Author Topic: Oscars 2019  (Read 2840 times)

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #60 on: February 26, 2019, 09:44:47 PM »
How do we know that was the result of 'woke culture' as opposed to the academy's usual liberal boomer tastes or even, god forbid, merit

How does one conclusively prove either of those reasons?

In my view the Academy was all over La La Land, but the furore around lack of diversity was such that Moonlight ended up winning.

So is your edit saying that you now think the Academy is a good judge of cinematic merit?

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #61 on: February 26, 2019, 09:47:42 PM »
No, I'm saying that the films almost never win on merit so frankly who gives a shit? It's always been political and continues to be so

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #62 on: February 26, 2019, 09:48:35 PM »
I agree, why give a shit about the Oscars.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #63 on: February 26, 2019, 10:54:59 PM »
It's a complete misunderstanding of how the Oscars work to say nominations are a response to 'woke culture' or there'll definitely be  a  female director nominated next year because there weren't any this year. If the nominations were decided by committee you could claim that, but they're not. The directing nominations will be decided by the director's branch. They put 5 names on a ballot but the way nominations are counted means that only one of their choices will count and that any names that don't top a certain number of ballots will be eliminated. So for there to be a decision to nominate a woman first of all several hundred directors would have to collude on which names to put top of their ballots.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #64 on: February 26, 2019, 10:59:16 PM »
How does one conclusively prove either of those reasons?

In my view the Academy was all over La La Land, but the furore around lack of diversity was such that Moonlight ended up winning.

So is your edit saying that you now think the Academy is a good judge of cinematic merit?

Again, it's a misunderstanding of how the Oscars work. When voting for best picture it's not simply vote for the film you like best - it's a preferential ballot and a film has to get over 50% of votes to win. Moonlight may not have been the film most people ranked first but it was the most widely liked film out of 6000+ voters,.

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #65 on: February 26, 2019, 11:11:11 PM »
I've read those posts several times and can't make head nor tail of what you're saying. External considerations of various kinds have clearly always influenced who is nominated and who wins.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #66 on: February 26, 2019, 11:25:40 PM »
Ok, breaking it down.

At the nominations stage branches of the academy nominate for their category. So actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, cinematographers nominate cinematography. Everyone in the academy, over 6000 members, nominate for best picture.

You get to put five eligible names on your ballot in order of preference. So for directors someone's ballot could have been

Alfonso Cuaron
Bradley Cooper
Spike Lee
Adam McKay
Bryan Singer

All the ballots come in, they get counted and ranked based on the first place choice. Any person or film not getting at least one first placed choice is immediately eliminated, even if they are second on every ballot. 


Then there's a magic number for getting nominated, which is the number of ballots submitted divided by the number of nomination slots. If anyone reaches that number based on first round votes - they're automatically nominated.

Then the film with the least amount of first place votes gets eliminated and the ballots redistributed based on second place votes. If any of the votes are for something already eliminated they go to third or fourth place.

They keep doing this until there are five nominees.

What I'm saying is that is such a convoluted way of voting that it's not as simple as this - there were no women this year! Better vote for a woman next year because you can't guarantee anything because your first placed vote might be eliminated in the first round. The only way to guarantee a woman is nominated would be for enough people to agree to vote a particular woman first.

For the best picture Moonlight win, what I'm saying is in the first round of counting the film with the most number one votes may have been La La Land. But then it goes to a second round, then a third, based on number 2 and 3 ballots. Moonlight could have won by scoring more number 2 and 3 slots, or even 4 and 5. So La La Land could have been the film more people ranked number one, but Moonlight had more general support that saw it win.

What does influence things is all the precursor awards. December to February is basically non-stop awards. Not just the Baftas, SAGs, Golden Globes, etc, there's a fuckton of critics awards that can place someone as favourite or get someone into the race. They elevate someone's position enough so that when a hundred screeners drop through someone's door at  Christmas the ones they actually watch are the ones that have a profile.

Z

  • The movie, not the TV series, or the book
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #67 on: February 26, 2019, 11:28:08 PM »
There was a lot going on in the year Moonlight won, tbf.

Hidden Colors and Fences were both in the nominees so they could've pulled a lot of votes from people wanting to pat themselves on the back
La La Land was such an obvious best picture winner that I imagine a lot of people ranked it a bit lower than they otherwise may have done
A Mel Gibson film was in the nominees, giving voters an instant reminder that the Academy doesn't necessarily give a shit about any of that stuff

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #68 on: February 26, 2019, 11:39:03 PM »
Ok, breaking it down.

At the nominations stage branches of the academy nominate for their category. So actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, cinematographers nominate cinematography. Everyone in the academy, over 6000 members, nominate for best picture.

You get to put five eligible names on your ballot in order of preference. So for directors someone's ballot could have been

Alfonso Cuaron
Bradley Cooper
Spike Lee
Adam McKay
Bryan Singer

All the ballots come in, they get counted and ranked based on the first place choice. Any person or film not getting at least one first placed choice is immediately eliminated, even if they are second on every ballot. 


Then there's a magic number for getting nominated, which is the number of ballots submitted divided by the number of nomination slots. If anyone reaches that number based on first round votes - they're automatically nominated.

Then the film with the least amount of first place votes gets eliminated and the ballots redistributed based on second place votes. If any of the votes are for something already eliminated they go to third or fourth place.

They keep doing this until there are five nominees.

What I'm saying is that is such a convoluted way of voting that it's not as simple as this - there were no women this year! Better vote for a woman next year because you can't guarantee anything because your first placed vote might be eliminated in the first round. The only way to guarantee a woman is nominated would be for enough people to agree to vote a particular woman first.

For the best picture Moonlight win, what I'm saying is in the first round of counting the film with the most number one votes may have been La La Land. But then it goes to a second round, then a third, based on number 2 and 3 ballots. Moonlight could have won by scoring more number 2 and 3 slots, or even 4 and 5. So La La Land could have been the film more people ranked number one, but Moonlight had more general support that saw it win.

What does influence things is all the precursor awards. December to February is basically non-stop awards. Not just the Baftas, SAGs, Golden Globes, etc, there's a fuckton of critics awards that can place someone as favourite or get someone into the race. They elevate someone's position enough so that when a hundred screeners drop through someone's door at  Christmas the ones they actually watch are the ones that have a profile.

Mechanics of the awards notwithstanding, these are voted for by humans who are influenced by things around them in what choices they make. Which films have won the awards that happen earlier in the year is one factor that puts certain films in the mind of voters. Another factor could be something like loads of people saying they're a bunch of old white cunts for not nominating enough films made by or starring non-white people. After the kerfuffle this year about no female director being nominated, this may concentrate minds next year on a particular contender or contenders directed by women.

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #69 on: February 26, 2019, 11:46:50 PM »
There was a lot going on in the year Moonlight won, tbf.

Hidden Colors and Fences were both in the nominees so they could've pulled a lot of votes from people wanting to pat themselves on the back
La La Land was such an obvious best picture winner that I imagine a lot of people ranked it a bit lower than they otherwise may have done
A Mel Gibson film was in the nominees, giving voters an instant reminder that the Academy doesn't necessarily give a shit about any of that stuff

You mean Hidden Figures, you massive racist! Being cynical the fact that Moonlight, Fences and Hidden Figures were all nominated does maybe look like voters anxious about #oscarssowhite

It's weird the degree that increased diversity in this context just seems to mean African Americans. Three Oscars for a Mexican film in the depths of the Trump presidency seems to have got almost zero notice, instead everyone's just pissing their pants about Green Book.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #70 on: February 26, 2019, 11:55:51 PM »
But again, members only get one vote in the category where they're a member, except for actors who get to vote in lead and supporting. If you know that only one vote is going to count, do you vote for your favourite or do your vote for who you think you're supposed to vote for? And if there's a worry about diversity how do you decide on who gets your vote? Do you vote for someone black? What if there's multiple black contenders? Do you vote for a woman in director? What if there's multiple women? How can you be certain others are voting the same way? It's conspiracy theory nonsense. I mean look at last year - there was a Mexican director, a female director and a black director all nominated. How did they decide who wins the woke lottery to get their vote? And this year proved that Twitter opinion means nothing. Green Book - directed by a man who liked to flash his dick on set and written by a racist, attacked by many for the film itself being racist - still not only nominated but won. Bohemian Rhapsody - directed by a man accused of child rape - won four Oscars. Even best actress, widely expected to go to Glenn Close - 7 times nominated but never won, the Academy went a different way. People vote for who they like half the time, it's as simple as that. Check out the brutally honest Oscar ballots that come out every year to see the kind of thinking that goes into voting, half the time they don't even watch all the nominated films.


Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #71 on: February 27, 2019, 12:00:35 AM »

It's weird the degree that increased diversity in this context just seems to mean African Americans. Three Oscars for a Mexican film in the depths of the Trump presidency seems to have got almost zero notice, instead everyone's just pissing their pants about Green Book.

Mexicans are weirdly overlooked when people kick off. Best director has been won by Mexicans five times in the last six years, before that an Asian, before that a French director, before that an English one. The only white male American to win best director this decade has been Damien Chazelle and even he's French-American.

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #72 on: February 27, 2019, 12:07:54 AM »
do you vote for your favourite or do your vote for who you think you're supposed to vote for?

They have always voted for 'who you're supposed to vote for'. This is why phrases like Oscarbait exist. The Academy likes to vote for films which they think are worthy and choices that make themselves and the industry look good. Ordinary People, Gandhi, Driving Miss Daisy, Schindlers List, The English Patient, A Beautiful Mind, Crash etc etc.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #73 on: February 27, 2019, 12:28:07 AM »
Most of the films on that list don't really qualify as Oscar bait and some of them actively made the Academy look bad at the time. I mean what does Ordinary People have in common with Crash?  One is an intimate family drama and the other a multi character intersecting narrative about race. How was Ordinary People more of an Oscar bait choice than a film it beat like The Elephant Man, the big old fashioned narrative about a worthy subject that looked and felt far more cinematic? Driving Miss Daisy winning when Do the Right Thing wasn't even nominated caused controversy and had them accused of being out of touch and Born on the 4th of July, which won for directing that year, was a far more baity choice as was My Left Foot which was also in contention.  Crash is the most controversial winner they ever had considering the expectation was that Brokeback Mountain would win. It losing caused a bit of a crisis and saw them attacked for being homophobic, not helped by interviews given by Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis refusing to even watch Brokeback. Nobody came out of the Crash win looking good. Gandhi and Schindler's List are more commonly thought of as Oscar bait because they're big films, biopics of worthy subjects that look cinematic. But again the traditional idea of Oscar bait has shifted in the last year or two.

The other thing that should be kept in mind is every year for the past few years the Academy have actively sort to increase diversity in their membership, inviting more women, more people from minorities and more people from world cinema. Last year they had nearly 1000 new members Over 700 the year before. Over 600 in 2016. With that many new members, over 2000 in 3 years, coming from more diverse sources, you're going to see more diverse nominees. So in 2016 about 50% of the new voting members where poc. Then in the first Oscars after that diversity you see Hidden Figures, Moonlight, Lion and Fences nominated. Diverse members mean more diverse films.

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #74 on: February 27, 2019, 12:36:54 AM »

The other thing that should be kept in mind is every year for the past few years the Academy have actively sort to increase diversity in their membership, inviting more women, more people from minorities and more people from world cinema. Last year they had nearly 1000 new members Over 700 the year before. Over 600 in 2016. With that many new members, over 2000 in 3 years, coming from more diverse sources, you're going to see more diverse nominees. So in 2016 about 50% of the new voting members where poc. Then in the first Oscars after that diversity you see Hidden Figures, Moonlight, Lion and Fences nominated. Diverse members mean more diverse films.

Maybe so. but might it not also be white Academy members feeling they should be more diverse in their choices? And we still get a win for Green Book, the absolute epitome of Oscarbait.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #75 on: February 27, 2019, 12:49:32 AM »
The 2015 Oscars caused a massive outcry about the lack of diversity in the nominations for the second year in a row. All white acting nominations, only one non-white director etc. In 2014 the huge outcry was focused on Selma not getting director or acting nominations. In 2015 there was even more of a shut out. I follow this shit like people follow sports, so I know this stuff. You can't argue it as any kind of a mark of quality but it is fascinating to watch it unfold every year. If it was about majority white members voting with more diversity it would have happened after 2014 and the first outcry. The fact it didn't, and actually got worse, was the thing that prompted the membership changes. And then as soon as there membership changes you see more diversity. As for Green Book winning - actually proves my point. The Green Book win makes nobody look good, it's been slated by Academy members as well as the wider social media, and it's won because of the mixture of older Academy members and the preferential ballot coming into play. If people were voting for what they're supposed to be voting for then there were other choices - Roma, BlacKkKlansman, Black Panther even. Green Book was the safe consensus choice for older voters - which are still the majority of voters.

Twed

  • "J" Joe Jeans and his jelly beans
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #76 on: February 27, 2019, 01:16:01 AM »
Here's a very boring, obvious thing to say: The Oscars are a microcosm of US politics.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #77 on: February 27, 2019, 01:29:01 AM »
They are a solid demonstration of the limitations of the liberal imagination in the United States

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2019, 06:45:31 AM »
The Academy is surely a judge of cinematic merit for those who supply the money to make films. That's why something like Green Book winning is a disappointment. It's a tone-deaf movie that serves to make white liberal film executives feel good about themselves, and to give the white public a skewed idea of what race relations should be like. It's a movie that seems to push the point that the bulk of racism happened in the 1960's, and everything's mostly fine now. That racism more or less ended with the death of Martin Luther King. In all my years in American public school, we almost never covered race relations past his death. This movie is reductive, it makes white people feel that they don't need to confront present day racism. It winning an award buries the significance of films that are actually relevant to our current hellscape, films that present ideas that could help people. Sorry To Bother You should have at least been nominated.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2019, 10:59:11 AM »
The Academy is surely a judge of cinematic merit for those who supply the money to make films.

Not particularly. The best picture winners over the last decade look like this - The Hurt Locker, The King's Speech, The Artist, Argo, 12 Years a Slave, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, Green Book. If there was a correlation between winning the Oscar and films getting funded we'd have seen more films like The Artist, Birdman or Moonlight getting big funding by now. There are certain types of films that have always and will always be made because they're seen to come from a cinema of quality and Green Book falls into that tradition. There were hopes a film of that kind wouldn't win best picture these days, but they still do well, think Darkest Hour getting nominated and winning best actor last year. Green Book, as you say, appeals to older liberals in the audience and they're still the largest percentage of voters.

Z

  • The movie, not the TV series, or the book
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #80 on: March 01, 2019, 09:25:02 PM »
If there was a correlation between winning the Oscar and films getting funded we'd have seen more films like The Artist, Birdman or Moonlight getting big funding by now.
Here's where you'd be swinging wrong with that approximation. Moonlight winning wouldn't have led to big money being thrown at anything other than Barry Jenkins's next film, it probably did result in a lot of lower budget films (not Moonlight copies, but occupying a similar position in the market) getting funding though, probably also resulted in a few other A24 level companies getting off the ground.


I can't really say what "more films like the Artist" would entail without being a straight up direct copy.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #81 on: March 01, 2019, 09:54:34 PM »
But you're making the same point as me. I was responding to the statement an Oscar win is a sign of cinematic merit to the moneymen. If it was then you'd see a lot of films made like that film made in the aftermath because they'd be aiming at more of the same. Jenkins next film was If Beale Street Could Talk, which had a budget of 12 million. So not even the director of an Oscar winning film is guaranteed big money for their next work.

Small Man Big Horse

  • Member
  • **
  • Writers wanted for comedy website, pls click below
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #82 on: March 02, 2019, 03:02:44 PM »
Now Spielberg is trying to make sure Netflix films can't be nominated any more, because the man is a colossal prick. https://news.avclub.com/steven-spielberg-is-gunning-to-make-sure-netflix-never-1833005033

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #83 on: March 02, 2019, 03:23:23 PM »
I think he's right, anything that doesn't get a proper release should be considered a TV film, as a non subscriber it doesn't look like i'll be able to watch Roma anytime in the near future.

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #84 on: March 02, 2019, 03:32:48 PM »
I was able to see it in a cinema. It's been about as available in cinemas as films like it usually are.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #85 on: March 02, 2019, 04:33:20 PM »
Don't remember it being around anywhere close to me which would make it unique of all the Oscar noms, no sign of a DVD release either is there?

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #86 on: March 02, 2019, 10:51:42 PM »
Can anyone come up with one film from the last 3 years that was made purely because of 'woke culture' and absolutely wouldn't have been made at an earlier date? I mean, we even had female led superhero films in the mid-2000s for christ's sake, nothing has changed except the marketing

I'm pretty sure that the female-led remakes of Ghostbusters/Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and the POC-led remakes of stuff like TV's Charmed wouldn't have existed without the push for greater representation in online campaigns. Even when you have stuff like BLM, much of that owes its success to the way social media makes it easier to share footage of cops beating up black people and to organise real-life events campaigning against that.

Yes, responses like remaking old films with women and minorities are lame and not nearly as worthwhile as making actual original, meaningful art about those groups, but that's a problem with lazy, shit Hollywood conservatism more than anything else. It's not a meaningful criticism of online social justice culture.

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #87 on: March 02, 2019, 10:58:06 PM »
I'm pretty sure that the female-led remakes of Ghostbusters/Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and the POC-led remakes of stuff like TV's Charmed wouldn't have existed without the push for greater representation in online campaigns.

This definitely isn't true, and if you think it is it means that you think that 'PC has gone mad'.

Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #88 on: March 03, 2019, 03:40:37 PM »
I think those films could easily have existed at any point since the 90's, and aren't really qualitatively different from things like the 'Charlie's Angels' films. Feig made the all-female 'Bridesmaids' a while before he made the all female 'Ghostbusters'. The difference with the latter was that brands and franchises are fully dominant now, so these 'all female' films (which have always existed going back to, I dunno, Busby Berkeley?) are now going to have to be tethered to these already existing properties which usually starred predominantly men before because well, that was the name of the game with the really big properties.

None of these kinds of films are new, the marketing is designed to make you think that some sort of ideological stand is being made, but it usually hasn't. Things have been about the same for 30 years or so, and twitter has affected nothing else except the marketing strategy. We had 'Catwoman' in the mid-2000s, a POC led superhero film, but it didn't get the 'This Is Important' push that subsequent films have because we're being duped. They're selling us the same shit and have done so for ages.

Funcrusher

  • Been shot up more times than Tom Mix
Re: Oscars 2019
« Reply #89 on: March 03, 2019, 03:46:13 PM »
I think those films could easily have existed at any point since the 90's, and aren't really qualitatively different from things like the 'Charlie's Angels' films. Feig made the all-female 'Bridesmaids' a while before he made the all female 'Ghostbusters'. The difference with the latter was that brands and franchises are fully dominant now, so these 'all female' films (which have always existed) are going to have to be tethered to these already existing properties which usually starred predominantly men before because well, that was the name of the game with the really big properties. None of these kinds of films are new, the marketing is designed to make you think that some sort of ideological stand is being made, but it usually hasn't. Things have been about the same for 30 years or so, and twitter has affected nothing else except the marketing strategy


Charlies Angels doesn't change the gender of the protagonists, it's just a remake like Starsky and Hutch. The landscape in 2019 is vastly different to 1989.