Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted August 9, 2018 Awards Moderator Posted August 9, 2018 I presumed it was an excuse for them to be able to give Black Panther an Oscar without them having to feel dirty for allowing a superhero film to be considered for any ‘proper’ awards. It’s a bit silly. Quote
Paid Members DEF Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 15 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: But if they didn't create a category for them, they'd be accused of being snobbish towards blockbusters as they wouldn't be nominated. Oscars are supposed to be about the "Art", the trophy for blockbusters is box office. Next we'll be having the "Best Spandex Fascistic Twat" Oscar. Blockbuster's are art. They just aren't pretentious art. Quote
Keith Houchen Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, DEF said: Blockbuster's are art. They just aren't pretentious art. They aren't, they're a commodity to be sold, franchised and merchandised. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, to be clear, just that they aren't art. The Oscars are bollocks though, I'm sure we all agree on that. Quote
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 I gave up on taking the Oscars seriously around the time that Chicago and Return of the King won Best Picture in 2002 and 2003 respectively, to be honest. The fact the fucking atrocious Moonlight beat Hell or High Water a couple of years back made me fucking sick. Quote
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 I have to say I really liked Moonlight but it was nowhere near the best film. Off the top of my head Arrival, Hell or High Water, Zootopia, The Nice Guys, Paterson, Finding Dory - these were all better and most of those weren't even nominated. Quote
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 The Nice Guys should have swept the floor with most categories in an ideal world. Arrival was so, so good, but it upset me and choked me up a bit too much and I haven't/won't watch it again. And not in a Terminator 2/Armageddon/ET way. It done a right number on me as I'm far too sensitive... Quote
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 I did watch it again actually, it's not normally the sort of film I would rewatch again so soon but it's certainly one of those films that benefits from a rewatch as you armed with knowledge of the plot that helps unravel certain points of it. Great film. That it's not Villeneuve's best film is just a testament to how great that guy is. Quote
Paid Members DEF Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: They aren't, they're a commodity to be sold, franchised and merchandised. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, to be clear, just that they aren't art. The Oscars are bollocks though, I'm sure we all agree on that. Nope. Just because something appeals to a mass market and makes money doesn't make it not art. 'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.' If anything blockbuster's should be considered art purely down to the sheer amount of combined creativity that goes into them. The Oscars are indeed utter bollocks though. The Lego Movie getting snubbed makes the Oscar a joke (along with many other reasons). Edited August 9, 2018 by DEF Quote
Awards Moderator Onyx2 Posted August 9, 2018 Awards Moderator Posted August 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Malbranque said: Arrival was so, so good, but it upset me and choked me up a bit too much and I haven't/won't watch it again. I was destroyed by Arrival. Just absolutely floored me. Stayed with me in a way I can't remember another film doing for a long time. But I really want to see it again soon. Quote
Keith Houchen Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 3 hours ago, DEF said: Nope. Just because something appeals to a mass market and makes money doesn't make it not art. Indeed, but when it is created to make money, it's not art. I'll give you an example. Pixar films are major studio, they are what, one every few years? They are crafted to tell a story but personally, I wouldn't call them blockbuster films any more that Ghibli ones. Blockbusters are a type of film. Big budget, big effects, big marketing and there are many of them a year that don't deviate from the production line formula. They aren't unique and that's why I wouldn't call them art. If you think they are art then so be it. X Factor winner and boy band albums must be art too. Quote
Mr_Danger Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 It's like comparing one of Butchis assembly line produced microwave meals with a Heston Blumenthal exploding cow egg or something. Art is subjective and all that but I wouldn't put a Marvel production in the same gallery as a David Lynch film that barely got funded because everyone knows there's no money to be made from it. Quote
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 Look. They're all art except some are more arty than others. Never mind all that, this is important:- Quote
Merzbow Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 When the hell is Sorry To Bother You coming out over here? Quote
Paid Members DEF Posted August 9, 2018 Paid Members Posted August 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Indeed, but when it is created to make money, it's not art. I'll give you an example. Pixar films are major studio, they are what, one every few years? They are crafted to tell a story but personally, I wouldn't call them blockbuster films any more that Ghibli ones. Blockbusters are a type of film. Big budget, big effects, big marketing and there are many of them a year that don't deviate from the production line formula. They aren't unique and that's why I wouldn't call them art. If you think they are art then so be it. X Factor winner and boy band albums must be art too. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In my eyes any creative endeavour is art. Just because a large business finances it doesn't change the fact that literally thousands of people work spectacularly creatively to make them. Whether you personally appreciate a blockbuster or not is irrelevant. Pixar for instance as every bit a factory as much as Marvel or Transformers or Tim Burton's latest mess. That doesn't change that Pixar is most definitely art. I'm not suggesting that as a narrative something like Transformers has the same value as a Pixar movie but I am suggesting that most definitely aspects of the film are absolutely art. The animation, the production design, the foley even. Every aspect of a production is extremely creative. I guess what I'm getting at is just because a person doesn't recognize something like Foley as art doesn't make it not art. X-Factor winners are art. They are just bad art. As is Transformers sequels or whatever. Quote
Keith Houchen Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 Yeah, we'll agree to disagree. I find cookie cutter stuff like Blockbuster films interchangeable and bereft of artistic merit. That isn't to say I don't enjoy them or think they're totally needed, but this is the film for snobs thread. (Although I'm not a snob, I'm an elitist, massive difference!) 17 minutes ago, DEF said: X-Factor winners are art I'd argue that the album would still be the same just with a different singer if the runner up was the winner. They are there to be sold and recycled the following year, purely disposable. Also, there really needs to be a band called Tim Burtons Latest Mess, good arrows. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.