Support NeoGAF

[Trey]

I would say the movie parodies certain acting tropes and stereotypes, but I wouldn't call Birdman itself a satire.

 

[Blader]

I found Birdman really really annoying on first watch, and thought its message about art and commerce was pretty unoriginal and self-indulgent. But for some reason, I actually enjoyed it on the second watch, though I have no idea why.

Much as I would've preferred seeing Keaton take home the trophy, if only because he's not likely to be back in that pool again, I do think Redmayne's performance was the best of the five nominated. Keaton wasn't even the best performance in the movie (Norton).

The writing in the movie wasn't perfect. And you can tell the probably had to cut a shit ton of stuff too.

But I am pretty sure I've had worse conversations about women and sex when I was a kid. Far worse actually. Maybe I need to watch again but I never thought the alcoholic step dad got in the way of the film either.

I think Boyhood was probably the 3rd or 4th best film out of the nominees, but I thought it got across what it set out to do. And it had me thinking about my upbringing right after i saw it. Thought it was a cool project and can't wait to see what Links does next. Anyway, I really don't get the hate.

After this and Before Midnight I want to look forward to his next film, but his describing it as a freshman party movie and essentially a feature-length version of that scene in question kinda makes me not at all interested in it.

Then again, I didn't expect to connect with Boyhood or the Before movies as much as I did either, so maybe he'll surprise me!

 

[Salsa]

I would say the movie parodies certain acting tropes and stereotypes, but I wouldn't call Birdman itself a satire.

it's an odd movie, saying that isnt just hipster talk or whatever this time around. I think it can be overwhelming and tackles many things, but it's not just "lol superheroes/washed up actors" and many people just expected that too; the marketing was very off.

it's satire of how ridiculous everything is, if anything

I found Birdman really really annoying on first watch, and thought its message about art and commerce was pretty unoriginal and self-indulgent.

that's the thing tho, I think that surface-level message is really not what the movie is about at all. I remember coming out of it thinking a lot of people were gonna get just that out of it, or that on a very first level you could see it as "superhero movies are easy and not true art!", I think it even uses that same-ol self-indulgent message to communicate what the film really is about: actor's egos. That "commerce=/=art" message is just the way Keaton thinks and struggles with. It's not the message of the movie.

 

[Blader]

I'd argue that Carrell shouldn't have made it in, either, given the competition. His performance is 90% the nose.

Or Cooper or even really Cumberbatch, who, while good, was basically just doing a take on his Sherlock.

My five picks for that category would've been Redmayne, Hoffman, Gyllenhaal, Oyelowo, and McConaughey.

 

[StoOgE]

I think Redmayne strongly deserved the Oscar.

It's obviously a bit of an Oscar baity role, and the sort of thing that always wins Oscars.. but it doesn't mean the performance was any less difficult, and I thought he did a fantastic job of selling the transformation, and made you like the character even when he could only communicate through the eyes and rough facial expressions.

It's one of those.. is it Oscar bait? yes
Was it still a fantastic very hard to pull off performance? Yes.

So, I'm fine with it. The real shame was Felicty Jones was overlooked because I thought her performance was fantastic. The sort of nuanced performance that she gave rarely gets accolades, but she was a very believable character and I could feel her pain throughout without having to do much in the way of screaming and throwing things.

I'm an anti-biopic person in general (Oh god, King's Speech has an Oscar), but generally felt theory of everything really was a well constructed movie told from her point of view that sort of steered clear of the paint by numbers approach.

Don't think it should have won best picture, but it was a very well made movie that dealt with personal struggle and room for religion in a scientific world smartly.

 

[Sanjuro]

Cass spelled out what I meant clearly. If I wanted to say you should get out, then I would have said you should get out. Don't be a fucking dick.

As for point about bad filmmaking. I don't see it. The movie conveyed its themes effectively. I got it. Plenty of others got it no problem.

How am I being a dick? There is no need for that hostile attitude. Also, stop moving field goal posts if you are looking for some sort of active discussion.

The poster you are referring to already labeled me a "hater" and was pretty transparent with his post. I'm just talking about a film. I don't have any Boyhood agenda, whatever that is.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

For the first 20-30 minutes I was with you.

I thought it was going to be a very funny, extremely self aware movie about aging actors trying to prove their self worth through artistic endeavors and realizing that it's all hogwash and we would all have a good laugh at them in the process.

But at some point the movie turned on a dime and stopped being that. Probably the over-the-top scene with him and his daughter screaming about whether or not the play was important. It wasn't played for laughs anymore and it started descending into a mess of a movie that totally lost me.

Was it trying to be a deep commentary on the meaningless of life and the futileness of such endeavors, or was it a self aware take-down of those kinds of plays? In the end I had to a settle on the former because the back half took itself far too seriously.

It was still so ruthless with its characters that I never got the turn to seriousness. The lesbian kiss, the scenes with Norton macking on Stone, none of that read as serious to me and also had my theater-person wife in stitches. I certainly didn't think it was a serious piece about art vs criticism or anything like that. I thought it was about how stupidly self-important all the main players were, to the point where

Spoiler

one shoots himself, and the only place he could be happy is in a fantasy Hollywood ending.

 

[Sanjuro]

I think Redmayne strongly deserved the Oscar.

It's obviously a bit of an Oscar baity role, and the sort of thing that always wins Oscars.. but it doesn't mean the performance was any less difficult, and I thought he did a fantastic job of selling the transformation, and made you like the character even when he could only communicate through the eyes and rough facial expressions.

It's one of those.. is it Oscar bait? yes
Was it still a fantastic very hard to pull off performance? Yes.

So, I'm fine with it. The real shame was Felicty Jones was overlooked because I thought her performance was fantastic. The sort of nuanced performance that she gave rarely gets accolades, but she was a very believable character and I could feel her pain throughout without having to do much in the way of screaming and throwing things.

I'm an anti-biopic person in general (Oh god, King's Speech has an Oscar), but generally felt theory of everything really was a well constructed movie told from her point of view that sort of steered clear of the paint by numbers approach.

Don't think it should have won best picture, but it was a very well made movie that dealt with personal struggle and room for religion in a scientific world smartly.

I don't think a lot of people have serious problems with him winning. Most people, and myself, are both nostalgic with prior performances and enjoyed Keaton in the film.

Redmayne was the favorite and most people liked the performance. A least I believe so.

 

[Salsa]

yeah, I dont think Redmayne's oscar was undeserved, I just think Keaton deserved it more.

 

[inm8num2]

But will Redmayne be able to defend his title next year with his Jupiter Ascending performance?

 

[Skellig Gra]

Is there a wesbite where i can legally rewatch the whole show online?

Oh god, why would you want to rewatch the whole thing.

 

[Oersted]

Much as people here like to shit on it, I think The Hurt Locker's impact on the public consciousness and its relevance only grows more and more with each year -- partly because, as more troops have come home, the weight of the war on their minds and ability to cope is becoming clearer and allowing more vets to talk about.

Not that the Hurt Locker is really facilitating that change itself, just that it helped shine a light on it. I mean really, everything people are praising American Sniper for, was already done and done much better in Bigelow's film.

While I liked Hurt Locker, it was arguably nowhere close to Avatar, Basterds or, in terms of quality, White Ribbon or Mr Fox.

Return of the King?

Concession award to be blunt. Fellowship was far better. But it lost against A Beautiful Mind, lol.

 

[nhlducks35]

WIsh Hans Zimmer won lol

Wearing the same scarf he wore 20 years ago for The Lion King

 

[Not]

I knew there was no chance Whiplash would get BP, but I was hoping it would take adapted screenplay. Imitation Game's script wasn't up to the same par IMO

 

[GungHo]

Has there ever been a worst host?

Chevy Chase.

Oh, and the year that Dudley Moore and Richard Pryor wanted to kill each other while Liza Minnelli mixed gin, Valium, and the ashes from Walter Matthau's cigar.

 

[Hesemonni]

Why are the Oscar's hosts always so bad?

 

[Community Forum]

Just a bit of an OT question, who designed the nominee slides for this year's ceremony?

Here's an article about the title sequences.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2015/see-the-stylish-87th-academy-awards-nominee-title-sequences/

Henry Hobson

https://twitter.com/henryhobson/status/569732002930237441/photo/1

 

[Parch]

The Grand Budapest Hotel didn't win because it's a comedy.
The Theory of Everything didn't win because it's all about the individual performance.
Boyhood didn't win because of that boring, emo dork.
American Sniper didn't win because nobody is falling for that propaganda crap.
Whiplash didn't win because of...um. OK, I got nothing here. It's good too..
The Imitation Game didn't win because of homophobia.
Selma didn't win because of racism.

So that's leaves Birdman as the inevitable winner.

Or perhaps all those others didn't win because Birdman is better.

 

[Blader]

^Birdman won because it's a movie about acting and actors make up a majority of the Academy.

I liked Birdman, and I liked Argo, and I liked The Artist. But each of their wins is extremely transparent.

Why are the Oscar's hosts always so bad?

The writing is terrible. If the host can't improv and think on their feet, they're doomed to bad readings of worse material.

 

[Not]

You guys didn't like NPH huh

^Birdman won because it's a movie about acting and actors make up a majority of the Academy.

I liked Birdman, and I liked Argo, and I liked The Artist. But each of their wins is extremely transparent.

Great call

 

[Stet]

^Birdman won because it's a movie about acting and actors make up a majority of the Academy.

I liked Birdman, and I liked Argo, and I liked The Artist. But each of their wins is extremely transparent.



The writing is terrible. If the host can't improv and think on their feet, they're doomed to bad readings of worse material.

Actors don't make up a majority. They're the largest branch, but still only make up about 1/6th of the total Academy.

 

[CassSept]

^Birdman won because it's a movie about acting and actors make up a majority of the Academy.

I liked Birdman, and I liked Argo, and I liked The Artist. But each of their wins is extremely transparent.

2011 was a really weak year though, Tree of Life was not going to win it ansand besides it any other pick would have been unnoteworthy.

 

[Sanjuro]

Steve Martin was probably the best with bad material. His years were always beyond serviceable.

 

[HeelPower]

I think Redmayne strongly deserved the Oscar.

I went into Theory of Everything expecting weak oscar bait and I had a very biased,negative mindset against it.

The movie had to fight an uphill battle for me to like it and I absolutely loved it.

Phenomenal performances all around,led by a fantastic Redmayne who is by far the best of the year(have seen Nightcrawler,Birdman etc),beautiful cinematography(travesty it wasn't nominated),breath taking soundtrack and an inspiring,tasteful execution of a great real life character.

Yeah I am glad Eddie won even though I loved Keaton.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

You know, I really love Redmayne's reaction.

I thought the movie was mediocre, but he gave a terrific performance.

 

[Blader]

Actors don't make up a majority. They're the largest branch, but still only make up about 1/6th of the total Academy.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

 

[TheSadRanger]

But will Redmayne be able to defend his title next year with his Jupiter Ascending performance?

Is he going to be the first actor to win an Oscar and a Razzie in the same year since Halle Berry?

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

Much as people here like to shit on it, I think The Hurt Locker's impact on the public consciousness and its relevance only grows more and more with each year -- partly because, as more troops have come home, the weight of the war on their minds and ability to cope is becoming clearer and allowing more vets to talk about.

Not that the Hurt Locker is really facilitating that change itself, just that it helped shine a light on it. I mean really, everything people are praising American Sniper for, was already done and done much better in Bigelow's film.

Hurt Locker is really good. I don't know why anyone would shit on it, and I agree that it remains relevant.

 

[Gorillaz]

Why are the Oscar's hosts always so bad?

Ellen did pretty good last year. It was one of the few times I felt someone did the best of their situation.

The material they are given to work with is pretty garbage in itself

 

[Brandon F]

Just catching up and I guess I should see Big Hero 6 and certainly Kaguya given the responses in the animated award pages. Dragon 2 certainly didn't deserve it despite greatly enjoying the first, the sequel fell flat for me.

Also guess I never paid attention at the time, but Brave beat Wreck it Ralph all those years ago? What the hell?

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

^Birdman won because it's a movie about acting and actors make up a majority of the Academy.

I liked Birdman, and I liked Argo, and I liked The Artist. But each of their wins is extremely transparent.

Winning movies about the industry or that heavily reference it do seem transparent. The Academy tends to eat that shit up. Plus, Birdman went a bit Sunset Blvd/All About Eve. It's not really surpring that it won.

I just wasn't a fan of the script and humor in Birdman.

 

[sphinx]

I want to say, people should see Timbuktu, a wonderful film.

Harsh but very artistic, beautiful fotography and music.

 

[VaultBoy101]

It was pretty bad, terrible writing. Another thing though is that, more than ever, the audience is so uptight. I know, surprise surprise, Hollywood is full of oversensitive people who can't laugh at themselves or anything else even remotely controversial, but it feels like its worse than ever. It's like they just sit there and murmur and gasp anytime anyone dares to say anything a little out of line. The show is more and more of a drag to watch, and I think it makes hosting nearly impossible since the audience basically gives you nothing.

I don't think "more than ever" comes into it. Chevy Chase opened his hosting gig with "Good evening, Hollywood phonies" in 1988 and was never invited back.

 

[Oersted]

I want to say, people should see Timbuktu, a wonderful film.

Harsh but very artistic, beautiful fotography and music.

And quite funny. Great film, should have won.

yeah! people being stoned to death is funny! I couldn't stop laughing

Did I say the stoning was funny? There were black humorous elements, the stoning was not one of them.

 

[sphinx]

And quite funny. Great film, should have won.

yeah! people being stoned to death is funny! I couldn't stop laughing