• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The 87th Academy Awards |OT| The One That Matters

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BronsonLee

Member
BobbyRoberts said:
And I wouldn't be surprised if, on some level, all of that had something to do with their reaction to the narrative surrounding Boyhood.
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty obvious that they ramped up the vitriol on Boyhood specifically because it was universally loved by critics at that point. A few reviewers did similar things with their reviews/articles to get more reads.
 
O

Omega Ultimus

Member
Birdman done good.

tumblr_nii145Kr561qgz2sfo3_500.png
 
J

JABEE

Member
Spasm said:
I never saw the RLM piece on Boyhood. My feeling is that if the movie had been filmed conventionally, over 3 or so months, with different actors for the different ages of the children, and makeup for the adults... It wouldn't have even been nominated. Except maybe for Patricia.
Click to expand...
This is what I think. Hawke would also probably get nominated too.
 
E

Exterminieren

Banned
Thatoneguy64 said:
I understand why the Academy went for Redmayne—overly emotional Oscar bait roles tend to win, due to their ability to give the actor a lot of "emotional" bits to work off of—but it's still majorly disappointing.

Michael Keaton just gave the performance of his career in a very unique role and film only to lose to blatant bait.
Click to expand...

Who gives a shit if it's bait? Great acting is great acting.

Redmayne had a far, far harder acting task than Keaton, as good as he was. On a technical and physical level, he was in a different class.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Lionel Mandrake said:
I'm not saying people only like it because it was shot over 12 years. But every trailer, every appearance on the news, and every conversation starter about it was "a film 12 years in the making." That just didn't give me an incentive to see it.

I may love it when I actually watch the thing. But nothing I've seen has sold me on it.
Click to expand...

The 12 years thing is the closest thing the film has to a high-concept hook, which we all know Hollywood loves their high concept stories. Of course they're gonna build their marketing campaign around the fact that there's nothing else like it that exists.

TeethMummy said:
Or maybe they just didn't like it.
Click to expand...

Snark is easy.
 
B

BronsonLee

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
lol @ Birdman win and also that Boyhood actress win
Click to expand...

The Arquette win was about a stone cold lock as it gets. Her and Moore were never going to lose that one.

Lionel Mandrake said:
God's Not Dead demanded that I see it. Like God himself told me to.

Also, Mandrake Air will rise again.... metaphorically. I'm not promising any planes off the ground.
Click to expand...

Like God told Hercules to get hit by the car and then accept his lord and savior Jesus Christ!

Keep it grounded, kid
 
J

jackal27

Banned
BobbyRoberts said:
Half in the Bag only really exists because the Plinkett reviews created an audience so big that to not follow it up with something more easily monetized would be foolish. It definitely wasn't done because there's a real passion for film criticism there. Because there pretty obviously isn't. It's done because a whole lot of people liked sharing those Star Wars reviews, and you can monetize those people.

They're not really good at being film critics, and they don't want to be, obviously, but they also don't need to be, because they know they have a fanbase that doesn't really care how insightful they are. They want punchlines, they want talking points, and they want the facsimile of friendship and camaraderie in easily streamable chunks. It's basically what's been keeping Kevin Smith alive for the last 20 years.

Sure, they'd likely rather be making their own movies, like they were trying to do before the Plinkett shit took off. But this is what's working, and this is the beast that is willing to be fed, so they're gonna feed him. Ride the motherfucker til the wheels fall off. Sometimes good stuff comes out. Sometimes the ass is half full.

And I wouldn't be surprised if, on some level, all of that had something to do with their reaction to the narrative surrounding Boyhood.
Click to expand...

Well some of that and also their videos are genuinely funny and entertaining. The whole group has a great chemistry together and they have interesting insights and opinions, particularly on the weird stuff they watch on Best of the Worst. I've disagreed with them on lots of movies too, but my wife and I still like watching them.
 
I

injurai

Banned
Exterminieren said:
Who gives a shit if it's bait? Great acting is great acting.

Redmayne had a far, far harder acting task than Keaton, as good as he was. On a technical and physical level, he was in a different class.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Once again, why undermine one performance in order to claim your prefered winner really deserved it. Both were great. I just clearly see Redmayne's as winning out.
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Birdman was such a terribly sophomoric effort of a film whose only point seems to be "NOTHING MATTERS" "But big budget stuff for the mass market is decidedly worse than other things.. even though those things also don't matter"
 
B

Beelzebufo

Banned
jtb said:
The 12 years thing is the closest thing the film has to a high-concept hook, which we all know Hollywood loves their high concept stories. Of course they're gonna build their marketing campaign around the fact that there's nothing else like it that exists.
Click to expand...
Except for the stuff like that that does exist :p

I guess nothing else this year?
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
you'd be better off getting a review from tim heidecker and greg turkington than the shit from redlettermedia. they're both just as well informed.
 
P

Parch

Member
I didn't hate Boyhood, I just didn't care. The boring life of some kid. Big deal. 12 year gimmick doesn't deserve an oscar.

Snubbing the comedy for best picture is no surprise. If you only see one of these movies, you should see Grand Budapest Hotel.

The acting awards were spot on. It's about the best individual performances and not necessarily the best movies.
 
L

LuuKyK

Member
Madness said:
Also, as good as Innaritu is, how does a guy who has a singular vision for over 12 years not win? Imagine having an idea and doing something 12 years ago and keeping that going.
Click to expand...

Well, its called best picture and not the best idea award for a reason.
 
B

BronsonLee

Member
TeethMummy said:
Or maybe they just didn't like it.
Click to expand...

I'll be blunt. They're not really reviewers there, they're comedians/entertainers. There's no half measures.

They went hard in the paint on the movie because everybody else liked it. Differing opinion, more views. They probably didn't like the movie, but they're keeping it going now because it's a good landmark moment for them, visibility wise.
 
F

f0lken

Member
Notrollious said:
It seems Guillermo del Toro should work with Emmanuel Lubezki if he wants to get that oscar.
Click to expand...

A shame that outside Pan's Labyrinth his work doesn't resonate with the Oscar tastes, it would be glorious to see the Three Amigos of film win an Oscar in consecutive years
 
O

Oersted

Member
Spasm said:
I never saw the RLM piece on Boyhood. My feeling is that if the movie had been filmed conventionally, over 3 or so months, with different actors for the different ages of the children, and makeup for the adults... It wouldn't have even been nominated. Except maybe for Patricia.
Click to expand...

And if Birdman wouldn't have been shot in one single shot, it wouldn't have won. Yes, if you change major things, the outcome is most likely different.
 
I

injurai

Banned
Beelzebufo said:
Maybe the Hollywood part, but the entire premise is that they make a movie haha.
Click to expand...

No the entire premise is a CIA rescue and extraction. The movie thing was a cover. The role of hollywood was tangential to the role that everyone else had. They weren't hollywood. They were putting on a charade. So yes it involved hollywood, it was far from the premise.
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
jtb said:
The 12 years thing is the closest thing the film has to a high-concept hook, which we all know Hollywood loves their high concept stories. Of course they're gonna build their marketing campaign around the fact that there's nothing else like it that exists.
Click to expand...

Except for every TV show than ran for many season and featured a child actor.

Or hell, just look at the Harry potter movies.
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
i hope linklater gets his chance again one day, out of the nominees for director this year that man easily has the most meaningful body of work for me.

although i really like a few innaritu movies like 21 grams.

do y'all really think morten tylda and the theory of everything director will have a promising future? i don't see it.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Admiral Woofington said:
It's a movie that would have gotten attention without the 12 years bit, but because it took 12 years and every freaking interview had somebody mention the 12 years bit, it's impossible for it to NOT be on the minds of everybody when it comes to putting down their opinions, since even the team needed to mention it.

I watched the film on my trip overseas. I watched Maze Runner and thought "hey that was enjoyable trash". I watched Boyhood and thought "hmmm that was a good film i guess". I didn't even know it was getting as much fucking buzz as it did, and I had already watched Grand Budapest and Birdman.

I'm sad to say that my hate came from the pimping out of the movie DUE to the 12 years bit. I didn't think actors did a remarkable job. I preferred Ethan Hawke in Predestination and the kid was incredibly eh. It would have been a decent film without the 12 years bit, but not something even considered for the Oscars outside of best supporting actress/actor and maybe editing.
Click to expand...

It took 12 years to make. That's just a fact.
 
J

jackal27

Banned
StoOgE said:
Birdman was such a terribly sophomoric effort of a film whose only point seems to be "NOTHING MATTERS" "But big budget stuff for the mass market is decidedly worse than other things.. even though those things also don't matter"
Click to expand...

Who would you have liked to see win instead?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Oppenheimer Wins Best Movie of 2024 | Oscar Full Nominees List
News 2
90
6K
Ballthyrm replied
The 2019 Academy Awards
2 3
109
6K
iconmaster replied
90th Oscars Nominations
2
69
6K
wihio replied
  • Locked
BAFTA Awards 2015 nominations
16
3K
Kurdel replied
  • Locked
Golden Globe Awards 2015 aka The Tina and Amy Show - 5pm PST
22 23 24 25 26
1K
112K
TestMonkey replied
Top Bottom