Author Topic: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.  (Read 26816 times)

Colleen

  • Hot Fuzz
  • Godfather
  • *
  • Posts: 5907
  • Let's be careful out there!
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #350 on: February 03, 2010, 01:16:16 PM »
From the feminist blog Pandagon:

Why 'Inglourious Basterds' should Win Best Picture...and Why It Won't

It’s arguably the best movie made by an edgy young film director while he’s still edgy and before he’s really old. The Academy Awards love edgy young filmmakers many decades after they stopped making innovative movies.  And I say this as someone who really liked “The Departed”.  But everyone knows Scorsese was winning for his first tier classics made years ago.  This is a chance for the Academy to break the vicious cycle.  Instead of recognizing Tarantino’s genius 20 years from now, when he makes a movie that has his imprint but no innovative feel to it, why not give him the award when he still has the ability to blow an audience away with his genius?  Tarantino’s no spring chicken at 47, so it’s not like Hollywood would be wandering off into the scarily youthful woods by giving him this award.  And for people who’ve seen it, you can firmly say he won it for this year, not for “Pulp Fiction”.  Because it’s probably the better picture.

Just to clarify, the above quote is from the blogger at Pandagon, not by me, although I agree with it.  I'm just the one who pasted the link here.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 01:25:07 PM by Colleen »

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #351 on: February 03, 2010, 01:18:33 PM »
Again. FLY. You are completely disregarding what I said.

I think The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar. The Hurt Locker would be my #4 of the year. Avatar would not make my Top 20. I think it is a better film and so I think it is more deserving of the award than Avatar. I happen to think Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man and Up are all even more deserving, but I'll take what I can get.

And your comments about it not doing well because audiences didn't like it are completely ridiculous. Some targeted marketing on ESPN does not make a successful movie. Particularly for a small movie released in July at the height of Transformania.The marketing and release of the film were completely bungled. It's a film that has had a very enthusiastic response form those who have seen it, the fact that it has done so well on DVD is just an indication that once word of mouth spread and Awards Season factored in, people were more than willing to check it out. Any time I describe A Serious Man to a friend who isn't too into film they seem completely uninterested. When I describe the amazing suspense of The Hurt Locker they ask me if they can borrow it from me. It's not a weird indie film that would alienate 2/3rds of the audience. It just suffered from other unfortunate factors. If it wins Best Picture more people are likely to check it out, and those people will be enthusiastic about it too and they will get others to see it. If A Serious Man won, a bunch of people would watch it and most of them would then dissuade their friends from seeing it.

Also, I never said anything about The Hurt Locker winning being better for the industry because they will give wider releases to smaller films. All I ever said it that it's the one particular film that stands to benefit.

I think The Hurt Locker is more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar because I think it's a better film.It's as simple as that. I don't give two craps about technical accomplishment when it comes right down to it. Is the film a great film? Yes. Is it a deserving film for the Best Picture prize? In my opinion, it is. I also know that it has so much more to gain than Avatar in terms of building its rightful audience by winning Best Picture.


And for the record, No Country made $75 Million domestic and Slumdog made $140 Million, so I really don't get what your point was regarding those films. Those are very good grosses. The Hurt Locker, a  that would say is much more audience-friendly than No Country (though less so than Slumdog) only made $12 Million. That's peanuts. It could have made much more, and now it has a chance to find that audience it was unable to in its theatrical release.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 27702
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #352 on: February 03, 2010, 02:04:53 PM »
How is There Will Be Blood "clearly" of a superior make? You sound like a National Socialist doctor.

Easy. The actors give better performances, it's a more layered film, the script is perfectly crafted, the score is both noteworthy and unique while still fitting with the film, and the themes are more fleshed out and various than those in No Country.

Also, FroHam, I get that you consider The Hurt Locker a better film than Avatar. It's not, but I get that. However, you continue to insist that it somehow is more entitled to a market than other films, or that what it can gain from a Best Picture win is of any relevance in how the award should be decided. It seems fairly obvious that no one would contest that Best Picture is always, if ever, awarded to the best film from any given year. Yet when you use the word deserving, a word that implies possessing some worth of merit, it is completely ill placed. The Hurt Locker has done little worthy of merit, especially in regard to Avatar. What more could Avatar have done to make it deserving of the Best Picture Oscar. You can say that The Hurt Locker should win the award, but that is hardly the same as saying that it is more deserving than Avatar. You can say that The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar. It's not true, but you can say that. However, there is nary a film released last year more deserving of the accolades it is primed to receive than Avatar. Hell, in many ways District 9, despite being a pretty terrible film, is more deserving of a victory than The Hurt Locker. That film has a ton of accomplishments worthy of merit, which The Hurt Locker still lacks.

As for the numbers thing, there is an underlying sense in all of your posts, as I mentioned earlier, that The Hurt Locker is somehow entitled to an audience more than any other film. It's not going to be re-released theatrically, so the only impact such a victory would have, aside from DVD sales, would be found in future films. We don't get films like No Country or Slumdog Millionaire on a massive basis because, despite the awards, the Hollywood system is too hard coded to be changed.  Is it so important that The Hurt Locker be seen by as many people as possible? Is this the type of film that can or will spark a film-making revolution? No. It's just a pretty good thrill ride that is mostly forgettable outside of one major scene. You admit that it is going to help this one individual film, it will, by precedent, have no future ramifications on the way the public consumes film, so sacrificing the most deserving film simply so this small piece of fluff can make a bit more money on DVD, a medium that is nearly as adverse to its effect as it is to Avatar's, is that important?

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11720
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #353 on: February 03, 2010, 02:06:13 PM »
This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #354 on: February 03, 2010, 02:17:52 PM »
FLY, in the words of my favourite wrongly-convicted prison inmate, "How can you be so obtuse?"

You consistently take what I am saying out of context and/or put words in my mouth.

I have already said that technical or technological or influential merit is not on my mind. I consider The Hurt Locker to be the better film and so I consider it more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar is. That's it. Quit changing the premise.

And when it comes to numbers, I NEVER said that The Hurt Locker is more "deserving" of an audience than other films. I simply said that The Hurt Locker is a film that actually CAN have a larger audience than it got in theatres. I also never said that it was important for it to be seen by a larger audience. I didn't even imply it. Again. My point was this: The Hurt Locker easily could have had a bigger audience, and winning Best Picture is a way to get more people to notice it now.

And then you continue to twist it around. I only apply my own logic to this. By your opinion The Hurt Locker should not win over Avatar. Obviously then you wouldn't want it to win over Avatar for any reason. I, ME, ONLY ME (in this particular two-person argument) I think that The Hurt Locker is the better choice for Best Picture. I gave my reasons, and obviously if you don't consider it a better film then my second point about finding an audience doesn't work. BUT IT WORKS WITH MY VIEWPOINT. Quit behaving as though yours is the only one that has any merit.



One more point: The Hurt Locker has been very successful on DVD and Blu-ray in both sales and rentals. This can only be because of word of mouth and Awards Season effects. So yes, the Oscars and Best Picture would have a big effect on those market numbers.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 27702
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #355 on: February 03, 2010, 02:25:00 PM »
My problem is with your use of the word deserving. I go out of my way to say you should be using a different word, as calling The Hurt Locker more deserving and basing that solely on perceived quality while overlooking the accomplishments of Avatar is problematic and belittles part of what makes Avatar so deserving, as well as places an emphasis on the award being completely about quality, which I believe we both agree is not the case. I can see saying it's a better film. I can see saying it should win over Avatar. I may not agree, but I can understand people believing both of those statements. I do not see the case to be made that it is more deserving of the award than Avatar.

This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

What are we wagering? Also, I want Up in the Air as well, and you can have An Education.

zarodinu

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4538
  • What we've got here is failure to communicate
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #356 on: February 03, 2010, 02:27:18 PM »
Best Picture nominees and their grosses.  I think its kinda funny because the bottom five are the ones I suspect would get nominated under the five nominee system, confirming my suspicion that the 10 nominee thing is a desperate ploy to stay culturally relevant.

Avatar                $601,141,551
Up                          $293,004,164
The Blind Side      $238,142,164
Inglourious Basterds   $120,540,719
District 9              $115,646,235
Up in the Air      $73,474,763
Precious              $45,469,462
The Hurt Locker      $12,671,105
A Serious Man      $9,228,768
An Education      $8,795,228
I’ve lied to men who wear belts. I’ve lied to men who wear suspenders. But I’d never be so stupid as to lie to a man who wears both a belt and suspenders.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16679
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #357 on: February 03, 2010, 02:31:30 PM »
I think Avatar and Inglourious Basterds would have been in the 5 nominees, then I would say Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker and then one of the following: Precious, An Education and A Serious Man.

Basically when you look at it, I think it's obvious that the 3 that would have never been nominated before are The Blind Side, Up, and District 9. IMO
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

ˇKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26777
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #358 on: February 03, 2010, 02:33:43 PM »
Best Picture nominees and their grosses.  I think its kinda funny because the bottom five are the ones I suspect would get nominated under the five nominee system, confirming my suspicion that the 10 nominee thing is a desperate ploy to stay culturally relevant.

Avatar                $601,141,551
Up                          $293,004,164
The Blind Side      $238,142,164

Inglourious Basterds   $120,540,719
District 9              $115,646,235
Up in the Air      $73,474,763
Precious              $45,469,462
The Hurt Locker      $12,671,105
A Serious Man      $9,228,768
An Education      $8,795,228


Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11720
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #359 on: February 03, 2010, 02:34:06 PM »


This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

What are we wagering? Also, I want Up in the Air as well, and you can have An Education.

Money what else. :D

$20?

I don't want An Education, it has no chance of winning. I'll take THL you take Avatar.