Chamber of Secrets

Chamber of Secrets (http://www.cosforums.com/index.php)
-   In Cinemas & General Movie discussion (http://www.cosforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)
-   -   Oscars 2013 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=131513)

Wab June 30th, 2012 10:38 am

Oscars 2013
 
A tad early for speculation maybe, but the Academy has announced that the award for make-up will now be known as the make-up and hairstyling award.

There have also been changes to the original song, foreign language and visual effects categories.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-beaut...629-216s6.html

lcbaseball22 June 30th, 2012 3:03 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
However, no changes have been made to fix the screwed up Best Picture system so they remain irrelevant! :p It should be quite interesting though to see if any blockbusters can still manage to squeak in. :whistle: The snubbing of the final Harry Potter film more or less proved that big budget crowd pleasing films have been knocked out of the race for good no matter how critically acclaimed they might also be...but this year we've got Hunger Games, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Hobbit. (assuming the latter 2 are as stellar) Also perhaps Bond or Bourne.

SnapesBane June 30th, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Is the Hunger Games really Best Picture material? Bond and Bourne too?

lcbaseball22 June 30th, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SnapesBane (Post 6021111)
Is the Hunger Games really Best Picture material?

Aside from the shaky cam, yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnapesBane (Post 6021111)
Bond and Bourne too?

Well Bond is being directed by Sam Mendes and Bourne is starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward Norton, so it's possible.


You know what though? I just realized I forgot about The Avengers :lol: That's another to throw in the big budget Oscar contender pot.

I might also note that when we look at this years "Oscar fodder" there's not too many safe choices or heavy hitters; lots of risky remakes and adaptations by directors such as the over-indulgent Tarantino, the often times style over substance Joe Wright and Baz Lurhmann, and the pretentious Paul Thomas Anderson. Now granted the Academy has nominated some of their films in the past, but these are inconsistent directors and if their films don't tickle the Academy's fancy then it naturally leaves room for other possiblities and notice that many of the most consistent/best directors of our time (ie Chris Nolan, Sam Mendes, Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson, etc) put their talent into films this year outside the circle of typical Oscar bait, so all of that should actually makes things quite interesting and unpredictable...

Peakes June 30th, 2012 11:35 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Hunger Games is the only "big" movie that might get a shout at the major gongs, the others may pick up the odd minor award like effects, sound, editing etc.

But you can pretty much guarantee that anything that has decent success at the box office is going to be sneered upon by the intellectual snobs of the academy. Frankly, I wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire.

Wab July 1st, 2012 3:32 am

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Yep, the LotR triology and Titanic really tanked at the box office.

SnapesBane July 1st, 2012 3:46 am

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Return of the King is the closest to an action movie there is and it won a boatload of awards. I don't think Potter deserved any major awards. The prowess in the series was on a technical level, not on story, script, acting, etc. And it certainly shouldn't win because of box office success.

As for Oscar material this year, I'd say Tarantino's likely horrible movie will make it in, along with Anderson's The Master. The Hobbit may get some technicla awards, but I predict that it will be harshly judged on the heels of Lord of the Rings, which I will find completely unfair.

lcbaseball22 July 1st, 2012 3:55 am

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 6021347)
Yep, the LotR triology and Titanic really tanked at the box office.

The more I think about why the LotR trilogy was so loved by the Academy I'm thinking it has to do with age and nostalgia. As The LA Times revealed last year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is primarily old farts and they probably grew up reading Tolkien. Sure, they are great films too, but there must be an underlying factor how they were able to break through where so many other great big budget and genre films didn't/haven't. As for Titanic, I'm still pondering that one. Maybe it was the fact that it's based on a real event and was just TOO big to ignore. Personally I like it, but I feel that Good Will Hunting or LA Confidential were more deserving of awards that year. :shrug:

SnapesBane July 1st, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 (Post 6021352)
Yes, they are great films too, but there must be an underlying factor how they were able to break through where so many other great big budget and genre films didn't/haven't.

A coherent narrative, excellent and near-seamless effects, story, script, music, acting, and emotional charge come to mind.

Wab July 1st, 2012 7:56 am

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Most big-budget films are aimed at the lowest common denominator not exceptional film-making. If box office were a determinant Phantom Menace would have won.

That being said, the two films largely credited with creating the modern blockbuster (Jaws and Star Wars) were both the biggest grossing films in the year they were released and nominated for Best Picture. They were also genre films.

lcbaseball22 July 1st, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SnapesBane (Post 6021353)
A coherent narrative, excellent and near-seamless effects, story, script, music, acting, and emotional charge come to mind.

Ok, well I thought it was clear that when I say blockbuster and/or genre film is great it typically encompasses those things. ;) So all things being equal, I still hold that there was something else influencing the Academy in the case of LotR that wasn't for TDK, Star Trek, HP, etc

SnapesBane July 1st, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 (Post 6021373)
Ok, well I thought it was clear that when I say blockbuster and/or genre film is great it typically encompasses those things. ;) So all things being equal, I still hold that there was something else influencing the Academy in the case of LotR that wasn't for TDK, Star Trek, HP, etc

Why couldn't they have just enjoyed it for the reasons I listed instead of some conspiracy? Do you think this way because TDK and HP didn't win any major awards (rightfully so, in my opinion)?

Peakes July 1st, 2012 5:09 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Do you really think LOTR3 deserved 11 awards, and the entire HP series didn't merit a single one?

I re-watched the LOTR trilogy not that long ago; I absolutely adored them when I watched them for the first time. This time, it was apparent how flawed they are. Good, but not 11 Oscars good. The last film was 30 minutes longer than it needed to be, and they could have cut that by playing Frodo's voice at normal speed instead of s l o w i n g i t d o w n t o m a k e i t s o u n d m o r e d r a m a t i c S a m, and succeeding only in making him sound like he was stoned for the entirety of his time in Mordor. Hell, it even won best adapted screenplay despite butchering the plot in a way that would make Steve Kloves blush.

I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but I do think that after LOTR and Titanic, they became suddenly much more averse to handing out lots of awards to big budget epics, possibly because in hindsight it was obvious that they had overdone it with those two. That's their prerogative I guess, but it's mine to judge them on it; if a film is good enough, then it shouldn't matter how much it cost, or how much it made at the box office. But you can't tell me that Potter didn't deserve a single one.

lcbaseball22 July 1st, 2012 5:17 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SnapesBane (Post 6021406)
Why couldn't they have just enjoyed it for the reasons?

Because other great blockbusters and/or genre films are enjoyable for the same reasons and have been just as deserving. That's why. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peakes (Post 6021414)
Do you really think LOTR3 deserved 11 awards, and the entire HP series didn't merit a single one?

I re-watched the LOTR trilogy not that long ago; I absolutely adored them when I watched them for the first time. This time, it was apparent how flawed they are. Good, but not 11 Oscars good. The last film was 30 minutes longer than it needed to be, and they could have cut that by playing Frodo's voice at normal speed instead of s l o w i n g i t d o w n t o m a k e i t s o u n d m o r e d r a m a t i c S a m, and succeeding only in making him sound like he was stoned for the entirety of his time in Mordor. Hell, it even won best adapted screenplay despite butchering the plot in a way that would make Steve Kloves blush.

I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but I do think that after LOTR and Titanic, they became suddenly much more averse to handing out lots of awards to big budget epics, possibly because in hindsight it was obvious that they had overdone it with those two. That's their prerogative I guess, but it's mine to judge them on it; if a film is good enough, then it shouldn't matter how much it cost, or how much it made at the box office. But you can't tell me that Potter didn't deserve a single one.

:tu:

Besides, it is pretty extreme to refer to what I was saying as a conspiracy...rather everyone has biases and it is a fact that the majority of the Academy is older then 60 and as such would naturally be less inclined towards reading/watching material aimed at young adults, unless of course they already had an affinity for it.

SnapesBane July 1st, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peakes (Post 6021414)
Do you really think LOTR3 deserved 11 awards, and the entire HP series didn't merit a single one?

I re-watched the LOTR trilogy not that long ago; I absolutely adored them when I watched them for the first time. This time, it was apparent how flawed they are. Good, but not 11 Oscars good. The last film was 30 minutes longer than it needed to be, and they could have cut that by playing Frodo's voice at normal speed instead of s l o w i n g i t d o w n t o m a k e i t s o u n d m o r e d r a m a t i c S a m, and succeeding only in making him sound like he was stoned for the entirety of his time in Mordor. Hell, it even won best adapted screenplay despite butchering the plot in a way that would make Steve Kloves blush.

A simple answer? Yes. A complex answer would involve dissecting the trilogy and showing how they are far superior to every Potter film in terms of story, narrative, directing, acting, emotional resonance, music, cinematography, etc. Note that I said major awards, which I think Potter deserved none.

Edit: I do not have time to do this, however. if I did, I would. I'd sit through Lord of the Rings with a grin on my face and tolerate Potter the best I could until it finally ended on a low note.

lcbaseball22 July 1st, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SnapesBane (Post 6021417)
A simple answer? Yes. A complex answer would involve dissecting the trilogy and showing how they are far superior to every Potter film in terms of story, narrative, directing, acting, emotional resonance, music, cinematography, etc. Note that I said major awards, which I think Potter deserved none.

Edit: I do not have time to do this, however. if I did, I would. I'd sit through Lord of the Rings with a grin on my face and tolerate Potter the best I could until it finally ended on a low note.

Well I sit through LotR wondering when the battles are going to end. Anyways, if you can only merely "tolerate" Potter then why are you on this board? You are aware that this is a Harry Potter fan forum, right?

SnapesBane July 1st, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 (Post 6021415)
Because other great blockbusters and/or genre films are enjoyable for the same reasons and have been just as deserving. That's why. :rolleyes:

I can't think of any that contain the same level of quality as Lord of the Rings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 (Post 6021422)
Well I sit through LotR wondering when the battles are going to end. Anyways, if you can only merely "tolerate" Potter then why are you on this board? You are aware that this is a Harry Potter fan forum, right?

I like the books. The films are what I tolerate.

Edit: This is a thread for films this year, so why are we even discussing Potter? Is it because disdain for the "snub" from last year is still there? Lord of the Rings makes sense given that the first half of The Hobbit is out in December.

I think Cuaron's Gravity may have been a contender had it not been pushed back to next year. I really don't know what's going to be nominated at this point of the year. Maybe Django Unchained? The Master?

Wab July 1st, 2012 5:44 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 (Post 6021415)
Because other great blockbusters and/or genre films are enjoyable for the same reasons and have been just as deserving. That's why. :rolleyes:

If you research the awards they have a history of recognising genre films. If not winners, there is usually a genre film in the best picture nominees.

Indeed, one of the few films to win the five big artistic awards (film, director, actor, actress and screenplay (adpated)) was a horror flick -- Silence of the Lambs.

Peakes July 1st, 2012 5:46 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
Steady now, everyone's entitled to their opinion. The films do fall short of the standards set by the books, but name an adapted film that didn't to some extent.

However, I'll challenge SnapesBane on one aspect (s)he identified - emotional resonance. LOTR never engaged me in that way; it's almost like a superhero movie, you just know all along the good guys will win, the bad guys will die, and everyone will live happily ever after. I find it very hard to care about any of the characters.

Out of the main characters in LOTR, who doesn't make it to the end? Boromir. That's it. Everyone else makes it to the end. In a world of magic, when the big bad guy is defeated, a golden age is ushered in and the world is a better place than it was before. War is hell, except in Middle Earth. The films even deliberately skip the one chapter where the impact of this evil on the people of Middle Earth was clearly shown (I refer to the Scouring of the Shire).

Do I really need to contrast that with Potter?

SnapesBane July 1st, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Oscars 2013
 
We can take it to Visitor Message, if you like, Peakes. Keep this thread on the Oscars instead of Lord of the Rings and Potter.

Edit: I'll say this. The source material for Rings is as atrocious as you can get. The films greatly improved it.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 8:22 pm.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.