The 96th Annual Academy Awards (Sunday, 3/10/24)

[Goodsport]

Anyone here planning to watch this show?

With things being so hectic lately, I haven't had the chance to see any of the Best Picture nominees yet. Which movie(s) should I be rooting for to win?

I did happen to watch Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (nominated for Best Original Score) in the theater last summer and Napoleon (nominated for Best Visual Effects, Best Production Design and Best Costume Design) on Apple TV+ last night, but I have yet to watch any of this year’s Best Picture nominees.

To rectify that, I plan to watch Killers of the Flower Moon on Apple TV+ sometime this week and will hopefully be able to find the time for one more (perhaps Oppenheimer) before this Sunday.

In any case, I know what else I’ll need for watching the broadcast.

And lastly, in honor of the Best Director race:

​

-G

 

[Morrus]

Yeah after year we try to stay up and watch the Oscars, but they start at 2am and end at like 5am. We've not managed it yet!

We intend to try again this year. We do not expect to succeed.

 

[aco175]

Well, I did see Barbie (by default) and want to see Oppenheimer. The rest appear like every other year where I have no clue or interest in those movies. I'm likely less cultured than most though.

I have no plan to see these award shows.

 

[The Soloist]

Nope. It's boring as hell.

The voting system doesn't favour the actual best movie of the year. It's about the internal politics of the Academy and the Studios. If you look at the list of best films of the year you will be surprised who won over objectively better movies.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's about the internal politics of the Academy and the Studios. If you look at the list of best films of the year you will be surprised who won over objectively better movies.

It's all about who spends the most on bribes gift baskets!

 

[Morrus]

Well, I did see Barbie (by default) and want to see Oppenheimer. The rest appear like every other year where I have no clue or interest in those movies. I'm likely less cultured than most though.

No, no, as we're told constantly nobody makes anything but IP-sequels these days!

(Or they do, just people don't watch them)

who won over objectively better movies.

Will... not... take... the ... bait...

 

[The Soloist]

Will... not... take... the ... bait...

I'm not baiting. It's been discussed several times over the years.

An article about the topic: 40 nominees that should have won. I don't necessarily agree with all the choices but Shakespeare in Love winning over Saving Private Ryan didn't make sense, as do several other wins.

40 Best Picture Nominees That Deserved to Win the Oscar

'Doctor Strangelove,' 'Fargo,' 'Get Out,' 'Broadcast News,' 'Pulp Fiction': These famous nominees should've won Best Picture at the Oscars.

www.indiewire.com

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not baiting. It's been discussed several times over the years.

An article about the topic: 40 nominees that should have won. I don't necessarily agree with all the choices but Shakespeare in Love winning over Saving Private Ryan didn't make sense, as do several other wins.

Naw. You're missing the joke. You said, "objectively better movies."

No such thing. Just like there's no "objectively best acting performance." It's all subjective. Now, I would agree with the following:

1. In retrospect, there were years that you would really question the Best Picture winner. See, e.g., Crash.

2. Some years, people rightfully questioned the Best Picture winner at the time. See, e.g, Green Book.

But two things need to be said- there is no way to "objectively" say that, for example, Saving Private Ryan is an objectively better movie than Shakespeare in Love. You might prefer it, and have very good reasons for doing so, but others might say that SIL is one of the very few examples in modern times of a romantic comedy being able to breakthrough the traditional Academy bias against certain types of movies (comedies, genre films, etc.) to win Best Picture.

The other thing you have to remember is the that Academy Awards are, very much, an industry event. Which means that there are trends, biases, and (yes) friendships and enmities that go into the process. In addition, there are often technical aspects that most people aren't familiar with, but industry professionals are familiar with.

Oh, and there is the lobbying and parties, too.

 

[The Soloist]

Naw. You're missing the joke. You said, "objectively better movies."

No such thing. Just like there's no "objectively best acting performance." It's all subjective. Now, I would agree with the following:

1. In retrospect, there were years that you would really question the Best Picture winner. See, e.g., Crash.

2. Some years, people rightfully questioned the Best Picture winner at the time. See, e.g, Green Book.

But two things need to be said- there is no way to "objectively" say that, for example, Saving Private Ryan is an objectively better movie than Shakespeare in Love. You might prefer it, and have very good reasons for doing so, but others might say that SIL is one of the very few examples in modern times of a romantic comedy being able to breakthrough the traditional Academy bias against certain types of movies (comedies, genre films, etc.) to win Best Picture.

The other thing you have to remember is the that Academy Awards are, very much, an industry event. Which means that there are trends, biases, and (yes) friendships and enmities that go into the process. In addition, there are often technical aspects that most people aren't familiar with, but industry professionals are familiar with.

Oh, and there is the lobbying and parties, too.

LOL! Sometimes shows that I'm not a native English speaker.

There are objectively better acting performances. For example, Jack Nicholson's performance in Cuckoo's Nest is objectively better than Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face in Batman Forever. It's not a subjective.

It's a common misconception to think that nothing is objectively better in art. As someone with a degree in Cinematography and Graphic Arts, it's a bit discouraging when even highly educated people believe in that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

LOL! Sometimes shows that I'm not a native English speaker.

There are objectively better acting performances. For example, Jack Nicholson's performance in Cuckoo's Nest is objectively better than Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face in Batman Forever. It's not a subjective.

It's a common misconception to think that nothing is objectively better in art. As someone with a degree in Cinematography and Graphic Arts, it's a bit discouraging when even highly educated people believe in that.

Okay. I'll bite.

What objective measurement are you using? In other words, describe to me an agreed-to referent that relies on completely factual data that all people would agree upon that makes it objective. You know, in the same way that all people can agree that 300 degrees Kelvin is objectively hotter than 200 degrees Kelvin.

Is there some unit of measurement of acting ability, such that every performance can be measured objectively? And can you tell me what that is in both metric and imperial units?