The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable

Tools    





Naaa... If you are looking at PC stuff, this is not it. It perfectly deserves the nomination.
Little women is PC female empowerment crap. Greta gerwig should win because she is a woman. What a load of horse**** is that argument.



Depends which brother. If it's Fredo, I'm pretty sure that was true in both versions of the story. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the movie also have the requisite amount of time to both Michael and Sonny. I think the problem is more that the sub-plots don't really reconnect to the main plot in any meaningful way (most obviously in the case of Lucy Mancini, but the same is arguably true of Johnny Fontane). I won't argue that the book is able to flesh out various characters in ways that are hard to accomplish even in a 3-hour movie (like going into detail about Al Neri's ex-cop background) but I didn't necessarily consider the film to be inferior for not being able to include that.
how did a conversation about 1917 end up with godfather..all roads lead to godfather i guess.



^I think that was the exact reason she had those names on the dress in the first place, dude.
I don't, I think she pulled a bunch of female directors names out of a hat and felt they were entitled to be nominated on account of being female.

I just looked at the films actually nominated for best director and they seem right to me, the big films of 2019 for the biggest awards show of them all...

and then I looked at the films Natalie Portman felt should have been nominated for best director..

Hustlers (**** me this film has a lot of poor reviews across the board)

should have swapped it out for Once Upon A Time

Little Woman.. we haven't had a screen adaption of this since way back in..

2017

should have swapped it out for 1917

Atlantics??? anybody??? Atlantics???

Its a conspiracy..
__________________
Do you know what a roller pigeon is, Barney? They climb high and fast, then roll over and fall just as fast toward the earth. There are shallow rollers and deep rollers. You can’t breed two deep rollers, or their young will roll all the way down, hit, and die. Officer Starling is a deep roller, Barney. We should hope one of her parents was not.



Account terminated on request
how did a conversation about 1917 end up with godfather..all roads lead to godfather i guess.
Perhaps.

Doesn't seem like a bad tendency to have though.
__________________
Rules:
When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."
Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.



Account terminated on request
Guys, the only way to correct the Academy is to simply no longer watch the academy awards. It's always been a preposterous concept, broken at its basal structure, and nothing but an advertising and money grab. I don't care what other award ceremonies do the same thing, there's no excuse for it.

I always had a glimmer of hope for a sliver of reason with the Academy Awards until........

2002 showed up. Yes ladies and gentlemen: Best Actor.

You have got to be kidding me.



Welcome to the human race...
Little women is PC female empowerment crap. Greta gerwig should win because she is a woman. What a load of horse**** is that argument.
I think this is edging into strawman territory at this point - it's less that she should win simply for being a woman and more that it's unfortunate that she seemingly gets shut out of the conversation for little good reason (especially when Todd Phillips somehow merits a nomination).

how did a conversation about 1917 end up with godfather..all roads lead to godfather i guess.
It started when somebody decided that Little Women didn't deserve any consideration on account of being another adaptation so of course the conversation then turns to the merits of individual adaptations.

I don't, I think she pulled a bunch of female directors names out of a hat and felt they were entitled to be nominated on account of being female.

I just looked at the films actually nominated for best director and they seem right to me, the big films of 2019 for the biggest awards show of them all...
Out of the films referenced on the dress, I've seen The Farewell, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood, and Little Women - and I would definitely put any of those ones I've seen over Joker any day of the week (haven't seen Atlantics, Queen & Slim, or Honey Boy). How many of them have you seen? I feel like that's an important factor if you want to argue based on a film's merits as opposed to the director's gender.

and then I looked at the films Natalie Portman felt should have been nominated for best director..

Hustlers (**** me this film has a lot of poor reviews across the board)

should have swapped it out for Once Upon A Time
It's got a higher RT critic average than Joker, so however many poor reviews it's got, I'm pretty sure Joker has more.

Besides, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was already nominated so that kind of defeats the purpose of a dress that highlights people that should have been nominated.

Little Woman.. we haven't had a screen adaption of this since way back in..

2017

should have swapped it out for 1917
We haven't had a movie with the Joker in it since way back in 2016, so I don't know why the last time a piece of media was adapted is relevant when judging the quality of its most recent adaptation.

And again, why swap it out for a film that was already nominated? You're really not getting the whole point of listing people who didn't make it.

Atlantics??? anybody??? Atlantics???

Its a conspiracy..
Is this like an appeal to unpopularity, like not enough people saw this movie to begin with so therefore it can't be good despite the fact that it has like a 96% critic score on RT?
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Out of the films referenced on the dress, I've seen The Farewell, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood, and Little Women - and I would definitely put any of those ones I've seen over Joker any day of the week (haven't seen Atlantics, Queen & Slim, or Honey Boy). How many of them have you seen? I feel like that's an important factor if you want to argue based on a film's merits as opposed to the director's gender
I did mention I felt the right films were nominated for the Oscars, the big films that had everybody excited and talking, this is what I thought the Oscars are, mainstream appeal.. this is always keeping in line with the Oscars, films everybody knows and has actually seen..

Besides, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was already nominated so that kind of defeats the purpose of a dress that highlights people that should have been nominated.
sorry think you misunderstood my sarcasm, I mean should of swapped Once Upon A Time for Little Woman, I know the films which were nominated

Is this like an appeal to unpopularity, like not enough people saw this movie to begin with so therefore it can't be good despite the fact that it has like a 96% critic score on RT?
The conspiricy thing was not in regards to.. Atlantics??.. but in regard to... somewhere there is a bunch of white guys sat around a table laughing gleefully at their all male choices for best director awards.



Welcome to the human race...
I did mention I felt the right films were nominated for the Oscars, the big films that had everybody excited and talking, this is what I thought the Oscars are, mainstream appeal.. this is always keeping in line with the Oscars, films everybody knows and has actually seen..
Doesn't make any of it exempt from criticism, though.

sorry think you misunderstood my sarcasm, I mean should of swapped Once Upon A Time for Little Woman, I know the films which were nominated
Sounds like you're trying to pass off bad structuring as sarcasm since you went on to specify Little Women being swapped out for 1917 anyway - you shouldn't have to point out that you know which films are nominated.

The conspiricy thing was not in regards to.. Atlantics??.. but in regard to... somewhere there is a bunch of white guys sat around a table laughing gleefully at their all male choices for best director awards.
Hard to know where to break these quotes up, I'll say that much.



Little women is PC female empowerment crap. Greta gerwig should win because she is a woman. What a load of horse**** is that argument.
Well to you maybe! But hey, not trying to change your opinion. Just saying it deserved it.
__________________
My Favorite Films



Consider the possibility that maybe some people are thoughtlessly saying she was snubbed just because she was a woman...but that it's also true she deserved a nomination, even if they would've said so either way. It's not either-or.



Account terminated on request
Consider the possibility that maybe some people are thoughtlessly saying she was snubbed just because she was a woman...but that it's also true she deserved a nomination, even if they would've said so either way. It's not either-or.
Sounds reasonable.

However, I think the problem I have with any of these arguments is that it first requires me to answer this question with a yes:

Are the Oscars run in a way that makes fundamental sense?

Since I can't quite answer that with a yes, to me it seems like we're arguing about the best way to tune an engine missing all its cylinders.

{shrug}



I am the Watcher in the Night
I am not sure about this whole "sell out" nonsense...

In terms of 1917 itself, I think it was a better film than Parasite but no problem in the latter winning the gong cos it was just so damn good!

The best direction Oscar has to go to Mendes...remember, this is an Oscar about the person or persons who have been the top in their field in that particular time frame...Mendes' ability to construct several scenes into a single take, to combine exceptional cinematography with a good script and terrific acting, all while handling near perfect special effects is the job of a director...and it is the best example this year.
__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I haven't seen 1917 but I've seen other Mendes movies, and he's good but I feel his movies are shot in a more generic way, like how all these other directors are doing it as well. But still need to see 1917.



The trick is not minding
I haven't seen 1917 but I've seen other Mendes movies, and he's good but I feel his movies are shot in a more generic way, like how all these other directors are doing it as well. But still need to see 1917.
Nothing generic about 1917 nor American Beauty.



Welcome to the human race...
On a fundamental level, they are pretty generic - one's a men-on-a-mission war movie, the other's a dysfunctional family drama. It is interesting to see the argument that they are shot generically since it seems like Mendes tends to employ renowned cinematographers like Conrad L. Hall or Roger Deakins, but there's always the question as to whether or not their particular skill adds anything to the film under his direction - the former winning an Oscar for his work on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid makes sense to me, but winning for American Beauty...less so. Even Deakins has his recognisable visual trademarks that he's arguably overused (e.g. nighttime scenes where characters are silhouetted against very orange fire and smoke) that impress because of their sharp contrast but are also few and far between when you consider how low in contrast most of 1917's lighting tends to be.

One other thing about films that consist largely of elaborate long takes (if not actually attempting to pull off a single take, whether faked or not) is that the technology has evolved to the point that they're no longer quite as much of a novelty and so more judgment is being put on whether the film in question truly merits long takes for the sake of its story (to say nothing of how it affects other elements like pacing for the sake of maintaining its technique).so as to not to come across as, well, a gimmick. I know that most of the recent Best Director winners (just Cuaron and Inarritu, really) have notably won for films that involved long takes, but I don't think that means that it's the key to winning or making the best film, especially if the underlying film doesn't quite manage to hold up in terms of substance (e.g. writing/acting). Parasite may lack the scale, but it's a much more balanced example.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well I haven't seen 1917 yet, so cannot judge it but I feel that Mendes other movies are shot more generically. If you watch Skyfall or Spectre, both movies are very yellow looking and it feels like he is just following trends since that yellow look was started in the mid 2000s, in other films. Fincher might have been the one to start it, but not sure. So I feel that Mendes's cinematography looks generic in that sense. He also edits in a very generic way too, and uses generic shots in his movies that so many other director's would have chosen I find. He is not a bad director at all, he just doesn't stand out cinematography wise.

Even with Roger Deakins, Deakins is restricted, if the director says I want you to make my movie look like so many mother movies that are coming out lately. Even on Sicario, Deakins had to restrict himself to that same yellow look.

However, Parasite is guilty of the yellow look as well, and even though I love the movie, I do think it's cinematography, is heavily influenced by a current American and British trend.



I just watched 1917 lat night and I'd be shocked if it had won Best Picture. It mostly looked good but didn't have any of the hallmarks of a truly great film. I predict it will mostly be forgotten in a few years. Now I'm going to watch the rest of the Best Pic noms and Little Women too.



A bit late to the party eh!!


It was mostly the execution of it all in such a grand scale that made it so good.


I am trying to finish Corpus Christi for three weeks now but just too drunk or tired to read subtitles!



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well I watched the movie. It was good and pretty impressive, but I guess I could see what people mean when there is not much for character development? Perhaps it should be viewed the same way as a movie like The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, where it's not a character study, but more about the spectacle of it's world itself?



Character development in a war movie is not that important to be honest for me. Unless you are making a movie on an individual in who took part in a war. Like Hacksaw Ridge.