The Official 2019 Oscars Nomination Announcements Discussions & Predictions Thread (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

It looks like there is a lot of empty space beneath that, filled with.....ahem........what is that? Fog? Smoke? Clouds?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Seriously...LOL.

 

[Edwin-S]

Regardless of tenuous connections, that is some seriously ugly set designing. It won't be winning any awards for set dressing. Eye burning in both its look and the colour.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Let's get off that tangent, folks.

 

[Edwin-S]

My last comment was purely on the sets design. It is just one ugly piece of work. Terrible in every way. Just an eyesore to look at as an example of set dressing.

 

[Carlo_M]

I just watched the Oscar nominated shorts (live action and animated) at the Nuart theater in West Los Angeles. This is my third year doing so, after discovering that this theater shows both categories in their entirety the weeks leading up to the show.

The animated films were uniformly good with none really standing out to me as a frontrunner. I remember when Kobe Bryant's animated film won it, I thought there were other, more deserving films, but he had that "I just retired" nostalgia and a lot of the academy is located in Los Angeles. This year, any of the five could win it.

What was notable were the live actions. The Nuart rep who greeted the audience as the screening was starting warned us that "this year's entries are all extremely bleak" and he was not kidding.

I thought all five live actions were exceptional. Actually in the three years I've done this, I'd say these are the best five films during that span. It's unfortunate that they're all going against each other (and it's curious as to when they're able to be nominated because a couple of the films were © 2016 or 2017.

There were however two that stood above the rest, in terms of acting, writing, directing, execution and visceral impact. I debated starting their own separate movie threads, but given how little exposure the short films get, they'd probably get no responses, so I'll list them here: Skin and Detainment.

I'll try not to give plot away, but Skin tells the story of a white supremacist family raising a young boy. It's a gripping tale of violence, racism, how that behavior is learned and stays within families and communities. I'd say more but it would spoil it. What's interesting is, according to the filmmaker, it was begun well before the current political climate, Charlottesville, and the 2016 election results. So this filmmaker was really a bit ahead of the game in terms of surfacing what is now on the daily news cycle.
Here's the official trailer:


Detainment claims it's a "true story based on the tapes" surrounding the James Bulger murder in the UK in 1993. And no, for those unfamiliar, this is not James "Whitey" Bulger, of FBI Most Wanted and The Departed fame. Lesson: maybe if you're last name is Bulger, don't name your child James. [/end of attempted humor]

Obviously the story is true, so that's not in debate. The only thing I don't know is how "true to the tapes" it really is, having never heard them. Here's the trailer and 3 short clips from the film.

Again, all five films were tremendous: Fauve, Marguerite and Madre. If they had been entered the last couple of years, I would gladly have supported each of them as the category winner. But this year, Skin and Detainment are emotional and artistic tour de forces that I feel are must-watch movies. They are what is best in movies. Powerful stories. Powerful acting and directing. Wholly engrossing. Thought provoking. Emotionally stimulating.

 

[Tino]

^^^^ This ^^^^

So if you agree with Edwin, why do you continue to post in this thread? We know Edwin well. He’s been around a long time and we know how he feels.

Or are you just interested in stating contrary opinions just for the hell of it as you are doing in the Alita thread and the 3D thread? What’s your goal? To alienate as many members here as possible? You certainly aren’t endearing yourself here with your inflammatory and sorry, quite frankly, bs posts.

Dude please give it a rest.

 

[JQuintana]

 

[Tino]

Yeah right

Counter points usually make sense.

 

[JQuintana]

Yes they do.

Again, no need to be so angry about the whole thing. Take a breath and relax. it's just the Oscars we're talking about. Not life and death.

 

[Tino]

Yes they do.

Again, no need to be so angry about the whole thing. Take a breath and relax. it's just the Oscars we're talking about. Not life and death.

No they don’t. Counter points usually make a valid argument. They don’t just take a contrary opinion like most of your posts. Or lie as you have.

And I’m not angry at all dude. I’m chill.

Carry on

 

[Edwin-S]

Are the animated shorts available on line? I'd like to watch them.

 

[Tino]

Are the animated shorts available on line? I'd like to watch them.

You mean for free? I don’t think so

 

[Edwin-S]

If I knew the site was reputable and all of nominees were hosted then I wouldn"t have an issue paying to see them. I just don't want to have to go to six different sites and pay six different charges to see them.

 

[Wayne_j]

The live action and animated shorts will be available as a package for purchase from iTunes and other stores a couple of weeks after the awards with the likely exclusion of Disney's entry in the animated category.

 

[Vic Pardo]

Just for the record, I find JQuintana's positions to be quite valid, just as I find Tino's positions to be equally valid. (And Edwin-S. And Jake...And Josh and...) I like reading this debate. You can all be right. That's the beauty of this topic. JQ represents one faction of viewers, Tino represents another. I'm guessing that many of us here have had one foot in each faction at times. We liked the skits and monologues and comedy songs when they were genuinely funny and the film montages when they genuinely promoted the art and history of film. In my case, I loved it when old Hollywood stars were brought out to present or get honorary awards or whatever. When the old stars all stopped coming, most of them now dead, and the comedy and monologues became tiresome and unfunny, I wanted the show to be shorter and offer a greater focus on the awards. I personally want a shorter show now because I fall asleep much earlier than I did 20 years ago when Billy Crystal was the host. And I have gone to bed at times before the show was over. And since the comedy/songs/monologues, etc. don't interest me anymore, I prefer a shorter show focused on the awards. But I can see how someone less interested in the awards would want to see more "entertainment" and celebrity glitz in the show. There are multiple audiences with different agendas at play here.

 

[Jake Lipson]

with the likely exclusion of Disney's entry in the animated category.

Which is okay, because Disney's entry is Bao, which is the one that most people will have seen with Incredibles 2 (and which is available with its home release.)

 

[Tino]

Just for the record, I find JQuintana's positions to be quite valid, just as I find Tino's positions to be equally valid. (And Edwin-S. And Jake...And Josh and...) I like reading this debate. You can all be right. That's the beauty of this topic. JQ represents one faction of viewers, Tino represents another. I'm guessing that many of us here have had one foot in each faction at times. We liked the skits and monologues and comedy songs when they were genuinely funny and the film montages when they genuinely promoted the art and history of film. In my case, I loved it when old Hollywood stars were brought out to present or get honorary awards or whatever. When the old stars all stopped coming, most of them now dead, and the comedy and monologues became tiresome and unfunny, I wanted the show to be shorter and offer a greater focus on the awards. I personally want a shorter show now because I fall asleep much earlier than I did 20 years ago when Billy Crystal was the host. And I have gone to bed at times before the show was over. And since the comedy/songs/monologues, etc. don't interest me anymore, I prefer a shorter show focused on the awards. But I can see how someone less interested in the awards would want to see more "entertainment" and celebrity glitz in the show. There are multiple audiences with different agendas at play here.

Fair enough.

 

[Wayne_j]

I just checked the iTunes release schedule and a package of all live action and animated shorts with the exception of Bao will be available tomorrow for $9.99.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I just checked the iTunes release schedule and a package of all live action and animated shorts with the exception of Bao will be available tomorrow for $9.99.

That's a deal. At my theater, general admission to the short programs was $10 each, so actually buying the package on iTunes would be half as much as paying to see both the live-action and animated programs in the theater.

I prefer a shorter show focused on the awards. But I can see how someone less interested in the awards would want to see more "entertainment" and celebrity glitz in the show. There are multiple audiences with different agendas at play here.

You're absolutely correct about that, and the Academy wants to attract the widest possible audience in order to get the best ratings they can get. But never before have they actually threatened to exclude presentations of some Academy Awards from the Academy Awards telecast, and that crosses a line. Some of the other stuff can be quite fun if it is well-executed, which sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. But only the awards are, you know, the title of the show, which is why cutting them out was crossing a line that they shouldn't have even thought about.