ST So The Academy Awards Snubbed TFA

as much as hate the oscars, and love TFA, it did not deserve a nomination for picture, or director. The Martian should have won, or the Revenant. Mad max deservedly beat TFA in tyhe technical categories, though i did not care much for the film.

 

Wrong.

No, it's actually NOT entertainment. It's not all a scam; it's not all a joke; it's not something to be casually dismissed.

It's about ART. It's a discussion over which examples of art get to survive and inspire the generations to come and which don't, about what art is elevated to the status it deserves and what isn't. Art is often the lifeblood of a people and a culture, which is now a worldwide people and culture. It's to be taken seriously. If people here want to mock that with comments about "SRS BSNS" or however it's spelled, fine; but it is exactly that, whether Jon Paul Jones the Chicken-Fried Alky took his job, or the craft, or art, seriously or not.

To say we should make uninformed decisions, just because the guy that played frickin' Pete Stroudenmire did, doesn't make us better than him; it makes as AS BAD AS HIM. Or WORSE.

 

The truth is funny, I know.

 

I'll say this, to Leoluca and anyone else. I don't think Creed is a great Rocky movie, although it most certainly is that; I think it's a great MOVIE, period. It's commercial art, sure; but it's also proper art (according to the James Joyce method of quantifying art) because there are sublime moments in it, moments which go past the fact that the studio is making the film with the bald intention of establishing a Creed franchise spun off from the Rocky franchise, and truly TOUCH you. Not move you, in the sense that it doesn't forcibly move the observer to desire (pornographic art) or reject (didactic art) what's represented, like improper art does; it doesn't push itself on you like some of the worst ones in the series did, even to the point of saving the Rocky theme for use only at the very end (though the score that is in its place is itself sublime, a fantastic next step from the musical aesthetic that Bill Conti established for the series). The film doesn't forcibly move you; it simply touches you, connects your heart with its own; rather than be pushed to desire or reject what's represented, you are allowed the space simply to ACCEPT what's represented. That's what proper art does. At least as Joyce saw it.

This is precisely where Stallone's performance comes into play, because it's really him who provides those sublime moments. Granted, he's familiar to us because we've had decades to get to know him, and precisely for that reason he's the familiar touchstone, the anchor on which longtime fans can rely while getting their bearings with new characters and new environments. But it's not JUST that, any more than moments like Han Solo getting ran through by Kylo Ren are JUST nostalgia talking; it's really the performance, and the fact that we have actors capable of delivering those moments without a trace of ham and not one tooth mark left on the scenery. It's the reason that one of the very few categories in which I really WAS invested on Oscar night was that of Best Supporting Actor, and why I was genuinely disappointed when Stallone failed to win the Oscar. Star Wars losing out, not so much; but I knew what he had done and, by God, I was invested. That's RARE. And for STALLONE, no less; the man who gave us Demolition Man gave us this. Go figure.

I'm not going to describe individual scenes because those are spoiler alerts in and of themselves; I also don't want to give away the surprise of the performance as you watch it unfold. But I'm telling you, Leoluca, that you would be wise to treat yourself by watching the film at least once, and that you'll thank yourself once you've done so. You don't need to be any kind of a Rocky aficionado to watch, understand, or enjoy the film. But I'm dirt certain that you WILL enjoy it.

 

Creed was really well made and well written. Completely stand alone, yet it can be viewed as a kind of sequel. And, for me, it truly enhances Rocky III and IV (well, the first half of IV).

Anyway, sorry for the derail, TFA at the Oscars then?

 

I'm not necessarily sure that I'd call it a derail, though. If TFA failed to get this or that award, then surely an analysis of what the films that were considered in competition were like on a whole is kind of implied, and even welcome? The questions being begged, simply put, are, "If Star Wars was not considered worthy of this or that award by the Academy, what DID the Academy consider worthy? Were they films we would consider worthy? If so, why? If not, why not? Are there other films that were snubbed that were good? Are there films that were awarded that we aren't giving a fair shake?" And, I'm sure, the additional, more personal questions: "If I cared about TFA, what other films did I care about this year? If I didn't care about TFA (as I myself didn't), what films did I care about instead?"

But yeah, TFA at the Oscars...

 

You raise a very good point. I too thought Creed was a good film and a worthwhile venture (whilst not being a particular fan of the original films). It's certainly possible to extend a story/franchise beyond its probable shelf life by imbuing it with character and story that, whilst ackowledging its origin, is attempting to perhaps bring a bit of closure to the original character/story. For me, and whilst not thinking it a perfect film, Creed does that in a much more organic, elegant and intelligent way than The Force Awakens (IMO), and that's largely because Creed has a story. A story that drives character. So for that reason I would say yes, I'm with you, Stallone (and the writers) warrants some recognition. Perhaps his best performance to date.

 

You just described TFA.

TFA has a story: Luke has vanished, we need to find him to help us, while we also have 4 new characters stories being told in parallel - Kylo, Rey, Finn and Poe.

The only difference is that Creed is a self contained film, while TFA is part of a trilogy, so you only saw the first 1/3 of the story so far.

So do not jump so fast into conclusions, unless you know the rest of the ST story (if you know please tell us the rest of the story in the EP VIII and IX spoilers forum).

 

No I didn't. I was juxtaposing a film that did it well, Creed, with one that didn't, TFA.

TFA doesn't seem to have a disernable story... not one of quality anyway. It's not good enough to cry "the story will come later". The film has to be assesed on its own merits. A la The Fellowship of the Ring, A New Hope, The Phantom Menace, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Bourne Identity, Batman Begins... whatever your poison may be. And whilst I agree that Ep VIII and IX will undoutedly expand the story, that's not really the same thing as establishing a compelling story (which should be the criteria of any such film). I thought The Phantom Menace suffered from a similar problem too, in that most of the pertinent story was actually contained to Revenge of the Sith, but at least Lucas was actually willing to establish events and expand the concepts (IMO).

 

Annie Hall might have taken Best Picture in 1977, but it was not at all undeserved. It had as much influence on the romantic comedy (and really, all comedies) as Star Wars had on science fiction.

 

I agree. Annie Hall's plaudits are totally warranted (although I would have liked it if ANH had won).

 

Ultimately this is all that really matters.

Personally I've never seen why people put such weight behind the oscars. They're just one of many end of year awards designed as a self congratulatory slap on the back for a given industry. The oscars just happen to be for a much more high profile industry than, say, the national plumbers union. These awards are also notoriously political. These things are often handed out to people who the Academy want to meet or, in some cases, awarded to 'controversial' choices such as Heath Ledger's post-mortem award for The Joker in The Dark Knight, so as to grab audience attention and make more in revenue. It's quite telling how the first thing the Academy reveals after oscar night is the overnight TV ratings. After being at a third lowest viewership rating ever this year I guarantee you that there'll soon be talk about how next year will shake up the formula and the shortlisting system will go through a massive overhaul, because that's what happens every year the ratings go down!

Seriously, being 'snubbed' at the oscars is not the worst fate in the world for TFA, whether you believe it to be deservedly so or not. All that matters is your personal opinion. Do you like the film? Cool! Do you think it's terrible? Awesome! A subjective opinion from a peer means far more to me than an arbitrary golden statue, be it from a critic, a friend or even someone on the internet (Even if the latter leans further to the hyperbolic at least it's brutal honesty).

 

1, 2, 3 were the worst film by far in the franchise, of course they snubbed them.

 

Most considered Annie Hall to one of the best comedies of all time and is basically tied with When Harry Met Sally as the greatest romantic comedy.

 

As far as I´m concerned TFA is the worst film in the franchise by far. But yeah, no wonder the academy snubbed 1, 2 and 3. They are too brilliant to be appreciated by ignorants like the members of the academy.

 

The reviews and fan reactions to TFA, and the revenue generated, are better than any award or other Hollywood BS. I couldn't care less about that type of stuff.

 

Re: Annie Hall

I, on the other hand, found it snobbish and repetitive. I'm actually surprised to read that it has proven so influential across the generations. How were comedies like Say Anything or As Good as it Gets supposed to have been influenced by it? In the end, I feel a little validated by the fact that Star Wars trumps it in AFI's all-time best list (and a number of other surveys as well).

 

Everybody raving about Mad Max, personally I found it to be an average movie, not bad, not good, neutral.
My movie tastes are just different than other people, for example Tron Legacy is a way better movie than Mad Max to me, and it won nothing too.
Just watched it again the other day, and I really enjoyed it again, after watching it for around the 7th time.

 

I think When Harry Met Sally, Chasing Amy along with Say Anything are more influenced by Annie Hall then As Good as it Gets though I do get that small parallel in that. Plus too if it weren't for Annie Hall, Rian Johnson would never be directing Episode VIII:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Film_That_Changed_My_Life

It was the movie that influenced him to be a director.

The problem with Tron Legacy is they didn't play enough games!

 

I very much enjoyed Tron Legacy, visually it was spectacular.

But it feels like an almost point for point remake of the original and that is why it was (and is) ignored.

 

Technical. Thats it. TFA should have won that award.

But who cares...TFA has gotten billions, endless reviews on how perfect and genius it is, endless praise on the director, endless positivism.

Why should it now? The majority thinks it's perfect, not the minority. Plus the Awards thing are all corrupted, just as hollywood. I barely pay attention to those.

 

i agree, i dont care for mad max, but i can understand the technical and makeup awards

 

That's most certainly TFA.

 

Reminder: "PT vs. OT vs. ST (in any combination) debates are not allowed in the New Movies forums."

 

sorry. but i will say, I loved TFA.