Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Directors (Results), 2019 (Results), Mini-series (Feb 29th), 2009 awards (Mar 3rd), Favorite Movies (Mar 21st), Doubling the Canon (Mar ??)
Challenges: Academy Awards, Africa, African American/Blaxploitation
Film of the Week: Doa al karawan, March nominations (Feb 28th)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1D: Australia vs Hungary vs Portugal vs Tajikistan (Mar 1st), 1E: Czechia vs France vs Georgia vs Mexico (Mar 18th)

The Golden Globe and Academy Award live thread - 2020

Post Reply
User avatar
Carmel1379
Donator
Posts: 4491
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
Location: ∅ ⋁ ⋀ ∞ | myself am Hell
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globe and Academy Award live thread - 2019

#241

Post by Carmel1379 » February 25th, 2019, 11:47 am

I haven't seen 'Green Book' and I don't mean to, but I saw this on twitter 5 seconds ago

Image
IMDb, letterboxd
Image
whom shall we find
Sufficient? who shall tempt with wand’ring feet
The dark unbottom’d infinite Abyss,
And through the palpable obscure find out
His uncouth way, or spread his aerie flight,
Upborn with indefatigable wings,
Over the vast abrupt, ere he arrive
The happy Ile?


Well here he is skidded out onto the Zone like a planchette on a Ouija board, and what shows up inside the empty circle in his brain might string together into a message, might not, he'll just have to see.

Nur dein Auge – ungeheuer / Blickt michs an, Unendlichkeit!
t o B e c o n t i n u e d

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1602
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#242

Post by hurluberlu » February 25th, 2019, 11:51 am

That is in lack of pictures of Spike Lee trying to leave the room after BP was announced and then turning his back to the scene during the speech.
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6177
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#243

Post by RBG » February 25th, 2019, 12:10 pm



the president, victim of racism
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6177
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#244

Post by RBG » February 25th, 2019, 12:12 pm

Carmel1379 wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 11:47 am
I haven't seen 'Green Book' and I don't mean to, but I saw this on twitter 5 seconds ago

Image

:lol:
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3576
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#245

Post by Fergenaprido » February 25th, 2019, 12:13 pm

Haven't seen Bohemian Rhapsody yet, but I'll get around to it eventually. I don't know the rules of editing. Could someone explain to me why that BR clip is an example of bad editing? I think I get basic concepts like "jump cuts" and "tracking shots", but you're going to have to go pretty elementary with me, if you don't mind. It's definitely one of the areas of filmmaking that I don't really get and find it hard to distinguish the "good" from the "bad" (along with cinematography... I try not to let myself get distracted by pretty shots and then thinking that the cinematography is good... starting to learn about framing and the like from my colleagues).

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 1196
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#246

Post by Ivan0716 » February 25th, 2019, 12:19 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:33 am
LOL. I can't imagine someone writing that about that scene. I could understand it as a, misguided, defense of the editing in something like Transformers but there's nothing happening visually in that scene from BR. There aren't even interesting reaction shots. You could just have a still shot of Malek in that suit with the dialogue playing over it and lose absolutely nothing.
The Youtube/Twitter comments section is wonderful in that regard.

Speaking of social media, part of me is glad that people are now shitting all over Green Book's BP win rather than Roma's, had it have won.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7666
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#247

Post by maxwelldeux » February 25th, 2019, 3:55 pm

This thread was a super fun read this morning... not even joking.

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 4101
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#248

Post by Nathan Treadway » February 25th, 2019, 3:58 pm

RBG wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 12:10 pm


the president, victim of racism
My God, he really is a egotistical big head! your president?! Last I checked I didn't vote for the buffoon.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6669
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#249

Post by albajos » February 25th, 2019, 4:15 pm

Yes, he did more for African Americans than Lincoln, Kennedy and Johnson. Did he even go to school?

---

Anyway, I had to get a new router. So I didn't see the show before now. (someone has posted 15/24 of it on dailymotion.

I'm really glad I didn't stay up all night for this because I would have been so disappointed when Green Book won.

So what have we learnt? Octavia Spencer is the most powerful person in Hollywood? 8 nominees instead of 5 divides the votes more, and since a winner can win with 13% of the votes many dark horses can win,

Green Book was 6th if the 8 nominees on my list. Of course I didn't belive Roma would win (it would have won if it hadn't been nominated for foreign language as well). The Favourite was maybe a bit too weird. But the whole pool of nominees was weird. I belive If Beale Street Could Talk would have won if it had been nominated.

But the trouble with this award is that many vote without seeing the movies, so they only pick based on their campaign, and Green Book with Amblin have been on this game for a very very long time.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23799
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#250

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » February 25th, 2019, 4:23 pm

albajos wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 4:15 pm

So what have we learnt? Octavia Spencer is the most powerful person in Hollywood? 8 nominees instead of 5 divides the votes more, and since a winner can win with 13% of the votes many dark horses can win,
BP voting is now ranked multi round voting. I strongly doubt Green Book had a plurality after round 1, but rather gained a larger share of runner up votes as the lower ranked nominees were dropped out. I feel like Roma had a strong base of support, but an even bigger group of people dead set against it.

User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 3574
Joined: Jan 03, 2016
Contact:

#251

Post by weirdboy » February 25th, 2019, 4:33 pm

albajos wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 4:15 pm
Yes, he did more for African Americans than Lincoln, Kennedy and Johnson. Did he even go to school?
To be fair he said "almost" to leave himself some room to backpedal.


morrison-dylan-fan
Posts: 1097
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#253

Post by morrison-dylan-fan » February 25th, 2019, 5:19 pm

hurluberlu wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 11:51 am
That is in lack of pictures of Spike Lee trying to leave the room after BP was announced and then turning his back to the scene during the speech.
Here is the footage:


User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23799
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#254

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » February 25th, 2019, 5:29 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 12:13 pm
Haven't seen Bohemian Rhapsody yet, but I'll get around to it eventually. I don't know the rules of editing. Could someone explain to me why that BR clip is an example of bad editing? I think I get basic concepts like "jump cuts" and "tracking shots", but you're going to have to go pretty elementary with me, if you don't mind. It's definitely one of the areas of filmmaking that I don't really get and find it hard to distinguish the "good" from the "bad" (along with cinematography... I try not to let myself get distracted by pretty shots and then thinking that the cinematography is good... starting to learn about framing and the like from my colleagues).

Thanks in advance.
On a very basic level, every cut is a shift in focus, so when you cut you're telling the audience "hey, focus on this instead." There are a lot of reasons and ways to do this, and sometimes dislike of an editing style is a purely aesthetic choice. Take a big action scene, some people prefer the frantic editing of something like transformers where you can barely tell what's going on because it creates a sense of chaos and movement while others prefer more subdued editing that gives a better sense of space. I think the editing in Transformers is bad not because it's frantic but because it makes the content of the action scenes unintelligible, but it's arguable whether that's bad editing or an artistic choice. In the context of a conversation scene like that BR clip the two standard ways of editing it would be to either have a wider shot with all the participants and maybe occasionally shift perspective or to use closeups to switch between the participants (often done to cover up that they couldn't get everything in a single take). Those aren't the only ways to do it, and there being 5 people in the scene allows for a bit more creativity, but the basic idea is that if you're cutting it's to refocus on a character or action or reaction. The editing in that clip is not only ridiculously frantic for what is a very bland understated conversation, it cuts at very odd points, often mid sentence to someone else who has no particularly interesting reaction to what's being said (sometimes it cuts to the same actor from a slightly different angle), and it uses some very bad shots for no apparent reason (the random overhead shot when the 6th guy appears is so awful and useless). There are some other subtler problems with the editing but the above is what makes it so egregious, it's a disorienting whiplash of changing perspectives in a scene where that adds absolutely nothing to the content.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3915
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#255

Post by OldAle1 » February 25th, 2019, 5:34 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:29 pm
Fergenaprido wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 12:13 pm
Haven't seen Bohemian Rhapsody yet, but I'll get around to it eventually. I don't know the rules of editing. Could someone explain to me why that BR clip is an example of bad editing? I think I get basic concepts like "jump cuts" and "tracking shots", but you're going to have to go pretty elementary with me, if you don't mind. It's definitely one of the areas of filmmaking that I don't really get and find it hard to distinguish the "good" from the "bad" (along with cinematography... I try not to let myself get distracted by pretty shots and then thinking that the cinematography is good... starting to learn about framing and the like from my colleagues).

Thanks in advance.
On a very basic level, every cut is a shift in focus, so when you cut you're telling the audience "hey, focus on this instead." There are a lot of reasons and ways to do this, and sometimes dislike of an editing style is a purely aesthetic choice. Take a big action scene, some people prefer the frantic editing of something like transformers where you can barely tell what's going on because it creates a sense of chaos and movement while others prefer more subdued editing that gives a better sense of space. I think the editing in Transformers is bad not because it's frantic but because it makes the content of the action scenes unintelligible, but it's arguable whether that's bad editing or an artistic choice. In the context of a conversation scene like that BR clip the two standard ways of editing it would be to either have a wider shot with all the participants and maybe occasionally shift perspective or to use closeups to switch between the participants (often done to cover up that they couldn't get everything in a single take). Those aren't the only ways to do it, and there being 5 people in the scene allows for a bit more creativity, but the basic idea is that if you're cutting it's to refocus on a character or action or reaction. The editing in that clip is not only ridiculously frantic for what is a very bland understated conversation, it cuts at very odd points, often mid sentence to someone else who has no particularly interesting reaction to what's being said (sometimes it cuts to the same actor from a slightly different angle), and it uses some very bad shots for no apparent reason (the random overhead shot when the 6th guy appears is so awful and useless). There are some other subtler problems with the editing but the above is what makes it so egregious, it's a disorienting whiplash of changing perspectives in a scene where that adds absolutely nothing to the content.
Well stated, especially for those of us lacking the technical knowledge. Am I correct that only editors vote for the editing Oscar, and if so why do you suppose they picked this?

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23799
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#256

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » February 25th, 2019, 5:46 pm

I think only editors vote for the nominations but everyone votes for the awards (I think this is true for all the technical categories).
The only reason I can possibly imagine for it's nomination is if the footage was so horribly bad and everyone in Hollywood knows it that salvaging anything remotely watchable out of the mess is considered an amazing coup, which given the film's troubled production might actually be the case. Once it got in I'm sure some people voted for it precisely because the editing in the film is so noticeable. As I mentioned before the editing isn't like that just within scenes, it's crazy scene to scene and the entire film's structure feels like one gigantic awkward montage. I don't think it's done skilfully (or that the full effect is as intended) but it's noticeable and that can be confused for good. I don't know enough about editing to distinguish between good and great editing, that I noticed the editing in BR is a testament to how bad it is, but for others it could go the other way.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3915
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#257

Post by OldAle1 » February 25th, 2019, 5:51 pm

sebby wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 6:44 am


I both feel similar and not. I don't like most of what I see, but I don't have an issue with that, either. I think it's what happens when you've seen 5000+ movies. You become more observant of mediocrity and straight up garbage. And less forgiving of it. It's probably similar to being one of those foodie d-bags -- once you've familiarized yourself with that next-level god-tier cuisine, it's probably difficult to warm up a $2 frozen burrito and have any positive feelings about it other than, "well that wasn't as bad as i feared."

I still love the medium and the experience of watching new films, even if most reveal themselves to be $2 frozen burritos and not perfectly ripe cherimoyas.
It's what happens to you, and certainly many folks here and elsewhere, but it's not the way film viewing has gone for me, and I'll hit my 10,000th check quite soon. So I don't think that's it - while most people I would hope would become more critical, more observant as they see more films, and I certainly hope I have, they would also (I would think) become more selective and more able to weed out the chaff before actually watching it. So I think your attitude, and those of the many folks here who have seen as many or more films than you or I and feel that most everything is mediocre-to-crap comes from somewhere else, but where I really couldn't say, and wouldn't want to damn the haters with false notions. So I'll just give my own case history as a counter-narrative: as I became more and more interested in films, I happened to get involved with a group of folks who became friends, and we were all of us pretty enthusiastic, and not particularly cynical or ironic in our attitudes. Sure we all had our complaints about Hollywood, big budgets, Spielberg & Schwarzeneggar (this was the 80s-90s) etc, but living in Chicago it was easy to find other kinds of films. And we were helped by the fact that the main critics in town were all relatively positive and much more interested in promoting stuff they liked than damning all the crap they hated. Even Rosenbaum - called a snob and elitist quite regularly over his whole 20 years at The Reader could usually be counted on to come up with a list of dozens of favorites at the end of every year - he'd be a total creampuff here compared to most.

It wasn't until I started posting online regularly around 2002 that I really encountered people who actually tried to see films they were interested, had the education and experience to have an idea of how to decide what they might like - but still ended up hating almost everything. That was, and remains, unimaginable to me. I'm tempted to say that it's a generational thing, that younger people are more prone to this "everything sucks" kind of cynicism or even nihilism but I dont think that's it - my 87-year-old dad is very much in the same category. I just found it weird to see people on the one hand claiming that film was their passion, and on the other getting so little joy out of 90% of it. It's just an utterly alien way of thinking to me and something I don't think I'm guilty of with regards to any of my passions/hobbies. So I think it's more that my mindset - which to be fair is certainly shared by some here - is simply colored by different experiences and associations when I was younger, and I still haven't lost the very strong passion I had, and I still always look for whatever it is that's good that I can take out of even mediocre work. And to be fair I do get the law of diminishing returns when it comes to, say, a favorite genre - some of the horror mavens here have seen 2k horror films and finding good ones is probably pretty difficult now, but the genre tropes are still appealing even when the films don't play them well. Same thing is starting to happen to me with science fiction so maybe there's hope yet that I'll someday be posting a week's worth of films and rating all of them 4 or 5.

That said the more I think about it Green Book really does suck, and I'm going to stop watching movies and only read classic Greek tragedies from now on.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3915
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#258

Post by OldAle1 » February 25th, 2019, 5:54 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:46 pm
I think only editors vote for the nominations but everyone votes for the awards (I think this is true for all the technical categories).
The only reason I can possibly imagine for it's nomination is if the footage was so horribly bad and everyone in Hollywood knows it that salvaging anything remotely watchable out of the mess is considered an amazing coup, which given the film's troubled production might actually be the case. Once it got in I'm sure some people voted for it precisely because the editing in the film is so noticeable. As I mentioned before the editing isn't like that just within scenes, it's crazy scene to scene and the entire film's structure feels like one gigantic awkward montage. I don't think it's done skilfully (or that the full effect is as intended) but it's noticeable and that can be confused for good. I don't know enough about editing to distinguish between good and great editing, that I noticed the editing in BR is a testament to how bad it is, but for others it could go the other way.
Thanks for the clarification. Honestly I barely noticed the editing, because everything else in the film was so awful - I guess on one viewing (I should say, my one and only viewing, it won't get another unless terrorists kidnap me and force me to watch it like Alex in A Clockwork Orange) I was thinking more of the incredibly shitty dialogue and the totally cardboard characters, though to be fair where I did notice the editing, as I said in my review, was in how not a single song is presented in full, absurd in a film that long meant to celebrate a musician known as a singer and songwriter.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6669
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#259

Post by albajos » February 25th, 2019, 5:57 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:46 pm
I think only editors vote for the nominations but everyone votes for the awards
Nope, every category is voted by the people woring with that field.

For best picture, everybody votes.

For editing to be good you simply don't realise that it has been edited. And I never sat and thought ouch, this was bad in the theatre, as you would on Transformers f.ex. But at this level you should expect that of every nominated movie, so it probably a bit personal too.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23799
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#260

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » February 25th, 2019, 6:01 pm

albajos wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:57 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:46 pm
I think only editors vote for the nominations but everyone votes for the awards
Nope, every category is voted by the people woring with that field.

For best picture, everybody votes.
No, that's for nominations. Everyone votes for everything for the actual awards.
https://www.oscars.org/oscars/voting
NOMINATIONS VOTING PROCESS

Regular awards are presented for outstanding individual or collective film achievements in a wide variety of categories. Most categories are nominated by the members of the corresponding branch–actors nominate actors, film editors nominate film editors, etc. However, certain categories such as Foreign Language Film and Animated Feature Film have special voting rules which can be viewed at our Rules & Eligibility page.

All voting members are eligible to select the Best Picture nominees.

Nominations voting is conducted using both paper and online ballots, with online voting being the preferred choice for the overwhelming majority of Academy members. Voting for nominations begins in late December, and all votes are tabulated by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Nomination results are then announced at a live televised press conference in mid-January at the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills.


Final Balloting Process

Finals voting is also conducted online.

During finals, all Oscar categories are on the ballot for voting members.

After final ballots are tabulated, only two partners of PricewaterhouseCoopers know the results until the famous envelopes are opened onstage during the Oscars telecast.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13254
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#261

Post by brokenface » February 25th, 2019, 8:34 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:46 pm
The only reason I can possibly imagine for it's nomination is if the footage was so horribly bad and everyone in Hollywood knows it that salvaging anything remotely watchable out of the mess is considered an amazing coup, which given the film's troubled production might actually be the case.
Yeah I think that might well be it. I think the film's campaign sold that as the narrative anyway: Bryan Singer not being there half the time, Malek having to direct himself for large chunks of the film and then a salvage job by the editor & the stand-in director. Whether it's true or just a way they tried to negotiate a way around the awkward Bryan Singer stuff is another matter

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10613
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#262

Post by funkybusiness » February 25th, 2019, 11:34 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 12:13 pm
Haven't seen Bohemian Rhapsody yet, but I'll get around to it eventually. I don't know the rules of editing. Could someone explain to me why that BR clip is an example of bad editing? I think I get basic concepts like "jump cuts" and "tracking shots", but you're going to have to go pretty elementary with me, if you don't mind. It's definitely one of the areas of filmmaking that I don't really get and find it hard to distinguish the "good" from the "bad" (along with cinematography... I try not to let myself get distracted by pretty shots and then thinking that the cinematography is good... starting to learn about framing and the like from my colleagues).

Thanks in advance.
late to the convo but PA has it covered in his post. It's basically about shaping the way in which information is conveyed to the audience. what information, and how they receive it and how what information the audience has received shapes their expectations of what is to come.
I haven't seen many of Tony Zhou's videos but there is one on David Fincher that has a very good, and brief, editing breakdown of a scene in Seven, about the 4 minute mark in this video.

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10613
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#263

Post by funkybusiness » February 25th, 2019, 11:38 pm

and that reminds me of a joke from several years ago, I think it was in one of those "anonymous ballot breakdown" articles from Variety or Entertainment Weekly, where someone said that how voters vote in the Academy Awards shouldn't be viewed as "best [category]" but "most". So it's not the best acting, or best directing, or best editing, it's the most acting, or directing, or editing. that your average voter isn't going to get the nuances of best, but can tell when it's the most, because it's not their department. which fits the bill for BR, I guess. I think the joke was made as to explain why David Fincher was going to win. but he didn't.

User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6129
Joined: Jul 04, 2011
Contact:

#264

Post by sebby » February 26th, 2019, 12:44 am

OldAle1 wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:51 pm
sebby wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 6:44 am


I both feel similar and not. I don't like most of what I see, but I don't have an issue with that, either. I think it's what happens when you've seen 5000+ movies. You become more observant of mediocrity and straight up garbage. And less forgiving of it. It's probably similar to being one of those foodie d-bags -- once you've familiarized yourself with that next-level god-tier cuisine, it's probably difficult to warm up a $2 frozen burrito and have any positive feelings about it other than, "well that wasn't as bad as i feared."

I still love the medium and the experience of watching new films, even if most reveal themselves to be $2 frozen burritos and not perfectly ripe cherimoyas.
It's what happens to you, and certainly many folks here and elsewhere, but it's not the way film viewing has gone for me, and I'll hit my 10,000th check quite soon. So I don't think that's it - while most people I would hope would become more critical, more observant as they see more films, and I certainly hope I have, they would also (I would think) become more selective and more able to weed out the chaff before actually watching it.
Yeah, it's certainly easier to weed out the chaff and stay in one's comfort zone once you have a good idea of what you like and don't, but where's the fun in that. It utterly limits exploration which is half the fun. And furthermore, just bc I know I don't generally like Ozu or musicals or have had bad luck with the films people select for the WC doesn't mean I dislike all Ozu or musicals or WC films, so should I stop seeking out these films and potentially prevent myself from stumbling upon a gem? And further, bc early musicals and ozu are so cinematically important, there is still value in watching them if one is interested in the academic/historical aspects of cinema. So even if i slap a 4/10 on the next Ozu i see, it doesn't mean it was a waste of time.

I could easily just watch a Chabrol or S. Ray I haven't yet seen if I don't want to be let down, but for me this isn't just a completely passive hobby. I like to dig. I'd never have discovered many of my favorite movies if I didn't choose to continue pushing against the edges of my comfort zone. Essay films are among my favorite types of films, and had I not taken the leap into watching a few back when I really didn't think I would enjoy them, I wouldn't have opened up that door that leads to a tiny but very fruitful corner of the movie world.
I just found it weird to see people on the one hand claiming that film was their passion, and on the other getting so little joy out of 90% of it.
I sincerely doubt even the darkest cloud here dislikes 90% of what they watch.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30098
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#265

Post by mightysparks » February 26th, 2019, 1:09 am

sebby wrote:
February 26th, 2019, 12:44 am
OldAle1 wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:51 pm
sebby wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 6:44 am


I both feel similar and not. I don't like most of what I see, but I don't have an issue with that, either. I think it's what happens when you've seen 5000+ movies. You become more observant of mediocrity and straight up garbage. And less forgiving of it. It's probably similar to being one of those foodie d-bags -- once you've familiarized yourself with that next-level god-tier cuisine, it's probably difficult to warm up a $2 frozen burrito and have any positive feelings about it other than, "well that wasn't as bad as i feared."

I still love the medium and the experience of watching new films, even if most reveal themselves to be $2 frozen burritos and not perfectly ripe cherimoyas.
It's what happens to you, and certainly many folks here and elsewhere, but it's not the way film viewing has gone for me, and I'll hit my 10,000th check quite soon. So I don't think that's it - while most people I would hope would become more critical, more observant as they see more films, and I certainly hope I have, they would also (I would think) become more selective and more able to weed out the chaff before actually watching it.
Yeah, it's certainly easier to weed out the chaff and stay in one's comfort zone once you have a good idea of what you like and don't, but where's the fun in that. It utterly limits exploration which is half the fun. And furthermore, just bc I know I don't generally like Ozu or musicals or have had bad luck with the films people select for the WC doesn't mean I dislike all Ozu or musicals or WC films, so should I stop seeking out these films and potentially prevent myself from stumbling upon a gem? And further, bc early musicals and ozu are so cinematically important, there is still value in watching them if one is interested in the academic/historical aspects of cinema. So even if i slap a 4/10 on the next Ozu i see, it doesn't mean it was a waste of time.

I could easily just watch a Chabrol or S. Ray I haven't yet seen if I don't want to be let down, but for me this isn't just a completely passive hobby. I like to dig. I'd never have discovered many of my favorite movies if I didn't choose to continue pushing against the edges of my comfort zone. Essay films are among my favorite types of films, and had I not taken the leap into watching a few back when I really didn't think I would enjoy them, I wouldn't have opened up that door that leads to a tiny but very fruitful corner of the movie world.
I just found it weird to see people on the one hand claiming that film was their passion, and on the other getting so little joy out of 90% of it.
I sincerely doubt even the darkest cloud here dislikes 90% of what they watch.
Just want to echo basically everything Sebby said (except his love for essay films :P ). I love and hate a tiny percentage of what I see and do find the majority mediocre but that doesn’t mean I get nothing out of them, just that I didn’t enjoy them. I know where my comfort zone is but I like to explore everything and I’m never guaranteed to like or dislike anything. It’s about learning and having different experiences and they’re not always enjoyable but that’s just part of the process.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3915
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#266

Post by OldAle1 » February 26th, 2019, 1:36 am

sebby wrote:
February 26th, 2019, 12:44 am
OldAle1 wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:51 pm
sebby wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 6:44 am


I both feel similar and not. I don't like most of what I see, but I don't have an issue with that, either. I think it's what happens when you've seen 5000+ movies. You become more observant of mediocrity and straight up garbage. And less forgiving of it. It's probably similar to being one of those foodie d-bags -- once you've familiarized yourself with that next-level god-tier cuisine, it's probably difficult to warm up a $2 frozen burrito and have any positive feelings about it other than, "well that wasn't as bad as i feared."

I still love the medium and the experience of watching new films, even if most reveal themselves to be $2 frozen burritos and not perfectly ripe cherimoyas.
It's what happens to you, and certainly many folks here and elsewhere, but it's not the way film viewing has gone for me, and I'll hit my 10,000th check quite soon. So I don't think that's it - while most people I would hope would become more critical, more observant as they see more films, and I certainly hope I have, they would also (I would think) become more selective and more able to weed out the chaff before actually watching it.
Yeah, it's certainly easier to weed out the chaff and stay in one's comfort zone once you have a good idea of what you like and don't, but where's the fun in that. It utterly limits exploration which is half the fun. And furthermore, just bc I know I don't generally like Ozu or musicals or have had bad luck with the films people select for the WC doesn't mean I dislike all Ozu or musicals or WC films, so should I stop seeking out these films and potentially prevent myself from stumbling upon a gem? And further, bc early musicals and ozu are so cinematically important, there is still value in watching them if one is interested in the academic/historical aspects of cinema. So even if i slap a 4/10 on the next Ozu i see, it doesn't mean it was a waste of time.

I could easily just watch a Chabrol or S. Ray I haven't yet seen if I don't want to be let down, but for me this isn't just a completely passive hobby. I like to dig. I'd never have discovered many of my favorite movies if I didn't choose to continue pushing against the edges of my comfort zone. Essay films are among my favorite types of films, and had I not taken the leap into watching a few back when I really didn't think I would enjoy them, I wouldn't have opened up that door that leads to a tiny but very fruitful corner of the movie world.
I just found it weird to see people on the one hand claiming that film was their passion, and on the other getting so little joy out of 90% of it.
I sincerely doubt even the darkest cloud here dislikes 90% of what they watch.
Makes sense, but you used the phrase "comfort zone", I didn't. Being selective to my mind means simply being a little careful within any particular area - and avoiding stuff for the most part that you know you dislike. My comfort zone is EXTREMELY large - there isn't a decade, a country, a genre that I outright dislike - really hardly any areas I don't find interesting. But that doesn't mean that just because I like action movies I'm going to force myself to watch every Michael Bay film, or that I'll watch every slasher film because I like horror. And I suppose I just have more luck - or again, I'm just a softer critic/viewer, which I'm fine with - when I do go for something different. Honestly it's quite rare that I really dislike or hate a film unless I quite deliberately watched something I figured would be bad, such as when I wen through the whole FastFuriousFuckingShitFranchise a couple of years ago. There are only a very few films - Bohemian Crapsody and Fuck You Ready Player One from 2017-18 for example that were much worse than I hoped/expected, out of around 140 films seen. Certainly there were some mediocrities as well, but not all that many - and 2018 was a weak year by my standards from what I've seen so far.

Also I suspect the gamification/lists have something to do with it - lots of people will watch a lot of films they wouldn't otherwise just to complete official lists. I do that too, but there really aren't any official lists I really despise, though some - IMDb lists and the big Action list - aren't really worth it to me and tend to disappoint whenever I do watch something because I found it there.

And I'd disagree on your last point, but perhaps to me saying nearly everything is mediocre is, in fact, finding little joy in it, and I'd certainly put a few users in that category from what I've seen. But maybe it is the way in which we describe things, even a simple word such as "like" obviously doesn't have the exact same meaning to everybody.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3576
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#267

Post by Fergenaprido » February 26th, 2019, 4:57 am

Thank you Peaceful and funky. Those explanations do indeed make things clearer.
Rewatching the BR clip I can see more of why the criticism is levied at it.
The Fincher vid also help to explain more of why certain things are framed that way (though I guess the distinction between framing and editing is foggy for me); I've seen a handful of those Every Frame a Painting vids and they're always insightful.

And yes, all members can vote on all of the awards, but the nominations are usually limited to branches or special committees. I remember reading somewhere that they used to have training sessions each year for new members, teaching them what to look for in each of the categories and how to evaluate sound mixing vs sound editing, for example. I wonder if they still do that, and if so how many new members show up.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1241
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#268

Post by cinewest » February 26th, 2019, 9:53 am

OldAle1 wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 5:51 pm
sebby wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 6:44 am


I both feel similar and not. I don't like most of what I see, but I don't have an issue with that, either. I think it's what happens when you've seen 5000+ movies. You become more observant of mediocrity and straight up garbage. And less forgiving of it. It's probably similar to being one of those foodie d-bags -- once you've familiarized yourself with that next-level god-tier cuisine, it's probably difficult to warm up a $2 frozen burrito and have any positive feelings about it other than, "well that wasn't as bad as i feared."

I still love the medium and the experience of watching new films, even if most reveal themselves to be $2 frozen burritos and not perfectly ripe cherimoyas.
It's what happens to you, and certainly many folks here and elsewhere, but it's not the way film viewing has gone for me, and I'll hit my 10,000th check quite soon. So I don't think that's it - while most people I would hope would become more critical, more observant as they see more films, and I certainly hope I have, they would also (I would think) become more selective and more able to weed out the chaff before actually watching it. So I think your attitude, and those of the many folks here who have seen as many or more films than you or I and feel that most everything is mediocre-to-crap comes from somewhere else, but where I really couldn't say, and wouldn't want to damn the haters with false notions. So I'll just give my own case history as a counter-narrative: as I became more and more interested in films, I happened to get involved with a group of folks who became friends, and we were all of us pretty enthusiastic, and not particularly cynical or ironic in our attitudes. Sure we all had our complaints about Hollywood, big budgets, Spielberg & Schwarzeneggar (this was the 80s-90s) etc, but living in Chicago it was easy to find other kinds of films. And we were helped by the fact that the main critics in town were all relatively positive and much more interested in promoting stuff they liked than damning all the crap they hated. Even Rosenbaum - called a snob and elitist quite regularly over his whole 20 years at The Reader could usually be counted on to come up with a list of dozens of favorites at the end of every year - he'd be a total creampuff here compared to most.

It wasn't until I started posting online regularly around 2002 that I really encountered people who actually tried to see films they were interested, had the education and experience to have an idea of how to decide what they might like - but still ended up hating almost everything. That was, and remains, unimaginable to me. I'm tempted to say that it's a generational thing, that younger people are more prone to this "everything sucks" kind of cynicism or even nihilism but I dont think that's it - my 87-year-old dad is very much in the same category. I just found it weird to see people on the one hand claiming that film was their passion, and on the other getting so little joy out of 90% of it. It's just an utterly alien way of thinking to me and something I don't think I'm guilty of with regards to any of my passions/hobbies. So I think it's more that my mindset - which to be fair is certainly shared by some here - is simply colored by different experiences and associations when I was younger, and I still haven't lost the very strong passion I had, and I still always look for whatever it is that's good that I can take out of even mediocre work. And to be fair I do get the law of diminishing returns when it comes to, say, a favorite genre - some of the horror mavens here have seen 2k horror films and finding good ones is probably pretty difficult now, but the genre tropes are still appealing even when the films don't play them well. Same thing is starting to happen to me with science fiction so maybe there's hope yet that I'll someday be posting a week's worth of films and rating all of them 4 or 5.

That said the more I think about it Green Book really does suck, and I'm going to stop watching movies and only read classic Greek tragedies from now on.
I tend to like the vast majority of what I see, but also tend to be fairly selective about what I choose to see from the outset.* I don't watch nearly as many movies as most folks here seem to, and am simply not that interested in the majority of what's out there.**
I do have plenty to choose from (roughly 1000 films on my "to see" list culled from a variety of sources, as well as what's available on netflix or amazon prime at any given time, and what significant others in my life want to see). I am also an avid festival goer, whenever I have access to one, and have probably had my most memorable film experiences at these kinds of events.
My choice of what to watch is probably governed most by what I'm in the mood for at a given time, given the factors I have mentioned above, and while I am somewhat interested in checking out/off some of the films on the official lists at ICM, they have only a minor influence on me.

*While my selectivity might be seen as "limiting" to some, my antenna has been honed over the course of a lifetime (40+ years cultivating my interest in cinema). That said, part of what holds my interest is that my taste in movies not only continues to change (as my antenna tunes into different frequencies), but that I continue to explore new kinds of films, even when it is something I missed or wasn't interested in previously.

** I don't think that people need to see thousands of movies before developing a sense of criteria about what's worthwhile and what isn't, even as that criteria evolves continuously over time. While I have liked movies since childhood, I began developing sense of what interested me almost right away based on the experiences I had, and the influences around me that spoke to those interests the most (whether we are talking subject matter, style, the principals involved, family and friends, teachers, other art forms, travel, etc). I have also taken various leaps over the years, beginning with my first foray into "foreign language" films as a teenager, when I attended a marathon screening of the Janus Collection. What a mind blower that was!
When passion, curiosity, and intelligence work together, an interest always develops, but so too does it evolve or change through time and experience (though I have known plenty of people whose taste hasn't changed or evolved much despite having many years and experiences under their belts).

I do think that the majority of films out there are mediocre, but in saying that I mean "mediocre" in the sense of being "of ordinary or moderate quality," probably largely because they have been made to appeal to the largest audience possible, or at least an audience large enough to satisfy those with a "vested" interest. Most Oscar nominated movies are a little better than mediocre, but (though I probably see more than half) very few are something special, at least in terms of what most attracts me these days to a movie. Most mainstream movies (even the majority of those nominated for Academy Awards) are just "too common and unimaginative," despite all the money spent on their production. Not only that, but they are almost exactly like something (or some combination of movies) I have seen before, multiple times, despite how well done they are, which not only makes them very predictable (in every way, from the story to its expression), but also rather uninspiring.

That doesn't mean I don't, or can't enjoy a movie of this kind, only that my appreciation is limited by the very limitations they impose on me, and because I prefer other kinds of experiences more, I tend to limit the amount of time I spend on them.
Last edited by cinewest on February 26th, 2019, 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6177
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#269

Post by RBG » February 26th, 2019, 3:01 pm



probs better than whole film i didn't watch. i remember queen, as kids we loved them and it never occurred to us that freddy was gay. i think he went a long way toward normalizing that for us. someone forced a copy of green book on me yesterday (i tried to appear grateful :unsure: ) so i'll probs watch that since i love viggo and am curious about ali but am not expecting much. i like a lot/most of what i watch? but i don't watch much recent cinema :$ trying to make more of an effort this year
Last edited by RBG on February 26th, 2019, 3:20 pm, edited 4 times in total.
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6669
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#270

Post by albajos » February 26th, 2019, 3:19 pm

There are some factors that are usual Oscarbait

War (mostly Holocaust)
Biographies
Mexicans (5 of the directors in the 6 last years have been Mexican)

And lately 3 groups have tried to change things, but it's going slowly
Blacks
LGBT
Women

So the nominees

3 - Green Book - Biography, Blacks, LGBT
2 - Bohemian Rhapsody - Biography, LGBT
2 - The Favourite - Women, LGBT
2 - Roma - Mexican Women
2 - Vice - Biography, War
1 - BlackkKlansman - Blacks
1 - Black Panther - Blacks
1 - A Star is Born - LGBT supporting cast

Green Book was the obvious choice for those that didn't see it
Last edited by albajos on February 26th, 2019, 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3576
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#271

Post by Fergenaprido » February 26th, 2019, 4:06 pm

Saw Green Book tonight. Not as bad as I was expecting. Enjoyable, despite some cringeworthy moments. Great acting from them both, even if some scenes make you raise your eyebrow or snort in comic disbelief, and you'll just have to accept that Ali is supporting. :rolleyes:

I think if you were to come up with a checklist of all the things a (white) film about race relations in the sixties needed to cover, this would check them all off.

That being said, I'm a bit confused by some of the controversy, like the bits about not consulting Shirley's family. Reading more about this from the writer (and if one were to believe the narrative put forth in the film, which I do), his family (namely a brother), was rather distant, so it kind of makes sense that they weren't involved. Still, I'm sure something will come out to contradict the given narrative about their strained relationship, thus proving my speculation incorrect. Such is the nature of things.
Last edited by Fergenaprido on February 26th, 2019, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3576
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#272

Post by Fergenaprido » February 26th, 2019, 4:07 pm

Oh, and in all the "Green Book?" reaction images, I keep expecting to see one where they take the scene from Lady in the Water when the writer's sister is informed he will write a great book that changes humanity or some such, and she incredulously shouts out "The Cook Book?"

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3915
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#273

Post by OldAle1 » February 27th, 2019, 9:00 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
February 26th, 2019, 4:06 pm
Saw Green Book tonight. Not as bad as I was expecting. Enjoyable, despite some cringeworthy moments. Great acting from them both, even if some scenes make you raise your eyebrow or snort in comic disbelief, and you'll just have to accept that Ali is supporting. :rolleyes:

I think if you were to come up with a checklist of all the things a (white) film about race relations in the sixties needed to cover, this would check them all off.

That being said, I'm a bit confused by some of the controversy, like the bits about not consulting Shirley's family. Reading more about this from the writer (and if one were to believe the narrative put forth in the film, which I do), his family (namely a brother), was rather distant, so it kind of makes sense that they weren't involved. Still, I'm sure something will come out to contradict the given narrative about their strained relationship, thus proving my speculation incorrect. Such is the nature of things.
I didn't hate it myself, though I'm not surprised that a lot of folks did - it's more the case of "oh let's make a totally SAFE, bland film about this important subject" - and they get a Best Pic Oscar out of it. See not only the obvious Driving Miss Daisy but also Spotlight, Argo, Rain Man, Gandhi, A Beautiful Mind, In the Heat of the Night and innumerable nominees in the category over the decades. The best examples I can think of actually are probably Philadelphia - see, gay people are just like us and they love opera! - and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - see, black people can be OK as long as they are ridiculously moral and high achievers and are Sidney Poitier! Neither won BP and Philly wasn''t nominated but both are so typical of what H'Wood thinks is "progressive" enough - but not too lefty-loosey for the old white people in rural areas who might still watch the show.

BlackKklansman and the Queen flick both got plenty of flack for their historical revisionism as well, which probably hurt those films' chances. 6 of the 8 nominees this year were based on real-life/history - is that a record? Just at a glance it looks to be though I'd have to take a closer look at the '33-43 period to be sure.
Last edited by OldAle1 on February 27th, 2019, 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3915
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#274

Post by OldAle1 » February 27th, 2019, 9:01 pm

And Netflix appears to be in some sense bowing to pressure on at least one upcoming release -

https://theplaylist.net/netflix-irishma ... -20190227/

I'm sure some of this comes out of the notion that Roma might have won the big prize had it gotten a more conventional release - also might have been a significant box office presence at least by foreign film standards.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1241
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#275

Post by cinewest » February 28th, 2019, 3:04 am

OldAle1 wrote:
February 27th, 2019, 9:00 pm
Fergenaprido wrote:
February 26th, 2019, 4:06 pm
Saw Green Book tonight. Not as bad as I was expecting. Enjoyable, despite some cringeworthy moments. Great acting from them both, even if some scenes make you raise your eyebrow or snort in comic disbelief, and you'll just have to accept that Ali is supporting. :rolleyes:

I think if you were to come up with a checklist of all the things a (white) film about race relations in the sixties needed to cover, this would check them all off.

That being said, I'm a bit confused by some of the controversy, like the bits about not consulting Shirley's family. Reading more about this from the writer (and if one were to believe the narrative put forth in the film, which I do), his family (namely a brother), was rather distant, so it kind of makes sense that they weren't involved. Still, I'm sure something will come out to contradict the given narrative about their strained relationship, thus proving my speculation incorrect. Such is the nature of things.
I didn't hate it myself, though I'm not surprised that a lot of folks did - it's more the case of "oh let's make a totally SAFE, bland film about this important subject" - and they get a Best Pic Oscar out of it. See not only the obvious Driving Miss Daisy but also Spotlight, Argo, Rain Man, Gandhi, A Beautiful Mind, In the Heat of the Night and innumerable nominees in the category over the decades. The best examples I can think of actually are probably Philadelphia - see, gay people are just like us and they love opera! - and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - see, black people can be OK as long as they are ridiculously moral and high achievers and are Sidney Poitier! Neither won BP and Philly wasn''t nominated but both are so typical of what H'Wood thinks is "progressive" enough - but not too lefty-loosey for the old white people in rural areas who might still watch the show.

BlackKklansman and the Queen flick both got plenty of flack for their historical revisionism as well, which probably hurt those films' chances. 6 of the 8 nominees this year were based on real-life/history - is that a record? Just at a glance it looks to be though I'd have to take a closer look at the '33-43 period to be sure.
Agree completely, here. Green Book checks every box for an Academy Award winner, and "real-life / history" based movies have become Oscar favorites more and more over the past 40 years, especially those that rehash accepted norms from at least a decade or two before.

I haven't seen Green Book, yet, but isn't it also a "buddy movie?"

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3915
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#276

Post by OldAle1 » February 28th, 2019, 3:45 am

Yeah buddy movie. In fact as I was watching I was thinking how much I would rather be watching a generic buddy cop movie starring the same two actors.

User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 3574
Joined: Jan 03, 2016
Contact:

#277

Post by weirdboy » February 28th, 2019, 4:14 am

Green Book is a classic Salt and Pepper road trip movie. See also: 48 Hrs.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1241
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#278

Post by cinewest » February 28th, 2019, 4:20 am

OldAle1 wrote:
February 28th, 2019, 3:45 am
Yeah buddy movie. In fact as I was watching I was thinking how much I would rather be watching a generic buddy cop movie starring the same two actors.
Two very enjoyable actors, for sure

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 2541
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Contact:

#279

Post by flavo5000 » February 28th, 2019, 10:53 pm

I think a lot of Green Book winning was due to the way the Academy votes. Instead of a ballot where it's just 'pick your favorite', they actually rank the films from best to worst. And if a film got more than a certain % of last place votes, it is completely stricken from the ballot altogether. The rumors around are that a lot of people voted Roma dead last because of the Netflix connection, causing it to be invalidated from people who voted it #2. So if it came off the ballot, Green Book was a likely #2 or #3 pick for the "safe" reasons stated previously.

The latest Unspooled podcast actually breaks down this process in detail.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23799
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#280

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » March 1st, 2019, 1:22 am

flavo5000 wrote:
February 28th, 2019, 10:53 pm
And if a film got more than a certain % of last place votes, it is completely stricken from the ballot altogether.
No. Only the top vote counts. The film with the least #1 votes is discarded, and its votes are assigned to the #2 film from those ballots, repeat until someone gets 50%. If a film has 51% #1 votes and 49% last place votes it still wins.

Even so, the general thrust of what you're saying is what I suspect, that Roma had strong support, but not enough to put it over 50%.
Let's say the initial votes were:
25% Roma
20% The Favourite
15% Green Book
40% Divided among the other 5.
As the lowest 5 got eliminated more votes went to those top 3, but not proportionally. So after they got reassigned it may have become
38% Roma
25% The Favourite
37% Green Book
If The Favourite's votes got split in Green Book's favour then it would win even if Roma had been leading up to that point.

I actually suspect The Favourite was probably the more common #2 for the Roma people and it would have won if it worked the way you describe, or if Roma hadn't been nominated. Roma had enough votes to stay in until the end, but enough detractors that it couldn't get over 50.

All that said, Green Book did win Screenplay over Roma and The Favourite, so the reality was probably a bit more favourable to Green Book than my example above, though Green Book is more screenplay heavy compared to the others which are more reliant on visuals.

Post Reply