Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “Oscar movie” is dying

worldofreel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 165 posts

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#131

Post by gota »

standardly wrote: post #116
gota wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RLM guys (at least the main ones) seem great at pointing out when a movie sucks, mostly because of: - poor structure. Bad setup/payoffs, useless sequences, confusing narrative without any merit behind it - poor pacing. Too much "brain-off" action, shitty dialog, too fast/slow for the theme - uninteresting characters, with no redeeming characteristics (e.g. a great actor or enough plot quality to compensate) These in…

Could someone kindly establish what "RLM" is? Some of us have a enough acronyms in the database already.

I'm sorry - I swear I thought the post above mine used the full name.

You are absolutely right (YAAR) about acronyms

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#132

Post by kderbyma »

ajkjk wrote: post #64
DeetrixDotter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing quite breaks the immersion for me like having so many gay and interracial couples crammed into the cast that I end up sitting there wondering if there is any place on Earth that's anything like the "normal" town Hollywood is presenting to me.

It does seem like a bit much, but it's definitely better than the former state where none of that stuff existed, as far as Hollywood was concerned. I imagine it'll equilibrate over the next few decades.

Movies cannot be true to a single held vision like they once were now they are designed by committee and it shows.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#133

Post by CyberDildonics »

gfxgirl wrote: post #57
mc32 wrote: post #2

I wouldn't overdramatize it. The movie business didn't start with Oscar awards and it does not need them to continue. The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which often were at odds with the public. The critics and audience don't always agree. And now with less capture by the studios and cinema resulting in people having more choices of what to watch, people are choosing the more basic and entertainin…

> The critics and audience don't always agree. The Oscars are not decided by critics. They're decided by peers. Directors vote for best Director. Actors vote for best Actor. Composers vote for best Music. Etc...

This is not how it works. Anyone in the Academy can vote on the nominees. The nominees themselves are decided by the people in their specific category.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#134

Post by schaefer »

unwind wrote: post #75
schaefer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to the movies last weekend. I was one of 5 people in the entire theater. The posted movie start time was 1:30. At 1:50, the movie still hadn't started. Even the previews hadn't started. They were still spamming us with TV quality advertisements for Coke-a-cola and other stuff I couldn't care less about. 20 solid minutes of ads. Under no circumstances is that acceptable. If I hadn't been with other people I wou…

That sounds horrible and rather disrespectful, what a bad experience. That said, is "coke-a-cola" a humorous spelling (like "Micro$oft") or just a misspelling of Coca-Cola?

just a misspelling. Apparently those time wasting adds don't work.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#135

Post by thefounder »

The Oscars died for good after the diversity quotas. You can't have a Best Picture without having heads of major departments(such as editing, director, makeup and hairstyling, costuming, sound) from underrepresented identity group(i.e lgbtq). I fail to see how this makes the best movie "win". Perhaps that's why all the new movies became have some kind of forced gay plot just to tick some boxes. Not even the remakes are spared of this "upgrade".

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#136

Post by quickthrowman »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #96

I'm astounded that this article doesn't mention what to me seems like a no-brainer: We're in the golden age of television. People don't want to watch 10, unconnected movies now. They want 10-20 hours of a continuous story. Netflix, Apple TV, Prime, and other streaming platforms have been delivering a quality experience that immerses the viewer in an engagement that film can't compete with on depth, world-building, et…

> I'm astounded that this article doesn't mention what to me seems like a no-brainer: We're in the golden age of television.

I disagree, the golden age of television was the late 90s to early 2010s, from the start of the Sopranos, to the last episode of Breaking Bad. I can’t name a series in the last 10 years that is on par with Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, or The Wire.

Streaming services killed quality television, House of Cards was the beginning of the end.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#137

Post by pcthrowaway »

quickthrowman wrote: post #136
pcthrowaway wrote: post #96

I'm astounded that this article doesn't mention what to me seems like a no-brainer: We're in the golden age of television. People don't want to watch 10, unconnected movies now. They want 10-20 hours of a continuous story. Netflix, Apple TV, Prime, and other streaming platforms have been delivering a quality experience that immerses the viewer in an engagement that film can't compete with on depth, world-building, et…

> I'm astounded that this article doesn't mention what to me seems like a no-brainer: We're in the golden age of television. I disagree, the golden age of television was the late 90s to early 2010s, from the start of the Sopranos, to the last episode of Breaking Bad. I can’t name a series in the last 10 years that is on par with Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, or The Wire. Streaming service…

This really comes down to opinion, and I happen to think there are comparable shows which have aired in the last year (Better Call Saul is as good as, if not better than Breaking Bad in my opinion)

But I think it's silly to argue about that ;) The golden age for you might not be the golden age for me, and most people. Personally, not having to sit through a million ads when I watch TV now makes the TV-watching experience leagues beyond what we had in the late 90s (and sure, we've had some phenomenal shows since Breaking Bad; I'd personally nod at Atlanta, High Maintenance, Maniac, Severance, Game of Thrones S1-5, Undone, and The Expanse)

But we also have access to everything from the 90s and noughts, without the ads and waiting for new episodes

The point I was making in the GP post was that people now have easy access to the long-form storytelling of TV shows, without interruptions and nonstop ads, in a way that didn't exist 10+ years ago. Whether or not you think the TV shows today are better than the ones from the late '90s, people nowadays are choosing watch more TV and less film.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#138

Post by Tommah »

jrm4 wrote: post #107
jfengel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an actor myself, I find that the Oscar bait is often the "Academy Award for the Most Acting". It has become a cliche that you seek an Oscar by playing a highly damaged character with obvious quirks. More subtle performances are usually passed over, even though I consider them more challenging. They're often nominated, but rarely win. Which is fine, since those kinds of films are usually not going to attract big au…

This reminds me of Eddie Murphy's reaction to some "dramatic moment with a look he gave" in Showgirls that everyone reacted to as great acting, and he was like -- "Did you not see me in the Nutty Professor where I was FIVE PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME? That was harder."

I think you mean Dreamgirls, not Showgirls.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#139

Post by dimator »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #128
jedberg wrote: post #70

During the pandemic a few movies that were supposed to be in theaters launched as expensive paid streams (mostly Disney, but also stuff like Bill and Ted). I gladly paid for every one of them. My wife and I used to go to the movies every weekend, sometimes twice, before we had kids. After we had kids we went to theater maybe three times. I was perfectly happy to pay $30 to watch a movie in my house, where I can watch…

Hell is other people. Last time I went to the cinema there was an annoying gang of teenagers having fun in the row two ahead of me. I'm not angry at them; we were all teenagers once. But they were annoying. And the guy to my right thought so too, and let them know. The "movie-going experience" was the drama that this confrontation generated. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll watch it on my inferior screen, with my inferior…

you're not alone. i think the pandemic has made people more solitary, to the point of being anxious and/or annoyed around other humans.

a noisy theater was just something that happened in normal life before, it happened, and then we had a little story to gripe to our friends about. but now it seems an intolerable ordeal. the same goes for restaurants vs. take out, visiting friend's/family's house vs. just staying home, etc.

i'm noticing the trend more and more. i'm not sure where it will end up. it doesn't seem as if theaters will ever hold their old place in the cultural zeitgeist again, and maybe the same goes for all other "third places" where other humans will be a bother. that seems kind of sad.

it will keep the behavioral scientists busy for a few decades though.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#140

Post by darth_avocado »

pradn wrote: post #115
darth_avocado wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which often were at odds with the public. Not to state the obvious, but Oscars over the years have degraded into “who can wine and dine the voters the most”. There was a time (more than a decade ago) when almost all “Best Pucture” nominees were really entertaining and fun to watch. You look at the more recent lineups and almost all of them are a drag to watch.…

The new West Side Story is incredible. It's what a 100-million dollar musical looks like. Every frame is planned out, the actors are vulnerable, the songs are touching and super fun. The dance numbers are exuberant, some of the best ever produced by Hollywood. The film brings together the very best of American artists: Tony Kushner for the screenplay, Gustavo Dudamel conducts, the NY & LA philharmonics for recording,…

No doubt it was a great movie. But my question was more around whether it was worth it. In an age when an imax ticket costs $25+ or you don’t have an imax theater nearby, but watching a movie still costs $20, how many people do you expect will go to watch the movie.

(Rotten tomatoes suggests that the audience liked the movie, there are no questions about it)

Post reply on HN