|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Oscars 2018: Results from the 90th Academy Awards
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-06-2018 11:23 AM
Totally agreed about the politics angle. One political website I like to read commented that by choosing Jimmy Kimmel to front it, AMPAS was in effect telling half of the population to go and watch something else. I'd say that it was even more than half. My political outlook veers toward the conservative, and my wife's to the liberal. She was watching it, I wasn't (I was keeping half an eye on it while doing household chores). She got fed up with the political speeches about an hour in, despite agreeing with the content of them, and after one of them (can't remember who - possibly Frances McDormand), switched off the TV and we took our son for a walk in the park instead.
I can't help thinking that if AMPAS had imposed the film-tech.com rule and placed an absolute, blanket ban on any political comment, with the speech scripts pre-vetted and everyone forced to sign contracts agreeing to pay swingeing fines if they went off script, the ratings would have been better.
But the main problem was the movies. Like it or not, the Oscars is intended as a promotional vehicle for mainstream films. Its relevance to arthouse and minority interest films exists, but is restricted to acknowledging their contribution and influence on mainstream cinema - hence the reason that there are foreign film and documentary categories, for example, but they don't get a lot of attention. Giving the best picture Oscar to some weird movie that spouts philosophical BS and which almost no-one saw or will see, is not doing the brand any favors.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-06-2018 03:42 PM
The things I found most annoying in the Oscars telecast were Francis McDormand's acceptance speech (for reasons I mentioned earlier on Page 1 of this thread) and certain deviations in the show.
Traditionally the previous year's Best Actor Oscar winner presents the Best Actress Oscar. When Jodie Foster and Jennifer Lawrence took the stage to present the award I was confused at first but then remembered Casey Affleck won the Best Actor Oscar last year for Manchester By the Sea. I get why he didn't present the Best Actress Award. Not knowing the specifics of two law harassment suits that were settled I'm still guessing Affleck's acting career is likely finished. It's great some monsters in the entertainment industry are getting their comeuppance. Still, it looks like the concept of due process has been pushed aside in the hysteria. How many of these harassment cases have gone to criminal court?
I wonder how the Times Up and Me Too movements are going to react when the Brian Banks movie is released. That one is based on the true story of a star high school football player whose life and path to the NCAA and NFL was derailed when he was falsely accused of rape, convicted and imprisoned for nearly 6 years. A decade later his accuser admitted to making up the whole story so she and her mother could sue the school district for a bunch of money. By then Banks was past his prime. I only bring up that case and this movie project because some members of this movement are acting like it is impossible for a man to be falsely accused of a sex crime. The Innocence Project has fought a bunch of cases like this, including that of Brian Banks.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Totally agreed about the politics angle. One political website I like to read commented that by choosing Jimmy Kimmel to front it, AMPAS was in effect telling half of the population to go and watch something else.
I don't think the choice of host would have made any difference. Many "red" viewers would have avoided watching the show anyway. I'm not sure what would qualify as a conservative leading awards show (the annual Country Music Association awards show seems kind of moderate to me). If there was such a thing I'm sure just as many "blue" viewers would avoid watching as well.
The way it looks to me is that most who have picked a side in the "sport" of politics are walking around with big chips on their shoulders just itching to take offense at something. These days they get triggered just by hearing any opposing viewpoint. Just hearing someone out is seen as a form of capitulation. They want the opposing side to shut up, stay quiet and wear whatever derogatory label is assigned to them without protest. Meanwhile moderates are seen as traitors by those with enough "courage" to pick a right or left side. The moderates think the people on the far left and far right have lost their minds.
quote: Leo Enticknap
But the main problem was the movies. Like it or not, the Oscars is intended as a promotional vehicle for mainstream films. Its relevance to arthouse and minority interest films exists, but is restricted to acknowledging their contribution and influence on mainstream cinema - hence the reason that there are foreign film and documentary categories, for example, but they don't get a lot of attention. Giving the best picture Oscar to some weird movie that spouts philosophical BS and which almost no-one saw or will see, is not doing the brand any favors.
Did you watch The Shape of Water? Granted, it's a strange fantasy movie, but what about it was "philosophical BS?"
The main promotional vehicle in the Academy Awards show is the commercial breaks. There's plenty of movie ads there. I did think it was a little slippery on Disney's part to have Jimmy Kimmel and friends crash the screening of A Wrinkle in Time. That gave that Disney movie some extra publicity.
When I was a kid I was pissed when movies like Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. lost out to "artsy fartsy" movies like Annie Hall, Chariots of Fire and Gandhi. These days the Oscar results don't bother me nearly as much. If I have an issue with anything it's more often in one of the technical categories. "How dare they not give a 70mm movie an award!" The Oscars are not the end all be all authority over what amounts to being the best movie or what's best in specific movie categories, like Best Catering. The AMPAS' Oscars show is just one of many movie awards presentations.
The next thing is movies that are good and movies that make lots of money are often two separate things. There are great movies that just didn't sell lots of tickets. There are movies that sold lots of tickets that are honestly crap. With so many sequels, re-makes, reboots and other derivate stuff dominating the box office and movie production pipelines I think the Academy Awards would be better off just ending itself rather than making its awards more "mainstream."
The People's Choice Awards already gives props to movies that sell a lot of tickets. Is MTV's Movie Awards show still around? I haven't watched MTV in years. That show was doing the same thing. Some people will actually avoid watching movies that have won in major Oscar categories. They equate the Oscar with boring movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 03-06-2018 03:53 PM
quote: Richard P. May
Bobby, re who votes for what: for nominations, each branch votes for their members, cinematographers for that, writers for screenplay, etc .
In the final voting, full membership votes for everything.
It gets a bit more complicated, but this is the general rule.
I was under the impression that only the "Best Picture" category is open for all members to vote for, both during nomination and final vote. It would, at the very least, make more sense.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I was under the impression only cinematographers could vote in the cinematography Oscar category. One would think they would at least appreciate the effort that went into filming a war epic on 5/65mm and 15/65mm film. On the other hand there are cinematographers who are staunchly in favor of an all-digital approach. So maybe there's a clash of philosophy present. Inception is the only recent movie to make any use of 65mm cinematography and win the Best Cinematography Oscar.
I'm still under the same impression: Cinematographers nominate and vote for cinematographers.
The problem with those kind of awards shows is that they deliberately obfuscate the rules. It's not like an exam at a school, where usually the outlines of scoring points are more profoundly outlined. Now, you can argue if something considered a form of art should be judged against such a strict set of rules, because art should be free...
Personally, I think the way of getting to a certain result should be a large part of the decision making process in selecting the beneficiary in such an award. I would consider Dunkirk a larger cinematographic achievement than Blade Runner 2049, even though it looked absolutely awesome.
Maybe one of the reasons why the results of the Oscars seem to be so telegraphed from other shows is because the jury members let themselves be influenced too much by those results. Maybe they're afraid of making different choices, because if all the others generally agree on certain movies and they end up with totally different results, it could seriously hurt their credibility. (As far as the whole show still has left some credibility.)
quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm surprised the Oscars haven't tried to hook-up somehow with the People's Choice awards to make themselves more mainstream.
We're seriously talking about the elite hooking up with what the plebs think? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
Did you watch The Shape of Water? Granted, it's a strange fantasy movie, but what about it was "philosophical BS?"
I watched it. And while it was a beautifully choreographed movie with some strong acting, the story itself was just 13 out of a dozen boilerplate, predictable boredom, as was most of the character development. I think the "artsy fartsy" factor was actually pretty limited, so I didn't really get it when it started to hit #1 on all the award shows.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic