2017 TV/Movie/Book Thread with Spoilers

[thomchatt3rton]

I think you're thinking too hard about this. Look at the last 25 or so "best pictures"-- how many of those are you willing to go to bat for, in terms of the test of time?

Maybe I'm being unfair when I say, "at the time, they got them wrong", but I'm not wrong when I say they got them wrong.

How much of this is hindsight is 20/20 judgement is up for debate. There's no doubt that some mistakes can be chocked up to the times. But I think you give too much credit to the "you can't tell until later" side of things, and not enough to the "we knew Taxi Driver was probably better than Rocky, but Rocky was such a crowd pleaser" side of things.

That's where we differ, though. You're judging them based on the "test of time" and I'm just looking at whether they were good or not. Some of my favorite movies won't stand the test of time either. That doesn't mean they're not good movies. But to answer your question I think for the last 25 years I think "Silence of the Lambs," "Unforgiven," "Schindler's List," "Forrest Gump," "Titanic," "American Beauty," "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "No Country For Old Men" probably will.

How do you know if something is good or not? Good enough to be Best Picture?

I would argue that if something stands the test of time, that's the only way to "prove" that's it's "good". Name another way to objectively prove "goodness".

There are undoubtedly some good movies that don't stand the test of time, but there are NO bad movies that do (and I mean truly "bad", not "so bad they're good" cult movies) and most movies that are only fleetingly good are revealed as such by a very short passage of time.

I think you underrate how much the obligations of getting a Hollywood film made in the first place handicap those same films in terms of standing the test of time. Everything a studio demands of a film in order that it be a hit can practically be read as a list of reasons why the film won't last.

[FrieAaron]

How do you know if something is good or not? Good enough to be Best Picture?

I would argue that if something stands the test of time, that's the only way to "prove" that's it's "good". Name another way to objectively prove "goodness".

There are undoubtedly some good movies that don't stand the test of time, but there are NO bad movies that do (and I mean truly "bad", not "so bad they're good" cult movies) and most movies that are only fleetingly good are revealed as such by a very short passage of time.

I think you underrate how much the obligations of getting a Hollywood film made in the first place handicap those same films in terms of standing the test of time. Everything a studio demands of a film in order that it be a hit can practically be read as a list of reasons why the film won't last.

Obviously I meant by my own standards as art is by definition subjective. As you say, there are plenty of movies that people enjoy made every year that for a myriad of reasons will be "forgotten" in the grander scheme of things. It doesn't necessarily reflect on their quality.

[Diggr14]

Films win best picture every year that people don't agree with.

Birdman won a few years back, beating out Whiplash, The Imitation Game, Selma and The Theory of Everything. To me, that was a joke.

I agree 100% there. Birdman beating out any of those.. was a joke.

Whiplash was my favorite film that year. I liked Selma much better than Birdman as well.

[thomchatt3rton]

How do you know if something is good or not? Good enough to be Best Picture?

I would argue that if something stands the test of time, that's the only way to "prove" that's it's "good". Name another way to objectively prove "goodness".

There are undoubtedly some good movies that don't stand the test of time, but there are NO bad movies that do (and I mean truly "bad", not "so bad they're good" cult movies) and most movies that are only fleetingly good are revealed as such by a very short passage of time.

I think you underrate how much the obligations of getting a Hollywood film made in the first place handicap those same films in terms of standing the test of time. Everything a studio demands of a film in order that it be a hit can practically be read as a list of reasons why the film won't last.

Obviously I meant by my own standards as art is by definition subjective. As you say, there are plenty of movies that people enjoy made every year that for a myriad of reasons will be "forgotten" in the grander scheme of things. It doesn't necessarily reflect on their quality.

That last paragraph I wrote is pretty much gold- especially the last sentence. I offer it freely to any undergrad pursuing a film degree- clean it up a bit first, but after that it's yours. Never mind whether or not it's true- I can guarantee your professor won't.

I'm kidding. Would you argue that everything is subjective?

[thomchatt3rton]

Films win best picture every year that people don't agree with.

Birdman won a few years back, beating out Whiplash, The Imitation Game, Selma and The Theory of Everything. To me, that was a joke.

I agree 100% there. Birdman beating out any of those.. was a joke.

Whiplash was my favorite film that year. I liked Selma much better than Birdman as well.

There were reasons why Birdman won. From an acting and directing POV, it was pretty f*cking impressive. Impressive enough to win, IDK. Whiplash was very deserving too. The others were pretty ordinary I thought.

[MickeyDavis]

I didn't care for Birdman all that much although I liked Keaton. Whiplash was really good.

[drew881]

Oh **** off with this bullsh**. So a person of color can't win an award - a well-deserved one, mind you - without it being rigged? What kind of racist **** is this?

That is not even close to what I said, that is just stupid to jump in with "racist" bombs. However, you dont think it's above Hollywood to rig it so a non-white movie would win? Of course they would after last year. This is what these people do now, everything is about race/gender.. and its sad. Let the best movie win. This movie wasnt even close to being the best last year, from any objective observer.

*edit, I didnt see the movie with the Iranian Director.. so I can't comment on that. I just hope they aren't giving out these awards to appease people or make political points.

Nah, that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying they only won because it's an all-Black cast. And that's racist as ****, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

My first reaction was that an old man doesn't recognize that his subjective viewing tastes have been conditioned by watching 70 years of white dominated film, and that a black directed, all-black cast is going to go against those tastes regardless of any explicit racist beliefs. And then I read about appeasement. Boo.

[HKPackFan]

I didn't care for Birdman all that much although I liked Keaton. Whiplash was really good.

I disliked bird man. Just couldn't get into it, I kept expecting more and it never happened.

Sometimes I watch a movie because it won an Oscar and then I think it sucked. The English patient was extremely painful. I can never forget how painful it was sitting thru that movie and wondering how it won anything.

[ReasonablySober]

You can see that Beatty was holding the wrong card:



It clearly says "ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE."

Weird. Emma Stone says her publicist was holding the card when BP was announced.

[crkone]

You can see that Beatty was holding the wrong card:



It clearly says "ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE."

Weird. Emma Stone says her publicist was holding the card when BP was announced.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-oscars-2017-89th-academy-awards-how-could-the-best-picture-mix-up-1488175439-htmlstory.html

"In an undisclosed location, the partners tabulate votes and stuff two sets of winning envelopes, partly as another security measure and also to aid the show's flow. Stationed with their signature briefcases on opposite sides of the stage, either [PricewaterhouseCoopers partners, Brian] Cullinan or [Martha] Ruiz can dispense envelopes to presenters. At the end of the evening, each accountant will have given out about half of the envelopes.

"And the third set? 'There is no third "set" sitting somewhere that has the winning cards in the winning envelopes,' Cullinan said. However, the remaining, unstuffed envelopes and nominee cards are shipped to a second secret location, just in case some disaster prevents access to the completed sets. After the ceremony, unused cards and envelopes are destroyed by an industrial document-destruction company."

[humanrefutation]

I didn't care for Birdman all that much although I liked Keaton. Whiplash was really good.

I disliked bird man. Just couldn't get into it, I kept expecting more and it never happened.

Sometimes I watch a movie because it won an Oscar and then I think it sucked. The English patient was extremely painful. I can never forget how painful it was sitting thru that movie and wondering how it won anything.

Yeah, I didn't like Birdman, either. I thought it was one of the worst Best Picture winners of recent memory. It was a pretty weak year for awards, though. Whiplash was good, as was Selma. But I didn't think any of them were "Best Picture" good.

[humanrefutation]

Wait, because I think there are games being played by Hollywood by having a movie that wasnt very good win, because they are trying to erase the sting of last years #oscarssowhite controversy? Yeah.. that's a great reason to call someone racist. That is just trash man. That is a pretty big insult directed at a board member to make, and completely unfounded.

If the shoe fits.

If you don't want me to call you out for saying racist ****, don't say racist ****. It's not that hard.

You can say you didn't like "Moonlight." You can say that you liked La La Land more, or some other movie, without it being racist. There have been Best Picture winners that I didn't like at all. But instead of actually critiquing the movie, you decided to cite their race as the reason they won, and that's the racist trash here, man.

[FrieAaron]

I'm kidding. Would you argue that everything is subjective?

Good question. I assume you mean in terms of art, in which case...I don't know. I want to say that no, you can objectively say that a Rembrandt is "better" than something painted by a 7 year old. But then again, if the latter truly enjoys or connects more with the latter, who am I to say they're "wrong" about the matter? Certainly in technical ways you can objectively say that one piece of work is better than another, but I feel like at a certain point even that becomes subjective when both are competently done.

[humanrefutation]

I saw "Get Out" on Friday night. Good movie, but I thought they could have kicked up the horror a little bit more.

[thomchatt3rton]

I'm kidding. Would you argue that everything is subjective?

Good question. I assume you mean in terms of art, in which case...I don't know. I want to say that no, you can objectively say that a Rembrandt is "better" than something painted by a 7 year old. But then again, if the latter truly enjoys or connects more with the latter, who am I to say they're "wrong" about the matter? Certainly in technical ways you can objectively say that one piece of work is better than another, but I feel like at a certain point even that becomes subjective when both are competently done.

It's almost impossible to argue against subjectivity being the rule in art. But it's also impossible (for me) to feel entirely good about it.
That's why I keep harping on the test of time. It's crude, but it's the only "objective" measure that I can see available.
(Of course it's not without it's problems- art is cultural, and it's tough for art to have longevity if it doesn't remain relevant (or tasteful) culturally.)

[thomchatt3rton]

I didn't care for Birdman all that much although I liked Keaton. Whiplash was really good.

I disliked bird man. Just couldn't get into it, I kept expecting more and it never happened.

Sometimes I watch a movie because it won an Oscar and then I think it sucked. The English patient was extremely painful. I can never forget how painful it was sitting thru that movie and wondering how it won anything.

Yeah, I didn't like Birdman, either. I thought it was one of the worst Best Picture winners of recent memory. It was a pretty weak year for awards, though. Whiplash was good, as was Selma. But I didn't think any of them were "Best Picture" good.

Really? Worse than something like The Kings Speech? Chicago? Crash?

I actually didn't love Birdman myself, but I think there was a lot to admire from a film-making perspective, and it was certainly more interesting than a lot of other movies- I think it was great that the academy gave the BP to an unusual movie like that for once.

[humanrefutation]

I disliked bird man. Just couldn't get into it, I kept expecting more and it never happened.

Sometimes I watch a movie because it won an Oscar and then I think it sucked. The English patient was extremely painful. I can never forget how painful it was sitting thru that movie and wondering how it won anything.

Yeah, I didn't like Birdman, either. I thought it was one of the worst Best Picture winners of recent memory. It was a pretty weak year for awards, though. Whiplash was good, as was Selma. But I didn't think any of them were "Best Picture" good.

Really? Worse than something like The Kings Speech? Chicago? Crash?

I actually didn't love Birdman myself, but I think there was a lot to admire from a film-making perspective, and it was certainly more interesting than a lot of other movies- I think it was great that the academy gave the BP to an unusual movie like that for once.

I mean, I didn't say it was the worst winner in recent memory. Just one of them. Haven't seen The King's Speech. The only other one I haven't seen in the last 15 years was The Artist. I didn't like Crash very much. I thought Chicago was more watchable than Birdman.

I get the arguments about the film-making of Birdman being unique, but I think that's why the Cinematography award exists.

[humanrefutation]

I saw "Get Out" on Friday night. Good movie, but I thought they could have kicked up the horror a little bit more.

To add to this, a nice little summation of all of the interesting details present in "Get Out." LOTS OF SPOILERS if you haven't seen it, but reading through the ones in the article (and the comments) brought up a few I hadn't even thought about.

Definitely go see it if you haven't.

[thomchatt3rton]

Yeah, I didn't like Birdman, either. I thought it was one of the worst Best Picture winners of recent memory. It was a pretty weak year for awards, though. Whiplash was good, as was Selma. But I didn't think any of them were "Best Picture" good.

Really? Worse than something like The Kings Speech? Chicago? Crash?

I actually didn't love Birdman myself, but I think there was a lot to admire from a film-making perspective, and it was certainly more interesting than a lot of other movies- I think it was great that the academy gave the BP to an unusual movie like that for once.

I mean, I didn't say it was the worst winner in recent memory. Just one of them. Haven't seen The King's Speech. The only other one I haven't seen in the last 15 years was The Artist. I didn't like Crash very much. I thought Chicago was more watchable than Birdman.

I get the arguments about the film-making of Birdman being unique, but I think that's why the Cinematography award exists.

No no. You could probably make a case that it should have only won best director, and not best picture too. That, I could maybe go along with. But it wasn't a case of just having a great cinematographer.

[humanrefutation]

Really? Worse than something like The Kings Speech? Chicago? Crash?

I actually didn't love Birdman myself, but I think there was a lot to admire from a film-making perspective, and it was certainly more interesting than a lot of other movies- I think it was great that the academy gave the BP to an unusual movie like that for once.

I mean, I didn't say it was the worst winner in recent memory. Just one of them. Haven't seen The King's Speech. The only other one I haven't seen in the last 15 years was The Artist. I didn't like Crash very much. I thought Chicago was more watchable than Birdman.

I get the arguments about the film-making of Birdman being unique, but I think that's why the Cinematography award exists.

No no. You could probably make a case that it should have only won best director, and not best picture too. That, I could maybe go along with. But it wasn't a case of just having a great cinematographer.

Sure, that's fine. I won't argue that too much. But I tend to like to reward directors on films I enjoyed in one way or another, and I didn't enjoy that.