The Official 2015 Oscar Nominations Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

NONE of the eight nominated films is a sequel, superhero film or remake.

Yeah but it's still a big artistic and financial gamble to make a movie over the course of 12 years where the kids you hire might end up being terrible or the money invested might never have been earned back if the movie collapsed in, say, the fifth year. Considering everything that could have wrong, the movie worked out unbelievably well.

Speaking of Interstellar...

You mean Inception. Oh, wait.

 

[Tino]

It's interesting to me that enthusiasm for boyhood has flagged as it hit home video. In the theatre, the film flew by, lagging slightly in the final year, but never felt long. I'm not surprised that in the home environment the film is not as gripping and immersive. I often think these sort of quiet films benefit more from the big screen than blockbusters which can compensate for smaller screens with frenetic visual style and intense sound to hold your attention the way a giant Screen does for smaller films.

Really?? I think just the opposite as these small quiet films work much better at home and the blockbusters demand to be seen on the biggest screen.

 

[Tino]

The point is that Hollywood is all about money so that's why we get mainly sequels, superhero movies and remakes. Whenever they do movies on small budgets they usually don't get much back at the box office. The box office take of the 8 Best Pictures is fairly low with the one exception being AMERICAN SNIPER, which is the film most of America will be rooting for. When it doesn't win we're going to get headlines of how the Oscars have lost focus with mainstream America. If anything, the Oscars prove people don't want movies like these for the most part.

Either way, if someone doesn't like BOYHOOD that is fine. However, to say you don't buy into why people are talking so much about it is lost on me.

Who said they don't buy into why people are talking so much about it?? No one in this thread certainly.

It's a polarizing film and certainly worth talking about.

 

[Tino]

Yeah but it's still a big artistic and financial gamble to make a movie over the course of 12 years where the kids you hire might end up being terrible or the money invested might never have been earned back if the movie collapsed in, say, the fifth year. Considering everything that could have wrong, the movie worked out unbelievably well



You mean Inception. Oh, wait.

To those that liked it sure.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Just look at Hollywood. If it's not a sequel, superhero or remake it doesn't get made. When small movies are made they need money back right then and there. I know the budget on BOYHOOD wasn't very much but for a director and producer to risk a project over 12 years is an achievement. If it wasn't then there wouldn't have been as much buzz about the film to begin with.

I guess we have a different definition of a "technical achievement". The first "Jurassic Park" was an amazing technical achievement - "Boyhood" was just tenacity and some open weekends over 12 years!


I gotta admit I still don't understand how "Boyhood" being shot over 12 years is a huge deal but the Harry Potter movies weren't...

 

[Hanson]

I gotta admit I still don't understand how "Boyhood" being shot over 12 years is a huge deal but the Harry Potter movies weren't...

I think that speaks for itself.

 

[TravisR]

I gotta admit I still don't understand how "Boyhood" being shot over 12 years is a huge deal but the Harry Potter movies weren't...

Because they were a series of movies and not one movie. If the first HP movie had tanked, that would have been the end of the series but the people involved with Boyhood had have the guts or blind faith to go forward putting more & more creative energy in and more & more money in with the hope for recognition a decade away.

 

[Wayne_j]

Because they were a series of movies and not one movie. If the first HP movie had tanked, that would have been the end of the series but the people involved with Boyhood had have the guts or blind faith to go forward putting more & more creative energy in and more & more money in with the hope for recognition a decade away.

They started shooting Chamber of Secrets immediately after Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone opened. Warners was always going to make at least 2.

 

[TravisR]

They started shooting Chamber of Secrets immediately after Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone opened. Warners was always going to make at least 2.

OK, if the first 2 HP movies had tanked...

 

[Malcolm R]

... in with the hope for recognition a decade away.

Exactly. Just a gimmick to attract awards nominations. Edit together a decades-worth of any average family's home movies and you'll get a similar result. I don't see what's so special about this film.

Didn't Michael Apted's "xx Up" series already accomplish something similar over a longer period of time?

 

[bujaki]

Fiction vs. documentary. Apted documented lives; Linklater invented them with the help of the actors involved, concentrating on just one boy's experiences.

 

[Hanson]

Comparing Boyhood to other movie series based on superficial similarities like filming over a long course of time shows an aggressive need to tear down Boyhood. You thought it was boring. Fine. Let it go. Instead, you want to convince me that it's nothing special and commiserate with others with others that you didn't actually miss anything and the film is no big deal.

 

[Tino]

Comparing Boyhood to other movie series based on superficial similarities like filming over a long course of time shows an aggressive need to tear down Boyhood. You thought it was boring. Fine. Let it go. Instead, you want to convince me that it's nothing special and commiserate with others with others that you didn't actually miss anything and the film is no big deal.

Who's trying to CONVINCE you?? Sounds like we're all just expressing our opinions, just like you.

 

[Wayne_j]

Off to see "Two Days, One Night", the last film I need to see in order to see all major categories.

 

[Ejanss]

The point is that Hollywood is all about money so that's why we get mainly sequels, superhero movies and remakes. Whenever they do movies on small budgets they usually don't get much back at the box office. The box office take of the 8 Best Pictures is fairly low with the one exception being AMERICAN SNIPER, which is the film most of America will be rooting for. When it doesn't win we're going to get headlines of how the Oscars have lost focus with mainstream America. If anything, the Oscars prove people don't want movies like these for the most part.


Either way, if someone doesn't like BOYHOOD that is fine. However, to say you don't buy into why people are talking so much about it is lost on me.

Well, thought Honest Trailers pretty much covered the basic reasons:




And consider that the lowest-rated Oscar broadcast in history so far was the year No Country For Old Men beat There Will Be Blood for Best Picture--And that was five nominees, with movies that had gotten wide release.

The LA Times is already predicting some records broken tomorrow night, followed by a lot of talk about just what the Oscars mean and why we follow them in the first place.

 

[Michael Elliott]

It wouldn't shock me if the viewing is low. After all, men want superheroes and women want FIFTY SHADES OF GREY and kids want Ninja Turtles. Hell, I don't blame people for not wanting to watch STILL ALICE or BOYHOOD. However, isn't this why we have the People's Choice Awards?


The "coming of age" genre has been done to death. BOYHOOD is a coming of age drama that tried to tell its story in a new way. Yes, there are flaws with the story and as a complete film but if the technical achievement, IMO, doesn't mean having to put fake dinosaurs or giant spiders up on a screen. The film was a major risk that paid off. It seems most critics and Hollywood are applauding what they did.

 

[Ejanss]

It wouldn't shock me if the viewing is low. After all, men want superheroes and women want FIFTY SHADES OF GREY and kids want Ninja Turtles. Hell, I don't blame people for not wanting to watch STILL ALICE or BOYHOOD. However, isn't this why we have the People's Choice Awards?

No, we had the People's Choice Awards because it was the 70's, and networks were hungry for variety specials more than once a year, even if they had to make up awards for it.

Sort of like A&E today with that Critics' Choice Awards (snicker!) to try and compete with original cable programming. The 70's network days were simpler times, but at least they could get away with it.


What we want is the idea that the movie we watch win, and saw in theaters in our lifetime, will be entered into some film-buff pantheon of TCM 100 Greatest Movies, like Unforgiven, Amadeus or Schindler's List (and we get to laugh with cineaste superiority at those naive headline-gullible saps who thought it would be the "critically acclaimed independent films" of The Crying Game, The Killing Fields or The Piano). And when Crash beat out Brokeback Mountain that one year, we knew something was wrong that needed a lot of fixin'.

It's the reason you rarely watch the World Series or Super Bowl if your hometown team isn't in it.

The "coming of age" genre has been done to death. BOYHOOD is a coming of age drama that tried to tell its story in a new way. Yes, there are flaws with the story and as a complete film but if the technical achievement, IMO, doesn't mean having to put fake dinosaurs or giant spiders up on a screen. The film was a major risk that paid off. It seems most critics and Hollywood are applauding what they did.

No, they're applauding the stunt, and those who are clapping the loudest are doing it to piss off some burning grudge they had at some summer movie that bothered them.

(Oh, come on, you came that close to saying The Hobbit, might as well just say it, you know you want to...)

 

[TravisR]

No, they're applauding the stunt...

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not. I even noted in the Boyhood thread back in August that "The movie isn't just some gimmick of having shot for 12 years- it's a really wonderful movie."

 

[Michael Elliott]

People who don't like BOYHOOD seem to be attacking those who do for just liking the "stunt" of it. The stunt is what made it special but there's still some great filmmaking and acting behind it. Had the film been bad then critics would have attacked the filmmakers for wasting so much time on one film. As Travis pointed out, had the kid grew up to be a bad actor, it would have thrown everything off. There were a lot of risks in the film.


The World Series and Super Bowl are two items I watch even if my team isn't in them. Considering their ratings are higher than any regular game, I'd say more people tune in even if they don't like/know the team.


As far as CRASH beating this or Sean Penn beating that.....well, the Oscars have always had "issues" but it's an award show. Sometimes people win because it's their "time" or because they're liked. I'm sure Eddie Murphy could give the greatest performance in the history of cinema and he's not going to win anything. I think Variety posted an essay the other day by an Academy voter who gave her reasons for why she's picking certain things. I believe it was Charlton Heston who said his wife filled out his sheet. I'm sure 98% of those voting hasn't seen every film like certain people in this thread.

 

[Ejanss]

As far as CRASH beating this or Sean Penn beating that.....well, the Oscars have always had "issues" but it's an award show. Sometimes people win because it's their "time" or because they're liked. I'm sure Eddie Murphy could give the greatest performance in the history of cinema and he's not going to win anything. I think Variety posted an essay the other day by an Academy voter who gave her reasons for why she's picking certain things. I believe it was Charlton Heston who said his wife filled out his sheet. I'm sure 98% of those voting hasn't seen every film like certain people in this thread.

It wasn't the winner that was the issue, it was the nominees, or lack thereof. Even some of us who would never normally go out and watch the annual George Clooney nominee went out and saw/rented Good Night and Good Luck just to root for it that year, since it was the only one that looked like it should be a Best Picture.

Crash had a reason for winning, even if was a contemptibly goofy wrong reason that could only happen on the West Coast. Would that we had such clarity this year. (Assuming that Boyhood clearly isn't a stunt that one shows off to praise, and even that novelty faded a month or so ago.)

Crash vs. anything, even Brokeback, seemed like a Good vs. Evil battle to keep Crash from winning--which, when there's that much hype and West-coast thinking, is usually a lost cause, like Hugo vs. The Artist--and if we have anything this year, it's tuning in to root for "Don't believe the Boyhood hype!" Which causes massive depressions and letdowns afterwards if the inevitable happens, because nobody can control the West coast with reason and logic.


Otherwise, to paraphrase Edmund Blackadder, we were being told that something we have never seen is slightly less better than something else we have never seen, and this year it's multiplied times ten. It shouldn't be.