Amph guys we need an Oscars thread

When I originally learned the movie wasn't an actual adaptation of the original superhero cartoon, part of me was incredibly disappointed. Then I watched it and realized it was really a very good film anyway and who would want a live-action adaptation of that in the first place?

My other favorite of the films I've seen so far is Whiplash. The end was a bit silly, but overall a fantastic film with some great performances. I thought Theory of Everything was decent but nothing special and haven't seen the other BP noms yet (no, not even Grand Budapest Hotel or Boyhood). My dad gets a lot of screeners, so I'm hoping to catch up on a lot of the nominations soon anyway.

 

I find it funny how plenty of people, not here necessarily, say they don't care about the Oscars but then when something happens like this years nominees being all white there's suddenly a huge uproar over it.

 

Ralph should have won his Oscar decades ago with his Amon Goeth.

 

i'm kind of an oscar nut. but still, even if someone doesn't personally care for the oscars they can still recognize their sphere of influence and cultural importance.

 

I can't wait for the uncomfortable jokes NPH will make about it during the telecast.

 

Please, there'll be a gag order. If anybody so much as mentions it they'll get played over a lá Life of Pi's effects creators.

 

Last year someone in the Academy admitted they did not see 12 Years A Slave but voted for it anyway. Was this issue resolved?

 

Resolved how? They're not required to see the movies they vote for-- or at least there's no way to police it short of eye implants and brain scans.

 

Oops

 

For the first time since 1998 they haven't had a best acting nom for a black actor. So the first time in sixteen years? And that's a problem? How about they've never had an Inuit nominee? Where's the outrage?

 

They're still paying for their participation in Nanook of the North.

 

The continued underrepresentation of Native Americans in Hollywood is a well documented and problematic phenomenon, but nice attempt at deflection via arbitrary contextual bracketing I guess?

 

I thought Dances With Wolves had them covered. But I also haven't swallowed a thesaurus.

 

I have a different take on the diversity matter, but people make stupid assumptions that contradict their self-proclaimed openmindedness when I speak on the subject. In short, when people focus on the race of nominees (or anyone not included in positions) it just reinforces the rhetoric by many bigots who think black people or any minority get what they get out of sympathy, or fear of retaliation and controversy, or because of quotas instead of actual quality of work. It feeds the tokenism.

 

Well documented? So are you saying there is an actual effort to block Native Americans from participating in Hollywood/movies?

If not, then why does it matter? Why is this some problematic phenomenon? Maybe there just aren't any Native Americans that want to act or do stuff in film. Personally, I love the Native American culture, or at least what it used to be before Western world crushed it. But I think it's ridiculous to get all bent up just because they aren't in the movies right now.

 

Not in the slightest, there doesn't have to be an active conspiracy for a trend to be noteworthy.

Mass media has a culturally normative effect so I don't think it's "ridiculous" to be concerned when a particular group is underrepresented - is it because of a true lack of a talent pool or because of assumptions that go into the casting process? If it's the former, then you can talk about why there would be so few Native Americans who want to act or get into film (Admittedly there are disproportionately high levels of poverty and alcoholism on reservations so it wouldn't blow my mind if this was the case); if it's the latter then it might be time to evaluate some of those assumptions.

Of course, my actual point was that crocodile tear "Well why are there no X?" arguments that get dragged up whenever anyone talks about race representation in Hollywood are usually just distraction issues that rely strongly on ignoring other mitigating factors - such as, in this specific instance, the fact that Selma got a best picture nod being the reason the lack of black actors is getting attention in the first place.

That said, I think it was more of a matter of a foul-up than active exclusion on the part of the Academy - namely, they used one of their meaningless Best Picture nominations that they've had ever since they increased the nomination pool on Selma and it isn't under serious consideration in any case, but it inadvertently drew attention to a lack of diversity in the acting field that would ordinarily go unnoticed. There's probably also some extra media attention resulting from the string of recent race related incidents that have been in the news and the fact that Hollywood and the Academy usually like to hold themselves up as progressive bulwarks.

 

Can we get the superfluous apostrophe removed from the thread title?

 

If I had my way, I'd add a second apostrophe.

 

http://www.collegehumor.com/post/7008648/honest-titles-for-2015s-oscar-nominated-movies]Honest[/url] titles for the Oscar nominees


There's different versions of these across the internets, but this set contains the best, most brutally honest one:


.

 

I think the on for Imitation Game was made just for Ender Sai.

But for The Theory of Everything, "oh ****, would I bang Stephen Hawking?" Is the perfect title and exactly my problem with that film. They took a great story about a scientist and his great scientific accomplishments and reduced it to a romantic drama in which I'd argue Jane is actually the main character. What a complete waste of a film. And also, it's kind of insulting to Hawking, who doesn't talk about or focus on his illness, to focus on that to the exclusion of portraying the work that actually matters to him.

Redmayne was really good, though.

 

This is almost my exact problem with Julie and Julia. I want an actual biopic of Julia Child, with all of the ridiculously amazing things she did (including being a spy!) than that trash.

 

Was it made so I can watch Benedict's otherwordly head try and approximate humanity, sj?

I've an interest in seeing it but I shan't rush out - there's been a number of good books, fiction and not, about Bletchley Park so I'm not missing out on much there. The Alan Turing focus will be new though.

 

I mean, I'm biased because I've had a long interest in both Turing and Bletchley. I got to hear some fantastic lectures there and see the awesome rebuilds of the machinery when I was going around studying WWII in Europe. So I was eager to see the film and liked it a lot. So I watched it again and still liked it a lot.

There are a few parts where the script dips too far into "this character will say something awful to Turing so we feel bad for him". But in reality, the guy had a pretty tough life and situation. And I think overall what the film does is bring to light the fact that, quite honestly, Turing may be one of the ten most influential people in recorded history (my words). And the fact that this was tragically never appreciated during his lifetime.

So sure it's a bit sentimental, but overall I thought it was very good. And it does provide ample opportunities to see Cumberbatch's alien head approximate human emotions and crying, which it's quite good at.

 

Oh Turing had a wretched life, of that there's no doubt. The attitude towards homosexuals in general was abhorrent; for a figure as critical as he was, it's something worse entirely.

 

i'm just glad under the skin was nominated for something. wait a minute, no it wasn't. FOCKSCARS