2017 TV/Movie/Book Thread with Spoilers

[MikeIsGood]

I haven't seen La La Land yet, so won't comment there on what "should have" won, but Moonlight was powerful and I felt very deserving. Historic win on many levels, too.

I really enjoyed the telecast this year, though it was long af. All awards shows are flawed in their own ways (Grammys being the worst, IMO), but I'm a junkie and watch almost all of them.

[FrieAaron]

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.)

I'm curious, though, what do you mean by standing the test of time? Are we talking subjectively in terms of what has aged well or what has remained in the public consciousness? If the latter, would you then say "It's a Wonderful Life" would have been more deserving than "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "Brief Encounter?" Because I certainly think those two hold up as great films even though they're more forgotten than the Capra movie.

FWIW, since everyone else is commenting on recent winners, I think "Birdman" was probably the best since "No Country For Old Men," followed by "Moonlight."

[ReasonablySober]

Watch on YouTube

This looks bonkers.

[M-C-G]

Watch on YouTube

This looks bonkers.

Are they in a competition with Hulk to do the most remakes possible?

[thomchatt3rton]

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.)

I'm curious, though, what do you mean by standing the test of time? Are we talking subjectively in terms of what has aged well or what has remained in the public consciousness? If the latter, would you then say "It's a Wonderful Life" would have been more deserving than "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "Brief Encounter?" Because I certainly think those two hold up as great films even though they're more forgotten than the Capra movie.

FWIW, since everyone else is commenting on recent winners, I think "Birdman" was probably the best since "No Country For Old Men," followed by "Moonlight."

Like I said, the longevity test is not perfect. But it's usually a pretty good indication of...something. It's not automatic and every case requires being considered individually. I think you know that.

I guess I'd say that remaining in the public consciousness for a long time is worth something, but there can be all kinds of reasons for that.

It's a Wonderful Life has stood, largely, I think, because of it's association with the Christmas holiday. It's a tradition. It's merits as a movie (I've never seen it but I'm sure it's well-done and beloved for good reason) aren't really the reason for it's ongoing relevance are they?

If it fades away, which it likely will, it will be because it's appeal is due to it's association with Christmas, not because of it's greatness as art. It'll die by the same sword it currently lives by. Compare it to something like Citizen Kane, which has remained purely on it's own merits for artistic and technical achievements.

I'm not a film expert at all, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that IAWL has the same longevity among film buffs, filmmakers, film students etc as it does with network TV programmers. So add that to the equation.

Similarly, not all great art survives the test of time. There are all kinds of reasons why this happens- some are "just" and some aren't. It's not a perfect rule. It's not even a rule (except of thumb).

I haven't seen those other movies you mention so I can't comment. I think you understand what I'm saying anyway.

[Bucksfan28]

Kong is gonna be ****** great.

[Diggr14]

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.

Nothing I said was racist. You are out of line repeating this over and over. Get a grip.

[Bucksfan28]

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

Had to chime in and show support for Crash. I love that movie and am glad it won.

[humanrefutation]

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.

Very good point on the first sentence. You see this in a variety of contexts in today's society. People are not used to seeing Black people - or people of color generally - occupying positions of power and fame and success. That is largely due to systemic means of excluding those individuals from those opportunities historically. In this context, those people never even thought to consider it racist when for decade after decade, every Oscar winner with few exceptions was white, because they didn't know any better. That's just them "earning it."

But now that some of those barriers are being slowly broken down, those same people are assuming that because they've never seen that success from POCs, it must not be earned (however you define "earning" an Academy Award). They believe it's a product of charity, not a product of those individuals and films finally being given the right to compete as anyone else. They didn't "earn" it. And that is a racist mentality.

If we can't identify it, we cannot correct it.

[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.

Nothing I said was racist. You are out of line repeating this over and over. Get a grip.

Oh, I'm perfectly fine. I'm not afraid to talk about race and call out racism, and you said some racist ****. You can choose to sit back and reflect on it and use it as a learning opportunity, or you can bury your head in the sand. I hope you choose the former, can't help you if you choose the latter. And if you continue choose the latter, don't think I won't call you out for it every time.

[Diggr14]

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.

Nothing I said was racist. You are out of line repeating this over and over. Get a grip.

Oh, I'm perfectly fine. I'm not afraid to talk about race and call out racism, and you said some racist ****. You can choose to sit back and reflect on it and use it as a learning opportunity, or you can bury your head in the sand. I hope you choose the former, can't help you if you choose the latter. And if you continue choose the latter, don't think I won't call you out for it every time.

Nothing I said was racist. You choose to twist it into a racist narrative. I live in Milwaukee and Houston for work. I see black people all the time. Your whole big brush to explain white america not seeing people of color is absolutely absurd and antiquated. Now, is Hollywood known for appeasement, of course it is. There are a lot of reasons for this, political (I'm not getting into) and economic (they know that being labeled a racist can affect bottom lines). At the same time, as you noted, a black director has never been nominated for best director. Why is this? Because the Hollywood aristocracy has a hammerlock on directing, producing, AAA acting roles, and owning the studios and it is not something that they want to let go of overnight (which if anything is racist, this could be.. but it more about keeping power and money within the same circles). At the same time they want to avoid the appearance that they are not allowing other groups into their sandbox. So, there is token progress in that regard, but not actual or meaningful progress in regards to who holds the dollars and power. On a side note, do explain how Emma Stone was holding her envelope, that Warren Beatty was holding at the same time? If you can't connect the dots here, in context of last years embarrassment to Hollywood, I can't help you.. especially knowing their history.

Im not going to engage in the name calling and the ridiculous insults you lob with zero basis. It is a sign of the times I guess, jump to conclusions and lob cliche insults away.

[crkone]

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."

[MickeyDavis]

Let's stop the racist debate, I let it run for awhile but it doesn't seem to be able to resolve itself. You guys can take it over to the Current Affairs board to continue if you wish. Thx.

[humanrefutation]

Oa side note, do explain how Emma Stone was holding her envelope, that Warren Beatty was holding at the same time? If you can't connect the dots here, in context of last years embarrassment to Hollywood, I can't help you.. especially knowing their history.

I'm not going to engage with your laughably pathetic reaction to my critique out of respect to MD. I will tell you that the answer to the question you posed above has been answered in this thread already if you bothered to look.

ETA: crkone did you a favor by reposting it above.

[drew881]

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.

Very good point on the first sentence. You see this in a variety of contexts in today's society. People are not used to seeing Black people - or people of color generally - occupying positions of power and fame and success. That is largely due to systemic means of excluding those individuals from those opportunities historically. In this context, those people never even thought to consider it racist when for decade after decade, every Oscar winner with few exceptions was white, because they didn't know any better. That's just them "earning it."

But now that some of those barriers are being slowly broken down, those same people are assuming that because they've never seen that success from POCs, it must not be earned (however you define "earning" an Academy Award). They believe it's a product of charity, not a product of those individuals and films finally being given the right to compete as anyone else. They didn't "earn" it. And that is a racist mentality.

If we can't identify it, we cannot correct it.

I'm not even talking about seeing people of color in roles of power, fame, or success. Of course that is something the US/world has to get used to despite it by no means being a new phenomenon. What I'm talking about is that we are so used to seeing an industry dominated by, directed by, and acted in by white people, that many are used to the same old codes of representation. A film directed by an all black cast or an all gay cast will most likely have a whole different set of aesthetics, ideologies, and audiences that it appeals to. White people like Diggr probably "don't like" the movie because it isn't really tailored for them. Sorry about that, I guess? Maybe they can take that estranged experience of not being in agreement with those lauding the film or not being completely comfortable with everything they see on screen (both content and form) and realize that this is perhaps how marginalized people (people of color, people of non hetero sexualities, women) feel watching mainstream hollywood cinema of the past 100 years.

Edit: Just saw the comment above by mod.

[emunney]

I liked La La Land and thought Moonlight was phenomenal.

[ReasonablySober]

Halfway through getting caught up on this season's Agents of SHIELD. Goddamn is it great.

[DingleJerry]

I recommend Billions. Most TV junkies should like it. 3 episodes into season 2 right now so easily can catch up and watch this season as they come out.

[FrieAaron]

I liked La La Land and thought Moonlight was phenomenal.

One of the few years I can ever remember where I really didn't have a horse in the race. I really liked both of those and "Manchester by the Sea" which was probably the other film in the top three most likely to win. Actually looking at all the awards they don't match what I would pick exactly, but I don't think I have a single gripe this year top to bottom.

[TheWig]

Watch on YouTube

This looks bonkers.

Are they in a competition with Hulk to do the most remakes possible?

Spoiler:

there will be a King Kong vs. Godzilla in the future