Samtemdo8 said:
maninahat said:
Samtemdo8 said:
SirSullymore said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Bob_McMillan said:
Gethsemani said:
Remus said:
I'm glad La La land didn't win. A more white picture couldn't have been made. all technicolorful, cheery, and 1950s flavor, like it was made from a collective to be an oscar contender.
I struggle to think of any other movie that's as obviously Oscar Bait as La La Land. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with that, but it will invariably be a divisive movie since a lot of people will be ticked off by some of the more obviously baity choices made in production.
From what I hear, Moonlight is pretty damn Oscar-baity too.
Oscar Bait movies are still better movies than most movies churrened out by the Blockbuster scene.
Appearently being the best possible is considered bad
Oscar bait isn't synonymous with good, it means it ticks most or all of the check boxes on the list of things the academy likes. Moviebob defines it pretty well in his The King's Speech review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epsa4gQr3uc
Does not change the fact that the Academy has better taste in movies. And the King Speech was a good movie. Bob was probably just salty that it won over Toy Story 3. I mean this is the man that thinks Harry Potter and the Avengers should be nominated for Best Picture
I liked what
Cracked suggested the Oscars do, and have a three year or so gap between when the movie comes out and when it comes up for an Oscar nomination. That way, the awards won't keep going to the decent-yet-forgettable-oscarbait and will go to the good movies that have stayed in the minds of the voters. Doing it that way, things like Harry Potter or Mad Max would actually win.
Why do you find most Oscarbait forgettable?
I did not find There Will Be Blood forgettable. I did not find Slumdog Millionaire forgettable.
Also just because a perticular movie won does not invalidate the quality of the other nominated movies.
There Will Be Blood and Slumdog Millionaire were not Oscarbait.
Oscarbait refers to movies that are hand made to get nominations. They are often period pieces and made to inspire nostalgia among voters, or just affirmation of how important the media is to changing the world. They are also premiered late in the year, because nominators have the attention span of a goldfish. Examples of oscarbait are "The Artist", a movie about movie nostalgia for people 70 and older; or "The King Speech" a movie that was premiered exclusively to Oscar voters and was about how monarchy teamed up with radio and sound movies to helped save the world from Nazis; or "Argo", a movie about how Hollywood was able to save hostages from a war zone.
That is not to say some of those movies aren't fine on their own right, but many are so forgettable that people barely remember them a couple years after the nomination.
And no, it does not invalidate the quality of the other movies, but it does cast shadow on the validity of the decision. After all, it is the same process that said Dance with the Wolves was better than Goodfellas, Forest Gump was better than The Shawshank Redemption, Shakespeare in Love was better than Private Ryan, Crash was better than Brokeback Mountain and Chicago was better than Lord of the Rings and The Pianist.