Birdman (2014) starring Michael Keaton

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by mikeyt, Aug 31, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Larry Mc

    Larry Mc Forum Dude

    The wife and I go every Tuesday afternoon, then go to dinner.
     
    razerx, chacha and mikeyt like this.
  2. Myke

    Myke Trying Not To Spook The Horse

    No, theirs. They went away, ceased to exist. I didn't. Now they are all just fond memories of the past.
    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
  3. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    soon to be watched!
     
  4. guy incognito

    guy incognito Senior Member

    Location:
    Mee-chigan
    The New York Times had an article about the growing chasm between critical consensus and popular taste reflected in the Oscars.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/m...owing-gap-between-moviegoers-and-academy.html

    It's not bad, but I had to chuckle a bit at this:

    Right. As opposed to, say, Transformers: Age of Extinction.
     
    Mark Nelson and zobalob like this.
  5. razerx

    razerx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sonoma California
    There are the MTV and People's Choice awards to bring balance to the universe.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
    guy incognito and JimC like this.
  6. Ed Hughes

    Ed Hughes Senior Member

    Location:
    phila.pa.
    I saw this on Blu-Ray night before the Oscars. I loved it,thought it was terrific.
    I was disappointed Keaton didn't win best actor. Next up Whiplash probably this weekend.
     
    mikeyt likes this.
  7. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    There are no movie theaters in Nashville?
     
  8. I was thinking the same thing !?
     
  9. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    That whole article is laughable. Sorry, big entertaining films are seldom worthy of best picture consideration. Not saying that there isn't merit to them, after all, the primary purpose of films is to entertain. I went to the theater last year and had a good time watching films like Captain America: Winter Soldier and Guardians of The Galaxy, they were well-made, big entertainment that brought a smile to my face...but I would never consider either film as deserving of an Oscar outside of their technical achievements.
     
    Mark Nelson, zobalob and mikeyt like this.
  10. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Why? Why do movies need to be "serious" and "meaningful" to be worthy of awards?

    It drives me nuts that Oscars almost always tend toward so-called "important" films...
     
  11. lbangs

    lbangs Senior Member

    Nominating "important" films or not, the Oscars are hardly elitist. They might be middle-brow, but there many films never nominated from the truly elitist ranks (many of which I love). For example, we didn't see a mention of Under the Skin this year...

    I also think the typical award-baiting films aren't dominating as they once did. Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Boyhood, and Whiplash hardly fit that template, even if a few others do.

    The argument that the awards should be more populist is likewise silly. We have awards for that already. They're called dollar bills. Now if a popular film is particularly great, I have no problem with it showing up as a nominee, but trying to add more popular fare just to be more inclusive is crazy. Big money already recognizes those.

    Shalom, y'all!

    L. Bangs
     
  12. mikeyt

    mikeyt Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    While I don't think that awarded films must be serious, I do think that there should be some sort of meaningfulness to them. I think that quality separates a film from being really good from really great. The best films balance it out. I would never nominate Fast Five for Best Picture, but IMO it's a masterpiece of the action genre b/c aside from great action it contains real themes and full-bodied characters. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do, and once in a while some pull it off (Dark Knight comes to mind). The idea of what's "important" may be a really subjective thing, and I agree that the Oscars tend to skew in a superficial way. But I also think that we're seeing less "Oscar bait" than in years past and I hope in the future that more diverse kinds of films get recognized.
     
    lbangs likes this.
  13. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Oscars may not pick "super-art films" like "Under the Skin", but they still often veer away from fare that appeals to mass audiences. As NPH noted in his bad Oprah joke, 7 of the 8 nominees didn't sell a lot of tickets. When the Academy picks movies loved by critics and barely seen by audiences, that seems "elitist" - and it kinda is.

    My problem is that the Academy ignores "non-serious" movies most of the time. Expanding to up to 10 BP noms - ie, "The Dark Knight Rule" - was supposed to fix that, and it kinda sorta did, but not like it should.

    Awards should be about the best movies, not the best supposedly important/serious movies...
     
    mikeyt likes this.
  14. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I think we're on the same page. Like I said, I don't think the Oscars should be the same as the People's Choice Awards, but as it stands, it's really tough for comedies, action movies or science fiction to get nominated. That's just not right, IMO...
     
    lbangs likes this.
  15. lbangs

    lbangs Senior Member

    I'd have to look back on past years to say for certain, but this year frankly didn't have many great films that were popular successes. I think Gone Girl and X-Men: Days of Future Past are the only ones that leap to mind, and the fact that most will disagree with me on that last pick shows the problems it would have.

    Now, I do believe there are certain genres that have a tougher time than most, but I'm not sure that's only because they are popular. They aren't seen as better than mildly entertaining (and often, honestly, they're not). Maybe that's middle ground where we can agree.

    I certainly argued for Marvel's The Avengers to be considered, and most people definitely didn't take me at face value. I'd never expect either of The Raids to be represented, although I firmly believe they are deserving.

    I do agree awards should be about the best movies, but that in no way validates the joke about selling tickets as a valid criticism (to me, naturally). I don't really expect quality in any form of art to line up with popularity (I can throw out the NY Times bestselling fiction list as evidence) , although it is nice when it does.

    Shalom, y'all!

    L. Bangs
     
    mikeyt likes this.
  16. Nothing New Midnight Cowboy could gave been considered Art House and it was originally X rated.
     
  17. lbangs

    lbangs Senior Member

    Ah, you posted this before I finished typing my post. It appears we agree on the genre front, particularly where action, raunchy comedy, or comic book films are involved; however few from those categories are truly worthy, when one is stellar, it is usually overlooked.

    I'm still impressed District 9 was nominated for Best Picture, even though fantasy and science fiction have gained a little ground with the Academy since Lord of the Rings...

    Shalom, y'all!

    L. Bangs
     
  18. TeacFan

    TeacFan Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    Arcadia, Ca.
    I guess Keaton goes back to fly fishing in Montana. He has some low profile thing in the can that was done in Canada last year.
     
  19. 90% of the Movie Biz is paycheck work & the other 10% are projects that have artistic merit which Hollywood takes 'seriously'. This is reflected in 'The Oscars' and has been for a long, long time, probably since uber-producer David O. Selznick married art & commerce with 'Gone With The Wind' back in 1939. Doesn't happen very often...

    The latest crop of Oscar nominees were decidedly 'art-house' to coin a phrase. Hell, I don't think more than 4 or 5 of the Best Pictures even played here in my wee city for more than the blink of an eye. And this statement in a previous previous post is brilliant:
    "The argument that the awards should be more populist is likewise silly. We have awards for that already. They're called dollar bills."

    Well said.
     
    Ghostworld likes this.
  20. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    For the first couple of years after the "Dark Knight Rule" took effect, it actually looked like it'd make a difference. Heck , 2009 - the first year with the new expansion of BP nominees - might've gone too far, as it was packed with "populist movies"! By my count, half the nominees were of the sort that normally wouldn't sniff a BP nod.

    2010 was still pretty good in this realm, but I think they've largely gone back to the old tried and true the last few years. A few stray from the "Oscar norm" but we've not gotten any many "un-Oscar" nominees the last few years.

    2015 might be interesting just because there are a bunch of "big popcorn films" that could make a dent with the Academy potentially. Probably not, but a boy can hope, can't he? :)
     
  21. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    All respect to L Bangs, who I think usually offers good comments, but the notion that money-makers already won their awards makes no sense to me.

    Does that mean you think only financially unsuccessful movies should be given awards? What's the cut-off? If a movie makes $200 million in the US, should that automatically disqualify it from Oscar consideration?

    "The Godfather" was a huge hit - should that have been enough reward? :confused:
     
  22. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US

    Exactly, we don't want to look like the artistic cretins of the world after Cannes and Berlin Film Festival honor Truffaut and Herzog and we proclaim "Ace Ventura" as the best picture of the year.
     
    Mark Nelson likes this.
  23. lbangs

    lbangs Senior Member

    That's not at all what I think, and I think a careful reading of my comments, especially here, would show that.

    My comment about money and reward means that if the only virtue we're promoting about a certain film is that is popular or success, then it already has it award.

    I see no reason to give such a film any additional consideration at awards season time just because it is popular than we would give to any other film.

    Shalom, y'all!

    L. Bangs
     
    zobalob likes this.
  24. Dudes, don't forget that 'The Oscars' are 'industry' awards. Artistically inclined to be sure, but 'self-voted' industry awards nonetheless. Nothing to do with money or merit, it's just what Academy members have a preference for in any given year, no more no less. Regardless of what you or I think. Or post...
     
    Mark Nelson and zobalob like this.
  25. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    I think this best explains why academy voters are a little bit more high-handed in their selections:

    This year's nominees are diverse, but the people who vote for the Oscars are not. In fact, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences continues to be an exclusive club that is 93 percent white, 76 percent male, with an average age of 63, according to the Los Angeles Times.


    You ain't gonna see "Transformers" take home the Oscars with that demographic.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine