I don't care about the Oscars. Should I?. (1 Viewer)

[Citizen87645]

If you all have not seen this:

 

[Tino]

The only person that should really care about the Oscar is the person receiving it. It usually changes their lives. We viewers are just on the outside looking in on someone else's party. I love watching the Oscars and rooting for my favorite films and actors to win for THEM not me.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

I usually watch that fantastically entertaining laserdisc the night before the Oscars. I was doing just that on Saturday night when some friends dropped by to watch a couple of movies, but once they noticed "Oscar's Greatest Moments" they watched it right to the end (and then "Sicario"). It's too bad that 25 years have passed, and there's no sequel or series, and there probably never will be (realistically).

Happy to know that the laserdisc format is not completely dead.

 

[davidmatychuk]

Happy to know that the laserdisc format is not completely dead.

I just compared the audio track of the "30th Anniversary Restoration" laserdisc of "My Fair Lady" to the two Blu-Rays. Two weeks ago, I played the laserdisc of "Just A Gigolo". My laserdisc player likes the exercise, and so do I.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Oh, Spotlight is depressing but it focuses much more on the work to uncover the cover up than sexual abuse.

Yes, I did not find the film depressing as it is basically one of those "reporters chasing the big story" films which honestly, I really enjoy. I live in Boston and so knew this story all too well. In fact I could tell a fairly bizarre tale here but I'm not sure it would be appropriate. They told it wonderfully and really did not not get particularly graphic (nothing is shown of the child abuse) with basically just three adult victims quickly relating incidents to the reporters that happened to them as children. The story is completely focused on the Spotlight team and how they went about getting involved with and then uncovering the story. The cast is fantastic and everybody nails their parts.

I know the subject matter is terrible, sexually abusing children, but the story of investigative journalists uncovering it in a tight knit community like Boston was thrilling. I have a lot of respect for investigative journalists and believe outside of the story of clergy abusing children and covering it up the other big thing that the film really highlights is how important these journalists are in keeping the public informed and educated about what is going on. I feel with the decline of newspapers many people no longer value the impact of investigative journalism. This film hopefully makes people think about that.

 

[TravisR]

...the other big thing that the film really highlights is how important these journalists are in keeping the public informed and educated about what is going on. I feel with the decline of newspapers many people no longer value the impact of investigative journalism. This film hopefully makes people think about that.

You hit the nail on the head for me. This movie shows the great effect that journalists with the talent, resources and financial freedom to chase a story can have. Twitter has its positives but it can never replace a real investigation by real journalists and as newspapers hit the financial skids, it should be really scary to people that some serious issues won't be investigated anymore.

 

[Ron1973]

I don't do award shows period. I just don't particularly care for all of the hoopla, and I doubt I would recognize most of them. Instead, I watched a rerun of Hee Haw!

 

[Patrick Sun]

When I had money (in the office pool), I paid more attention to the Oscars. Nowadays, I'll DVR it, and later watch it when I can. My DVR recording (even after padding it by half an hour) cut off just as Morgan Freeman announced the Best Picture Oscar recipient. LOL!

 

[Stan]

i used to enjoy the Academy Awards, years ago. I'd watch them like everyone else. But while I still enjoy movies, a fear years back I realized that don't care about watching wealthy Hollywood-ites give each other awards. It wasn't especially good TV -- and I'm overloaded with great TV I can't find time for. And the awards seemed unrelated to my movie-watching experience.


What am I missing? Should I care more about the Oscars?

Hollywood-ites giving each other rewards, so true. Last time I watch another show like this.

Just an excuse for the guys to show up in tuxes and the women to show off fancy gowns and loaned jewelry. The rest of us have better ways to spend our time.

 

[Tino]

Or....many of us still enjoy watching.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I should have probably answered the question in the thread title...my answer would be no, unless you work in the business why would you care. The shows themselves tend to be big sloppy empty headed events designed just to allow Hollywood to pat themselves on the back and to advertise and allow network television a chance to broadcast a show that includes a long list of celebrities...most of whom just sit in the audience and do nothing at all. The only good moments from the show, and they are few and far between, are when somebody decides to go off script or do something nutty. They are horrible shows that present mostly lame comedy and crappy production numbers. Awards shows are a total waste of time.

The only thing they are actually good for is that they hopefully allow some of the talented people that win awards to continue making pictures that they want to make...not the formula stuff...but films that are actually about attempting something really creative. It's funny because the pictures that Hollywood cashes in on are big empty headed formula productions and franchises generally meant for summer release. These films, the ones that make most of the money for them, are not the films they "celebrate" during the Academy Awards. Instead they focus on the more dramatic pictures that tend to be about something "socially meaningful" as Spotlight was this year. Honestly, it was not hard to determine which film would win best picture this year because Spotlight was the one film that took a full on dramatic approach to a serious real life subject and openly said "This is an important story." and it was. So, obviously they were going to give it the Best Picture award because it best shows that Hollywood tells "important stories"...even though what Hollywood really is about is rebooting super hero franchises and Star Wars until every last cent they can wring out of them has been collected.

So, while Spotlight and the filmmakers who made it did a wonderful job and can take home an award for their excellent work...we all know that rather than make something original and actually about something Hollywood would giddily throw thousands upon thousands of Spotlights into the garbage just to have one Star Wars or Batman flick...which sort of makes the award show deal come across as just a bit disingenuous.

 

[TravisR]

The only thing they are actually good for is that they hopefully allow some of the talented people that win awards to continue making pictures that they want to make...

I think the best thing about the Oscars is that they get a bigger audience for some movies that would otherwise be seen by far less people. Even if they didn't get any nominations, The Revenant or Bridge Of Spies or The Martian would have done just fine but how many people would have seen Room or Spotlight or Brooklyn if not for their nominations?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Ten times the Academy selected a truly lousy film as Best Picture:

1939-Gone with the Wind

1947- Gentleman's Agreement

1985- Out of Africa

1989- Driving Miss Daisy

1994- Forrest Gump

1996- The English Patient

1997- Titanic

1998- Shakespeare in Love

2005- Crash

2008- Slumdog Millionaire

 

[Ron1973]

I'm hoping Tom Hiddleston wins one next year for his portrayal of Hank Williams. Other than that, I'll stick with my Hee Haw reruns!

 

[TravisR]

1994- Forrest Gump

I must be getting sentimental as I get older because I didn't like that movie very much when it first came out but it's grown on me over the years. It's melodramatic but Tom Hanks' performance & the character and the music win me over. Pulp Fiction was the better movie that year but there's more than enough room for both pictures to be remembered and enjoyed.

1997- Titanic

I'm sure I've said it before but I'm an unabashed fan of Titanic. The story is simple and familiar but everything else about the movie is perfect. Out of the Best Picture nominees that year, I would have said that L.A. Confidential was a better movie but I've read James Ellroy's book enough times now to just get stuck on what's missing from the novel and that's skewed my view of the movie slightly.

 

[Citizen87645]

The Best Picture title gets endlessly debated, but don't forget The Artist.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

The only one of those films I could call "truly lousy" with a straight face is Crash.

(FWIW, I haven't seen Out of Africa.)

 

[Walter Kittel]

You can argue whether or not a film is deserving of the Best Picture award or not, but I wouldn't label any of them as "lousy"; undeserving or overrated - perhaps. Some of my all time favorite films are characterized as such; which is to be expected as consensus on great films is pretty rare if it exists at all.

Thoughts on some of the films from Reggie's list.

1994 - Forrest Gump - One of the most (personally) polarizing films I've ever seen; which I guess says something about the film. If I treat the film literally I absolutely hate it. Particularly due to the conceit that an idiot achieves success that millions of talented individuals will never know. If I treat it as a fable or a metaphor then I appreciate the walk through a portion of 20th century America.

1996 - The English Patient - For my money, just a perfectly executed film. I love every frame of this film and after numerable theatrical viewings it skyrocketed in to my top five films of all time.

1997 - Titanic - A real split decision for me. The production design is top notch and the underwater segments are terrific. I enjoyed the lead performances and the romance; but disliked the script and the stereotyping of characters. Would have preferred to see L.A. Confidential win the big prize even though it falters at the end.

1998 - Shakespeare in Love - A quality film that was probably buoyed by the virtue of it being a portrait of artists / entertainment. Hollywood does love to look in the mirror. At the time of the awards it didn't bother me that much, but honestly Saving Private Ryan has stood the test of time much, much better. Still, SiL isn't a bad film.

2005 - Crash - I honestly can't remember much about the film. I believe it was a pretty weak year for films as not much stands out, for me.

- Walter.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I wonder how close the voting was in 2005 between "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain".

 

[Tino]

Ten times the Academy selected a truly lousy film as Best Picture:

1939-Gone with the Wind

1947- Gentleman's Agreement

1985- Out of Africa

1989- Driving Miss Daisy

1994- Forrest Gump

1996- The English Patient

1997- Titanic

1998- Shakespeare in Love

2005- Crash

2008- Slumdog Millionaire

You forgot to add

"In my very minority opinion"

[emoji12]