The Oscars pick BS.

I just watched birdman for the first time last night and it was garbage. Who in the hell picks these things??? It's always some controversial garbage that's not even a good movie. Like broke back mountain, another garbage movie that one best picture as well.


It's ridiculous. I'm not saying that it's some political conspiracy to do idk what. But it's really annoying. I red boxed birdman because it won best picture. It had to be decent. But once again another best picture is won by a film that barely deserves to be straight to DVD.

I wasted 2 hours of my life on thAt stupid movie.


What about captain America winter soldier? American sniper, guardians of the galaxy?

All far superior movies.

I probubally should have planned my rant out better but screw it. I'll soon forget how retarded the critics who choose the movies are and fall for it agAin next time!

Maybe you have different taste in movies than the voters at the Academy?

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

Fair enough tast is subjective, but how exactly were these controversial artsy fartsy films the best. These idiots vote that these movies are the very best one. While subjective is fair, there is no way ANYONE watched guardians of the galaxy and birdman and truely thought birdman was better....

originally posted by: Entreri06


I just watched birdman for the first time last night and it was garbage. Who in the hell picks these things??? It's always some controversial garbage that's not even a good movie. Like broke back mountain, another garbage movie that one best picture as well.




!

Unhappy with the state of todays movies are ya??? Make your own....Start with this.

www.celtx.com...

With todays technology anyone can make movies. A good story helps....

I liked "BirdMan"...The target audience was adults...and "Guardians of the Galaxy" the targeted demographic was kids and adolescents. Perhaps that's your problem.

You should like this one however....I had a small part in it.

Caution/Warning....some very explicit language in this trailer.

www.youtube.com...

Film appreciation is VERY subjective, but I agree that Birdman was crap.

a reply to: Entreri06

Lots of people probably enjoyed Birdman more than Guardians.

The reason Guardians of the Galaxy could never win a Best Picture Oscar, despite being a fabulous movie, is that it's a cut and dry sci-fi thriller. Guardians doesn't make you question anything. You sit through it, you laugh, you like the soundtrack, that's about it. It explores space, but doesn't explore any amazing themes. Guardians is great because it's flashy, the soundtrack is amazing, and the characters are fun and sympathetic.

Birdman on the other hand explores surrealism, and probably resonated with Academy voters because the main character is so attached to his superhero persona after years of playing him. With method acting, etc. how do we know that actors don't become characters, at least in their own mind?

Guardians is a commercially and visually stunning movie, but Birdman is more deserving of the Oscar, in my opinion.

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.

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.

Yup a a million ways was horrible and I love Seth!!

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Entreri06

Lots of people probably enjoyed Birdman more than Guardians.

The reason Guardians of the Galaxy could never win a Best Picture Oscar, despite being a fabulous movie, is that it's a cut and dry sci-fi thriller. Guardians doesn't make you question anything. You sit through it, you laugh, you like the soundtrack, that's about it. It explores space, but doesn't explore any amazing themes. Guardians is great because it's flashy, the soundtrack is amazing, and the characters are fun and sympathetic.

Birdman on the other hand explores surrealism, and probably resonated with Academy voters because the main character is so attached to his superhero persona after years of playing him. With method acting, etc. how do we know that actors don't become characters, at least in their own mind?

Guardians is a commercially and visually stunning movie, but Birdman is more deserving of the Oscar, in my opinion.

Exactly how many people do you think will look back a birdman and think it was the best movie they saw this year? Like maybe 2%..... It won as you eluded to, because it reminded the voters of the movie industry. That's it.

a reply to: Entreri06


Two percent of people will likely think of Birdman as the best movie of 2014... and this about perfectly represents the voters in the Academy. The Oscars have never been a popularity contest.

Here's a movie everyone at ATS should get a kick out of.

a reply to: Entreri06

Those movies are called Oscar bait because a formula was developed a LONG time ago to determine movies that go on to win Oscars despite many being largely forgettable. Genres like action or comedy aren't considered. Only serious roles can be considered. Basically the Oscar's caters to itself. It is a waste of time and people give it FAR more credit than it deserves.

One thing I have found as that I age I am no longer in a desired demographic. Most movies, commercials, music etc are no longer targeting me and my wife as we are both well into our 40's.

It can be disheartening when you see yourself not connecting with popular culture anymore because you realize you are becoming that 'grumpy old man'.

I have learned to accept that the world is made for younger folks who are less tight with their money and more easily influenced by advertisers.

a reply to: Entreri06

Movies don't win Oscars based on their mass market appeal. I agree entirely that Guardians is a far more enjoyable movie to watch than something like Birdman ever would be. However, Birdman is a more "literary" movie than Guardians is, and the Oscars are meant to celebrate film in its artistic phase, not it's mass appeal one.

It's like saying that the Harry Potter books are far more deserving of a place in the classical literary canon because far more people read and enjoy them and will continue to read and enjoy and know them in every intimate little detail than will know and enjoy books by Charles Dickens or Mark Twain or Jane Austen or the Brontes.

Sorry, there is just no comparison between the literary talents. Even if there is a marked difference in the mass appeal.

a reply to: ketsuko

That is what the Oscars are SUPPOSED to be about. Execution turns it into something else though. My biggest gripe is the shunning of certain genres like they can't be considered artsy enough because they make you laugh, have too much eye candy in them, or too much gore.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


I don't look at it this way at all. If movies are made that go outside of the lines that guarantee them winning an Oscar, or a SAG or a Golden Globe, I think that's great. It makes for a more diverse and interesting landscape of films for us all to enjoy.

I don't think the oscars need to be more accepting, it's the Academy Awards and the Academy makes the rules for what is considered in the awards categories.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes and no. I agree with you up to a point although I have a really hard time seeing how a horror movie in the slasher genre would find its way to the awards.



However, I do think that films in the more speculative genre can be overlooked.

Honestly, fiction long ago got over its attitude toward the speculative genre, and I consider books to be the far superior form to film in all honesty. If we can accept that authors like Tolkien, Heinlein, Lewis, King, et. al., deserve their place on the shelf with the rest, then I don't understand uppity attitude that film has toward their genres when it comes to movie-making.

a reply to: Atsbhct

They certainly don't have to be more accepting, but I can refuse to accept them as the pinnacle of moving picture art and push my opinion so others feel the same way.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes and no. I agree with you up to a point although I have a really hard time seeing how a horror movie in the slasher genre would find its way to the awards.

Look at the first Paranormal Activity. That movie took the found footage genre of horror and transformed it into something new. You know a good horror movie when you see it. You know that the director knows how to scare the pants off of you. That shows capability in his art. Brushing it all off as just cheap gotcha moments isn't fair to the genre.

However, I do think that films in the more speculative genre can be overlooked.

Honestly, fiction long ago got over its attitude toward the speculative genre, and I consider books to be the far superior form to film in all honesty. If we can accept that authors like Tolkien, Heinlein, Lewis, King, et. al., deserve their place on the shelf with the rest, then I don't understand uppity attitude that film has toward their genres when it comes to movie-making.

The genre that gets it the worst would have to be comedy. Comedians are barely considered actors in Hollywood. But GOOD comedy exposes issues in society while also giving a good laugh.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I actually haven't seen Paranormal Activity.

However, I think a lot of comedy that's looking for awards tends to rope itself into other genres like drama. It's like that scene from Tropic Thunder. "You went full retard. Never go full retard." Only in this case, you went full comedy. Never go full comedy. It's unfair, but it exists.