re: .

quote:

---

I have no problem with sophisticated films, but having this silly criteria that only "serious" films be recognized excludes so many awesome movies, and great movies, because they didn't "measure up"

---

totally agreed.

I tend to like critically acclaimed, well written movies that the academy loves.

But when it comes to comedies, I love harold and kumar, not another teen movie, walk hard, etc. Those kind of movies are basically universally loved by their audiences and yet they never get any love or recognition in awards shows.

quote:

---

critically acclaimed

---

that's the other thing, the movies I'm talking about that have been excluded...a lot of them were critically acclaimed

almost all of the negative reviews for say, TDK (which who in their right mind thinks slumdog millionaire is a better movie than TDK?)are due to the fact it didn't stay grounded in the black and white, campy comic book origins (even though batman has a pretty dark fricking history) so some disliked it for daring to be more

still, a critically acclaimed movie. Benjamin Button was a really good movie (top 3 that year for sure)...it wasn't better than TDK

certainly no movie that year had better editing...but it's batman, so frick off wal mart shoppers. we're trying to keep this thing a little more cosmopolitan.

You do know that last year the ratings were huge right? This isn't some disturbing trend.

quote:

---

The majority of your television audience hates these fricking movies because they know why they were made to begin with.

---

That's because the majority of the television audience is fricking retarded. Sorry, but the Academy is never going to vote for movies because they are popular. It's just never happening so accept it.

And honestly, Dumb and Dumber hasn't stood the test of time. I mean, it's got some great pull quotes, but have you actually sat down and WATCHED it recently? It's horribly paced and the five jokes you remember are about the only laughs in the movie.

A local radio station here did a rewatch of the movie before the new one came out to do a review. and they all came back saying how they couldn't believe how awful it was.

And as much as I love Harold and Kumar, it was a pretty niche film. It might be univerally beloved amongst your friends, but it does not have the cross-cultural appeal you think it does. If we're going to have niche films, I'd rather they have that niche be "prestige filmmaking".

But again, American Sniper, Interstellar, and Gone Girl all grossed over $100 million and are the kinds of movie Oscar honors. they probably should have nominated those movies which checked both boxes: crtically acclaimed AND made a bunch of money.

Oh, and editing is filmmaking. It is one of the most prestigious awards, right next to cinematography. It's also a travesty Boyhood didn't win that. They took 12 years of footage and made it a coherent narrative. That, I thought, was the lock of the night.

quote:

---

You do know that last year the ratings were huge right

---

quote:

---

That's because the majority of the television audience is fricking retarded

---

which is it?

people aren't dumb, collectively we've decided that dumb and dumber is infinitely more memorable and enjoyable than "doubt"

you don't think it's odd that nominated movies have a "season" what does that tell you?

the movies are made to win awards, not to tell the best story.

even dumb people know a good story when they hear (in this case see) one. And whether or not they can articulate or realize it, they respond to great execution and production values (movie magic? is that not a thing anymore?)

maybe movies like doubt are full of great performances wasted on a plot no one gives a shite about, wasted on characters that aren't interesting, memorable or even well defined.

quote:

---

And as much as I love Harold and Kumar, it was a pretty niche film. It might be univerally beloved amongst your friends

---

I have never seen this movie

quote:

---

And honestly, Dumb and Dumber hasn't stood the test of time.

---

so that's why they made a sequel 20 years later? riiiight

quote:

---

But again, American Sniper, Interstellar, and Gone Girl all grossed over $100 million and are the kinds of movie Oscar honors. they probably should have nominated those movies which checked both boxes: crtically acclaimed AND made a bunch of money.

---

I'm not even saying the AA are nothing but shitty movies. There are obviously great movies in the field.

If I took a list of movies that was nominated for at most 2 AA, but not in the following fields
best picture
best actor
best actress
best director

I could come up with a list of 20 movies that would shame a list with the last 20 winners for

best picture
best actor
best actress
best director

they leave out a ton of great movies and for the most petty, laughable reasons.

I'm telling you, people are going to become less and less interested in these award shows...especially as celebrities have exploded beyond the bounds of "Hollywood", as the stories told in video games become more and more sophisticated, and as cable continues to produce higher quality programming.

I would imagine just as many people tuned in to see the celebrities as they did the actual awards

I greatly dislike sitting through the Oscars, but the wife digs it. Is there really a need to present so many musical/vocal performances during a movie awards show? Who watches all the short films and why do they eat up so much time to present?

Got nothing to add other than Eddie Redmayne was deserving of his Oscar, greatly enjoyed that movie and his performance. Birdman and Budapest I thought were good, but not to the extent many believe, my wife quit watching in the middle of both of those. Neither one of us thought Boyhood was anything special and Patricia Arquette??? She loved American Sniper, I haven't seen it. Definitely want to watch "Being Alice" due to family history.

John Legend needs to review current/past population counts if he wants to say what he did, his message was close to meaningless in that light.

quote:

---

people aren't dumb, collectively we've decided that dumb and dumber is infinitely more memorable and enjoyable than "doubt"

---

Well, that's a point they are dumb. Doubt is a fricking fantastic movie and I recommend you watch it. It also didn't win any Oscars, so I'm not sure why you're holding it up as this grand mistake. It got nominated for a bunch of acting awards, and it had some great actors doing some of their best work.

quote:

---

you don't think it's odd that nominated movies have a "season" what does that tell you?

---

It tells me the awards are political. There's also a season for blockbusters and a season for dumping your worst movies for a loss.

I'd also point out Boyhood was released in January, as far from "award season" as you can get. Birdman was released in August, right at the tail end of blockbuster season. So, the two most acclaimed films of the year... neither came out during "award season"

quote:

---

the movies are made to win awards, not to tell the best story.

---

Completely no true. I'm not saying there aren't movies made with the thought of winning awards, but you really can't accuse the frontrunners this year of that, yet we had our lowest ratings. Perhaps we could have used MORE films designed to win awards, as they might have drawn in viewers.

quote:

---

ven dumb people know a good story when they hear (in this case see) one. And whether or not they can articulate or realize it, they respond to great execution and production values

---

Sure. Are you saying audiences did not respond to the winning films? Even though they didn't bring in the same amount of money as films aimed at teenagers and their repeat business and less than discerning taste, they all had very high audience approval scores, indicating audience satisfaction when they did watch the film.

quote:

---

maybe movies like doubt are full of great performances wasted on a plot no one gives a shite about, wasted on characters that aren't interesting, memorable or even well defined.

---

Again, not sure why you're using a movie than won zero Oscars as your exemplar, but Doubt really did have fantastic performances in service as an interesting plot. I had a good hour-long conversation with the friend I saw the movie with, as we argued about the final scene's meaning.

While not really relevant, Doubt is an outstanding movie. It might not be visually pleasing enough (it's a lot of static two shots, showing off that this was a stage play), but it is a gut wrenching film. Viola Davis totally SHOULD have won an Oscar for her single scene. It's the best single scene performance I've seen outside of Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glen Ross. It's that good.

quote:

---

the movies are made to win awards, not to tell the best story.

---

You have no clue what you're talking about. There is not a single writer worth a damn in Hollywood that starts the script saying to themselves "I'm only writing this to win an Oscar. frick telling a good story."

Movies actually aren't positioned for Oscar season until very late in the process when the studios and producers realize that they have an awards caliber picture on their hands.

quote:

---

I could come up with a list of 20 movies that would shame a list with the last 20 winners for

---

Well, if the movies you keep bringing up are any indication, I'd welcome your shame and approbation. I'm arguing that the Oscars should include critically acclaimed stuff that made no money, box office favorites that were also good movies, and critically acclaimed stuff that grossed over $100 million. Essentially, I'm trying to argue that there's a big enough tent for everyone.

Your argument, I believe, is that the Oscars should honor films you like, which runs towards mediocre big budget summer blockbusters. That's a horrible idea. It would render the awards meaningless. Though I do think you can honor great films while also considering public tastes. I think popular films with critical support tend to stand the test of time (your Raiders of the Lost Ark and such).

But I think it's ridiculous you're stumping for Batman when it ACTUALLY WAS NOMINATED. It WAS honored. So what's your complaint? You wanted it honored more? Man, fanboys are impossible to please.