Oppenheimer wins 7 Oscars (Best Picture) (film & awards)

[John Dule]

LMAO

Shapiro's opinions on film are almost as terrible as his opinions on politics, but he's right about most of those films being forgettable. Aside from EEAAO, Parasite, and Birdman, the Oscar winners of the past fifteen years have fallen out of favor pretty rapidly. The Academy tries to award the "safe" and "crowd-pleasing" options, but in the process they ignore the fact that the actual "best" picture of any given year is typically experimental, innovative, unique, and a deviation from the norm. In the end, the "safe" picks please no one. Audiences forget about them within a few years, and it's the edgy and outside-the-box films that wind up making a lasting impact on pop culture.

It isn't always easy to see which films will be widely remembered in a few decades-- but sometimes it's obvious. Plenty of movies come along that clearly revolutionize the industry's storytelling (Pulp Fiction) or technology (Star Wars) or both (Citizen Kane), and they almost always go ignored at the Oscars. I'm sure Green Book was a fine film, but I sincerely doubt it was the most creative or boundary-pushing film of 2018.

[John Dule]

I finally saw Killers of the Flower Moon and was very disappointed. There was little drama, little suspense, little tension because you knew from the start who was going to do what. So it’s just a series of cold killings of characters you are barely introduced to and don’t care about shown over and over again to the point you become numb to it. All the while not really understanding Leo’s motivation at all, he just seemed like a total idiot, and De Niro seemed like a cartoon villain. Also Lily Gladstone’s performance has to be the most overrated of all-time. THIS is getting Oscar buzz? She just stares blankly off into space and lies in bed for most of the movie. Her few lines are monotone and emotionless. I never got any sense of romance between her and Leo, I was just told they were supposed to have a connection I guess.

I was shocked to see something so… bad from Scorsese. It’s like he tried to make a Western but couldn’t help himself from making it a gangster/mob movie like Goodfellas, and it just didn’t work for me. Also the Indians are basically props while the story is told from the perspective of the bad guys; how is this getting praise for giving voices to marginalized people or whatever again? It’s just another Scorsese/DiCaprio/De Niro gangster movie. Yes I know it’s a true story but that doesn’t mean you have to tell it like this. I would have preferred to see it from the perspective of the early FBI investigators uncovering what happened, would have been more engaging probably.

Anyway, Oppenheimer was MUCH better. Hell, I think I even enjoyed Barbie more! Now that’s a surprise.

Lmao, Oppenheimer was not better than KOTFM by any stretch of the imagination. Oppenheimer was ponderous and overblown; every single second of the movie has an overbearing, self-important musical score designed to telegraph just how important the events are. The whole point of KOTFM is that the scheme is discussed as if it’s nothing out of the ordinary. This shows how pliable, manipulable people like DiCaprio’s character can be roped into committing evil acts. The movie is about the banality of evil, which is why it chooses subtlety— not something a Nolan fan could understand.

[John Dule]

I finally saw Killers of the Flower Moon and was very disappointed. There was little drama, little suspense, little tension because you knew from the start who was going to do what. So it’s just a series of cold killings of characters you are barely introduced to and don’t care about shown over and over again to the point you become numb to it. All the while not really understanding Leo’s motivation at all, he just seemed like a total idiot, and De Niro seemed like a cartoon villain. Also Lily Gladstone’s performance has to be the most overrated of all-time. THIS is getting Oscar buzz? She just stares blankly off into space and lies in bed for most of the movie. Her few lines are monotone and emotionless. I never got any sense of romance between her and Leo, I was just told they were supposed to have a connection I guess.

I was shocked to see something so… bad from Scorsese. It’s like he tried to make a Western but couldn’t help himself from making it a gangster/mob movie like Goodfellas, and it just didn’t work for me. Also the Indians are basically props while the story is told from the perspective of the bad guys; how is this getting praise for giving voices to marginalized people or whatever again? It’s just another Scorsese/DiCaprio/De Niro gangster movie. Yes I know it’s a true story but that doesn’t mean you have to tell it like this. I would have preferred to see it from the perspective of the early FBI investigators uncovering what happened, would have been more engaging probably.

Anyway, Oppenheimer was MUCH better. Hell, I think I even enjoyed Barbie more! Now that’s a surprise.

Lmao, Oppenheimer was not better than KOTFM by any stretch of the imagination. Oppenheimer was ponderous and overblown; every single second of the movie has an overbearing, self-important musical score designed to telegraph just how important the events are. The whole point of KOTFM is that the scheme is discussed as if it’s nothing out of the ordinary. This shows how pliable, manipulable people like DiCaprio’s character can be roped into committing evil acts. The movie is about the banality of evil, which is why it chooses subtlety— not something a Nolan fan could understand.

That may have been "the point" but if so I got "the point" very early on and then it just started feeling repetitive. Just didn't make for a very entertaining movie to watch for 3 and a half hours, unlike some of Scorsese's other works which hit on similar themes but do so in a more engrossing way.

Just my opinion man, you know I respect yours so why not respect mine? Sure Nolan is a bit bombastic, but so was Wagner. Doesn't mean you can't create great art just like more subtle works can be.

Literally none of Scorsese's other films hit on this theme aside from maybe The Irishman. The whole point is that his past films have always glorified his criminal protagonists to some degree-- Travis Bickle and Jordan Belfort are "literally me" heroes to mentally ill teenage boys, and even Rupert Pupkin is somewhat admirable for his commitment to achieving his goal. KOTFM is instead about a group of people with no admirable traits. No one will quote or imitate them. Nobody will relate to them as "cool." In this sense the movie is a much greater achievement than his past crime thrillers, because it succeeds in unequivocally denouncing its own characters. This is very difficult for a movie to do, given that almost anything that happens on the screen is inevitably glorified to some degree.

Why don't I respect your opinion? Simple: I like to start drama and cause arguments about movies. This is because I'm an asshole.

[John Dule]

The problem with the Oscars isn't elitism, it's that they routinely go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks. Parasite, American Beauty, and Birdman are the rare recent exceptions when the Academy honored truly subversive, innovative art-- but aside from that, their pattern from the 90s through to today has been pretty consistent. It's either conventional crowd-pleasing period pieces like Titanic or The King's Speech; films with anodyne racial messages like 12 Years a Slave, Green Book, Dances With Wolves, or Moonlight; or just sickeningly feel-good tripe like Forrest Gump.

I'm long past the point of caring about what wins Best Picture, but if we're going to have these types of awards, they should honor boundary-pushing films that innovate with the medium and challenge audiences. The idea that this should be a coronation ceremony for whatever superhero movie the largest number of drooling neckbeards watched that year renders it completely pointless.

[John Dule]

I though that since 10 films are noms for Best Picture, but only 5 are noms for Best Director, it's very hard for a film which isn't nom for Director to win the best for Picture. But I checked now in Wikipedia and I saw that it happened 3 times: Argo (2013), Green Book (2019), CODA (2022).
However, I still believe that the Best Picture winner of 2024 will be one which was nom for Best Director too.

It's pretty clearly going to be Nolan/Oppenheimer. The Academy feels that it's "his turn," much like the DNC in 2016.

[John Dule]

The problem with the Oscars isn't elitism, it's that they routinely go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks. Parasite, American Beauty, and Birdman are the rare recent exceptions when the Academy honored truly subversive, innovative art-- but aside from that, their pattern from the 90s through to today has been pretty consistent. It's either conventional crowd-pleasing period pieces like Titanic or The King's Speech; films with anodyne racial messages like 12 Years a Slave, Green Book, Dances With Wolves, or Moonlight; or just sickeningly feel-good tripe like Forrest Gump.

I'm long past the point of caring about what wins Best Picture, but if we're going to have these types of awards, they should honor boundary-pushing films that innovate with the medium and challenge audiences. The idea that this should be a coronation ceremony for whatever superhero movie the largest number of drooling neckbeards watched that year renders it completely pointless.

They go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks, but the awards are not going to big blockbusters anymore, like they used to between 1996 and 2004. After Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings 3, this kind of picture is not winning anymore.

Because they don't exist anymore.

[John Dule]

I don't want to be too kind to the Oscars, because there are a ton of problems and I really can't stand them most of the time, but I do think they deserve quite a bit of credit for never jumping on the superhero bandwagon. Obviously everyone is pretending to have always hated Marvel now, but for practically the entire 2010s they were trying to force everyone to acknowledge stuff like Avengers 2 as cinema. Endgame is the most powerful film ever, Black Panther is the most bold and important movie ever made, etc. Outside of a few nominations here and there, the Oscars resisted that. I would much rather nonsense like Coda and Green Book win than Marvel. For all their faults, they deserve the award more than something like Infinity War does.

I'm sure many people were spewing this same elitist nonsense back in 1977 about Star Wars.

It's "elitist nonsense" to say that Avengers: Age of Ultron didn't deserve to win Best Picture? How dumbed-down do you think America is?

[John Dule]

I'm gonna have to completely disagree that American Beauty is better than something like Forrest Gump, regardless of how "feel-good" or "crowd-pleasing" the latter is or how "subversive" the former is. The idea that something is good because it's "subversive" is the same argument Last Jedi apologists use. I do agree that groundbreaking films should be recognized, but honestly American Beauty is just pretentious IMO, not actually groundbreaking. TBH I put it only slightly above the likes of Crash, another film that beats you over the head with its obvious message and is like "See how clever we are?" the whole time. A more well-made if more conventional film, especially one that actually makes you feel something, is preferable to me.

American Beauty isn't good because it's "subversive," it's good because the writing and acting are both incredible. Its unconventional approach is just what elevates it above other, more traditionally structured films. Maybe it's pretentious by the standards of the mainstream drivel typically honored by the Academy, but it's hardly experimental or avant-garde.

It's certainly better than Forrest Gump, which is just tame crowd-pleasing trash. That movie is the equivalent of Marvel fan service but for the latter half of the 20th Century.

That's what YOU say NOW. Back then there were many people sneering that it was a kids movie which had no place in a serious competition like the Academy Awards.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The original Star Wars did things with special effects that had literally never been seen before on screen. In contrast, there are five Marvel movies every year, none of which do anything new with storytelling, structure, or visual effects. What exactly stands out about something like Infinity War that deserves Best Picture over the other CGI slop that comes out every year? We might as well give awards to Kong: Skull Island and Pacific Rim at that point.

[John Dule]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Hahahahaha!!!

How old are you kid, eleven?

What exactly do you take issue with? It's completely true that the first Star Wars movie innovated more with visual effects technology than the Avengers movies, which just used tech that already existed. If you have a counterargument, make it.

[John Dule]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Hahahahaha!!!

How old are you kid, eleven?

What exactly do you take issue with? It's completely true that the first Star Wars movie innovated more with visual effects technology than the Avengers movies, which just used tech that already existed. If you have a counterargument, make it.

No kid, Star Wars didn't "revolutionize" and "innovate" visual effects technology. Lucas just perfected the work done by a REAL visionary: Stanley Kubrick in 2001.
Better luck next time.

Well yeah— he built on prior tech, but he also did new things. ILM literally had to invent a new type of camera to achieve the photography of the sets and models they built. Again, what did the Marvel movies do to set them apart from other CGI extravaganzas? When all the action is just rendered digitally with decade-old tech, there’s nothing impressive about it anymore.

This all overlooks the fact that we should not be awarding Best Picture to whatever movie was most technologically proficient, but that’s a different argument.

[John Dule]

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/1750185844219015517

Revolting. This woman must answer for what happened at Kenghazi.

[John Dule]

the reason why the Oscars resisted the MCU were twofold: 1) the oscars prefer self-contained movies rather than being part of some broad narrative dictated by a studio and 2) the sheer quantity of them.

The Oscars resist comic book movies in general (let's not pretend the Dark Knight's snub didn't happen) for the same reason they resist westerns, thrillers, horror, comedies, sci-fi, action, fantasy, animation, etc.
Because Academy members consider genre movies to be beneath them and unworthy of such lofty recognition.

Sure, there will be the occasional Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, or Lord of the Rings.
But they are the exception that proves the rule.

You say that the Academy resists genre films as if Everything, Everywhere, All at Once didn't sweep the Oscars last year as a comedic Sci-fi film. Likewise genre action films like Top Gun: Maverick were nominated last year, along with a sci-fi fantasy like Avatar: The Way of Water. To be frank there are simply not enough westerns being made to have them nominated frequently, but True Grit (2010) and The Revenant were both nominated for a slew of awards. Likewise, Get Out was nominated in 2017 for both Best Picture and Best Director. Genre films get nominated every single year, that doesn't mean they win every year, but then again the Academy isn't a hive mind, but rather over 10,000 individuals who I do think in general cast their votes for who and what they consider to be the best in each category.

This entire post is the apotheosis of naivete. But don't worry kids. That's what many of us believed when we were your age but thankfully it took us only about a decade or so to knock the Oscars (which have an almost 100 years history, they weren't established yesterday) from their pedestal.

BTW, don't give me that crap about Academy members. I've read enough anonymous interviews to understand that most of them are a bunch of self-conceited blowhards whose voting criteria are anything but the artistic value of the movies nominated.
Here is what a prominent online critic told me last week: "About 20 years ago, I remember reading comments from a voting member who admitted to never seeing any of the nominated films and basing his vote on which studio treated him better and sent him better swag. In the same article, another person said he voted for his friends regardless of how good a film might be. As to whether this is more prevalent than the Academy might like to believe...how else to explain "Shakespeare in Love?"
 

Disney can afford the best swag bags in the business, so it's hard to see how Marvel would be at a disadvantage if that were the problem. They already hand out goodies, toys, and pre-screening tickets to YouTube "critics" to generate buzz, and to tremendous success. Could it be that... the Avengers movies are just bad?

[John Dule]

Disney can afford the best swag bags in the business, so it's hard to see how Marvel would be at a disadvantage if that were the problem. They already hand out goodies, toys, and pre-screening tickets to YouTube "critics" to generate buzz, and to tremendous success. Could it be that... the Avengers movies are just bad?

You are so obsessed with your Marvel hate-boner that you're unable to get any point I'm trying to make for two pages now.
Take a cold shower and come back.

I'm just trying to get you to carry on the conversation you started. You haven't replied to a single point I've made.

[John Dule]

Disney can afford the best swag bags in the business, so it's hard to see how Marvel would be at a disadvantage if that were the problem. They already hand out goodies, toys, and pre-screening tickets to YouTube "critics" to generate buzz, and to tremendous success. Could it be that... the Avengers movies are just bad?

You are so obsessed with your Marvel hate-boner that you're unable to get any point I'm trying to make for two pages now.
Take a cold shower and come back.

I'm just trying to get you to carry on the conversation you started. You haven't replied to a single point I've made.

Trying to pass your opinion for fact isn't making a point.
The Avengers movies got great reviews and grossed billions of dollars. That's not what bad movies do.
You don't like them? Fine. There are after all people who think the Godfather and Citizen Kane are crap.
But don't try to argue that your opinion is the right one and everyone else's is wrong. This is just obnoxious and shows what an entitled brat you are.

I didn’t say they were objectively bad. I said they objectively didn’t innovate with film technology as much as the original Star Wars did, which is completely true.

[John Dule]

How about both of you cool off and let people enjoy what they enjoy without feeling the need to belittle them for it?

Cut the both sides BS.
Show me where I belittled anybody's opinion.
It's other people who declare holy war when someone doesn't accept their opinion as the gospel of truth.

And you're equally quick to snap back, which just shut the argument down.

How is anyone's life on here impacted by liking a movie you don't like? How is anyone's life on here impacted by not liking a movie you like?

Both of you just cool off. Neither of your lives are impacted by it, and I can assure you, neither are anyone else's.

Who said it's impacting anyone's lives? I like arguing about movies and giving my opinions on them. I'm trying to start a conversation with this Greek geek about the different technology used in Star Wars versus the Avengers movies because it's a subject that interests me. It's hardly my fault if he takes everything I say as a personal attack.

[John Dule]

How about both of you cool off and let people enjoy what they enjoy without feeling the need to belittle them for it?

Cut the both sides BS.
Show me where I belittled anybody's opinion.
It's other people who declare holy war when someone doesn't accept their opinion as the gospel of truth.

And you're equally quick to snap back, which just shut the argument down.

How is anyone's life on here impacted by liking a movie you don't like? How is anyone's life on here impacted by not liking a movie you like?

Both of you just cool off. Neither of your lives are impacted by it, and I can assure you, neither are anyone else's.

Who said it's impacting anyone's lives? I like arguing about movies and giving my opinions on them. I'm trying to start a conversation with this Greek geek about the different technology used in Star Wars versus the Avengers movies because it's a subject that interests me. It's hardly my fault if he takes everything I say as a personal attack.

In between slagging off fans of the Marvel movies as less intelligent.

Gee, you're right-- I take it back. Marvel fans are actually smarter than the people who vote in the Oscars. No clue where I got that idea from.

[John Dule]

Everyone's opinion on art is subjective, but if all you have to contribute to a discussion is the equivalent "well, you know, it's just like, your opinion, man" in response to someone who's making substantive arguments to back up their preferences, at least the latter person is being subjective in an interesting way.

And the fact that art’s quality is subjective doesn’t mean we can’t make objective statements about other aspects of it. Star Wars’ tech objectively advanced movie technology more than 99.9% of other films. We can quibble about the specifics, but it’s wrong to act like the word “objective” has no place in analyzing such things.

[John Dule]

Sigh.

I’m not watching that. Use your own words.

[John Dule]

I’m not watching that. Use your own words.

Is nine minutes too long for your attention span?

If the argument is worth making, you should make it yourself. Don't just substitute other people's analysis for your own.

[John Dule]

I’m not watching that. Use your own words.

Is nine minutes too long for your attention span?

If the argument is worth making, you should make it yourself. Don't just substitute other people's analysis for your own.

I admit that's a cop-out I haven't seen until now.
Kudos kid for keeping things interesting.

Are you capable of having a conversation with another human being? I've been trying to get you to explain your perspective for two pages of this thread. This does not have to be a hostile interaction if you don't insist on making it one.

I watched the first few minutes of that video, but the guy is only talking about subjectivity of the quality of movies. That's unrelated to what I'm talking about, so I'm asking you again to respond specifically to what I said instead of posting a generic reply video someone else made that doesn't even address the subject of this discussion. Is there a language barrier here I'm not understanding?

[John Dule]

I’m not watching that. Use your own words.

Is nine minutes too long for your attention span?

If the argument is worth making, you should make it yourself. Don't just substitute other people's analysis for your own.

I admit that's a cop-out I haven't seen until now.
Kudos kid for keeping things interesting.

Are you capable of having a conversation with another human being? I've been trying to get you to explain your perspective for two pages of this thread. This does not have to be a hostile interaction if you don't insist on making it one.

I watched the first few minutes of that video, but the guy is only talking about subjectivity of the quality of movies. That's unrelated to what I'm talking about, so I'm asking you again to respond specifically to what I said instead of posting a generic reply video someone else made that doesn't even address the subject of this discussion. Is there a language barrier here I'm not understanding?

See this is why I don't understand the knee-jerk rallying around and defense of LL. Even if you don't care about how one-sided and shallow his political commentary is (most of his new threads and commentary could be accurately replicated by a bot that scrapes liberal formerly Twitter accounts), because you're such a hack you only care about the ideological orientation, he's still extremely unpleasant to deal with when discussing things that aren't even political at all like this, and one of only two posters I've noticed who has a tendency to actually alienate people in those threads who take the same position as him.

The explanation is pretty simple: Those who like him haven't paid enough attention to him to realize how awful he is.

[John Dule]

I skipped the Oscars to watch Hereditary, which was a good choice. Glad to see Maestro didn't win anything. Hate to see Oppenheimer win best editing; that might be one of the worst Oscar choices ever, which is saying something.

[John Dule]

I skipped the Oscars to watch Hereditary, which was a good choice. Glad to see Maestro didn't win anything. Hate to see Oppenheimer win best editing; that might be one of the worst Oscar choices ever, which is saying something.

How bad, on a scale of 1 to Bohemian Rhapsody? Maybe I'm uncultured swine but Oppenheimer's breakneck Michael Bay editing contributed to the swirling relentlessness of the movie (and made it extra notable when it would let up occasionally), which I enjoyed.

Oppenheimer’s editing literally ruined an otherwise great movie. The music was intrusive, and giving every single scene such a ponderous and weighty tone made it so there was nothing that stood out.