Which movie truly deserves Best Picture?

[bpmford]

Is it just me, or is the Oscar buzz behind this movie totally outrageous?

Many sources are claiming this black and white silent movie to be the front-runner to take top price at this year's Oscars.

Nomination, maybe... Winner, no way!

I watched the trailer, and aside from it boring me to death, I think a movie like this takes zero imagination to make, and zero skill. Not only does the film belong in the 20's, but with all the movies from that era to use as reference, it would be a cinch for any director to make.

We are in a modern world of some amazing film-making, with creative technologies that can take us to worlds we never could before, and a movie that uses none of that is the best of the year???

Personally, I think movies that take lots of imagination and skill to create deserve the Best Picture. Something like Hugo... A movie that really blew me away in every sense.

If the Academy awards this movie Best Picture, then they have really lost connection with their audience. Proving that the Oscars are targeted solely for pretentious film critics and hollywood socialites, and not for the people the films are made for in the first place.

Here in my city there is a free screening of The Artist next week... They apparently need to show it for free to get audiences to watch it.

That is not a best picture to me.

What are your all thoughts?

[Bunny Dojo]

QUOTE (bpmford @ Dec 13 2011, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it would be a cinch for any director to make.

That seems odd to say. Theoretically, any director can make a movie about Facebook, remake a John Wayne western, follow a guy overcoming a speech impediment, or focus a camera on Natalie Portman and Milla Kunis for two hours.

QUOTE (bpmford @ Dec 13 2011, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here in my city there is a free screening of The Artist next week... They apparently need to show it for free to get audiences to watch it.

Free screenings are very common, especially for a film like this. Nobody wants to see it because there are no talking cars, so they give away a few free tickets. People take a chance, since it's free, then they love it and tell their friends. Their friends buy tickets, they love it and tell their friends, etc.

That's not to say it deserves to win anything. I haven't seen it. It could just be a pretentious film that people "like" as a way of feeling more cultured than their friends buying Green Lantern on Blu-ray. At the same time, it might be great. If only they had a free screening you could attend to try it...

[bpmford]

With Social Network, I don't think it was a simple thing to do. Fincher took something that was seen as rather boring material and made it interesting and worth watching.

I feel the same about remakes too... unless the idea is to make something that is the same, seem completely different. The new batman movies trump the old ones because Nolan had the vision to make them different. Spider-man however, from it's trailers doesn't seem to have done that.

The Artist is just like movies of it's generation, it takes no chances, just copies what has already been done.

You want an old time set movie that took chances? Look at Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

...

Personally free or not, I don't care to see it. It has no appealing value... Silent movies belong in the 20s or else they would still be around.

Just MO, maybe I will be an odd one out.

I would call Green Lantern 10x the movie that can be... And Green Lantern was by no means great!

I have no problem being more cultured... I will watch any movie from the 20s and 30s to get my fill of those type of movies... but not a movie made in 2011 made to look like it's from the 20s.

QUOTE (Bunny Dojo @ Dec 13 2011, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Free screenings are very common, especially for a film like this. Nobody wants to see it because there are no talking cars, so they give away a few free tickets. People take a chance, since it's free, then they love it and tell their friends. Their friends buy tickets, they love it and tell their friends, etc.

But if it is so great, why not just put the trailers out there and it should sell the movie... They don't because watching a trailer about some new silent B&W movie won't appeal to a mass audience in this generation, and rightly so.

So does it deserve best picture, I think not.

Again just MHO

[Bunny Dojo]

QUOTE (bpmford @ Dec 13 2011, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But if it is so great, why not just put the trailers out there and it should sell the movie... They don't because watching a trailer about some new silent B&W movie won't appeal to a mass audience in this generation, and rightly so.

That's exactly why, though. :P If I see a trailer for a movie with Kate Beckinsale, I'm probably going to watch it. A silent/B&W movie, though? I'm probably not looking to watch that one unless I hear reviews from friends telling me it's great. It's a very common practice, along with opening a movie in a small amount of theaters and expanding once word of mouth gets circulating.

I'm not looking to defend the movie. I haven't seen it and don't really have a plan to, I was just surprised to see you express such strong sentiments about the movie without having seen it. There are smaller or more unconventional films in the mix every year: The Kids Are All Right, Winter's Bone, A Serious Man, Precious, etc. At least wait until the nominations are announced to begin worrying.

Or, here's another side: Someone we know is working on an excellent cover for a movie called The Terminal. What's that movie about? A foreign guy stuck in an airport? Who wants to see that? And yet, it's a darn nice movie.

[bpmford]

LOL, you do have me there Bunny...

I guess my reaction to it is so strong because all the buzz is saying how it will win easily before it has really hit audiences. Just seems to be way over-hyped for such a simple movie.

Maybe my opinion is stronger after two years ago when Hurt Locker won best picture, and really didn't earn it. Again MO!

I think if people were to go off preliminary reactions, that they would give more credit to something that I personally think will win best picture, and that is War Horse.

My worrying comes from the fact that I own every best picture, and am dreading having to add this one, lol!

Hopefully it does become one of those movies like Kids Are All Right or Sideways, or Good Night and Good Luck, that get nominated and forgotten

[Bunny Dojo]

QUOTE (bpmford @ Dec 13 2011, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My worrying comes from the fact that I own every best picture, and am dreading having to add this one, lol!

The curse of being a completionist. As the owner of a copy of X-Men: The Last Stand, I can begin to understand your worry now.

[bpmford]

LOL, totally! Exactly the same thing!

[NTROST]

QUOTE (bpmford @ Dec 13 2011, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL, you do have me there Bunny...

I guess my reaction to it is so strong because all the buzz is saying how it will win easily before it has really hit audiences. Just seems to be way over-hyped for such a simple movie.

Maybe my opinion is stronger after two years ago when Hurt Locker won best picture, and really didn't earn it. Again MO!

I think if people were to go off preliminary reactions, that they would give more credit to something that I personally think will win best picture, and that is War Horse.

My worrying comes from the fact that I own every best picture, and am dreading having to add this one, lol!

Hopefully it does become one of those movies like Kids Are All Right or Sideways, or Good Night and Good Luck, that get nominated and forgotten

First off, I don't typically comment on the net BUT I think you are really overeacting. Secondly, anyone who says making a film is easy is clearly out of his league of understanding the filmmaking process. Making a silent film like "The Artist" is technically harder then making a talkie because you have to express things with expressions, emotions & actions NOT words. A lot of filmmakers today are lazy & rely on CGI WAY too much. To say this film isn't imaginative is full-fledge ignorance because we live in an era that has little imagination in it today.

Also who says "The Kids Are All Right", "Sideways" & "Good Night, and Good Luck" are forgotten films (not by a long shot)? All three films are solid films (granted, the ending to "The Kids Are All Right" was a bit of a cop out that did leave somethings open-ended to be questioned but that's another story.) Sure, they don't get talked much about but then again, the mass majority of solid films don't not unless if it's some crap like "Twilight" or whatever pop-culture crap is shoved down our throats then those films get talked about. Why do I get the impression you are only into only big-budget films? I get the impression you probably felt "Avatar" (the biggest gimmick film in film history) should have won best picture that year over "The Hurt Locker"? Which it gladly didn't & actually, according to a leaked report "Inglourious Basterds" was less then 1% away in academy votes from actually walking out with Best Picture that year which in all honesty should have won. That's not without saying "The Hurt Locker" wasn't a highly admirable film or anything.

If dreading owning "The Artist" which is a highly well-crafted film then I hate to say it...but I pity you.

P.S. "Avatar" was satisfactory film but a total ripoff from other better films & also people need to realize "Avatar" didn't change SFX it just improved the 3D experience but the SFX are not the best ever by any means but they were solid. "The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button" used the motion-capture technology in a more impressive manner.

[bpmford]

Hey NTROST, thanks for replying!

I'm sorry, but silent films were done for many years, so the need to express emotion without words is neither new or imaginative.

I don't know what the big deal with CGI is any way, it is an amazing technology that allows film makers to do things and create worlds that would otherwise be only possible in our dreams. Personally, I really enjoy a film-maker's ability to mix CGI, Motion Capture and physical production all together to make a movie.

I fully know the film making process, and to me a silent film is the easier way out. There is so much reference material, the directors and actors jobs are practically already done.

As for assuming you know what I think should have won in 2009... I don't think Avatar was the best picture, but it was way better than Hurt Locker. And by saying it was a gimic is IMO seems to be your way of de-valuing the work that was put into it.

That year, I do believe Inglourious WAS the best movie, by far, yet the academy chose to give it to Hurt Locker... maybe because a female directed it, maybe because it is an american story... maybe a little of both.

Tarantino has spent many years pouring his heart into movies that re-define their generation and push every limit, and he still doesn't have a Best picture award to show for it.

I agree, The Artist would be a well-crafted film, if this year was 1925, but it is not.

I also find it funny that you call Avatar a rip-off of other films while defending The Artist, which is a rip off of an entire film generation!

Guess we just have different opinions. Personally, I like watch new movies that push new technologies, not re-creations of old films... Moving forward, not backward!

Also, can I ask that you please leave out words like 'pitty', I am just stating my opinion to get some conversation going.

[NTROST]

QUOTE (bpmford @ Dec 13 2011, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey NTROST, thanks for replying!

I'm sorry, but silent films were done for many years, so the need to express emotion without words is neither new or imaginative.

I don't know what the big deal with CGI is any way, it is an amazing technology that allows film makers to do things and create worlds that would otherwise be only possible in our dreams. Personally, I really enjoy a film-maker's ability to mix CGI, Motion Capture and physical production all together to make a movie.

I fully know the film making process, and to me a silent film is the easier way out. There is so much reference material, the directors and actors jobs are practically already done.

As for assuming you know what I think should have won in 2009... I don't think Avatar was the best picture, but it was way better than Hurt Locker. And by saying it was a gimic is IMO seems to be your way of de-valuing the work that was put into it.

That year, I do believe Inglourious WAS the best movie, by far, yet the academy chose to give it to Hurt Locker... maybe because a female directed it, maybe because it is an american story... maybe a little of both.

Tarantino has spent many years pouring his heart into movies that re-define their generation and push every limit, and he still doesn't have a Best picture award to show for it.

I agree, The Artist would be a well-crafted film, if this year was 1925, but it is not.

I also find it funny that you call Avatar a rip-off of other films while defending The Artist, which is a rip off of an entire film generation!

Guess we just have different opinions. Personally, I like watch new movies that push new technologies, not re-creations of old films... Moving forward, not backward!

Also, can I ask that you please leave out words like 'pitty', I am just stating my opinion to get some conversation going.

Let me start of by saying, I don't mean to come off as strong or harsh as I may sound.

Now to the topic, filmmaking is about storytelling NOT about special effects. "The Artist" demonstrates well-crafted storytelling, narrative economics, solidified acting, competent direction & so forth. Great storytelling is great storytelling no matter what year, decade & so on it is (same with filmmaking which is a visionary skill set). Things don't have to be "new" in order to be valuable or valid. Emotion is an immense part & key figure of film & storytelling. I studied in film & can tell you from knowledge (not an opinion) CG technology has made things easier & even improved certain elements of filmmaking, yes but it also has created a lazy facet factor to filmmaking & to storytelling. More filmmakers today cop out more than ever before & put CG over story which says that filmmaker isn’t a storyteller in which fails more times than succeeds by a massive margin (just check out the majority of big-budget films). We live in one of the weakest generations ever in the lack of strong filmmaking & storytelling even imagination which things are more spoon-fed & already pre-done.

"The Artist" demonstrates solid storytelling. Yes, it's a silent film but that doesn't discredit it nor does it take away from the filmmaking. The film has a premise about the silent film era. Granted, it's not the first time a film's premise was about the silent film era. Just check out Stanley Donan's "Singin' in the Rain" (brilliant film). You are judging against a film because of its setting which is really ignorant if not misguided. You keep saying directors & actors can go back to reference material? They aren’t doing a remake of an already done film here. They are telling a story about a specific era. The director & actors can’t rely on CG or any other type of technology to distract the audience in this film which is what many filmmakers do today to cover themselves. More psychical talent was used in making “The Artist” than in making a film like “Avatar” where the director & actors just do placement acting or re-acting in front of a blue/green screen which by the way, is one of the most simplistic acting methods. The only real talent show in “Avatar” was the SFX artists, designers & engineers.

You take a film like "Avatar" which didn't revolutionize CG (like some people claim) but ONLY enhanced the 3D experience which is a fading aspect already. The film had plausible storytelling with a formulaic premise that took from immense facets from "Dances with Wolves", "Ferngully" & "Pocahontas". "Avatar" only had the 3D element going for it. “Avatar" wasn't a compellingly, evocatively nor persuasively strong with its storytelling by any accounts as it put its actual story as the third important element behind the 3D & CG facets. The people at Weta Digital put more work & talent into this film than the actors (who did their job well) or Cameron himself did (& yes, he came up with the world & characters per se) but that’s another story. The film was more interested in being a roller-coaster ride with pretty colors then being an actual film that told a story. Hell, "Avatar" that year was one of the weaker candidates for Best Picture compared to films it went against like "Inglourious Basterds", "Up", "Up In The Air", "District 9” (a superior Sci-Fi film than “Avatar”), “Precious”, “An Education”, “A Serious Man”, “The Blind Side” (arguably the weakest of the bunch but still a well-told) & yes, “The Hurt Locker” (which had a better story over “Avatar”.) At best, “Avatar” was the 5th or 6th best film out of the bunch.

Let me also say I’m not a fan of remakes of already well-established films & do like to see new stories told on film. “The Artist” ISN’T a re-creation of already made film. It’s a new film just using the silent method to tell its story. Your logic is flawed in this matter my friend.