The Oscars

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Blue Straggler 04 Mar 2018

My old thread is archived. 

I have not taken the time to make half-decent predictions but I will stick my neck out here and say I think there will be an upset in Best Actress; everyone is saying Frances McDormand (and she was very very good), but I have a feeling that either Saoirse Ronan or Margot Robbie will get this award.

  Best Original Screenplay is probably the most "exciting" category this year in terms of actually having five extremely strong and truly original contenders. 


It's a good year for nominations (I even don't mind too much about a lot of the omissions like M Williams, J Chastain, C Bale, R Pike, the film "mother!" being entirely snubbed etc., as it only means that there have been loads of good films recently), I think on my previous thread I suggested that this was one of the most "indie / leftfield" set of nominations for a long time. 


Does anyone else on here care? 
An Oscar win gives the winner a huge amount of clout in the film industry, and that clout can last for many years - it helps define which films get made in future (e.g. some edgy controversial thriller will be instantly greenlit if the producers manage to secure an Oscar-winning star in a major role). It's not simply a night of back-slapping.

Post edited at 20:57
1
 Skyfall 04 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Is there anywhere on tv (incl Sky) the oscars can be watched?  

Removed User 04 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

So you think Garry Oldman has best actor?

I don't think Margot Robbie will get best female actor so its between the other two (assuming you are right to dismiss Streep and Hawkins

I hope Dunkirk wins best picture simply because so many people still don't know the story.

Post edited at 21:32
1
In reply to Skyfall:

I have no idea, sorry! I only once stayed up and watched the ceremony, it is many hours long with a lot of filler. Probably nice if you are actually there and somehow involved. These days I just look at the results when I wake up. Maybe if I were living in the US and could watch it at a sensible time, I might watch it. 

 Skyfall 04 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I have watched it several times but many years ago and, yes, it was v long !

In reply to Removed User:

> So you think Garry Oldman has best actor?

I didn't suggest that. He is the "favourite". I can't call it. I've only seen 2/5 of the films nominated for Best Actor. 

> I don't think Margot Robbie will get best female actor so its between the other two (assuming you are right to dismiss Streep and Hawkins

I might be right, I might be wrong. It might be an obvious McDormand win. Robbie is arguably the outsider here - no previous nominations, and playing a controversial real-life character in a film that is not "premiere league Oscar bait" which is not nominated for Best Picture, Director or Screenplay. The odds are stacked against her. But she was really really good!

> I hope Dunkirk wins best picture simply because so many people still don't know the story.


Do you actually think that somehow more people will suddenly know the story better after Dunkirk wins Best Picture?!

 

Post edited at 21:37
 Stichtplate 04 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I can't stand the Oscars, and all the other multitudes of self congratulatory, fake arse media land award shows. The Oscars seem to be especially adept at ignoring quality films and voting on grounds other than artistic ones.

Are you going to see "You were never really here"? Looks interesting.

Removed User 04 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> I didn't suggest that. He is the "favourite". I can't call it. I've only seen 2/5 of the films nominated for Best Actor. 

I'd like to see Denzel get it.

> I might be right, I might be wrong. It might be an obvious McDormand win. 

I feel that is what will happen

> Do you actually think that somehow more people will suddenly know the story better after Dunkirk wins Best Picture?!

No, its more a case of shoving it down their throats

 

 nathan79 04 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think this year the whole thing is going to be overshadowed by the events that have come out.

 Tom Valentine 05 Mar 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

Does a film have to be "artistic" to be good?

 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Well I got that wrong. Great for Frances though, she was great and I am glad to see Sam Rockwell win too despite odds being stacked against him

drmarten 05 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm not really up nor down when it comes to the Oscars but having seen quite a lot of the nominated films this year I had an interest. If I were putting on a bet I would have lost money on the best film and wouldn't have picked Sam Rockwell, but his co star Woody Harrelson. I would have gone along with best actor/actress/supporting actress. The Shape of Water didn't do much for me at all I'm afraid, it was 3 Billboards (followed by I,Tonya) which I thought deserved the 'best picture' award.

Does anyone know the difference betwen Sound Editing and Sound Mixing when it comes to the Oscars, as it seems quite a similar pair of awards?

 

 Stichtplate 05 Mar 2018
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Does a film have to be "artistic" to be good?

Sloppy post on my part. The Oscars ignore good films far too often to sustain the esteem in which they are generally held.

In reply to Stichtplate:

> > Does a film have to be "artistic" to be good?

> Sloppy post on my part. The Oscars ignore good films far too often to sustain the esteem in which they are generally held.

Do you think that this year's nominations (for Best Picture and also generally across the board) were not, for the most part, good films? 
When the "front runners" seem to be Dunkirk, Lady Bird, The Shape of Water and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri', I think it's a good year. Could complain that it's a bit too Caucasian, I suppose...and that more edgy stuff like The Killing of a Sacred Deer and "mother!" has been overlooked, but it's better than when it was full of schmaltz like The Mirror Has Two Faces and Lorenzo's Oil and Nell....

In reply to drmarten:

I agree about The Shape of Water. I didn't post a more complete review beyond my mediocre 6.5/10 score, because I asked if anyone wanted one and nobody replied. But I found it to be much more corny and cheesy than I'd expected. Maybe that is my fault and not the film's. But that 1962 Cold War setting promised something a bit more politically gritty, and didn't deliver on it. Also if the creature came from the rivers of South America, why was salt so important? I didn't even do GCSE Biology and this still managed to bug me. And Octavia Spencer, poor woman - good actress but always drafted in just to kind of stand with arms folded physically blocking antagonists and rolling her eyes, with optional "oh Lordy" statements

In reply to drmarten:

I thought Allison Janney in I, Tonya was rather shrill and one-note, but I know she was the favourite to win and she's been around for ages and is much loved; I never saw The West Wing but I've seen a fair amount of her film work and she is a good comic actress, but terrible in The Girl on the Train (bad writing rather than bad acting though). 
I would hazard that her being a shoo-in for best Supporting Actress was one of many factors against Margot Robbie winning. 

 Stichtplate 05 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Do you think that this year's nominations (for Best Picture and also generally across the board) were not, for the most part, good films? 

> When the "front runners" seem to be Dunkirk, Lady Bird, The Shape of Water and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri', I think it's a good year. Could complain that it's a bit too Caucasian, I suppose...and that more edgy stuff like The Killing of a Sacred Deer and "mother!" has been overlooked, but it's better than when it was full of schmaltz like The Mirror Has Two Faces and Lorenzo's Oil and Nell....

All good points. Maybe the Oscars have improved recently? I have been studious about not following them for a number of years now, partly as a result of the amount of nauseating lovvie posturing, but mostly after a long run of shitty wins and snubbed masterpieces in a whole load of categories.

In reply to Stichtplate:

>  Maybe the Oscars have improved recently? 

I believe the expansion to have ten instead of five nominees for Best Picture, has been an improvement not only in that category but in a knock-on-effect way, spreading a more diverse set of nominations across the other categories (even with only 5 nominations in each acting category, for example, it's become more interesting because nominations in acting categories are more likely if the film is up for Best Picture)

 

 

> but mostly after a long run of shitty wins and snubbed masterpieces in a whole load of categories.

...and of course there is the flipside of my comment above - a wider spread of nominations can mean more snubs (most obviously you now have NINE losers in the Best Picture category! )

 

In reply to drmarten:

> Does anyone know the difference betwen Sound Editing and Sound Mixing when it comes to the Oscars, as it seems quite a similar pair of awards?

Well, they are completely different technical skills that have to be done by different people in different departments. As different as sound recording is from either of them. The sound or dubbing editor (UK expression) designs and constructs the sound tracks – in the old days, when it was all done on separate magnetic tracks, there would be three other sound editors working under the dubbing editor, for dialogue, effects and music (each with an assistant). The sound or dubbing mixer is the person who mixes those multiple tracks together in the dubbing theatre. The dialogue and effects tracks are mixed first and then the music tracks added/mixed. Although they are all finally combined, the dialogue masters and the music and effects masters are kept separate, so that different language versions of the dialogue tracks can be made. I worked mainly as an assistant (picture) editor (another completely separate job), but also as a music editor, and once as an assistant dialogue editor. All completely different jobs. The only thing they have in common is that they are done in a cutting room.

 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Did you used to wince at the notion of the old Oscar for "Best Sound", and did you rejoice when they sub-categorised it?

drmarten 05 Mar 2018
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Thanks Gordon, it all sounds very technical and perhaps it is done so well these days that it is a compliment that it goes unnoticed to those of us content to merely enjoy a film.

 

 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Slightly, but not much. It is, after all, mostly to do with how audiences perceive/ receive films that matters.

In reply to drmarten:

What's so fascinating about film ... right from it's earliest days ... is that there's quite a lot more going on technically than most people realise. If a film's well cut they don't notice the cuts (often between 10 and 40 a minute). What many people don't seem to realise is that it's NEVER because a cut is 'subtle' in any kind of way. If it's subtle, it will jar immediately. They only work because each shot is completely and extremely different. It also works because it works a bit like our eyeballs work (saccadic? movement, or whatever the technical term is.)

In reply to drmarten:

Another thing: dissolves and fades can scarcely be considered part of the 'language' of cinema. You could argue that they're a kind of easy wimp-out. Their only real value is in indicating massive changes/leaps in time or place. And that's how most of the best directors use them, very sparingly.

Post edited at 22:33

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...