Hurt Locker was a boring, shit movie.
The only thing the Oscar's got right was Waltz
The only thing the Oscar's got right was Waltz
Oscars 2010
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
and she turned up to collect it, which always strikes me as showing some class. Halle Berry's appearance a few years back was classy, when she gave a 10 minute piss take speech and I think she was the first person to do it.
Now I haven't seen most of the nominees for best picture, but if Avatar should have won ahead of any of the others, then 2009 was a very bad year for film.
To be fair, it was. This is like the year No Country for Old Men won, when basically all the nominated films where shite because there simply hadn't been any good ones.
Still, I'd have had Inglourious Basterds and District 9 ahead of Avatar.
Avatar was amazing visually, but that can't be enough to win Best Picture, surely?
I don't know whether Hurt Locker deserves it or not as I haven't seen it yet, but the vast majority of movies I've seen this year weren't all that good, never mind worthy of an Oscar.
I don't know whether Hurt Locker deserves it or not as I haven't seen it yet, but the vast majority of movies I've seen this year weren't all that good, never mind worthy of an Oscar.
It's the problem with an annual awards ceremony - some years, like this year, there are simply no Oscar-worthy films, but they have to give it to someone. Which means that one lucky film (in this case The Hurt Locker) will go down in history as sharing a pedestal with the all-time greats, despite the fact it deserves to be nowhere near them. Any other year and it wouldn't have got a sniff of the award.
The flip side, which is equally as bad, is that other years more than one film is Oscar-worthy, but only one can get it. Take, for example, 1994, where Forrest Gump won Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, leaving Pulp Fiction with nothing but a handful of nominations. Forrest Gump deserved every single one of those awards, but so, really, did Pulp Fiction. Any other year and Pulp Fiction would have won all those awards, but it lost out because it happened to come out at the same time as another film, which just happened to tug on the heartstrings of the people that decide these things a little more.
When you consider that, with The Hurt Locker now having won Best Picture and Best Director, whilst Pulp Fiction has neither, you realise the whole concept is a bit of absurd joke, really.
Yeah, fair points. I don't put much faith in the Oscars anyway, as an awful lot of the movies are just 'critically acclaimed' which can just be shorthand for pretentious shite.
I remember reading a good list of 'The best films never to win an Oscar'. Amazing to think some of them lost out.
Edit: Here is is
10 Legendary Movies That Never Won Best Picture Oscar - FilmoFilia
I remember reading a good list of 'The best films never to win an Oscar'. Amazing to think some of them lost out.
Edit: Here is is
10 Legendary Movies That Never Won Best Picture Oscar - FilmoFilia
I didn't realise the Shawshank Redemption was also in the running that year. It just goes to show my point, frankly!
Your point is basically that you didn't like Hurt Locker but did like Avatar, and are therefore a massive gimp of some kind, and taking it all as some kind of slight on you that this woeful tragedy befell you.
is that it?
is that it?
Political vote?
Your point is basically that you didn't like Hurt Locker but did like Avatar, and are therefore a massive gimp of some kind, and taking it all as some kind of slight on you that this woeful tragedy befell you.
is that it?
Essentially, yes, although I can fully understand why Avatar wasn't deemed Oscar-worthy. It won the award and fans it wanted, which was the Box Office and the population-at-large, and I don't think Cameron expected to win the Best Director or Film awards.
The thing that's silly is the that the Hurt Locker also isn't very good, but it showed up a real dearth in the quality of films last year. The one that I'm sure will go down in history as having really made it's "mark" - Avatar - was a brilliant spectacle, but I agree with you, not a tremendous film.
Aslong as Waltz won I don't care. The Hurt Locker was good, but...yeah, best picture? Hmm.
No Country For Old Men is not a shite film.
Tbh I'm still butthurt that The Dark Knight didn't win for 2008.
Neither Avatar, nor the Dark Knight were particularly good movies.
Those are two examples (Departed is another one) where the majority desperately wanted the movie to do well and overrated it beyond necessary limits for some external reason.
Those are two examples (Departed is another one) where the majority desperately wanted the movie to do well and overrated it beyond necessary limits for some external reason.
The Dark Knight was better than The Departed though....Toss up between that and Avatar really, might just put Avatar ahead on that one. Hurt Locker was better than both
Right, see this is the sort of elitism that makes the Oscars a joke.
If "the majority" wanted a film to win, clearly it struck a chord with them, which surely makes it a "good film"? If a film is judged by how much it entertained people, then the one that the majority supports must have entertained the most people.
Instead, a bunch of tight-ass critics look disdainfully down their noses whilst they toss each other off and regard the world through their vastly superior eyes, dismissing the popular films as cheap twoddle and lauding the plaudits of films that most people thought were good, but not great. It's the Emperor's New Clothes - the critics decide one film is good and then just praise it to the heavens.
Tell me The Hurt Locker will still be remembered as one of the best war films ever in twenty years, as it should now be. No, it won't, the critics will have moved on to wrap their lips around another flavour-of-the-month and will be telling everyone what a wonderful, amazing film it is when everyone else thinks it was merely good.
"Oh, but you simply didn't get it, plebian. Leave it to us critics, and don't worry your poor darling little head."
Why are you so angry about this? ...The general public are fecking idiots when it comes to what films they like. Should Independence Day have won an Oscar? No. And Critics don't vote for the Oscars, people who've won Oscars do, and I think they probably have a better incling than you and Joe Public about what a good script and a well made movie is...It's an awards show, don't get your pants in a twist. ....and Avatar was shit.
I'd quite like to have sex with Bigelow.
Aren't you the one that liked the Star Wars prequels and the Transformers movies and stuff? If so, I don't think you're really in a position to talk about what is a "particularly good movie".
I just hate film snobs, Mockney. People who like to think they're better and more intelligent than me because they love the subtleties of the intellectual films (most of which is just pretentious bollocks) and I like a bit of exciting entertainment that allows me to pass the time.
Snob!
Wouldn't you say though there is a big vested interest when the awards are based on weighted votes within the industry? For instance a major film could have a hundred academy voters working on it, and everybody within it's studio could have so many more votes as well, I'm not sure precisely how the weighting works but if you are a multiple previous winner/nominee your votes count for much more than otherwise - and of course they all benefit if they work/own an academy award winning feature.
But then you're sort of saying you don't really care about the actual quality, as long as it's entertaining and passes the time. So what do you care if people that want more than that from a film, award and don't award, films that do or don't do that? I'll bet if something you do care about the quality of (I dunno, take music for example) was being judged, and people used exactly the same argument for X Factor winners or Lady Gaga (the musical equivalent of something like Avatar really) then you wouldn't be so bothered about it, or would be more, but from the other side of the argument.
cnut.
The Oscars always have and always will be a shit barometer for quality...at the end of the day it's all back slapping. The fact anyone cries when they get given such a ridiculously vacuous award really says it all. Actors seem to be the only people that cry when given awards, despite all its saying is "Some other people you know think you were quite good at pretending"....the old joke about Nobel Prize winners sobbing uncontrollably is an apt one.
How good a film is ultimately comes down to the storyline and pacing and script, appropriate casting, performance of the cast, and the performance of the director in bringing those together.
This is why Avatar would never win best picture, it is exactly the same as 12 year olds arguing over what is the best games console based purely on the processing capability and graphics. If it was shot in motion picture, would you care about it?
This is why Avatar would never win best picture, it is exactly the same as 12 year olds arguing over what is the best games console based purely on the processing capability and graphics. If it was shot in motion picture, would you care about it?
Thanks. It is weird though that you're on completely the other side of the debate here to the side you adopted in the music thread. That debate essentially being commercialism v. taste, quality and culture...
Not really, in fact not at all. He was saying this that and the other about certain films, and I simply said his views were just his opinion and nothing more, cos others disagreed. In fact I'm using the same argument. I haven't definitively said what is and isn't good at all. But keep going, you'll get there eventually.
This from the man who advocated dropping a nuclear bomb on Buenos Aires if the dirty Argies so much as looked at us funny.
I think I'll take my patronising bollocking from someone less stupid, thanks.
Well, yes really, actually... Here, you've clearly labelled some films as being Oscar-worthy or otherwise in your view and declared that the 'general public are fecking idiots in the films that they like'.
Whereas in the music thread you posted an 'artist' who is a symbol of the most commercial aspect of that industry and then stated that anyone who criticises him is a 'classical music snob' (even going on to say that 'they're the very worst kind of snob'.)
So while you recognise which films are commercial and that the people who watch them are 'fecking idiots', you do the reverse with music and defend commercial acts, calling anyone who criticises them a 'snob'.
By the way, is it really necessary to include a personal insult in every post?
Oh this is getting funny, I suggest you review the Falklands thread as I never said any such thing, sending a nuclear submarine to the South Atlantic is a somewhat different proposition. Besides the British Government does not have a 'no first use' policy, in fact the House of Commons Defence committee advocates the use of a limited tactical strike in defence of pur policy interests and we have .5 kiloton bombs on our submarines for exactly that purpose, so I am not exactly on the fringes of inside opinion.
If you are going to bring irrelevant points into a discussion about the Academy Awards you ought to know what you are talking about, and to bring the discussion back to that - would you not say the determinants of an excellent film are the performances of the actors and the quality of the script and storyline they are working with? As in that sense Avatar is generic and has been done a hundred times before.
Well, no BL. Again I've given my opinion on the matter, and said certain films I consider Oscar worthy are, which is my opinion, and one which I'm entitled to, as is CD. It has nothing to do with commercialism or the defence of promotion of it at all. I don't know where you're getting that from.
I was simply countering his rant about it being all so unfair by pointing out other people didn't think so. It was merely a counter to his argument that all commercial films are more worthy than "arty" ones by virtue of popularity. Similarly I wasn't claiming commercial classical music (which is a far far smaller genre than film with far less opinions thrown at it) is superior by default, or any other means, and never have or ever will, but merely that you saying this particular interpretation was crap cos you didn't like it, is a bit ...well, unfounded. Exactly as I did with CD. It's nothing to do with commercialisation at all...you've just invented that. I liked one commercial piece therefore, by default, I promoted commercialism and am hypocritical by criticising it here? What?
Furthermore I assume the 'artist' you are referring to is Maksim, who isn't an artist I was promoting, merely the person playing the piece I was promoting.
If there were 2 versions of the same film made and we were haggling over which actor had portrayed the role better then it would be comparable, and entirely subjective since we'd be haggling purely over "interpretation" rather than the creation of the art itself. But we aren't.
As for the "fecking idiots"...well again, no idea what that has to do with anything. i've never mentioned commercialism with regard to classical music, or claimed that Maksim peice was good cos loads of people liked it. Merely that I liked it. So I don't know where you're going with that.
You're just basically being facetious for the sake of it..which I'm sure you'll take as a personal insult, but is it necessary to pop into every thread I've posted in to disagree or slate my opinions and try and pick them apart? You're welcome to do it, but it gets a little tiresome, so I probably did slate you personally. Sorry about that if so.
I was simply countering his rant about it being all so unfair by pointing out other people didn't think so. It was merely a counter to his argument that all commercial films are more worthy than "arty" ones by virtue of popularity. Similarly I wasn't claiming commercial classical music (which is a far far smaller genre than film with far less opinions thrown at it) is superior by default, or any other means, and never have or ever will, but merely that you saying this particular interpretation was crap cos you didn't like it, is a bit ...well, unfounded. Exactly as I did with CD. It's nothing to do with commercialisation at all...you've just invented that. I liked one commercial piece therefore, by default, I promoted commercialism and am hypocritical by criticising it here? What?
Furthermore I assume the 'artist' you are referring to is Maksim, who isn't an artist I was promoting, merely the person playing the piece I was promoting.
If there were 2 versions of the same film made and we were haggling over which actor had portrayed the role better then it would be comparable, and entirely subjective since we'd be haggling purely over "interpretation" rather than the creation of the art itself. But we aren't.
As for the "fecking idiots"...well again, no idea what that has to do with anything. i've never mentioned commercialism with regard to classical music, or claimed that Maksim peice was good cos loads of people liked it. Merely that I liked it. So I don't know where you're going with that.
You're just basically being facetious for the sake of it..which I'm sure you'll take as a personal insult, but is it necessary to pop into every thread I've posted in to disagree or slate my opinions and try and pick them apart? You're welcome to do it, but it gets a little tiresome, so I probably did slate you personally. Sorry about that if so.
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
Is this a wind up! FFS, Avatar and Forrest Gump deserving winners whilst NCFOM and The hurt locker winning is undeserved. I agreed when you said the best scene was when he was looking at the huge aisle of cereal but not when you say THL has many cliches, for cliches see Avatar.
Film is more than just mindless entertainment. It's art.
To disregard intellectual stimulus in movies as pretentious is a very strange thing to say.
As you say - you like Maksim, and anyone who doesn't is a 'snob'. My point is that Maksim only represents commercialism. He is a manufactured crossover act - full stop.
But when a film such as Independence Day is made - also, similarly, an exercise purely in making money - you clearly imply that anyone who likes it is a 'fecking idiot'.
Surely you can see that by saying you 'like' Maksim you are, according to your philosophy, a 'fecking idiot'?
By the way - you post things on a public forum so have absolutely zero right to get upset if someone chooses to respond to you. I'm only bothering to respond because I didn't like the tone you used in that thread whilst talking down constantly to NaniNana in your responses to his posts. Arrogance is fine, but when it's combined with as much factual inaccuracy as you showed in that thread surely it deserves to be challenged?
I understand where you're coming from.
An example of a good film which didn't do well with the critics or the audiences at first is Fight Club. So it's not a critics say-so award show either.
There are various kinds of entertaining movies. If all warranted an Academy Award, Adam Sandler should be nominated for a best actor's role annually. Ditto for Michael Bay in the directors.
I personally think cinema should provide something extra. Entertainment is one of its final aims, but it should have a lingering effect where I take something from it after the three hours or so that I've invested in it. But that's just me. I have nothing against entertaining, commercial cinema. Saw (
) is one such movie that entertained me. But I don't think it was award-worthy or landmark in any way.When he won an award during the Globes, you saw James Cameron give a rallying call to the artists in front of him to realise that they had the best jobs in the world. When you have a $500 million budget to create a movie, who wouldn't feel so? Still, your movie had no lingering effect, other than actors who seem like cardboard pieces stuck in front of amazing visuals.
I've never watched a Star Wars or Transformers movie.
So, how did 'The Room' do in the end?
Oh hai, Woodzy.
Bah, who am I thinking of? This is going to annoy me all day now.