busy tweeting out photos, he would have noticed he gave out the wrong envelope    

 

 

 

[Valonqar]

8 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

I feel the opposite. I think preferential balloting has made the Oscars way more interesting -- and potentially more relevant -- than they've been in quite awhile. 

 

How are Oscars more relevant with the catastrophic loss of audience? They nominate and award movies for a very small group of like-minds. It's an echo chamber. Nobody's ever going to rediscover Moonlight.  It's done. Who wanted to see it, has seen it already. No one else ever will. Bigelow movies and 12YS already ranked under top 50 and top 40 respectively in BBC's best of the decade. That's very low for movies that critics and industry thought were the most important shit ever. Yet TDK and Fury Road cracked top 20 and 10 respectively. Justice.

 

You can't have relevance if most people don't know and don't care. This current system completely killed any chance for big, well-reviewed, populist nominations, even though initial reason for expanding BP field was a reaction to TDK snub, to allow big movies to be included. And then they came up with a system that prevents that. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Valonqar

[Plain Old Tele]

5 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

 

How are Oscars more relevant with the catastrophic loss of audience? They nominate and award movies for a very small group of like-minds. It's an echo chamber. Nobody's ever going to rediscover Moonlight.  It's done. Who wanted to see it, has seen it already. No one else ever will. Bigelow movies and 12YS already ranked under top 50 and top 40 respectively in BBC's best of the decade. That's very low for movies that critics and industry thought were the most important shit ever. Yet TDK and Fury Road cracked top 20 and 10 respectively. Justice.

 

You can't have relevance if most people don't know and don't care. This current system completely killed any chance for big, well-reviewed, populist nominations, even though initial reason for expanding BP field was a reaction to TDK snub, to allow big movies to be included. And then they came up with a system that prevents that. 

 

"Catastrophic loss of audience"? Seems like hyperbole to me. 

 

Preferential balloting doesn't have anything to do with what's nominated. Maybe the studios should stop making a ton of franchise sequels and remakes if they wanted super-popular movies to get nominated again. 

 

It's not like this year had a bunch of nominees that made no money. 

[BirdMan]

18 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

 

How are Oscars more relevant with the catastrophic loss of audience? They nominate and award movies for a very small group of like-minds. It's an echo chamber. Nobody's ever going to rediscover Moonlight.  It's done. Who wanted to see it, has seen it already. No one else ever will. Bigelow movies and 12YS already ranked under top 50 and top 40 respectively in BBC's best of the decade. That's very low for movies that critics and industry thought were the most important shit ever. Yet TDK and Fury Road cracked top 20 and 10 respectively. Justice.

 

You can't have relevance if most people don't know and don't care. This current system completely killed any chance for big, well-reviewed, populist nominations, even though initial reason for expanding BP field was a reaction to TDK snub, to allow big movies to be included. And then they came up with a system that prevents that. 

MMFR was nominated for 10 million oscars and other awards including 6 oscar wins .

If you want only big movies to be nominated then Whiplash , Her , Beasts of the southern wild and the likes will be swept under the rug , sometimes the general audience is just wrong , take The Fast and the Furious franchise as an example 

[Barnack]

22 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

 

How are Oscars more relevant with the catastrophic loss of audience? They nominate and award movies for a very small group of like-minds

 

You can't have relevance if people do not care, but arguably if people do not know it is were it has the most relevance.

 

Nominated and winning for a movie people saw has pretty much zero relevance, making people discover movies because of the award season has one.

 

As for a small group of like minds, over 45 million world wide watch the ceremony, I would imagine hundreds of millions consults the results, it is not that small of number, store will have all the best pictures dvd selling together on the same shelf.

 

Quote

 

Nobody's ever going to rediscover Moonlight.  It's done. Who wanted to see it, has seen it already.

 

 

 

Source ? Every year in recent time, best pictures winner has a clear boost at the box office and an theater expension as well, and certainly there will be a best picture effect on home video performance, lot of people will discover that movie because of the Oscar (and many who saw it was because it was an oscar nominated, globe winner movie). No one discovered Return of the king because of the Oscars, that was probably not relevant at all.

[Valonqar]

I don't want only big movies to be nominated, I want big movies to win from time to time and I also want genre movies to win. None of that is happening anymore. 

 

Also, 14% drop in demo is bad. All headlines say so. I'm very happy about that cause it shows the audience had it enough. 

 

@Barnack Winners get a small boost but 20M or 30M doesn't change the fact that Moonlight, Spotlight, Birdman, 12YS are big city players that the rest of the country will never watch. And the same goes for foreign markets too. They'll make some money in big foreign cities like London. And the rest of the world won't know and won't care and 2 years from now won't remember. Like, I follow oscars and had hard time remembering what won last year. 

 

There has to be some balance. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Valonqar

[Plain Old Tele]

11 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

I don't want only big movies to be nominated, I want big movies to win from time to time and I also want genre movies to win. None of that is happening anymore. 

 

Also, 14% drop in demo is bad. All headlines say so. I'm very happy about that cause it shows the audience had it enough. 

 

Genre movies have never really won. They usually don't even get nominated -- in recent years (last 15 or so) they've actually gotten nominated more often. 

 

But all this goes back to the source issue: with occasional exception, the studios aren't making these sorts of movies and giving full rein to the talented creatives to enable them. Top-shelf genre talent is now (mostly) sidetracked doing franchise movies -- which might be entertaining but rarely distinguish themselves as worthy of being considered the very best of the best.

 

edit: it's also not a zero-sum game for a movie fan. I'm a big genre guy, so i was rooting for D9 (and a lesser extent AVATAR) in '09. But I love Bigelow as a director -- been a fan of hers since BLUE STEEL and NEAR DARK -- so I was happy to see her win (and while I didn't like HURT LOCKER as much as D9 or AVATAR, I still enjoyed it). Same thing this year -- of the nominees, ARRIVAL was my fave, but I basically liked all of the nominees (except LLL, but even there I didn't absolutely hate it). 

 

So I hope there's still quality SF getting made. I have hopes for BLADE RUNNER and ANNIHILATION and a bunch of others. But that's not gonna stop me from liking and rooting for a bunch of non-genre indie and low-budget movies when I see and like them.