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

[buritobr]

You can consider that ignoring Margot Robbie was not a good decision, that she acted better than one or more of the five nominees for best actrees, but I don't believe there was sexism. Every year, there are 5 noms for best actor, 5 noms for best actress, 5 noms for supporting actor, 5 noms for supporting actress. Margot Robbie didn't loose the nomination for a man.

The exclusion of Greta Gerwig, on the other hand, might be motivated by sexism, but we can be not sure.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[nicholas.slaydon]

You can consider that ignoring Margot Robbie was not a good decision, that she acted better than one or more of the five nominees for best actrees, but I don't believe there was sexism. Every year, there are 5 noms for best actor, 5 noms for best actress, 5 noms for supporting actor, 5 noms for supporting actress. Margot Robbie didn't loose the nomination for a man.

The exclusion of Greta Gerwig, on the other hand, might be motivated by sexism, but we can be not sure.

It would seem strange to accuse the Directors Branch of sexism in this case as first off, Gerwig has been nominated before in the category for Lady Bird, and the branch nominated Justine Triet.

[nicholas.slaydon]

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.

Except that Star Wars was nominated for a boat load of Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director, and won six awards (the most of that year). No Marvel movie could ever claim that (and for good reason).

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

Except that Star Wars was nominated for a boat load of Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director, and won six awards (the most of that year). No Marvel movie could ever claim that (and for good reason).

Umm, Black Panther got seven nominations and three wins.

[buritobr]

You can consider that ignoring Margot Robbie was not a good decision, that she acted better than one or more of the five nominees for best actrees, but I don't believe there was sexism. Every year, there are 5 noms for best actor, 5 noms for best actress, 5 noms for supporting actor, 5 noms for supporting actress. Margot Robbie didn't loose the nomination for a man.

The exclusion of Greta Gerwig, on the other hand, might be motivated by sexism, but we can be not sure.

It would seem strange to accuse the Directors Branch of sexism in this case as first off, Gerwig has been nominated before in the category for Lady Bird, and the branch nominated Justine Triet.

I don't think the Academy was sexist in excluding Greta Gerwig, I only think that this claim is less nonsense than the claim that excluding Margot Robbie was sexist.

[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?

[Alben Barkley]

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.

Star Wars was actually an incredibly groundbreaking and important film though, it really did change cinema forever and no one had seen anything like it before. It deserved to win over Woody Allen. But it did at least get nominated (back when there were fewer nominees too), and Alec Guinness was even nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

To pretend any Marvel movie is in the same league as Star Wars in 1977 is nonsense.

[Alben Barkley]

Ryan Gosling getting an acting nomination and not the woman who literally plays Barbie or the woman who made the damn film (for Best Director) goes completely against the overall subtext of that movie. What an Academy moment.

But the forgettable supporting actress got nominated for no reason?

It's not sexism, just typical Oscars weirdness. Doesn't even make sense to call it sexism; it's not like Gosling got nominated over Robbie in the same category, she lost to 5 other women.

[Alben Barkley]

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.

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Dark Knight was obviously robbed with no Best Picture nomination, but otherwise the fact that the Oscars don't give such noms to superhero movies is totally fine, and definitely true in regards to Marvel movies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also interestingly the only Best Picture noms I've seen are Barbenheimer and The Holdovers. Although I would've seen Killers of the Flower Moon if it wasn't 3 1/2 hours long.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Star Wars was actually an incredibly groundbreaking and important film though, it really did change cinema forever and no one had seen anything like it before. It deserved to win over Woody Allen. But it did at least get nominated (back when there were fewer nominees too), and Alec Guinness was even nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

To pretend any Marvel movie is in the same league as Star Wars in 1977 is nonsense.

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.

Anyway, I believe than in 2018 both Infinity War and Spiderverse were much better films than Bohemian Rhapsody and eventual winner Green Book.

[Sestak]

Can we seriously stop clogging this thread with this dumb argument? We have just had a dozen or so films get a decent haul of nominations - and most of them are excellent! Let's celebrate them.

Will start with this one - with her nomination for Killers of the Flower Moon, Thelma Schoonmaker is now the most nominated editor in Oscars history, having been named nine times. She's also tied for the most wins at three.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Ryan Gosling getting an acting nomination and not the woman who literally plays Barbie or the woman who made the damn film (for Best Director) goes completely against the overall subtext of that movie. What an Academy moment.

But the forgettable supporting actress got nominated for no reason?

It's not sexism, just typical Oscars weirdness. Doesn't even make sense to call it sexism; it's not like Gosling got nominated over Robbie in the same category, she lost to 5 other women.

Didn’t say it was a sexist move, but it was definitely tone deaf.

[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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Does it annoy anybody else that this thread is a megathread? Im sure making one thread every year won't be too overbearing on the site.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

 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.

[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.

[fhtagn]

Also interestingly the only Best Picture noms I've seen are Barbenheimer and The Holdovers. Although I would've seen Killers of the Flower Moon if it wasn't 3 1/2 hours long.

Killers of the Flower Moon is definitely worth a watch if you ever find the opportunity.

Though I will admit it could have easily been shortened and still have been equally as good (with with Oppenheimer).

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[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.

[T'Chenka]

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

[John Dule]

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

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

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.