Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Movie Thread Returns


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
553 replies to this topic

#41
injurai

injurai

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2373 posts
  • Location:Not the oceans
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Bad trailer, might be alright. Hopefully half of those callbacks aren't even in the final film.



#42
algroth

algroth

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1384 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

You know, I liked Get Out but as a decent run-of-the-mill horror film. It was good at what it did, but it didn't do anything new or interesting. So why the oscar noms? That smells political to me.

It's a send-a-message nod. I think its odds of actually winning Best Picture are almost zero.
I also liked Get Out, it was rather amusing and more intelligent than most films of its genre, but getting an Oscar nom. or calling it one of the years Top 10 best or whatever is over-rating it way too much.
I haven't seen Get Out yet, but I feel the need to address the assumptions that the film's only nominated as a token entry in the Oscars, which I feel is simply false and a rather preposterous claim even. The film has repeatedly over the last few months been lauded as one of the greatest films of the year, so much so that it is currently the most awarded film of the year above the likes of every other nominee and former BP hopeful, according to RT's awards leaderboard. It's not just a random nom, it's one of the leading contenders and has been for months, and according to most I've spoken to rightly so as well. To leave it out would have been as preposterous as failing to award any of the other big players in the running this year, the likes of Lady Bird, Three Billboards or The Shape of Water, if not even more so.

Edited by algroth, 01 February 2018 - 01:20 PM.


#43
TrueNeutral

TrueNeutral

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2700 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Steam:funderbunk
Critics are wrong. It's an okay horror movie. It shouldn't be listed among those others.

#44
Hurlshot

Hurlshot

    Obsidian Order Hockey Puck

  • Members
  • 9103 posts
  • Location:Gilroy, CA
  • Xbox Gamertag:Hurlshot
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I haven't watched any of them, and honestly most of the stuff listed as award worthy by critics hold little interest to me. 


  • ShadySands likes this

#45
TrueNeutral

TrueNeutral

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2700 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Steam:funderbunk
Shape of Water is fantastic and I was surprised it got nominated, it's too good to be recognized by the academy.
  • injurai and the_dog_days like this

#46
ShadySands

ShadySands

    The Guy on the Couch of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 3347 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I haven't watched any of them, and honestly most of the stuff listed as award worthy by critics hold little interest to me. 

This is almost always the case for me as well


  • Hurlshot likes this

#47
algroth

algroth

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1384 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Critics are wrong. It's an okay horror movie. It shouldn't be listed among those others.

Critics, audiences, industry professionals...

 

I don't think you're not entitled to disagreeing with them, by the way. I'm just saying that viewing its nominations as a political move or tokenism when it's been one of the top contenders for months, and legitimately so, is wrong.


Edited by algroth, 01 February 2018 - 02:33 PM.

  • Hurlshot likes this

#48
algroth

algroth

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1384 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Shape of Water is fantastic and I was surprised it got nominated, it's too good to be recognized by the academy.

And this is another comment I don't get in today's context. Back in the 90s or early 00s? Sure, the Oscars used to nominate some very dodgy stuff back then. But the films being nominated through the past five years have in their great majority been legitimate film of the year contenders, and are truly at their best since the 70s. This whole "Oscars suck" mentality feels weirdly out of sync with the latest years.



#49
algroth

algroth

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1384 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

I wonder if what you see as 'americanized' is the result of the movie being an adaption of a UK children's novel?

I haven't seen Howl yet, but expect it to feel different being an adaption from an English language story.

 

I didn't know that about it - that might be it. The dialogue pacing feels very different from the other Ghibli movies I've seen (which I actually kind of like), but on the other hand, it feels like some connecting scenes were missing, leading to characters acting a little...odd at times. Furthermore, the final quarter of the movie was pretty Disney-esque, which I was actually surprised (and a little disappointed) by, as none of the other Ghibli movies I've seen had been. Great first half, but not quite as great second half, I guess.

 

Yeah, that's quite a good way to sum it up for me. It's probably one of my least-favourite Miyazaki films, which is really not saying much since it still is very enjoyable and featuring a number of moments of sheer excellence, not to mention being as creative and visually striking as ever. i can't say I noticed much with regards to the dialogue pace but it's been years since I've seen it myself, and neither did I really feel the ending was too 'Disney', rather that, as you say, the thin connective tissue towards the end made it a feel a bit more jumbled and uneven. So which ones have you seen so far, Bart?


  • Bartimaeus likes this

#50
TrueNeutral

TrueNeutral

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2700 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Steam:funderbunk

Shape of Water is fantastic and I was surprised it got nominated, it's too good to be recognized by the academy.

And this is another comment I don't get in today's context. Back in the 90s or early 00s? Sure, the Oscars used to nominate some very dodgy stuff back then. But the films being nominated through the past five years have in their great majority been legitimate film of the year contenders, and are truly at their best since the 70s. This whole "Oscars suck" mentality feels weirdly out of sync with the latest years.

I don't think the Oscars suck, it's just that Shape of Water has fanteesee stuff. Outside if Lord of the Rings, well... pretty much never stood a chance traditionally.

#51
algroth

algroth

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1384 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

 

Shape of Water is fantastic and I was surprised it got nominated, it's too good to be recognized by the academy.

And this is another comment I don't get in today's context. Back in the 90s or early 00s? Sure, the Oscars used to nominate some very dodgy stuff back then. But the films being nominated through the past five years have in their great majority been legitimate film of the year contenders, and are truly at their best since the 70s. This whole "Oscars suck" mentality feels weirdly out of sync with the latest years.

I don't think the Oscars suck, it's just that Shape of Water has fanteesee stuff. Outside if Lord of the Rings, well... pretty much never stood a chance traditionally.

 

Edit: Oops, the message sent without any body. Anyhow, I assumed you meant "fantastic" as in "great" and not as in "fantasy" right there, sorry for the confusion. In which case it's true... But yeah, I was venting/ranting for a pet peeve I have about a common internet opinion. Sorry.


Edited by algroth, 01 February 2018 - 05:03 PM.


#52
injurai

injurai

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2373 posts
  • Location:Not the oceans
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

The Oscar's are certainly far and above other award shows for what it's worth. The Grammy's for example are a complete sham.


  • algroth likes this

#53
Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus

    (11) Wizard

  • Members
  • 1764 posts
  • Steam:Ask!

 

 

I wonder if what you see as 'americanized' is the result of the movie being an adaption of a UK children's novel?

I haven't seen Howl yet, but expect it to feel different being an adaption from an English language story.

 

I didn't know that about it - that might be it. The dialogue pacing feels very different from the other Ghibli movies I've seen (which I actually kind of like), but on the other hand, it feels like some connecting scenes were missing, leading to characters acting a little...odd at times. Furthermore, the final quarter of the movie was pretty Disney-esque, which I was actually surprised (and a little disappointed) by, as none of the other Ghibli movies I've seen had been. Great first half, but not quite as great second half, I guess.

 

Yeah, that's quite a good way to sum it up for me. It's probably one of my least-favourite Miyazaki films, which is really not saying much since it still is very enjoyable and featuring a number of moments of sheer excellence, not to mention being as creative and visually striking as ever. i can't say I noticed much with regards to the dialogue pace but it's been years since I've seen it myself, and neither did I really feel the ending was too 'Disney', rather that, as you say, the thin connective tissue towards the end made it a feel a bit more jumbled and uneven. So which ones have you seen so far, Bart?

 

 

Everything just falls neatly and perfectly into place and resolves in a completely ideal manner at the end, even though I wasn't totally sure how we even got to that point. It just didn't feel...earned, I guess, which made it a little dissatisfying. I've seen Nausicaa, Laputa, Only Yesterday, and Kiki's Delivery Service. Right now, I think I'd rank them 1. Howl, 2. Nausicaa, 3. Kiki's, 4. Only Yesterday, 5. Laputa. I've mentioned seeing all of them in this thread so far besides Laputa (which was...in terms of pure enjoyment, maybe was higher than Only Yesterday, but it was much less interesting, which gets it ranked a little lower).



#54
injurai

injurai

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2373 posts
  • Location:Not the oceans
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I finally saw Laputa for the first time sometime last year. I did quite enjoy it. I found it to be curiously minimal however, and the world at large seemed far more simple and naive than other Miyazaki films. It's almost ideal, as if it was formulated to be an adventure distilled to its purest form. Without too many internal conflictions and ambiguities over the untimely hero's role. I also sort of felt like I was viewing a dream while watching it.


  • Bartimaeus and Raithe like this

#55
LadyCrimson

LadyCrimson

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 9163 posts
  • Location:Candyland
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I haven't seen Get Out yet, but I feel the need to address the assumptions that the film's only nominated as a token entry in the Oscars, which I feel is simply false and a rather preposterous claim even. The film has repeatedly over the last few months been lauded as one of the greatest films of the year, so much so that it is currently the most awarded film of the year above the likes of every other nominee and former BP hopeful, according to RT's awards leaderboard. It's not just a random nom, it's one of the leading contenders and has been for months, and according to most I've spoken to rightly so as well. To leave it out would have been as preposterous as failing to award any of the other big players in the running this year, the likes of Lady Bird, Three Billboards or The Shape of Water, if not even more so.

I think one should see it first to form their own opinion before saying any people who may think it's pandering are wrong or that such an opinion is utterly "false" or preposterous. If you know how the Oscar noms. work/come about and how political it and their Board of Governors can be, you know the Academy can very definitely pander, in many ways. And the voters are voting for peers after all, and those peers can get just as wound up into the latest peer and critical cause as anyone else.
 
I'm not saying my opinion is somehow more "right" than anyone else's opinion, but by the same token, all those critics and the Academy voters and even my 10 best friends (if I had 10 best friends, that is, haha) opinions aren't really any more "right" either. That's why art is subjective.

It's a good genre movie, I'm not knockin' it at all, but my opinion still stands. It's not anywhere near a "best of the year" sort of project. Note that I don't actually care if it is pandering, it's no skin off my nose either way. They can choose whatever they want, for whatever reasons, I have no investment in it. It was just my casual view/response tossed out one morning on a brief visit to a forum. I haven't even watched the Oscars in years. :p



#56
Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus

    (11) Wizard

  • Members
  • 1764 posts
  • Steam:Ask!

I finally saw Laputa for the first time sometime last year. I did quite enjoy it. I found it to be curiously minimal however, and the world at large seemed far more simple and naive than other Miyazaki films. It's almost ideal, as if it was formulated to be an adventure distilled to its purest form. Without too many internal conflictions and ambiguities over the untimely hero's role. I also sort of felt like I was viewing a dream while watching it.

 

It's probably because I'm watching them all within such a short amount of time (the first I saw was Nausicaa about two weeks ago?) that I had a little more muted reaction towards Laputa. It was fun and pleasant and there wasn't really anything particularly bad about it, but I didn't feel it was all too special, either.


Edited by Bartimaeus, 02 February 2018 - 02:44 AM.


#57
algroth

algroth

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1384 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

I haven't seen Get Out yet, but I feel the need to address the assumptions that the film's only nominated as a token entry in the Oscars, which I feel is simply false and a rather preposterous claim even. The film has repeatedly over the last few months been lauded as one of the greatest films of the year, so much so that it is currently the most awarded film of the year above the likes of every other nominee and former BP hopeful, according to RT's awards leaderboard. It's not just a random nom, it's one of the leading contenders and has been for months, and according to most I've spoken to rightly so as well. To leave it out would have been as preposterous as failing to award any of the other big players in the running this year, the likes of Lady Bird, Three Billboards or The Shape of Water, if not even more so.

I think one should see it first to form their own opinion before saying any people who may think it's pandering are wrong or that such an opinion is utterly "false" or preposterous. If you know how the Oscar noms. work/come about and how political it and their Board of Governors can be, you know the Academy can very definitely pander, in many ways. And the voters are voting for peers after all, and those peers can get just as wound up into the latest peer and critical cause as anyone else.
 
I'm not saying my opinion is somehow more "right" than anyone else's opinion, but by the same token, all those critics and the Academy voters and even my 10 best friends (if I had 10 best friends, that is, haha) opinions aren't really any more "right" either. That's why art is subjective.

It's a good genre movie, I'm not knockin' it at all, but my opinion still stands. It's not anywhere near a "best of the year" sort of project. Note that I don't actually care if it is pandering, it's no skin off my nose either way. They can choose whatever they want, for whatever reasons, I have no investment in it. It was just my casual view/response tossed out one morning on a brief visit to a forum. I haven't even watched the Oscars in years. :p

 

 

I do know how the Oscar noms work and come about, and that's the thing: they might arguably respond to politics but they respond far more often to *momentum*, and Get Out has had it for months. And whilst, yes, art is indeed subjective and one is free to think whatever they want about Get Out or any other film, but assuming that a film's nomination is purely political, or that people have rated it as one of the best of the year for purely political reasons, takes a step beyond positing one's opinion on a film and into discrediting others' through speculating on their motives for their assessment. In the same coin I could accuse you and TN of questioning the legitimacy of Get Out's nomination due to being racist and thus assuming that a black filmmaker's nomination is inherently less legitimate than that one a white one's (which, mind, I don't, but it follows the same line of thought). It's the act of speculating on the others' opinions for rating a film so highly to be political which is wrong, not a disagreement about whether it's as good as others say it is or not.



#58
TrueNeutral

TrueNeutral

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2700 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Steam:funderbunk
To see academy politics, just look at Leo winning for The Revenant when he's really winning for his whole body of work because he was terribly overacting and constantly, annoyingly mugging for the camera in that film. They wanted to finally give him something, didn't seem to matter they were giving it for a Jeremy Irons in Dungeons and Dragons style performance.

Don't get me wrong, Leo deserved accolades he never got for a lot of roles. That just wasn't one of them.

#59
algroth

algroth

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1384 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

To see academy politics, just look at Leo winning for The Revenant when he's really winning for his whole body of work because he was terribly overacting and constantly, annoyingly mugging for the camera in that film. They wanted to finally give him something, didn't seem to matter they were giving it for a Jeremy Irons in Dungeons and Dragons style performance.

Don't get me wrong, Leo deserved accolades he never got for a lot of roles. That just wasn't one of them.

 

I thought he was very good in that film and I say that as someone who often doesn't like him (overacting is the name of the game with him), but I also think this ignores that the rest of the lead actor nominees weren't really that good. There just wasn't anyone to really claim it from him.


Edited by algroth, 02 February 2018 - 06:51 AM.


#60
TrueNeutral

TrueNeutral

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2700 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Steam:funderbunk

 

 

I haven't seen Get Out yet, but I feel the need to address the assumptions that the film's only nominated as a token entry in the Oscars, which I feel is simply false and a rather preposterous claim even. The film has repeatedly over the last few months been lauded as one of the greatest films of the year, so much so that it is currently the most awarded film of the year above the likes of every other nominee and former BP hopeful, according to RT's awards leaderboard. It's not just a random nom, it's one of the leading contenders and has been for months, and according to most I've spoken to rightly so as well. To leave it out would have been as preposterous as failing to award any of the other big players in the running this year, the likes of Lady Bird, Three Billboards or The Shape of Water, if not even more so.

I think one should see it first to form their own opinion before saying any people who may think it's pandering are wrong or that such an opinion is utterly "false" or preposterous. If you know how the Oscar noms. work/come about and how political it and their Board of Governors can be, you know the Academy can very definitely pander, in many ways. And the voters are voting for peers after all, and those peers can get just as wound up into the latest peer and critical cause as anyone else.

I'm not saying my opinion is somehow more "right" than anyone else's opinion, but by the same token, all those critics and the Academy voters and even my 10 best friends (if I had 10 best friends, that is, haha) opinions aren't really any more "right" either. That's why art is subjective.
It's a good genre movie, I'm not knockin' it at all, but my opinion still stands. It's not anywhere near a "best of the year" sort of project. Note that I don't actually care if it is pandering, it's no skin off my nose either way. They can choose whatever they want, for whatever reasons, I have no investment in it. It was just my casual view/response tossed out one morning on a brief visit to a forum. I haven't even watched the Oscars in years. :p

 


I do know how the Oscar noms work and come about, and that's the thing: they might arguably respond to politics but they respond far more often to *momentum*, and Get Out has had it for months. And whilst, yes, art is indeed subjective and one is free to think whatever they want about Get Out or any other film, but assuming that a film's nomination is purely political, or that people have rated it as one of the best of the year for purely political reasons, takes a step beyond positing one's opinion on a film and into discrediting others' through speculating on their motives for their assessment. In the same coin I could accuse you and TN of questioning the legitimacy of Get Out's nomination due to being racist and thus assuming that a black filmmaker's nomination is inherently less legitimate than that one a white one's (which, mind, I don't, but it follows the same line of thought). It's the act of speculating on the others' opinions for rating a film so highly to be political which is wrong, not a disagreement about whether it's as good as others say it is or not.

 


That's not by the same coin at all. You don't even know what currency we're using. You're defending a film you haven't even seen, calling criticism of it false, preposterous and racist? That seems incredibly rude and pretentious to me.

Get Out is okay. I enjoyed it. I didn't hate it at all, I was entertained all way through. It was, as far as horror movies go, definitly in the top 20 this year. A definite step below other heavy horror hitters like It Comes At Night, Gerald's Game, The Killing of a Sacred Deer and Stephen King's It but way above Annabelle Creation, Alien: Covenant and Life.

Why am I ranking it this way? To give you a better idea of the caliber of the film you're defending. I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of a black director. I love Jordan Peele. But the film he made is not oscar level. Not even CLOSE. It was never intended to be - it's essentially a Stepford Wives remake with feminism replaced with white privelege. It's competently directed (though nothing special), it's got some clever dialogue and funny cinematography and set design. I enjoyed it. The lead actress is good, everyone else is competent. It's not, however the kind of film that gets nominated for an Oscar. It's 'fine' at best. If you'd have SEEN it, you would know this and wouldn't be calling people preposterous racists for it. There is a gap in quality so obvious that it INVITES the questioning of motives.

The fact this got nominated for an Oscar while clearly being a just 'okay' film at best is the thing that makes black directors look inherently worse here, I'm just pointing it out. This makes last year's fantastic Moonlight, for example, look bad - this movie has no clear reason to be nominated based on quality and the only other plausible motive looking in is politics. Based in this nomination, it becomes incredibly easy to look back and go 'oh, it must have been the same for that film too'.

This would have been fine if the Academy had a history of nominating clever, decent horror films. But Scream never got nominated. Cabin in the Woods never got nominated. The only thing that sets this movie apart from those is race. Its nomination by itself makes the Academy look racist, out if touch, desperately trying to stave off the race controversy from a few years ago because nobody campaigned for a Moonlight or Boys N The Hood this year. This film wasn't nominated because it was good, it was nominated because it's black. Again, I liked this movie. But it's not Selma, or Precious. It's not 12 Years a Slave. It's not Fruitvale Station or even Creed which both should have been nominated but weren't. No, this is Scream with some clever jokes about privelege.

Lets talk about films of the same caliber this year. Stephen King's IT, while also being just fine, was a better film than this. Why did Andres Muschietti get passed over and Jordan Peele get nominated? Well, only thing I can see from the outside is... Latinos aren't as important to the Academy as African-Americans. Seriously, how am I the racist for pointing out the plain as day participation trophy style tokenism on display here? The Academy is acting like the villain of the very movie we're discussing and I'M the bad guy?

Seriously, watch it instead if being rude. You'll see. There simply is no way to view this nomination as anything other than the Academy going "I can't be racist, one of my best friends is black!".


Edited by TrueNeutral, 02 February 2018 - 07:27 AM.
Spelling, typing on my phone is annoying





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users