Author Topic: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.  (Read 50217 times)

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12730
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #420 on: February 05, 2010, 01:07:21 PM »
I sit corrected, thank you.

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #421 on: February 05, 2010, 01:14:43 PM »
This was too awesome not to post here. On another forum there has been the standard debate about Avatar and its best picture nomination. This post was made in its defense. He is arguing that Avatar wins BP in nearly every year of the Oscars.

Quote
Perhaps you should watch every best picture. I could be slightly wrong about "vast majority" but it [Avatar] clearly wins most of them [best picture oscars]. The earlier you go the greater the discrepancy in effect quality, so you need to have a pretty awesome movie (as far as writing/acting/story go) to beat it.

Watch Sunrise, which I can only assume won in 1929 because of the awesome effects. Cells on top of each other to make it look like there were ghosts, and an interesting choice to put a camera on a swing. Best sound effects for its time. The plot was borderline retarded, but it won. If Avatar shows up in 3d with 10' tall blue people and dragons, it obviously wins.

Something like "The Godfather" has a chance to beat it based purely on acting, but there is no way that "The Greatest Show On Earth" beats it - Charlton Heston or not. "The Sound of Music" has a good chance, but "Around the World in 80 days" does not.

If you hadn't seen this same plot before (Dances With Wolves, or whatever - take your pick) it's clearly not as bad. For a lot of those years it would have been a new idea, so the story itself probably wins some votes. Hell, the acting was better in Avatar than in a lot of the older oscar winners. For a long time actors had no idea how to act for film, and overdid everything so it looked absurd.

Hell, if you release "Transformers" in 1950 it wins hands down, and the quality of the movie has nothing to do with it. The filmies will disagree, saying that "All About Eve" is clearly a better acted movie, but it would be absurd to think that the academy wouldn't vote for the one with effects they can't even begin to understand.

If you change the rules to something like "make Avatar with whatever technology is available 5 years ahead of the year in question" then there are a lot of years where it wouldn't have been released since it would have sucked so bad.

This argument fails for a multiple of reasons. Sunrise did not win the BP oscar in 1929, Wings won the '27-'28 BP Oscar (held in '29), The Broadway Melody won the '28-'29 and All Quiet on the Western Front won the '29-'30. Counterpoint 2: Star Wars did not beat Annie Hall despite similar visual advances to that of Avatar (I will be quite happy to list some of the advances). Counterpoint 2.1: 2001 did not even get a nomination (Kubrick did get a Best Director nom) let alone beat Olivier! again 2001 is a visually stunning film. Final point would be if visual impressiveness won out there would be a lot more SciFi films that had won BP, yet there are none. The only time any film not set in the our world has ever won BP is when LOTR won.

It's epic fail is what makes it so awesome!

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12730
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #422 on: February 05, 2010, 01:17:01 PM »
This was too awesome not to post here. On another forum there has been the standard debate about Avatar and its best picture nomination. This post was made in its defense. He is arguing that Avatar wins BP in nearly every year of the Oscars.

Quote
Perhaps you should watch every best picture. I could be slightly wrong about "vast majority" but it [Avatar] clearly wins most of them [best picture oscars]. The earlier you go the greater the discrepancy in effect quality, so you need to have a pretty awesome movie (as far as writing/acting/story go) to beat it.

Watch Sunrise, which I can only assume won in 1929 because of the awesome effects. Cells on top of each other to make it look like there were ghosts, and an interesting choice to put a camera on a swing. Best sound effects for its time. The plot was borderline retarded, but it won. If Avatar shows up in 3d with 10' tall blue people and dragons, it obviously wins.

Something like "The Godfather" has a chance to beat it based purely on acting, but there is no way that "The Greatest Show On Earth" beats it - Charlton Heston or not. "The Sound of Music" has a good chance, but "Around the World in 80 days" does not.

If you hadn't seen this same plot before (Dances With Wolves, or whatever - take your pick) it's clearly not as bad. For a lot of those years it would have been a new idea, so the story itself probably wins some votes. Hell, the acting was better in Avatar than in a lot of the older oscar winners. For a long time actors had no idea how to act for film, and overdid everything so it looked absurd.

Hell, if you release "Transformers" in 1950 it wins hands down, and the quality of the movie has nothing to do with it. The filmies will disagree, saying that "All About Eve" is clearly a better acted movie, but it would be absurd to think that the academy wouldn't vote for the one with effects they can't even begin to understand.

If you change the rules to something like "make Avatar with whatever technology is available 5 years ahead of the year in question" then there are a lot of years where it wouldn't have been released since it would have sucked so bad.

This argument fails for a multiple of reasons. Sunrise did not win the BP oscar in 1929, Wings won the '27-'28 BP Oscar (held in '29), The Broadway Melody won the '28-'29 and All Quiet on the Western Front won the '29-'30. Counterpoint 2: Star Wars did not beat Annie Hall despite similar visual advances to that of Avatar (I will be quite happy to list some of the advances). Counterpoint 2.1: 2001 did not even get a nomination (Kubrick did get a Best Director nom) let alone beat Olivier! again 2001 is a visually stunning film. Final point would be if visual impressiveness won out there would be a lot more SciFi films that had won BP, yet there are none. The only time any film not set in the our world has ever won BP is when LOTR won.

It's epic fail is what makes it so awesome!

EWE! That's a BINGO!

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #423 on: February 05, 2010, 01:29:14 PM »
I think you're all dismissing the argument too casually. While the point was not well-made, I think what's being got at is the fact that the Academy members are blinded enough by the amazing leap in technology to give the film Best Picture even though the film itself isn't that great. That's why Avatar would beat all the other contenders every other year. It wows the audience into giving it Best Picture.
"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

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #424 on: February 05, 2010, 01:51:24 PM »
I think you're all dismissing the argument too casually. While the point was not well-made, I think what's being got at is the fact that the Academy members are blinded enough by the amazing leap in technology to give the film Best Picture even though the film itself isn't that great. That's why Avatar would beat all the other contenders every other year. It wows the audience into giving it Best Picture.

But high VFX content is very negatively correlated with best picture winner for the entire history of the Oscars. VFX movies do not win.

Colleen

  • Hot Fuzz
  • Godfather
  • *
  • Posts: 5906
  • Let's be careful out there!
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #425 on: February 05, 2010, 01:52:45 PM »
And that's why many (including me) don't think Avatar will win -- the Academy voters seem very suspicious of movies that "wow" them or that are just a good time.  Star Wars, E.T., Raiders, Starman--all got nominations but didn't win.  Best Picture tends to favor "heavier" movies for lack of a better word.

Also, I think actors are 20% of the voting bloc and a lot of them prefer to be in movies where they mainly act, not do the whole voice/motion capture thing 3 years before they get to see what they were actually doing/acting against.  A future full of Avatar-like movies is a future where one's carefully maintained, surgically perfected facial features aren't front and center, and more seriously, one's acting will most likely not get nominated.

One more thing--there's always talk of a movie's Oscar hype "peaking" too early.  If there is a movie that that is happening to this year, it's Avatar.  It's probably just a bit past the moment when the most people think it's awesome and the best movie ever made and starting down the downslope of backlash/adjustment of initial reaction.  When the front runner peaks early, it's a year that the 2nd or 3rd place movie could have a surge.  And with 10 in the mix, it's going to be harder to predict how things will turn out.  That actually could work in Avatar's favor, since the "anyone but Avatar" votes will be split 9 ways instead of 4.  And there's always the exception that proves the rule, as well--Return of the King is a good example.  It had every bit of the momentum and although there was a little bit of "peaking" discussion, it had all the momentum right down the stretch,to the point where it would have been literally shocking if anything else had won.

Finally, Cameron has his Oscar already.  Titanic cleaned up in 1997*, and other than L.A. Confidential, was probably the most deserving of the Best Picture nominees that year.   Fair or not, there does seem to be a tendency in the Academy to want to distribute the awards to people who haven't won before over those who have.

None of this touches on the previous arguments on the actual quality of the movie, just the politics of Oscar.  I will be very, very surprised if Avatar wins.


*Forgot to add my footnote!  Well, here it is:  Just an observation that '97 was a weak-ass year for Best Picture.  Titanic and L.A. Confidential I'm down with, but the other three were Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty and As Good As It Gets.  Of those, Good Will Hunting was probably the third place movie where in most years it would be in the "smaller movie that could/it's an honor to be nominated" slot.  That The Full Monty got in is a shocker; as for As Good As It Gets--ugh.  I really disliked that movie.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2010, 02:11:01 PM by Colleen »

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #426 on: February 05, 2010, 02:04:16 PM »
Of course we're all overlooking the fact that Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years, and is unlikely to change this year either.

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #427 on: February 05, 2010, 02:05:32 PM »
Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years

huh? favorite?

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #428 on: February 05, 2010, 02:06:19 PM »
What I learned Today: There is no possible way of telling whether Avatar is the favorite to win best picture. That way leads to madness. And barfights.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
« Reply #429 on: February 05, 2010, 02:07:55 PM »
Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years

huh? favorite?

2006: The Departed was favored to win, and it won.
2007: No Country was favored to win, and it won.
2008: Slumdog was favored to win, and it won.
2009: Avatar is favored to win, and it will win.

Plus with the grasp at appeasing the common viewer rather than the 'film buff' Avatar's likelihood to win is even great. For what it's worth, David Henrie thinks IB should win with Avatar in second, I believe.

 

love