|
Post by Quell on Mar 8, 2018 8:39:57 GMT -8
If you think there's not a price to pay for identity politics I suggest you examine the Soviet Union and Mao's China. What is the connection there? Socialists in the USSR and Red China saw class as the only real division in society. The idea that people should form alliances on the basis of religion or race would have been anathema to them.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Mar 8, 2018 9:33:38 GMT -8
Well, they're partially genetic. Hardwired implies they're incapable of being changed. Give an example of something that is a genetic source of visual disgust rather than a developed one. Smell and taste are obviously different. Well attraction isn't a "try it and you might like it" thing like food is, and yes a lot of people have fought their biological reaction and tried heterosexuality. In most cases I'd say it still didn't change anything to suit them. My point was that you may have something you're visually disgusted by - in this case their reaction to apple pie and cheese, and then be able to easily change it in a way that no one would consider harmful. That is not true of sexuality so stop trying to equate them. Just because you wouldn't want to change every thing that disgusts or discomforts you doesn't mean you shouldn't change some things. It might discomfort you to use the telephone, but if that becomes part of your job you better start trying to learn how to get over that. No, sexuality is not based on discomfort for the things you aren't attracted to, it's based on being attracted to the things you are attracted to. Attraction is not the same as "discomfort with everything but that". No, this is not the same thing. Preferring one thing is not the same as being grossed out by the other thing. It IS normal. At minimum, around 10% people around the world are some degree of LGBT. Do you know the population of the world that's white? Around 16%. Would you say being white is abnormal? Do you think it's okay for people to have an adverse reaction to seeing a white person, or black person? Or even to use your example, do you think it's okay for people to be disgusted by one legged people and feel okay about that reaction and not work to change it? If you say yes, all that stuff is okay then I don't think there's a point of arguing anymore. Because we clearly would have different views about what it means to be a responsible human being in relation to those around you. Your point seems to be that if there's disgust and discomfort is just the body's way of discriminating your sexuality. It's just not true, as I said above, it's attraction that determines sexuality. And lack of attraction is by no means the same as disgust or discomfort. No one is telling anyone that they should try to be attracted to homosexual stuff. But there's a large void between "lack of attraction" and "disgust" and saying that they're equivalent is disingenuous. There's no purpose to being disgusted by homosexual stuff because you can still biologically discriminate without that. So why are you fighting for people to hold onto it?
|
|
|
Post by unkinhead on Mar 20, 2018 0:36:29 GMT -8
The Shape of Water - 2.5/5
Meh. Pretty, but mostly drivel. There's practically nothing outside of GDT's admittedly great world creation thats even remotely interesting
Like in Pan's Labyrinth, you have the innocent protagonist whos unfairly abused and discriminated against by the evil tyrannical masculine guy. It's badly contrived and predictable, and doesn't take nearly enough of a backseat to atmosphere and vision to work for me. Then she has sex with a fish cuz love knows no bounds and all that. Romantic i guess. Wasn't really feeling it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Aug 8, 2018 15:26:59 GMT -8
For the first time in 17 years, the Oscars are adding a new category - Best Popular Picture. It will presumably cover films with moderate-to-high box office grosses (AKA films that audiences have actually watched).
From a business perspective, this seems to make sense, as viewers are more likely to tune in if films they've seen are nominated. (Few of the major winners in recent years have crested $50 million in sales returns.) And it seems likely that some folks in the Academy really wanted to honor Black Panther without looking like they've gone soft on superheroes.
On the other hand... it's a basic guilty-as-charged admission by the Academy that they're out of touch with the average filmgoer.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Aug 9, 2018 11:33:49 GMT -8
They said they'll allow it. But I expect that it'll now be much less common for a "popular" film to be nominated in the regular Best Picture category - now that the Oscars have a way to channel the public interest, they'll be even less motivated to appease them in the main category.
I can imagine far too many ways in which this development can backfire. Heck, it's really not clear how the Academy will determine what makes a film "popular" - particularly if a film's box-office life runs past the voting period. (For instance, The Greatest Showman and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, both of which premiered in late 2017, were wildly popular with audiences, but their financial success didn't become apparent until early 2018, when the Oscars voting period had ended.)
Frankly, I'd be more excited by this news if the Academy also changed the main category's name to "Best Unpopular Picture." Now that would drive up the ratings.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Aug 9, 2018 13:08:06 GMT -8
On the other hand... it's a basic guilty-as-charged admission by the Academy that they're out of touch with the average filmgoer. I think there's a little bit of unfairness with this statement though. The Academy has and always have had different goals with how they evaluate movies than the average filmgoer. Primarily, they care about film craft. They see films as an art form, where as the average film watcher looks for entertainment and escapism. I don't think it's a bad thing that the awards body is looking for different things than the popular masses. I'm not sure what the purpose of the award is other than to raise viewership for the ceremony, to have at least one award where everyone's seen the movies involved and thus has a rooting interest. I don't think this is really rewarding much of anything, for the most part popular films are made to make money, and thus they kind of have their own evaluation criterion - the box office results.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Aug 9, 2018 14:08:38 GMT -8
I think there's a little bit of unfairness with this statement though. The Academy has and always have had different goals with how they evaluate movies than the average filmgoer. Primarily, they care about film craft. They see films as an art form, where as the average film watcher looks for entertainment and escapism. That description applies more to critics. It used to apply to the Academy as well, but in recent years, said Academy has become less interested in films which display good craft than in films which deliver the right messages. They tend to gravitate to films that are the "most relevant" or "most nostalgic," rather than the ones that are the best-crafted. And there are plenty of films which are both entertaining and well-crafted. A Quiet Place was massively popular with audiences, and also widely praised for its artful aesthetics. In a fair world, it would at least be in consideration for the Best Picture category, but because it still fits the description of a "monster movie," it'll likely have to settle for the Popular category. And yeah, the only real motivation behind this is to drive up the Oscars' catastrophic ratings. But it'd be a little more reassuring if the Academy just learned to accept that "quality" and "popular" are not mutually exclusive. (Of course, another way to drive up ratings would be to cut down on the political speeches in each ceremony. But I'm guessing that's unlikely.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Aug 9, 2018 16:32:11 GMT -8
I don't know. Given the changing landscape with regards to TV viewership, I'd say 25-million-plus viewers is pretty good. To me, aside from viewers being divided a million different ways, a show like the Oscars can be easily digested in pieces, so catching the highlights on YouTube is probably enough for most people. Regardless of political grandstanding or other indulgences on the part of the producers and participants, awards shows are never going to be consistently entertaining from top-to-bottom, so bitching about that every year is futile. Producers have no control over winners who have no on-camera charisma, or aren't good in a live context. These things are what they are.
And while we're on the subject of critics, in what world are they on the opposite end of the spectrum from average moviegoers? I mean, sure, many critics will champion little esoteric art films that your average Joe won't give the time of day, but by-and-large, most critics will also give positive reviews, or even praise, to any competently-produced blockbuster. I mean, sheesh, the number of superhero flicks that have hit over 90% on the Tomatometer in the past few years is proof enough of that. Most critics, quite frankly, are pretty lenient w/r/t how they rate movies.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Aug 9, 2018 17:03:09 GMT -8
I don't know. Given the changing landscape with regards to TV viewership, I'd say 25-million-plus viewers is pretty good. It's less good when that number is a 20% drop from last year, which was already one of the lowest-rated Oscar ceremonies ever. It might not seem like much (particularly given all the time we spend mocking the Oscars), but Hollywood invests a ton of money into the ceremony each year, just as ABC has continually poured out tons of money to maintain the rights for a supposedly monumental one-night-a-year event. Live viewership for this kind of program is important, and barely doubling the average Big Bang Theory episode isn't going to cut it. I... never argued this? I was stating that critics view cinema as an art form, whereas most viewers simply view it as escapism. True, their views often align, but critics usually try to approach films from a deeper perspective, even when the films they're reviewing are clearly designed as blockbuster escapism.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 6, 2018 11:54:51 GMT -8
Turns out the Oscars are rethinking the "Best Popular Picture" category. It won't be part of the 2019 ceremony, and whether it'll appear in future years remains doubtful.
(So much for Black Panther getting a courtesy award.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 6, 2018 16:59:07 GMT -8
Well, if Black Panther has enough support, it could get in the actual Best Picture race. But given that Academy members only submit their personal Top 5s for the nomination ballot, methinks it's more likely that BlacKkKlansman gets in. Were members submitting a Top 10, and there were a guaranteed ten nominees, BP would very likely make the cut.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 6, 2018 18:58:47 GMT -8
I'll believe that Black Panther has a chance of getting a Best Picture nomination when it actually gets nominated. Not getting my hopes up until then.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 6, 2018 7:48:48 GMT -8
Black Panther received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Picture. It's the first superhero film to ever do so.
Some are speculating that this increases its chances of getting a Best Picture nomination from the Oscars.
But I will remain skeptical, because, y'know, it's the Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 7, 2019 7:15:02 GMT -8
So, to what extent are these Golden Globe results going to influence the Oscars?
The top awards went to Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book, and while I've seen neither film myself, both of them appear to be much more like crowd-pleasers than critic-pleasers. Since HFPA prefers "big and popular" over the Academy's "small and unknown," I don't think either film has a real shot at winning Best Picture. (Green Book may be a contender if the final pool isn't too competitive, but I imagine it will be.)
On the other hand, I'm kind of hoping that Into the Spider-Verse winning Best Animated Feature gives it a shot next month. It seems like an outlier pick, but Big Hero 6 won the Oscar a few years ago, so the Academy isn't totally averse to Marvel cartoons.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 7, 2019 8:09:10 GMT -8
On the other hand, I'm kind of hoping that Into the Spider-Verse winning Best Animated Feature gives it a shot next month. It seems like an outlier pick, but Big Hero 6 won the Oscar a few years ago, so the Academy isn't totally averse to Marvel cartoons. I think Into the Spider-Verse absolutely has a shot at Best Animated Feature, but I don't think I'd use Big Hero 6 as the precedent. While it is a Marvel cartoon, it was a mostly unknown quantity by the general public that was made a main Disney feature. I think people think more of it as a Disney feature than a Marvel one. Whereas Spider-man is a much more well known comic book properly, the Oscars may look at it much more of a comic book movie than they would have Big Hero 6.
|
|