Oscar/Awards thread

[Henri Ducard]

Originally Posted by Justin

You're talking about bureaucracy and benefits, not quality. Silver Linings Playbook is a solid film, but the same argument could be made that it'll be forgotten in 6 months.

I won't pretend to know everything about how the Oscars work (or even the nonsense that goes on behind the curtain), but I do know when someone has been robbed, and this was it.

If the Oscars were truly about rewarding the arts, it wouldn't be a televised event and marketing tool for studios. It's ultimately a meaningless award that movie fans take too seriously. The non-televised guild awards are more respectable in my opinion.

[Doomsday]

Originally Posted by Henri Ducard

If a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a noise? It's the same concept here. Amour didn't click with Americans and will be forgotten in 6 months. In addition, it's a foreign film made by old people. Hollywood has nothing to benefit from it. Jennifer Lawrence, on the other hand, is a big movie star and attracts young people to the Oscars. Everything she did last night went viral. She's the star & highlight of last nights Oscar. They made the right call.

But this is basically the same argument as 'we need to give the Oscar to the biggest money winner because it clicked with audiences.' Just because a movie made more money or had some actor or actress doesn't mean it should be given an Oscar based on audience expectations and reactions. The same applies to any category. By that reasoning shouldn't we have given a lot more nominations to The Avengers? Sure Jennifer Lawrence is a big star and is in the Hunger Games and people like her, but that doesn't make her a shoe in for awards. I know it doesn't happen all the time but it should go to the most deserving nominee for that year, plain and simple.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Henri Ducard

If the Oscars were truly about rewarding the arts, it wouldn't be a televised event and marketing tool for studios. It's ultimately a meaningless award that movie fans take too seriously. The non-televised guild awards are more respectable in my opinion.

Of course it's all meaningless. I rarely ever complain (I honestly didn't even watch them), but I felt that this warranted some kind of response. Whether the Oscars made the RIGHT choice is something else entirely--like I said--which is something different than making a choice that merely benefits them, while pacifying a public who refused to see something that made them uncomfortable. What we're discussing is who "deserved" it, not who made the most money.

[Henri Ducard]

Originally Posted by Doomsday

But this is basically the same argument as 'we need to give the Oscar to the biggest money winner because it clicked with audiences.' Just because a movie made more money or had some actor or actress doesn't mean it should be given an Oscar based on audience expectations and reactions. The same applies to any category. By that reasoning shouldn't we have given a lot more nominations to The Avengers? Sure Jennifer Lawrence is a big star and is in the Hunger Games and people like her, but that doesn't make her a shoe in for awards. I know it doesn't happen all the time but it should go to the most deserving nominee for that year, plain and simple.

That's not what I'm saying. The movie and the performance have to be great. Otherwise, people would roll their eyes. Silver Linings was great and Jennifer Lawrence delivered a great performance. Whether or not she was the best in her category is purely subjective. So people can stomach her victory.

[Dracula]

You can't let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" when it comes to the Oscars. Ideally I would have liked to see Riva win as well, but Lawrence is a good actress in a good film so I'm not going to complain too much.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by Justin

I'm speaking STRICTLY about who deserved it.

How many people actually deserved their win last night? But I guess it's easy to pick on the pretty blonde girl.

[Justin]

There are a few that won it for good reasons (out of the nominees, anyway). But the one I found to be the most implausible was Lawrence over Riva. It's absurd. I'm not picking on her at all. I don't see any reason why I would.

[DarthVader 2004]

Personally I think Jackman gave the best Les Miserables performance and really Lewis has won twice. I think Jackman should have won. Also What is wrong with a show when you don't honor Andy Griffith in the died actors of this year. They Honored Don Knotts I believe and he originated from a tv show and Andy played the straight man to allow Knotts to be good.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by Justin

the one I found to be the most implausible is Lawrence over Riva. It's absurd.

Time will tell.

[JBond]

It will...?

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by JBond

It will...?

I'm sure we'll still be talking about Amour 10 years from now and how it got robbed at the Oscars.

[PG Cooper]

Originally Posted by DarthVader 2004

Personally I think Jackman gave the best Les Miserables performance and really Lewis has won twice. I think Jackman should have won. Also What is wrong with a show when you don't honor Andy Griffith in the died actors of this year. They Honored Don Knotts I believe and he originated from a tv show and Andy played the straight man to allow Knotts to be good.

Of all the nominees for Best Actor, Jackman gave the weakest performance.

[Dracula]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Of all the nominees for Best Actor, Jackman gave the weakest performance.

By far

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Of all the nominees for Best Actor, Jackman gave the weakest performance.

I haven't seen Les Miserables yet because I refuse to pay $11-per-ticket on a 3 hour musical that's 95% singing... but from the clips I've seen, your criticism is difficult to believe. Jackman looks like a total badass in the movie and that's difficult to pull-off in a musical. Actors like Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, and even Mr. Daniel Day-Lewis, have made musicals and neither were able to do that. It's very emasculating to be in a musical, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's amazing that Hugh Jackman still managed to look like someone that can kick your ass. PLUS, he can sing. That's a major bonus. Johnny Depp was cool in Sweeney Todd, but he couldn't sing to save his life. And Russell Crowe goes without saying. So, you gotta give credit where it's due.

[PG Cooper]

Originally Posted by Neverending

I haven't seen Les Miserables yet because I refuse to pay $11-per-ticket on a 3 hour musical that's 95% singing... but from the clips I've seen, your criticism is difficult to believe. Jackman looks like a total badass in the movie and that's difficult to pull-off in a musical. Actors like Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, and even Mr. Daniel Day-Lewis, have made musicals and neither were able to do that. It's very emasculating to be in a musical, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's amazing that Hugh Jackman still managed to look like someone that can kick your ass. PLUS, he can sing. That's a major bonus. Johnny Depp was cool in Sweeney Todd, but he couldn't sing to save his life. And Russell Crowe goes without saying. So, you gotta give credit where it's due.

He was good, don't get me wrong, but the competition was just better. The other actors all gave more complex and interesting performances.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

The other actors all gave more complex and interesting performances.

Hugh Jackman seems more impressive than, say, Bradley Cooper and Denzel Washington. I know Dracula was blown away by Cooper because he didn't seem like a d-bag, but I've seen Cooper in non-dbag performances before. He was great, likable, and as you said, complex but there was nothing groundbreaking about his performance. I've seen dozens of other actors do similar work. The same applies to Denzel. Not to mention this wasn't even the best performances of his career. Jackman, by comparison, just seems unique. I haven't even seen the movie yet and his performance stands-out to me. I've never seen a badass in a musical that can sing too. If Daniel Day-Lewis had been out of the equation, he would have won last night. There's no doubt about it.

[PsYkOoOoO]

I want to know why that kid from Beasts of the Southern Wild even got nominated. I mean, people praised her performance but, in truth, I don't know what they are talking about.

[PG Cooper]

Originally Posted by Neverending

Hugh Jackman seems more impressive than, say, Bradley Cooper and Denzel Washington. I know Dracula was blown away by Cooper because he didn't seem like a d-bag, but I've seen Cooper in non-dbag performances before. He was great, likable, and as you said, complex but there was nothing groundbreaking about his performance. I've seen dozens of other actors do similar work. The same applies to Denzel. Not to mention this wasn't even the best performances of his career. Jackman, by comparison, just seems unique. I haven't even seen the movie yet and his performance stands-out to me. I've never seen a badass in a musical that can sing too. If Daniel Day-Lewis had been out of the equation, he would have won last night. There's no doubt about it.

Probably, but he wouldn't have deserved it. As for Jackman being a badass in Les Miserables, he isn't really. Within the first ten minutes he finds God and becomes a mild mannered bussiness man, albeit one with a unique past.

I suppose towards the end he starts doing more badass like things, but it's nothing to really right home about.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Within the first ten minutes he finds God and becomes a mild mannered bussiness man, albeit one with a unique past.

Yes, I'm aware. Les Miserable was a book before it was a broadway musical. But shouldn't that add depth to his performance? He can play badass and mild-mannered and still keep some consistancy between the two while also singing?

[Dracula]

Originally Posted by Neverending

I haven't seen Les Miserables yet because I refuse to pay $11-per-ticket on a 3 hour musical that's 95% singing... but from the clips I've seen, your criticism is difficult to believe. Jackman looks like a total badass in the movie and that's difficult to pull-off in a musical. Actors like Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, and even Mr. Daniel Day-Lewis, have made musicals and neither were able to do that. It's very emasculating to be in a musical, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's amazing that Hugh Jackman still managed to look like someone that can kick your ass. PLUS, he can sing. That's a major bonus. Johnny Depp was cool in Sweeney Todd, but he couldn't sing to save his life. And Russell Crowe goes without saying. So, you gotta give credit where it's due.

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Probably, but he wouldn't have deserved it. As for Jackman being a badass in Les Miserables, he isn't really. Within the first ten minutes he finds God and becomes a mild mannered bussiness man, albeit one with a unique past.

I suppose towards the end he starts doing more badass like things, but it's nothing to really right home about.

Yeah, all those clips of him with the beard and crazy haircut are from the first fifteen minutes, after that he looks like another pretty-boy from out of a Jane Austin novel. Singing-ability notwithstanding Russell Crowe probably comes closer to being the "badass in a musical" kind of thing you're talking about.

Jackman is generally quite hammy throughout Les Miserable, definitely not a career best.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by Dracula

Jackman is generally quite hammy throughout Les Miserable

It's a musical. It goes with the territory unless you're going for a rock n roll vibe like Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd or doing a comedy where the ham blends in or when leaving the symphonic sound like in Chicago or Dreamgirls.

[sshuttari]

I find it surprising no one thinks Robert Deniro deserved a win that night.

[DarthVader 2004]

I think Depps original first movie Jack Sparrow got robbed and Ian McKellans Gandalf the grey. But really if Les Miserables was not a musical. I think it may have been a more epic movie. But whos kidding Danial Day Lewis cannot be beaten if up for an award in a movie.

[sshuttari]

Originally Posted by DarthVader 2004

I think Depps original first movie Jack Sparrow got robbed and Ian McKellans Gandalf the grey.

What the heck does that mean?

We need a Vader translator on these boards...

[DarthVader 2004]

Originally Posted by sshuttari

What the heck does that mean?

We need a Vader translator on these boards...

Its means in past oscar hand outs. I think POTCCOTBP Jack should have won best actor for seeing it first time it is quite good and. Ian McKellan as gandalf the grey in FOTR got robbed as well from the oscar.