I don't think anything doesn't deserve to be there, but a lot of great movies didn't get recognized Rush The Way Way Back Saving Mr Banks Etc
Yes, dark, but it's not categorized as a horror- yes, even with those, it's rare for those films to be nominated, much less win. Here's my take on all this, from my perspective. I've been in the careers business for over 15 years now, and there are a lot of different fields that present awards. Some have merit, like the Circle of Excellence in Sales, and some don't- I worked with a military guy last week, and I was going to list all his Commendation Medals and he said, "well, a lot of those you get for just being there- there's only some that stand out in terms of merit-based." Point is that every year now, especially since Obama became President, you always hear chatter about how Hollywood loves patting itself on the back, etc. Newsflash- it happens in a lot of different fields. The reason it gets the publicity it does is that this is what the public wants, going back to the days of Clark Gable. The main beneficiaries of awards are the film studios. You attach Academy Award Winner to your marketing materials for a film, and sales immediately go up. They promote this for a reason. Actors, as well. In terms of measuring best films, ultimately, not completely. The following did not win Best Picture: Citizen Kane; Vertigo; Taxi Driver; 2001; Pulp Fiction; Star Wars; etc. And the following have: The Godfather; Schindler's List; The French Connection; etc. Sometimes the best win, sometimes they don't. My main interest is the screenplay. What makes me chuckle about the screenplay for American Hustle is this quote: "According to Christian Bale much of the movie was improvised. So, during the shooting of the film he noted to David O. Russell, "You realize that this is going to change the plot greatly down track." To which the director replied, "Christian, I hate plots. I am all about characters, that's it." So, how can a movie that is largely improvised be nominated for Best Screenplay?? Oh well.
I've read the winners are about 70% similar between the two award shows. So yes, a lot of the same winners, but also plenty of differences. "Not much correlation" was poor wording.
It's like Michael Jordan being named to, what, 10 or 11 All First-Team NBA selections. If you're that good, that's what you get.
It's some stupid technicality established by the Academy. I remember there was a big stink about it when Toy Story 3 was nominated in 2010 in the adapted category instead of original. Basically any sequel has to be submitted for Best Adapted Screenplay because it's based on a previous film or films. I'm not sure what would happen if they ever nominated a James Bond movie in that category considering a lot of those are standalone entries.
Best actor is stacked this year, anyone of them can win and based on the academy snubbing Leo all these years I just don't see him winning.
I'm working on both an adapted screenplay and an original screenplay. The original is much more fun. Adapted can be easier b/c you have source material, but you feel that pressure to create something original while being faithful to the work- and you also feel the pressure if the work is acclaimed or from a recognized author like No Country for Old Men. Original is definitely better.
So true, and while Hanks was great in Captain Phillips - he wasn't as good as the others. I would have put Redford over Hanks. I think Leto has the Oscar won with ease - McConaughey vs. DiCaprio, I think McConaughey takes it because the film subject matter. I can't believe Rush was snubbed, such an amazing flick. The Way Way Back was a good movie, but nowhere near Oscar quality IMHO. And Daniel Day Lewis. The Academy screwed Joaquin Phoenix out of his Oscar for The Master. If he's ever deserved to win it, it was for Wolf... however, McConaughey has him beat simply because of the Dallas Buyer's Club subject matter (even though his performance was amazing).
He makes a good point- it's all very subjective, and who's to say what's best, right? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SAVxp9GtuvM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
OK, so I've seen Captain Phillips, American Hustle, and Wolf of Wall Street. DiCaprio and Bale are great in both- but there's no ****** way on God's green earth they were better than Hanks- holy ****, he deserved to be nominated for the last 15 minutes alone. Robbed royally.
That's great and all but I think Hanks has gotten plenty of attention at the Oscars in the past. He's already won for some big roles in the past. Every role Hanks takes on...we expect an Oscar-worthy performance in these days. He can't win them all. I would be happy to see Leo win one this time around.
No offense, but that's like saying that since Lebron has already won a few MVPs, that he doesn't deserve any more or something. Didn't say Hanks had to win, but to not be nominated for that? Outright silly. The 5 best acting performances should be recognized, and they weren't. Christian Bale was actually my favorite character in American Hustle, but he still wasnt' better than Hanks in this film.
I haven't seen the movie so can't comment on whether or not Hanks was snubbed, but this line of thinking is why Karl Malone can go to sleep at night as a former NBA MVP.
I think awards shows have a lot to do with subject matter as well... of course Hanks was going to do an amazing performance, because it was an amazing true story. I totally agree that the last 15 minutes are great, but up until that point it wasn't a very difficult role to play. He was an everyday captain going about his duties, and didn't have to show a ton of emotion or range. In Philadelphia and Forrest gump, he was transformed for the entire movie. DiCaprio, Bale and McConnaughey had to transform themselves for their entire roles. They were much harder roles to portray. Those are generally the roles that are nominated for Oscars, and that is a reason DiCaprio hasn't won before. DiCaprio plays the same clean cut kind of guy in every film, not showing much range. He changes that in Wolf of Wall Street and is amazing... but, he probably isn't the most amazing this year, which is tough. If he beats McConnaughey I'll be shocked. The same thing happened last year with Joaquin Phoenix vs. Daniel Day-Lewis. Both equally tremendous performances, but I think Lincoln tugs at the heart strings a bit more than a crazy man. Just as a guy who has aids fighting the good fight tugs at the heart strings more than a crazy banker.
Very good points- actually changed my mind a bit, which is rare (let's face it, on the internet a lot of times we're more concerned with getting our opinions heard than considering others' points of view). I think I agree.
