Best Picture Predictions - 2019

[WrathOfHan]

Mendes is gonna be the snub. Leaning towards Gerwig getting in because Little Women is going to make a boatload of money but the Safdies are creeping up too. Would actually be pretty insane if those two (three) made it in at the expense of Mendes and Phillips

Edited December 25, 2019 by WrathOfHan

[filmlover]

54 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

Mendes is gonna be the snub. Leaning towards Gerwig getting in because Little Women is going to make a boatload of money but the Safdies are creeping up too. Would actually be pretty insane if those two (three) made it in at the expense of Mendes and Phillips

1917 seems too much like a directorial achievement for Mendes to miss, especially if the movie gets in for Picture and a bunch of techs.

[CloneWars]

10 hours ago, dudalb said:

I think we can safely eliminate "Cats" from the competition.

I expect though a lot of Cats jokes at the Oscars.

Cats will sweep the Razzies.

[Halba]

ive seen parasite and not only is it the best film of the year, its one of the best films ive ever seen...

[titanic2187]

Glad to see Lulu wang and Greta invited

[CloneWars]

After seeing Uncut Gems, I really hope it gets a nom.

[Webslinger]

Little Women was sooooooooo good. I really hope it scores a bunch of richly-deserved nominations. I think its candidacy really comes down to just getting enough voters to take a chance on it; it’s such a warm-hearted film with earned emotional moments that I imagine it will be tough for viewers to resist.

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

I dearly hope Little Women gets a nomination. Absolutely brilliant.

 

Is there a chance that Joker gets locked out at all? I mean, I understand it has the mass appeal and such, but I just don't see how anyone can objectively argue it gets anywhere near a best 10 movies of the year list. But if Bohemian Rhapsody got in, I suppose there's no chance a far better popular hit doesn't get in.

[WrathOfHan]

I feel like Joker is in the top 5 at this point. It's gotten in everywhere it needs to so far.

[RealLyre]

I wouldn't be shocked if Joker beats the Irishman at the globes next week

[Movie nerd]

4 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

I dearly hope Little Women gets a nomination. Absolutely brilliant.

 

Is there a chance that Joker gets locked out at all? I mean, I understand it has the mass appeal and such, but I just don't see how anyone can objectively argue it gets anywhere near a best 10 movies of the year list. But if Bohemian Rhapsody got in, I suppose there's no chance a far better popular hit doesn't get in.

I would "objectively argue" (what a oxymoron in the context of discussion subject) that it's easily in top 10. 

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

21 minutes ago, Movie nerd said:

I would "objectively argue" (what a oxymoron in the context of discussion subject) that it's easily in top 10. 

 

There is some excellence in the last half hour of Joker and it contains a superb performance but....

 

- The final scene is something from an 'edgy' 2000s horror film. It's damn cringeworthy, frankly, and on its own would take any film out of a genuine list of top class movies. 

- It makes no sense whatsoever to have that end scene if it hadn't been used as a framing device (i.e. the same location and context was the opening scene as well)

- It has a twist that was editorially presented as a big OMG moment despite it being borderline obvious.

- It pretends to be saying far more than it actually is socially. It points at things like mental health provision and anarchic movements, but doesn't really say anything about them because it's far more concerned with enjoying the chaos.

- It's following a formula pretty closely. It may not be the standard superhero formula, but it still a pretty well trodden formula. Heck, the same actor was in a movie that followed the same formula last year. Only it didn't have a big famous IP attached so nobody cared.

- It overtly shows a scene of the principal character being good at his job, and being appreciated for the job he does at one point, only to totally ignore this fact the entire rest of the running time. 

- Dedicating screentime to the Wayne/Batman narrative that depends on extracurricular knowledge, even though that supposedly isn't what this film is doing.

 

I like Joker. It's a good movie. In enjoyed it. Heck, It's better than three of the films nominated for best picture last year - because last years nominations were largely a shambles. But I really don't see how it's on the level of some of these other films when subjected to analysis.

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[titanic2187]

39 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

 

There is some excellence in the last half hour of Joker and it contains a superb performance but....

 

- The final scene is something from an 'edgy' 2000s horror film. It's damn cringeworthy, frankly, and on its own would take any film out of a genuine list of top class movies. 

- It makes no sense whatsoever to have that end scene if it hadn't been used as a framing device (i.e. the same location and context was the opening scene as well)

- It has a twist that was editorially presented as a big OMG moment despite it being borderline obvious.

- It pretends to be saying far more than it actually is socially. It points at things like mental health provision and anarchic movements, but doesn't really say anything about them because it's far more concerned with enjoying the chaos.

- It's following a formula pretty closely. It may not be the standard superhero formula, but it still a pretty well trodden formula. Heck, the same actor was in a movie that followed the same formula last year. Only it didn't have a big famous IP attached so nobody cared.

- It overtly shows a scene of the principal character being good at his job, and being appreciated for the job he does at one point, only to totally ignore this fact the entire rest of the running time. 

- Dedicating screentime to the Wayne/Batman narrative that depends on extracurricular knowledge, even though that supposedly isn't what this film is doing.

 

I like Joker. It's a good movie. In enjoyed it. Heck, It's better than three of the films nominated for best picture last year - because last years nominations were largely a shambles. But I really don't see how it's on the level of some of these other films when subjected to analysis.

 

I guess pretty much every film will have all these kind of flaws, perhaps even more if that was your approach of analysis

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

34 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

I guess pretty much every film will have all these kind of flaws, perhaps even more if that was your approach of analysis

Not really, no. Some films are just good without necessarily being great. Joker is a good film. 

 

And certainly not every film has a scene anything like as poorly made and written as the last scene of Joker. It is self-evidently appalling and undermines so much of the previous half hour. Which added to the scene in the children's hospital means that there are literally two whole scenes of Joker that directly undermine and contradict the seeming central concept of the movie. 

 

Much worse films have been nominated and even won. But it isn't really a Top 10 of the year movie with so many issues and with not all that much to say. 

 

If it wins it wins, and would join the likes of Braveheart and Forrest Gump as hugely popular, flawed movies that are good but nowhere near the best of their year to have won the Oscar. Though it probably isn't as good as Braveheart realistically. 

 

I don't see how this perspective is particularly contentious. Do you have any issues with the critiques I've given? Do you want to formulate an argument (without appeal to popularity) for why Joker is a better movie than Parasite, Little Women, Knives Out, Irishman or Marriage Story (to use just a few movies I've seen that I can't come up with reasons how Joker could be perceived as stronger than)? I'm happy to listen.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[Movie nerd]

4 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

Not really, no. Some films are just good without necessarily being great. Joker is a good film. 

 

Much worse films have been nominated and even won. But it isn't really a Top 10 of the year movie with so many issues and with not all that much to say. 

 

If it wins it wins, and would join the likes of Braveheart and Forrest Gump as hugely popular, flawed movies that are good but nowhere near the best of their year to have won the Oscar. Though it probably isn't as good as Braveheart realistically. 

 

I don't see how this perspective is particularly contentious. Do you have any issues with the critiques I've given? Do you want to formulate an argument (without appeal to popularity) for why Joker is a better movie than Parasite, Little Women, Knives Out, Irishman or Marriage Story (to use just a few movies I've seen that I can't come up with reasons how Joker could be perceived as stronger than)? I'm happy to listen.

You know it's just your opinion and not some kind of enlightened truth, right? You know that is all entirely subjective? Something which is a flaw in your eyes can completely be fine or even a plus in eyes of diffrent person. 

Same with what movie is better or worse than the  other or which one deserves awards recognition or not. 

We will soon know what opinion Academy members have about all of this.

That's what matters in the subject of this discussion topic. 

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

16 minutes ago, Movie nerd said:

You know it's just your opinion and not some kind of enlightened truth, right? You know that is all entirely subjective? Something which is a flaw in your eyes can completely be fine or even a plus in eyes of diffrent person. 

Same with what movie is better or worse than the  other or which one deserves awards recognition or not. 

We will soon know what opinion Academy members have about all of this.

That's what matters in the subject of this discussion topic. 

 

Of course it's my opinion.

 

But of course it's not all entirely subjective, don't be ridiculous. If it were all entirely subjective then there would be no point in having such concept as awards. Just give the award to the movie that made the most money and there an end.

 

How is undermining the thesis of your film in the final scene, by presenting SuperKool Joker as an edgy and hipster psycho killer when you have spent the entire movie developing a societal argument that he is in some way a product of his environment.... ever a good thing? Or even fine? None of the other movies in this conversation have something so utterly incongruous. Unless you want to argue that they do, which you're welcome to. Or if you want to mount an argument for the last scene, the children's hospital scene that shows the Joker being good at and enjoying his job, and the auxiliary Wayne material that requires context, to be important aspects of Joker as a film that I'm misreading. You can do that too.

 

I was under the impression that this was for discussing which movies we thought might and should win best picture. Which was what I first posted about, ever since then I've just been responding to people who have directly responded to me. 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[Movie nerd]

39 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

 

Of course it's my opinion.

 

But of course it's not all entirely subjective, don't be ridiculous. If it were all entirely subjective then there would be no point in having such concept as awards. Just give the award to the movie that made the most money and there an end.

 

Of course it's entirley subjective as art is in general. 

The point in having such concept as awards is that the group of people, in case of Oscars Academy members, decide which films and diffrent related with it things were best in given year. In their opinion. That’s all. 

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

2 hours ago, Movie nerd said:

Of course it's entirley subjective as art is in general. 

The point in having such concept as awards is that the group of people, in case of Oscars Academy members, decide which films and diffrent related with it things were best in given year. In their opinion. That’s all. 

Evaluating art isn't entirely subjective either.

 

You still have precedents, structures and facets.

 

Anyone can LIKE whatever they want. And nobody has the right to tell anyone what they are allowed to enjoy or not. But negotiate on quality? Of course. Especially when it comes to how many films and how accustomed each person is to evaluating material.

 

Joker, for instance, has a clear precedent set in You Were Never Really Here. A film with almost the same themes, with the same structure, with the same lead actor was made last year. Only with additional social commentary surrounding child trafficking and a more detailed notion of the difficulties in defining a hero by someone who does net good deeds. 

 

If you hadn't seen You Were Never Really Here, then the Joker probably looks a lot better as a film than if you have. If you have seen not just You Were Never Really Here, but also Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, then Joker looks like a nice replication of that formula for a broad mainstream audience, avoiding the more difficult questions. Which is nice. But as a movie.... without expanding on their themes (which it doesn't), saying something new (which it doesn't) or engaging in additional filmmaking technique (which it doesn't) then it can't claim to be as good as those predecessors.

 

My little God Daughter has declared The Lion King (2019) to be the best film ever ever ever. Her experience has just as much value as a movie critic, but her evaluation sure as heck doesn't

[RealLyre]

2 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

Evaluating art isn't entirely subjective either.

 

You still have precedents, structures and facets.

 

Anyone can LIKE whatever they want. And nobody has the right to tell anyone what they are allowed to enjoy or not. But negotiate on quality? Of course. Especially when it comes to how many films and how accustomed each person is to evaluating material.

 

Joker, for instance, has a clear precedent set in You Were Never Really Here. A film with almost the same themes, with the same structure, with the same lead actor was made last year. Only with additional social commentary surrounding child trafficking and a more detailed notion of the difficulties in defining a hero by someone who does net good deeds. 

 

If you hadn't seen You Were Never Really Here, then the Joker probably looks a lot better as a film than if you have. If you have seen not just You Were Never Really Here, but also Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, then Joker looks like a nice replication of that formula for a broad mainstream audience, avoiding the more difficult questions. Which is nice. But as a movie.... without expanding on their themes (which it doesn't), saying something new (which it doesn't) or engaging in additional filmmaking technique (which it doesn't) then it can't claim to be as good as those predecessors.

 

My little God Daughter has declared The Lion King (2019) to be the best film ever ever ever. Her experience has just as much value as a movie critic, but her evaluation sure as heck doesn't

it will still be subjective because people will respond to different movies differently, there are some who think Joker was handled and acted better than You Were Never Really Here or Taxi Driver.

[titanic2187]

6 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

Not really, no. Some films are just good without necessarily being great. Joker is a good film. 

 

And certainly not every film has a scene anything like as poorly made and written as the last scene of Joker. It is self-evidently appalling and undermines so much of the previous half hour. Which added to the scene in the children's hospital means that there are literally two whole scenes of Joker that directly undermine and contradict the seeming central concept of the movie. 

 

Much worse films have been nominated and even won. But it isn't really a Top 10 of the year movie with so many issues and with not all that much to say. 

 

If it wins it wins, and would join the likes of Braveheart and Forrest Gump as hugely popular, flawed movies that are good but nowhere near the best of their year to have won the Oscar. Though it probably isn't as good as Braveheart realistically. 

 

I don't see how this perspective is particularly contentious. Do you have any issues with the critiques I've given? Do you want to formulate an argument (without appeal to popularity) for why Joker is a better movie than Parasite, Little Women, Knives Out, Irishman or Marriage Story (to use just a few movies I've seen that I can't come up with reasons how Joker could be perceived as stronger than)? I'm happy to listen.

Joker has far far more better cinematography, editing and score than most of the great movie of this year. Every frame or imagery are well-crafted. Beside , i seriously don't see what is the problem with the last scene despite many giving the same piece of argument over and over again. I have no intention to have another lengthy counter-argument here.  

Joker is a film about how a decent guy engulfed by the evil. That last scene is exactly what you can expect from a non-organized, low educational level perhaps, yet full of rage mental-ill person. Joker is not a your villain with a ideology or principle or plan, he is never a leader material.  He is just an angry guys without a crystal clear of thought and so happen he carry a gun. The film demonstrate how dangerous it can be out of this kind of lone-wolf. The world isn't really safe even in the absence of well-organized, charismatic, resourceful big mafia boss or terrorist.          

 

Braveheart is far worse movie than Joker, one of the worst Oscar-wining best picture that I ever seen. Probably worse than Shakespeare in Love. It won because of it was in weaker year.