It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Oscars pick BS.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:51 PM
I realized Hollywood was bulls# when I was a kid. It's only gotten exponentially worse.

Hence, now in my 30's, I proudly have no idea what Birdman or Guardians of the Galaxy are about or who is in them.

It's all propaganda, folks. No matter who wins, we all lose. Stop giving these people your time, money and (most importantly) your consciousness.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:03 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Well I don't really view pseudo-comedies as real comedies. I'm talking about satires. Plus one thing about good comedy is that it is rewatchable. Bad comedy may get a laugh the first time you watch it, but GOOD comedy lets you keep coming back and finding new things to laugh at. Notable mentions in that regard: Caddyshack, Big Lebowski, Old School. Then there are the satires that turn normal society on its head by laughing at the terrible things we find normal (usually though inattentiveness or even outright hypocrisy).

Life isn't always serious and the Oscars does a disservice to the art it is trying to award by trying to pretend like that is the only type of movie that deserves recognition.

Of course all that doesn't take into account that big name stars have to get the Oscars and rarely do movies featuring no name actors win them either. Indy films might as well not even be mentioned. I feel like the Oscars just mirrors the worst of Hollywood's self-serving behavior.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:06 PM
a reply to: NthOther

Writing off an art form because the mainstream version of it has turned to bland, corporate crap is a pretty extreme measure. I'm sure you get much satisfaction out of not watching any movies, but you have to admit that art is art. Even in a world of crap, good stuff still comes out from the true artists.

I'd say that this gripe rubs me the wrong way more so when people express it about the music industry (especially now that the music industry is more accessible to quality artists than ever before), but it rings equally true about movies.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:10 PM

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: olaru12

My bf and I watched A Million Ways to Die in the West a few nights ago, and even though we have vastly different tastes in movies,we thought this would be one we could both enjoy. Nope! Some of the worst acting and worst writing. I've seen better and funnier YouTube videos. Seth MacFarlane should stick to voices.

I agree...

Even though I had a small part and it was very, very, nice to get Union Scale for 9 days it was a terrible movie.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:13 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually I would say the Harry Potter books do deserve to be in the "classical" literature canon. There is quite a bit of depth to the series, with many metaphors, symbolism etc. Just because something has mass appeal or is generally "enjoyable" to the public doesn't mean it's not worthy of being literature. The same goes for Sci fi, fantasy, comedy etc. I enjoyed Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain just as much as Harry Potter. The difference? One is older.

I agree that the Academy's choice in best pictures has been lacking. If it's for the sake of dee per meanings in place of being entertaining, how the heck did Titanic and Gladiator get best picture? Both of those were very entertaining and enjoyed by the masses, but could be seen as not quite as "deep" as others.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:15 PM
The real awards are the SAG/AFTRA awards where content is judged by people that know the industry.

edit on 24-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:32 PM
a reply to: olaru12

Dang..I have straight up starred almost everyone here because I find bits of all the respondents are saying to be true.

So I guess I have to try my own thought

I guess the problem I have is this issue of what "art" is. I can largely agree that the pure definition of art is rather objective if you prefer to define it as the first part of the definition: visual or auditory expression of creativity. If this is the case then EVERYTHING ever made is "art."

But then there is that subjective, and also true, second part: works appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.

Now I start to think that art is truly going to be in the eye of the beholder. I was a largely an 80's child and have always preferred pop for my listening pleasure. I've also largely enjoyed humorous movies that have a strong tinge of intelligence (same as stand up comedians). Sometimes so called "stupid humor" can really make you think a bit. But if you look at comedy greats you're going to often see movies like The Jerk, or Groundhog Day, or Airplane. These classics become classic by being enjoyable time and again. Over and over. To me, they are enjoyable over and over because their is such intelligence to their humor. Something that makes you double over even though you've heard it a million times.

For some reason, Steve Martin can kill me if I watch a Man With Two Brains a thousand times. The scene where the little girl says the head injury is subdural and Steve blasts her and claims it's epidural. It kills me.

But I digress because here is where the problem comes in. WHO exactly decides what is classic and watchable a thousand times? I cannot STAND Big Lebowski. Didn't once manage to curl my lips into a smile. But, who am I to tell anyone else it's garbage?

The Oscars to me seem to often be about two things.

1. Movies that carry some message. I can largely stand behind this IF they didn't seem to cast aside movies that as mentioned before; redefined or defined a genre. But they do...every year.

2. It's popularity based on people whose opinions I really don't care about. Votes by the AMPA? Then you have to lobby to win votes. I feel like a movie should be voted on by its merits, not by its extravagant parties.

But I agree that the Oscars are a snooze-fest that ignore some really great films.

I used to think "well at least the Teen Choice Awards" let teens vote...but then that's just a popularity contest too

cool thread

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:16 PM
a reply to: asmall89

I guess I view art in word form to be a bit more expansive than just mastery of plot which I agree that Rowling does have.

I would suggest that any novelist looking to write long, expansive epics study the Harry Potter series. She clearly had a well-developed plan and stuck to it very well. She also clearly knew who her characters were and stuck to them, too.

However, in terms of language, the books really aren't all that wonderful. They're serviceable at best. That doesn't make bad, but it doesn't make them art, either. Imagine someone who paints with Picasso or VanGogh's ability to compose but without their ability to use color.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:56 PM

originally posted by: Atsbhct
Maybe you have different taste in movies than the voters at the Academy?

I think that's extremely and painfully obvious.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:59 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's not really true. The Academy Award for Best Picture 2000-present:

A Beautiful Mind
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Million Dollar Baby
The Departed
No Country for Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire
The Hurt Locker
The King's Speech
The Artist
12 Years a Slave

Check out past winners and nominees on Wikipedia. I think the key is that no matter what other genres the movies could be classified under, drama must be one of them.

I have to disagree with the OP also, I thought Birdman was interesting and well acted.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:25 PM
a reply to: Entreri06

I find this opinion to be totally bizarre. I would not hesitate to claim that birdman was my favorite movie from last year.... but also maybe the best film I have ever seen.

Michael Keaton's performance is undeniable.

I just assumed that everyone thought this... since it is so plain to me.

posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 09:26 AM
...I'm just going to apologize in advance...but I couldn't resist:

Kanye?! Kanye is that you??

On a serious note, I do have to agree with you to an extent. I'm perplexed at some of the choices at these awards shows...

posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 09:42 AM
a reply to: KyoZero

But I agree that the Oscars are a snooze-fest that ignore some really great films.

Hollywood by and large is a movie factory fueled by profit thus the constant spinoffs targeting the comic book crowd and the CGI addicted syfy geeks. "Birdman" was a welcome relief from the usual bs.

The indy world is where the ART is made by artist, unincumbered by bean counters and corporate boards of directors.

Technology has changed everything....You can now make feature length films on your smart phone; I'm acting and crewing on one being shot on weekends by volunteer cast and crew here in Tamalewood.
edit on 25-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:27 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand where you coming from and that's how you view literary art. Art is very subjective. In my world if people consider Duchamp's Fountain (Toilet), or John Cage's 4'33" art then a work like Harry Potter deserves the same. Literature among many other arts changes over time and we simply do not use the same language as we did 100+ years ago. Just because it doesn't sound like Shakesphere, Dickens, Austin, etc. doesn't mean it's not art. In fact if you wrote in that type of language today you probably would get laughed at and criticized for the language being too "old".

I think in 100 years people will be surprised by what survives as art. Sometimes it's things with mass appeal sometimes it's something that was very obscure.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in