As much as I loved "Skyfall", it was never going to get any Oscar nods.
For me (despite what other DS forum threads say) "Avengers" and "TDKR" were the best films of the year, and there was no way any of those were going to get any kind of recognition.
To be frank the Oscars have always been a joke, when compared to box-office takings and popular opinion.
"Lincoln" will obviously run away with it this year, due to the subject matter, american director and "worthiness".
However, history will prove who is right...
In 1981, a slushy film that nobody will remember now ("Ordinary People") ran off with best picture and director (Robert Redford) beating "Raging Bull"!! :eek:
In 1990, "Dancing with Wolves" beat "Goodfellas" in the same way. :eek::eek:
How do you think modern film fans look back on that?
The only year they got the balance right was 1991, with "Silence of the Lambs"
Other than that ... just ignore the unwarranted back-slapping and political voting ... and stay true to the films that you genuinely like. There will always be film fans that feel the same you do.
Peace brothers (Just going through my middle-aged hippy phase :cool:)
So what you're saying is that the Oscars don't nominate what's widely seen as the best Bond in years because most of them aren't very good.
No. Quite how you've reached that conclusion I do not know.
The question in the thread is 'Why does James Bond always get snubbed at the Oscars?".
The key word there is 'keep'. It seems to suggest that Bond films are regularly worthy of consideration for the film industry's top award. They are not and never have been.
I would suggest that Quantum of Solace, Die Another Day, The World Is Not Enough, Tomorrow Never Dies, License to Kill, The Living Daylights, A View To A Kill, Octopussy, Never Say Never Again, Moonraker, The Man With The Golden Gun and Diamonds Are Forever are poor films - featuring a number of diabolical performances.
Didn't realise they judged films as a franchise whole rather than individually.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You're the one who suggested that Skyfall would never warrant serious consideration from the Academy because it's part of a long running franchise. The Dark Knight disproves your theory.
No. Quite how you've reached that conclusion I do not know.
The question in the thread is 'Why does James Bond always get snubbed at the Oscars?".
The key word there is 'keep'. It seems to suggest that Bond films are regularly worthy of consideration for the film industry's top award. They are not and never have been.
I would suggest that Quantum of Solace, Die Another Day, The World Is Not Enough, Tomorrow Never Dies, License to Kill, The Living Daylights, A View To A Kill, Octopussy, Never Say Never Again, Moonraker, The Man With The Golden Gun and Diamonds Are Forever are poor films - featuring a number of diabolical performances.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You're the one who suggested that Skyfall would never warrant serious consideration from the Academy because it's part of a long running franchise. The Dark Knight disproves your theory.
I would think most people wouldn't see The Dark Knight as part of the same a Batman franchise as the Burton and Schumacer ones, even The Academy. Whereas Bond are quite obviously the same franchise.
And no not being deliberately obtuse but you've now proved that you simply don't like Bond films with your little (post-Connery) list.
Return of the King winning all those Oscars it was nominated for was amazing, but IMO those noms/wins was almost more of a reflection of the trilogy as a whole (and well deserved), not just that one film. The Acadmedy were awarding the whole Trilogy, IMO.
I would think most people wouldn't see The Dark Knight as part of the same a Batman franchise as the Burton and Schumacer ones, even The Academy. Whereas Bond are quite obviously the same franchise.
It's 'obvious' that The Man With The Golden Gun and Casino Royale exist in the same universe? Really?
And no not being deliberately obtuse but you've now proved that you simply don't like Bond films with your little (post-Connery) list.
Moore is actually my favourite Bond and I enjoy most of the films I listed. I also enjoy the Colonel's strips from KFC - but I wouldn't describe them as particularly good food either.
As much as I loved "Skyfall", it was never going to get any Oscar nods.
For me (despite what other DS forum threads say) "Avengers" and "TDKR" were the best films of the year, and there was no way any of those were going to get any kind of recognition.
To be frank the Oscars have always been a joke, when compared to box-office takings and popular opinion.
"Lincoln" will obviously run away with it this year, due to the subject matter, american director and "worthiness".
However, history will prove who is right...
In 1981, a slushy film that nobody will remember now ("Ordinary People") ran off with best picture and director (Robert Redford) beating "Raging Bull"!! :eek:
In 1990, "Dancing with Wolves" beat "Goodfellas" in the same way. :eek::eek:
How do you think modern film fans look back on that?
The only year they got the balance right was 1991, with "Silence of the Lambs"
Other than that ... just ignore the unwarranted back-slapping and political voting ... and stay true to the films that you genuinely like. There will always be film fans that feel the same you do.
Peace brothers (Just going through my middle-aged hippy phase :cool:)
The job of the Oscars is not to reenforce popular opinion, rather it's to consolidate and express the views of those working in the industry. So yes they can be influenced by back slapping and political voting but also they reflect the fact that these people have different movie tastes to the general public. They are more concerned about originality, acting performances and dealing with complex subject matters than they are with traditional plots (no matter how good), CGI or film franchises.
The fact that the public decides to use the Oscars as an indication of what is 'good' or not is their own fault. They should recognize that it's not a popularity contest and that they would be better off sticking to box office success as a way of judging whether they will like a film or not.
However, history will prove who is right...
In 1981, a slushy film that nobody will remember now ("Ordinary People") ran off with best picture and director (Robert Redford) beating "Raging Bull"!! :eek:
I wondered until a film historian provided a historical context at a talk a while ago. Ordinary People is the first mainstream film that addressed mental health issues among teenagers from wealthy suburban families, a social issue that was apparently ignored until then, and the first to explore a family's interpersonal communications and relationship in that context. The cultural impact (as well as sparking changes in mental health services, creating a category for teenagers) is the reason why Ordinary People won an Oscar.
Not that it's anything to do with it being Robert Redford's directorial debut. I must admit this is why I'm still sceptical of his explanation.
It's 'obvious' that The Man With The Golden Gun and Casino Royale exist in the same universe? Really?
Yes and you know full well they do as does everyone else. Have you not seen the contents of the recent Bond 50 boxsets? Both films are in there however I haven't seen a Batman equivalent contain all the Batman films - probably because the Nolan's are considered very seperate from earlier incarnations.
I wondered until a film historian provided a historical context at a talk a while ago. Ordinary People is the first mainstream film that addressed mental health issues among teenagers from wealthy suburban families, a social issue that was apparently ignored until then, and the first to explore a family's interpersonal communications and relationship in that context. The cultural impact (as well as sparking changes in mental health services, creating a category for teenagers) is the reason why Ordinary People won an Oscar.
Not that it's anything to do with it being Robert Redford's directorial debut. I must admit this is why I'm still sceptical of his explanation.
Plus Ordinary People is an absolutely stunning film in its own right.
I wondered until a film historian provided a historical context at a talk a while ago. Ordinary People is the first mainstream film that addressed mental health issues among teenagers from wealthy suburban families, a social issue that was apparently ignored until then, and the first to explore a family's interpersonal communications and relationship in that context. The cultural impact (as well as sparking changes in mental health services, creating a category for teenagers) is the reason why Ordinary People won an Oscar.
Not that it's anything to do with it being Robert Redford's directorial debut. I must admit this is why I'm still sceptical of his explanation.
Which is fine, and I don't wish to belittle the subject matter, as it is an important one.
However it does back up the idea that the general opinion that the Academy (AMPAS - The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is their definition) will pick movies that they deem to be important at the time, and this does not translate in future years, or the choice dates quite quickly.
I think everyone will agree in retrospect that "Raging Bull" was the defining picture of that year, and people get obsessed with the definition of what a "Best Film" or "Best Director" actually is..
The fact that most of these choices are not in line with popular consensus, or the general public, does lead to accusations of "film snobbery" or disagreement though...
I have my personal likes and dislikes over what constitutes my favourite films, and I'm happy that this will never correspond with AMPAS (or most of my friends, or DS forum members it seems ...).
I think "Best Actors/Actresses" is generally less contentious, because while people might not like/see the film involved, they could appreciate the quality of the work.
For instance, whilst "The Sessions" or "The Master" might not be my choice of film to see at the cinema, I can readily see why Helen Hunt or Phillip Hoffman would be getting those nominations.
BTW, I haven't a clue what kind of point I'm trying to make here ...
Just accept the Oscars for what they are I guess ...
Yes and you know full well they do as does everyone else. Have you not seen the contents of the recent Bond 50 boxsets? Both films are in there however I haven't seen a Batman equivalent contain all the Batman films - probably because the Nolan's are considered very seperate from earlier incarnations.
If you sat down and watched Golden Gun and then Casino Royale you would consider them about as linked as Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight.
They are completely different in tone, style, interpretation of character. The only thing they have in common is that they both feature a spy called James Bond who has a boss called M.
If you sat down and watched Golden Gun and then Casino Royale you would consider them about as linked as Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight.
They are completely different in tone, style, interpretation of character. The only thing they have in common is that they both feature a spy called James Bond who has a boss called M.
The point is that they ARE from the same series/franchise. People refer to the Bond films as a collective, Skyfall is the 23rd Bond film.
The Dark Knight isn't referred to as the 7th Batman film in the series by anyone except you it seems.
Regarding "art" v "entertainment" - both are subjective as to what one considers entertaining, thrilling or worthy etc, an interesting point though - that at the very first Oscars, were there not in fact two "Best Pictures", one going to Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, the other to Wings.
an interesting point though - that at the very first Oscars, were there not in fact two "Best Pictures", one going to Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, the other to Wings.
Not quite, Outstanding Picture was won by Wings, Sunrise won Unique and Artistic Production, however the Outstanding Picture is considered the fore-runner to the Best Picture award, as it was the one that was carried forward there on in, and the Unique and Artistic Production was dropped, and retrospectively Wings is considered the Best Picture for the 1st Academy awards.
As a side note Wings is a noteworthy film for featuring the first on-screen (platonic) same sex kiss.
Not quite, Outstanding Picture was won by Wings, Sunrise won Unique and Artistic Production, however the Outstanding Picture is considered the fore-runner to the Best Picture award, as it was the one that was carried forward there on in, and the Unique and Artistic Production was dropped, and retrospectively Wings is considered the Best Picture for the 1st Academy awards.
As a side note Wings is a noteworthy film for featuring the first on-screen (platonic) same sex kiss.
I didnt know that, thanks! Thats interesting, as I get the impression Wings seems a more "popular audience" film choice than Sunrise even back then, and these days "worthier" films tend to win BP, IMO.
Wonder if the kiss shocked audiences at the time?
BTW on IMDB I read Wings cost an estimated $2m in 1927, thats a fortune back then (nearly on a par with Ben-Hur in 1925).
For someone quite happy to spout out unfounded statements like "The simple answer is you don't know what you're talking about" - you don't seem to know what you're talking about,
Comments
For me (despite what other DS forum threads say) "Avengers" and "TDKR" were the best films of the year, and there was no way any of those were going to get any kind of recognition.
To be frank the Oscars have always been a joke, when compared to box-office takings and popular opinion.
"Lincoln" will obviously run away with it this year, due to the subject matter, american director and "worthiness".
However, history will prove who is right...
In 1981, a slushy film that nobody will remember now ("Ordinary People") ran off with best picture and director (Robert Redford) beating "Raging Bull"!! :eek:
In 1990, "Dancing with Wolves" beat "Goodfellas" in the same way. :eek::eek:
How do you think modern film fans look back on that?
The only year they got the balance right was 1991, with "Silence of the Lambs"
Other than that ... just ignore the unwarranted back-slapping and political voting ... and stay true to the films that you genuinely like. There will always be film fans that feel the same you do.
Peace brothers (Just going through my middle-aged hippy phase :cool:)
No. Quite how you've reached that conclusion I do not know.
The question in the thread is 'Why does James Bond always get snubbed at the Oscars?".
The key word there is 'keep'. It seems to suggest that Bond films are regularly worthy of consideration for the film industry's top award. They are not and never have been.
I would suggest that Quantum of Solace, Die Another Day, The World Is Not Enough, Tomorrow Never Dies, License to Kill, The Living Daylights, A View To A Kill, Octopussy, Never Say Never Again, Moonraker, The Man With The Golden Gun and Diamonds Are Forever are poor films - featuring a number of diabolical performances.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You're the one who suggested that Skyfall would never warrant serious consideration from the Academy because it's part of a long running franchise. The Dark Knight disproves your theory.
I would think most people wouldn't see The Dark Knight as part of the same a Batman franchise as the Burton and Schumacer ones, even The Academy. Whereas Bond are quite obviously the same franchise.
And no not being deliberately obtuse but you've now proved that you simply don't like Bond films with your little (post-Connery) list.
It's 'obvious' that The Man With The Golden Gun and Casino Royale exist in the same universe? Really?
Moore is actually my favourite Bond and I enjoy most of the films I listed. I also enjoy the Colonel's strips from KFC - but I wouldn't describe them as particularly good food either.
The job of the Oscars is not to reenforce popular opinion, rather it's to consolidate and express the views of those working in the industry. So yes they can be influenced by back slapping and political voting but also they reflect the fact that these people have different movie tastes to the general public. They are more concerned about originality, acting performances and dealing with complex subject matters than they are with traditional plots (no matter how good), CGI or film franchises.
The fact that the public decides to use the Oscars as an indication of what is 'good' or not is their own fault. They should recognize that it's not a popularity contest and that they would be better off sticking to box office success as a way of judging whether they will like a film or not.
I wondered until a film historian provided a historical context at a talk a while ago. Ordinary People is the first mainstream film that addressed mental health issues among teenagers from wealthy suburban families, a social issue that was apparently ignored until then, and the first to explore a family's interpersonal communications and relationship in that context. The cultural impact (as well as sparking changes in mental health services, creating a category for teenagers) is the reason why Ordinary People won an Oscar.
Not that it's anything to do with it being Robert Redford's directorial debut. I must admit this is why I'm still sceptical of his explanation.
Yes and you know full well they do as does everyone else. Have you not seen the contents of the recent Bond 50 boxsets? Both films are in there however I haven't seen a Batman equivalent contain all the Batman films - probably because the Nolan's are considered very seperate from earlier incarnations.
Plus Ordinary People is an absolutely stunning film in its own right.
Which is fine, and I don't wish to belittle the subject matter, as it is an important one.
However it does back up the idea that the general opinion that the Academy (AMPAS - The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is their definition) will pick movies that they deem to be important at the time, and this does not translate in future years, or the choice dates quite quickly.
I think everyone will agree in retrospect that "Raging Bull" was the defining picture of that year, and people get obsessed with the definition of what a "Best Film" or "Best Director" actually is..
The fact that most of these choices are not in line with popular consensus, or the general public, does lead to accusations of "film snobbery" or disagreement though...
I have my personal likes and dislikes over what constitutes my favourite films, and I'm happy that this will never correspond with AMPAS (or most of my friends, or DS forum members it seems ...).
I think "Best Actors/Actresses" is generally less contentious, because while people might not like/see the film involved, they could appreciate the quality of the work.
For instance, whilst "The Sessions" or "The Master" might not be my choice of film to see at the cinema, I can readily see why Helen Hunt or Phillip Hoffman would be getting those nominations.
BTW, I haven't a clue what kind of point I'm trying to make here ...
Just accept the Oscars for what they are I guess ...
If you sat down and watched Golden Gun and then Casino Royale you would consider them about as linked as Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight.
They are completely different in tone, style, interpretation of character. The only thing they have in common is that they both feature a spy called James Bond who has a boss called M.
The point is that they ARE from the same series/franchise. People refer to the Bond films as a collective, Skyfall is the 23rd Bond film.
The Dark Knight isn't referred to as the 7th Batman film in the series by anyone except you it seems.
Not quite, Outstanding Picture was won by Wings, Sunrise won Unique and Artistic Production, however the Outstanding Picture is considered the fore-runner to the Best Picture award, as it was the one that was carried forward there on in, and the Unique and Artistic Production was dropped, and retrospectively Wings is considered the Best Picture for the 1st Academy awards.
As a side note Wings is a noteworthy film for featuring the first on-screen (platonic) same sex kiss.
My memory fails me: When did I write that?
I didnt know that, thanks!
Wonder if the kiss shocked audiences at the time?
BTW on IMDB I read Wings cost an estimated $2m in 1927, thats a fortune back then (nearly on a par with Ben-Hur in 1925).
yeah, it was far and away the most expensive film ever made at the time.
Looks like I'll have to clear up that mystery.
I never did say that.
For someone quite happy to spout out unfounded statements like "The simple answer is you don't know what you're talking about" - you don't seem to know what you're talking about,
Have you seen it?
Yes it's made a lot of money but I thought it was a load of old rubbish and definitely not Oscar worthy.
While technically great (apart from some bad cgi at a couple of points). I thought Sam Mendes was capable of far better.
I wouldn't say it's rubbish. The cinematography has been rightly recognised by the academy, and the acting is better than most Bonds.
However, it is vastly overrated.
Regards
Mark
Agreed.