|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 7, 2019 8:54:28 GMT -8
True. The problem is that "looking at it as a comic book movie" isn't necessarily encouraging when it comes to the Oscars.
The big issue is that the Best Animated Feature award is really tough for films that aren't made by Disney or Pixar. 10 out of the last 11 years have seen the award go to a film from those studios, even in years where there were arguably more acclaimed animated films in the running. (The one exception was in 2011, but that's because no Disney or Pixar films were nominated at all.)
I'd love to see Spider-Verse take the Oscar, but it's gonna have an uphill battle against Incredibles 2.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 7, 2019 17:50:18 GMT -8
Though I'm sure Rami Malek gives a solid performance as Freddy Mercury, everything else I've heard about Bohemian Rhapsody suggests it hits all the same beats as the music-biopic parody Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox story. Beyond that, I'm not sure if the Academy wants to give too much attention to a film mostly directed by Bryan Singer, given the trouble he's been in (predatory towards underage boys and whatnot).
Green Book probably has a better shot (it SEEMS progressive in nature, and is a feel-good picture), but I think Alfonso Cuaron's Roma and Cooper's A Star is Born are gonna get big pushes from their respective studios going forward.
Spiderverse might get a nom, but yeah, Incredibles 2 is the likely winner. But it's a good film, so I wouldn't be all that bothered by that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 8, 2019 6:13:38 GMT -8
Incredibles 2 is certainly good. But it wouldn't be my first, second, or even third pick among the Globe nominees (which the Oscar nominees will likely mirror closely, given recent - and stupid - changes to Academy rules about animated films).
Incidentally, I can still remember watching the Oscars when the first Incredibles won 14 years ago. Good heavens, but that makes me feel old.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 22, 2019 17:25:42 GMT -8
As I totally and definitely predicted all along, Black Panther got a Best Picture nomination.
But seriously, this is a pretty unconventional selection. Only eight BP nominees (tied with 2014 for the lowest of the decade), three of which (Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody, A Star is Born) were box-office hits. That's a pretty good ratio for the Academy, and affirms their decision to jettison the proposed "Popular Picture" category.
It's unlikely that any of the Big Three will win (I'd call it a tossup between Roma and Green Book, with The Favourite an outside spoiler), but it's a promising sign that the Oscars can salvage themselves with the public.
Now if only they could find a host...
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 23, 2019 18:10:26 GMT -8
They don't need a host. The ceremony would move along much more quickly without one.
And I don't really care if they "salvage themselves with the public", if it means nominating mediocre films like Bohemian Rhapsody.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 23, 2019 19:09:42 GMT -8
The awards attention heaped on Bohemian Rhapsody continues to baffle me. It doesn't fit the generic Oscar profile, it's not all that popular with critics, and its original director has a checkered personal history (even before the rise of #MeToo). Are there just a lot of Queen fans in the Academy?
And honestly, I just don't see the show being as interesting without a host to anchor the proceedings - even when they bomb spectacularly, it's still kind of fascinating to watch. Without any host, the show would just feel dry(er) and disorganized(...er).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 22, 2019 11:34:44 GMT -8
Every year, I write a different type of piece about the Oscars, either because I want to encourage variety or because I'm too fickle to settle on a theme. In any case, here's my piece discussing all the Best Picture nominations, and which one is most likely to win.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Feb 24, 2019 6:30:03 GMT -8
The awards attention heaped on Bohemian Rhapsody continues to baffle me. It doesn't fit the generic Oscar profile and its original director has a checkered personal history (even before the rise of #MeToo). I don't know about that; its a rags-to-riches, rise-fall-rise underdog story on a structural level, and the Academy's always had Capra blood running through its veins. Plus, it's big, loud and carried with impressive aplomb so as to work as a crowd-pleaser - in other words, it's about as 'Queen' a movie as you could ask for. As for Singer, whilst I don't usually bother to get that much of a handle on the Academy's MO, I think they can take comfort in detaching the helmsman from the Picture by simply snubbing him or her from the Best Director category. As such, note that Rhapsody and Green Book are nominated as entities but Singer and Farrelly aren't - whilst the latter isn't a controversial figure his hitherto filmography is hardly Academy-friendly; hell, even if the Oscars had a Best Musical or Comedy like the Globes they'd probably still baulk at honouring the Farrellys. That said, whilst I doubt Bohemian Rhapsody will be the big winner, I don't think it makes for unlikely Oscar material.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 24, 2019 7:48:55 GMT -8
I don't know about that; its a rags-to-riches, rise-fall-rise underdog story on a structural level, and the Academy's always had Capra blood running through its veins. Plus, it's big, loud and carried with impressive aplomb so as to work as a crowd-pleaser - in other words, it's about as 'Queen' a movie as you could ask for. Does “big, loud crowd-pleaser” really sound like Oscar material? Golden Globes, maybe, but HFPA and the Academy are often on wildly different pages. My theory is that after the push (and subsequent pushback) over the Best Popular Picture category, a lot of Academy members are making a more conscious effort to give more attention to popular films, which explains how both Bohemian Rhapsody and Black Panther got nominated.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 25, 2019 7:04:13 GMT -8
Perhaps it's just me, but last night's Oscars felt longer than usual, despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of an opening monologue or extended skits. There were very few genuine surprises (apart from Black Panther winning Best Score), and some good speeches (Olivia Colman, Hannah Beachler, Jaime Ray Newman), but it just felt more labored, even as the show rushed to fill out its running time - which it still went over by about 15 minutes.
Green Book winning Best Picture is about as predictable as you can get, even in a field as split as this one. It's the kind of generic race-relations film that will be forgotten within five years, but it's exactly the kind of film the Oscars will congratulate themselves for rewarding.
I really do hope they get a host next year, as recent ceremonies have become increasingly sterile and uninspired, caring more about ending on tie than being entertaining. Even a bad ceremony gives us... something.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Feb 25, 2019 8:07:05 GMT -8
I think I might dedicate 2019 to actually paying attention to Oscar movies and watching all the contenders again like I used to. I really started to dislike the Oscars sometime in the middle of this decade because of the types of movies they like to reward, but hey, maybe something's changed and they're actually recognizing really good stuff again.
Also, for the record all of the 50 and 60 somethings at the country club I curl out of loved Green Book. So that should tell you something right there.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 25, 2019 10:38:32 GMT -8
but hey, maybe something's changed and they're actually recognizing really good stuff again. They are not. Like I said, Green Book is a crowd-pleaser. It is meant to make audiences (particularly white, middle-aged people, i.e. a large chunk of the Academy) feel good about themselves. I don't blame anyone who likes it - I kind of enjoyed it myself - but it's the most milquetoast Best Picture win of the decade.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Feb 25, 2019 19:29:04 GMT -8
Hey now Jeremy, just be glad Spiderverse won Best Animated Feature.
It's a shame they didn't have the guts to give a non-English-language film Best Picture, though. They really whiffed on that one.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Feb 25, 2019 19:37:52 GMT -8
Perhaps it's just me, but last night's Oscars felt longer than usual, despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of an opening monologue or extended skits. There were very few genuine surprises (apart from Black Panther winning Best Score), and some good speeches (Olivia Colman, Hannah Beachler, Jaime Ray Newman), but it just felt more labored, even as the show rushed to fill out its running time - which it still went over by about 15 minutes. Green Book winning Best Picture is about as predictable as you can get, even in a field as split as this one. It's the kind of generic race-relations film that will be forgotten within five years, but it's exactly the kind of film the Oscars will congratulate themselves for rewarding. I really do hope they get a host next year, as recent ceremonies have become increasingly sterile and uninspired, caring more about ending on tie than being entertaining. Even a bad ceremony gives us... something. What? I liked this much more than the other events. I think Editing et al deserve to be in the main show, and that the host is just there to deliver a lame late-night opening monologue that the ceremony could skip with no loss. If they're serious about saving time, they should get rid of the presenters recapping each Best Picture - this isn't the Tonys, there's no reason to haul out Queen Latifah et al just to show a trailer for each of the eight movies we're already going to see twelve clips from this evening.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Feb 25, 2019 20:13:23 GMT -8
Yeah, I thought it moved along just fine. Mind you, I was doing my taxes during the broadcast.
|
|