Star Wars not nominated for best picture of the year.

[Dizchu]

Who cares about the Oscars anyway? I mean they're nowhere near as meaningless as the Grammys, but they're pretty pointless themselves.

We're talking about an awards ceremony which is infamous for its ignorance of animation.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Who cares about the Oscars anyway? I mean they're nowhere near as meaningless as the Grammys, but they're pretty pointless themselves.

Studios care. Banners saying "Winner of X Oscars" look good on DVD cases.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

Why would it be? It wasn't that good to be nominated.

 

[Dizchu]

Studios care. Banners saying "Winner of X Oscars" look good on DVD cases.

I guess my question was rhetorical. The point is, there's no good reason to care in an age where IMDB and RottenTomatoes exist and I think a lot of people who frequent the internet disregard the Academy Awards as being an "authority".

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

I guess my question was rhetorical. The point is, there's no good reason to care in an age where IMDB and RottenTomatoes exist and I think a lot of people who frequent the internet disregard the Academy Awards as being an "authority".

I'd agree with that. I don't know that the Oscars really matter that much, but given that studios run campaigns to get movies nominated and awarded Oscars, they must perceive some potential commercial value in doing so. Maybe a movie winning Oscars does generate sales in some form, otherwise I can't imagine why they would care either. Honestly, the Oscars seem like an anachronism in the internet age.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I don't think it deserved a nomination. To be honest, I don't know if I'd give any of the Star Wars movies best picture nods. They're fun popcorn flicks, but they don't really stay with you after IMO.

I'm much more annoyed that Ex Machina was snubbed.

The Oscars bore me. They almost always go for the most shallow Oscar baity types of films.

How on Earth is Mad Max a baity film? I agree that the wins/nominations often go to run of the mill period dramas, but even then, I don't see how they're shallow. This honestly sounds like one of those arguments people make when they simply don't like something and want their opinion to sound more weighty. Can you explain why they're shallow and Star Wars isn't?

Edit: not saying that the Oscars should even be taken as some kind of measure of a film's worth. We've already seen that the voters don't even watch all the movies and often just vote on things because they think they should.

That's why I said almost always. It's cool Mad Max was given a best picture nomination and I hope it wins but I have a feeling that it was just thrown in there for us nerds and geeks. I really hope that I am wrong and that it wins best picture because it deserves it the most out of anything else on that list.

They're shallow because they are purely made to win Oscars. As you even said in your post they are often run of the mill period dramas and that voters don't even watch all of the movies. The directors and screen writers already know this and make a film they know will do well at the Oscars; at the expense of trying to make something they actually want to make. Most of the time never put any effort into them. I've seen all the films that have been nominated and while I like most of them I feel half of them don't deserve to be nominated for best picture.

Mad Max, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, and The Martian are all fine but Brooklyn, Room, and Spot-Light need to go because they honestly don't deserve best picture. Inside Out, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Hateful Eight, and Ant-Man instead should be nominated for best picture. Those are all movies the people that made them actually wanted to make.

I want the movies that actually had heart and soul put into them to be on there and not just safe movies Oscar bait movies. Also, it should be required that everyone has at least seen all of the films to vote.

I guess my idea of shallow is different than yours. Sorry if I came across as antagonistic. Did you actually see all of the movies you're bashing/praising? Personally, I found The Revenant to be much more of an Oscar bait title than Spotlight. The Revenant is another period drama with the addition of being a survival tale (another thing the Academy loves to recognize). Spotlight came across to me as more of a movie about reporting and the ethics involved in it rather than just another period piece. The backdrop for the story being the Catholic Church didn't really matter and to be honest, probably didn't do the movie any favours since it's such a touchy issue.

Totally agree about Inside Out, but as much as I liked Star Wars, it still felt way too samey. Especially when you compare it to something as joyfully original as the former movie. Then again, Star Wars was really well made, and it did stay with me long after I'd seen it, so maybe I would give it a nod. As for Antman, for me it was the most derivative Marvel movie yet. IMO, if any Marvel movie ever deserved a nomination for Best Picture, it was Guardians. I haven't gotten to see Hateful 8 or the Martian yet, but I'm fairly certain that I'll thoroughly enjoy both of them.

My idea of a Best Picture movie is something that stays with you long after you've seen it and has you thinking back on it somewhat regularly. It's why I would never consider some of the baity titles to be my own personal favourites. While you can tell that they're well made and well acted, for me, they're almost universally forgettable. Movies that really stuck with me this year were: Ex Machina, Mad Max, Inside Out, and Spotlight, with my personal winner probably being toss up between Ex Machina and Mad Max. I'm tempted to give a nod to Star Wars simply because it reignited my excitement for a franchise I'd thought was dead, but it bugs me too much that it retreads so many story beats of a New Hope, even though I think Force Awakens is the superior movie in most ways.

 

[Vedrenne]

I'm with the Academy on this one.

Rae and Finn were terrible (more so Rae). Kylo Ren is the least intimidating villain of all time, with the director relying on killing Han off to give him some credibility. The lightsaber fights were uninspired and none of the characters had any soul or believability.

On the (only) plus side, the X Wing/Tie Fighter/Millennium Falcon scenes were pretty sweet.

It is as bad as Episode 1, but people are willing to overlook this because no Jar Jar.

 

[Ticklefist]

Force Awakens was a Marvel movie with Star Wars iconography. It is not a Best Picture candidate. All it had to do was be the 4th best Star Wars movie and it didn't even manage that.

 

[happyninja42]

My idea of a Best Picture movie is something that stays with you long after you've seen it and has you thinking back on it somewhat regularly. It's why I would never consider some of the baity titles to be my own personal favourites. While you can tell that they're well made and well acted, for me, they're almost universally forgettable. Movies that really stuck with me this year were: Ex Machina, Mad Max, Inside Out, and Spotlight, with my personal winner probably being toss up between Ex Machina and Mad Max. I'm tempted to give a nod to Star Wars simply because it reignited my excitement for a franchise I'd thought was dead, but it bugs me too much that it retreads so many story beats of a New Hope, even though I think Force Awakens is the superior movie in most ways.

You're not the only person who took issue with the similarities to New Hope. I fully acknowledge the similarities, but I don't really mind them. I mean, Return of the Jedi did the same thing. Death Star 2.0, they have to blow it up from the inside. My personal views on it though, are that it's not the first time another movie has retread the same story structure, and we still enjoy them just fine. New Hope was a pretty bare bones Hero Journey story, and Awakens told pretty much the same type of story, in the same universe. I think this one was honestly sort of peace offering to the rabid fanbase, saying "Here, this is what we plan on doing with Star Wars, please calm down and trust us to do an ok job." And frankly I'm fine with that. Sure, they didn't tread any new ground, but honestly, none of the Star Wars material beyond the movies have. They all have some variation on the Empire, hell even the ships look the same, thousands of years apart. They all have some planet killer weapon, and a band of plucky young rebels who can save the day. The entire Star Wars industry is built around retreading the feel and elements of the original movies. So I don't really fault Awakens for doing more of the same.

OT: I can't really fault them for not nominating it. It wasn't one of the best pictures of the year. One of the most successful, sure, no doubt. But best? Meh, it was a decent movie, and decent movies don't get Best Picture nominations.

 

[K12]

The general public's enjoyment does play a part in Oscar's selection but it's a bit more nuanced than popular film = best picture nomination. Films that would have appealed to the academy and then end up being a surprise hit end up doing well with the Oscars.

No-one's arguing for Jurassic World for best picture and that was a box office juggernaut as well. Star Wars was good but not great, it didn't deserve a nomination. Plenty of "good but not great" films get nominated but they're a very different type of good not great.

The nomination of "Mad Max: Fury Road" and "The Martian" are good signs because they're both good in a way that Oscar nominated films usually aren't, the former having very limited plot and the latter having very irreverent dialogue which underplayed the drama. Sci-fi tend towards being overly serious to get a best picture nomination and neither of these films are.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Mad Max, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, and The Martian are all fine but Brooklyn, Room, and Spot-Light need to go because they honestly don't deserve best picture. Inside Out, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Hateful Eight, and Ant-Man instead should be nominated for best picture. Those are all movies the people that made them actually wanted to make.

Did you just suggest peeling nominations off Spotlight and Room, and giving one to Ant-Man?

That's a bold statement, Cotton.

 

[T8B95]

By all accounts, once you remove the nerdgasming, it's a fine film that is not by any stretch "the best of the year". Oh well, I'm sure the producers can dry their tears from not getting nominated with their spare million-dollar bills.


inb4 Matt Damon gets Leo's Oscar

There'd be a riot, and hopefully a Leo v Damon brawl. I'm hoping to see some marionette wire fighting.

It'd be just like the elevator scene in the Departed

On a completely different topic, I'm touched to see all the love for Ex Machina here. Of the two science fiction movies of the year starring Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac, it was the far better one in my opinion and it's sad to see it get snubbed.

 

[Bat Vader]

I don't think it deserved a nomination. To be honest, I don't know if I'd give any of the Star Wars movies best picture nods. They're fun popcorn flicks, but they don't really stay with you after IMO.

I'm much more annoyed that Ex Machina was snubbed.

The Oscars bore me. They almost always go for the most shallow Oscar baity types of films.

How on Earth is Mad Max a baity film? I agree that the wins/nominations often go to run of the mill period dramas, but even then, I don't see how they're shallow. This honestly sounds like one of those arguments people make when they simply don't like something and want their opinion to sound more weighty. Can you explain why they're shallow and Star Wars isn't?

Edit: not saying that the Oscars should even be taken as some kind of measure of a film's worth. We've already seen that the voters don't even watch all the movies and often just vote on things because they think they should.

That's why I said almost always. It's cool Mad Max was given a best picture nomination and I hope it wins but I have a feeling that it was just thrown in there for us nerds and geeks. I really hope that I am wrong and that it wins best picture because it deserves it the most out of anything else on that list.

They're shallow because they are purely made to win Oscars. As you even said in your post they are often run of the mill period dramas and that voters don't even watch all of the movies. The directors and screen writers already know this and make a film they know will do well at the Oscars; at the expense of trying to make something they actually want to make. Most of the time never put any effort into them. I've seen all the films that have been nominated and while I like most of them I feel half of them don't deserve to be nominated for best picture.

Mad Max, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, and The Martian are all fine but Brooklyn, Room, and Spot-Light need to go because they honestly don't deserve best picture. Inside Out, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Hateful Eight, and Ant-Man instead should be nominated for best picture. Those are all movies the people that made them actually wanted to make.

I want the movies that actually had heart and soul put into them to be on there and not just safe movies Oscar bait movies. Also, it should be required that everyone has at least seen all of the films to vote.

I guess my idea of shallow is different than yours. Sorry if I came across as antagonistic. Did you actually see all of the movies you're bashing/praising? Personally, I found The Revenant to be much more of an Oscar bait title than Spotlight. The Revenant is another period drama with the addition of being a survival tale (another thing the Academy loves to recognize). Spotlight came across to me as more of a movie about reporting and the ethics involved in it rather than just another period piece. The backdrop for the story being the Catholic Church didn't really matter and to be honest, probably didn't do the movie any favours since it's such a touchy issue.

Totally agree about Inside Out, but as much as I liked Star Wars, it still felt way too samey. Especially when you compare it to something as joyfully original as the former movie. Then again, Star Wars was really well made, and it did stay with me long after I'd seen it, so maybe I would give it a nod. As for Antman, for me it was the most derivative Marvel movie yet. IMO, if any Marvel movie ever deserved a nomination for Best Picture, it was Guardians. I haven't gotten to see Hateful 8 or the Martian yet, but I'm fairly certain that I'll thoroughly enjoy both of them.

My idea of a Best Picture movie is something that stays with you long after you've seen it and has you thinking back on it somewhat regularly. It's why I would never consider some of the baity titles to be my own personal favourites. While you can tell that they're well made and well acted, for me, they're almost universally forgettable. Movies that really stuck with me this year were: Ex Machina, Mad Max, Inside Out, and Spotlight, with my personal winner probably being toss up between Ex Machina and Mad Max. I'm tempted to give a nod to Star Wars simply because it reignited my excitement for a franchise I'd thought was dead, but it bugs me too much that it retreads so many story beats of a New Hope, even though I think Force Awakens is the superior movie in most ways.

I did. I won't fully bash or praise a film until I have seen it. I'm worried about Suicide Squad but I am going to wait to bash or praise it until I have seen it. I agree The Revenant is a Oscar bait film but I felt it was a better movie than Spotlight. I thought Spotlight was a decent film but it didn't stick with me like The Revenant, Star Wars, Ant-Man, and Inside Out, and The Hateful Eight did. Spotlight isn't a bad film but I wouldn't consider it Oscar material. It felt more like it was made just purely to win Oscars and not because the people involved wanted to make it. I agree it was well written and well acted but there's just something there that makes it seem false to me if that makes sense.

Ex Machina was a really good film. I enjoyed Mad Max and Star Wars more but it's definitely in my top ten of the year.

Edit: While The Force Awakens does mimic A New Hope it irks me that so many people can't see why it does it. I'm not saying you're one of them because you're not. I saw it as a way for Abrams to reawaken people's nostalgia for Star Wars and take them back to a Galaxy Far Far Away. It wasn't meant to be a copy and paste. it was meant to hit on all the original notes that made Star Wars Awesome and make people feel like they were seeing A New Hope again for the first time. For me that's what it did. It make me love Star Wars again.

At the same time though VIII and IX can't be the same. They have become their own things and not be a nostalgia trilogy.

 

[Bat Vader]

Mad Max, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, and The Martian are all fine but Brooklyn, Room, and Spot-Light need to go because they honestly don't deserve best picture. Inside Out, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Hateful Eight, and Ant-Man instead should be nominated for best picture. Those are all movies the people that made them actually wanted to make.

Did you just suggest peeling nominations off Spotlight and Room, and giving one to Ant-Man?

That's a bold statement, Cotton.

Yes but only if Inside Out, The Hateful Eight, and Star Wars couldn't get them. What's wrong with Ant-Man getting the nomination over Spotlight or Room? Ant-Man is a solid film that stayed with me after I saw it. The fight scenes were great, the comedy was awesome, and the fact that it was done as a heist film with a superhero made it great. Every part of the movie meshed perfectly. I loved the parts when they were shrunken down and fighting and how throwing a toy seemed like a big deal but at normal size it was just funny.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Who cares about the Oscars anyway? I mean they're nowhere near as meaningless as the Grammys, but they're pretty pointless themselves.

Studios care. Banners saying "Winner of X Oscars" look good on DVD cases.

And if that leads to more interest in a genuinely good movie that would be overlooked by many without the academies acknowledgement, that's a pretty good thing.

Money will always play a part, and you could argue that it's self-indulgent on the industries part. But... The optimist in me likes that they try to acknowledge the braver works.

Star Wars isn't something that needs any more attention given to it, and it (IMHO) was a pretty 'meh' film in most respects. Not only derivative of the first Star Wars film, but also just about every other modern action film too. It had some nice touches, but I thought it was painfully average in most respects. Far from deserving of awards.

IIRC the voters are largely made up of industry insiders who I don't think would find any reasons to be impressed by The Force Awakens.

 

[Bat Vader]

Who cares about the Oscars anyway? I mean they're nowhere near as meaningless as the Grammys, but they're pretty pointless themselves.

Studios care. Banners saying "Winner of X Oscars" look good on DVD cases.

And if that leads to more interest in a genuinely good movie that would be overlooked by many without the academies acknowledgement, that's a pretty good thing.

Money will always play a part, and you could argue that it's self-indulgent on the industries part. But... The optimist in me likes that they try to acknowledge the braver works.

Star Wars isn't something that needs any more attention given to it, and it (IMHO) was a pretty 'meh' film in most respects. Not only derivative of the first Star Wars film, but also just about every other modern action film too. It had some nice touches, but I thought it was painfully average in most respects. Far from deserving of awards.

IIRC the voters are largely made up of industry insiders who I don't think would find any reasons to be impressed by The Force Awakens.

Why would they need to find ways to be impressed by it? If they liked it more than other films they should vote to give it an Oscar.

 

[Lightknight]

Two things:

1. Disney's Oscar is a giant-ass pile of cash.

2. Of course it didn't get a nomination. It was wildly popular but wasn't good in any particular category. I mean, none of the actors were "best actor" quality. The writing wasn't fantastic. The graphics were nice but not world shattering. The music was either not new or forgettable. What do we expect them to get for it?

The goal wasn't to make the best movie ever. It was to reestablish the franchise with a return to the look and feel of the originals. They succeeded and did a pretty good job. If they want to push the envelope it will be with subsequent installments or spinoffs.

 

[9tailedflame]

The Force Awakens was a good movie. I could even argue it was a very good movie.

But it's not a great movie and doesn't really deserve a Best Picture nod, let alone a win.

I talk about it in my review (which you should totally go read because I need people to pay attention to me or I wither away [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.932256-tippy2k2-tells-you-what-to-think-Star-Wars-The-Force-Awakens]) but the movie felt safe. It didn't take any chances or do anything new or exciting with the franchise. It was a shinier version of Episode IV with a Mary S...oh no you don't internet! We don't need to get into that rehash again...let's say boring protagonist (I have softened up on the MS debate with her since writing my review, though that still doesn't make her an interesting character to me).

Like I said, it was a good film that deserves praise for being a very good popcorn blockbuster. It just doesn't deserve Best Picture. That doesn't make it a bad movie, there are just other films that are better.

Pretty much this. The movie was a great experience, and it felt very much like Star WArs had returned. But it doesn't stand up as a Best Picture candidate. There's just too many problems in the execution, as much fun as the laser fights are. And with action sequences, it falls short of the nominated Fury Road (which I'd also argue has a better, tighter story in its simplicity and imagery).

And no, justifications in the book do not fix plot problems in the movie.

In fact, the only awards I see Force Awakens deserving of nominations are Visual Design/Effects, Costuming, and Make up. Best directing could be considered since Abrams went to such great lengths to emulate Lucas's style throughout, but the Academy doesn't judge based off of homages. The acting wasn't best picture quality.

Now, the argument that the Academy is out of touch is another. There isn't a rotating cast of judges, and they don't even have to watch the movies they vote on. I remember multiple judges being quoted as snubbing Wolf of Wall Street as profane and not watching the whole movie. But a movie being "the biggest of the year" as the article posits doesn't give it artistic merits. There's a reason the Marvel films haven't won Oscars, and it's not because the academy doesn't like comic books (I say as a huge Marvel fan).

Wait wait wait. I knew the oscars were out of touch, but they don't have to watch the movies they vote on?! That's just astonishingly unprofessional. That shocks me.

As for star wars, i did enjoy the movie, but i wouldn't call it great, i'd call it good. It was a tad too safe to be great. Then again, i don't think 2015 had a very good lineup overall, but i'd still put the martian as the better movie than star wars, but that's just my opinion. On the other hand, i've actually seen both movies, so that sortof makes me more qualified than some of these judges apparently.

 

[Dragonbums]

What I find is a travesty is Jurassic World not getting a nod for Best Visual Effects.

Eeeeeeeh, sorry but I gotta disagree. Way too many parts of Jurassic World looked like obvious CG. The original still to this day holds up because of their phenomenal use of costume, acting, painting, and animal emulating skills. The sequel didn't top that by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

And if that leads to more interest in a genuinely good movie that would be overlooked by many without the academies acknowledgement, that's a pretty good thing.

Money will always play a part, and you could argue that it's self-indulgent on the industries part. But... The optimist in me likes that they try to acknowledge the braver works.

Honestly, I don't think the Oscars are a platform that is particularly interested in acknowledging braver filmmaking, as the Academy, probably due to its voter makeup, tends to be fairly safe and conservative in its selections; that's why we have "Oscar-bait" as a term, because it's not that hard to make a movie that will appeal to the Academy voters established tastes. It's the more art house/avant garde festivals that give attention to more daring filmmaking.