2020 Oscars are a sham...

[Kieran_Frost]

The Oscars have always been a sham, IMHO. The event is nothing more than an internal industry lovefest with zero outside relevancy, zero impartiality, and zero accountability.

Not strictly true. It's picked for and voted by the people who (in theory) actually know film techniques best, and recognise what makes a best costume, score, editing, etc over... well, the average person who doesn't always get it. It's the difference between an opinion, an informed opinion, a professional opinion and an expert opinion. They are all opinions at the end of the day, but some carry more weight than others. If that makes sense?

[Midvillian1322]

Not strictly true. It's picked for and voted by the people who (in theory) actually know film techniques best, and recognise what makes a best costume, score, editing, etc over... well, the average person who doesn't always get it. It's the difference between an opinion, an informed opinion, a professional opinion and an expert opinion. They are all opinions at the end of the day, but some carry more weight than others. If that makes sense?

The problem is that alot of these people who vote dont even watch alot of the movies. Most of them a more informed on film making( alot are older white men who have a different idea about film making then modern audiences) but they dont watch alot of the movies. I get it though, an older more conservative socially white guy probaly doesnt want to watch Hustlers. He probaly doenst like huge CGi spectacles, so movies like 1917 who have subtle CGI win. Which Is fine that movie was great but i dont think anyone working in that field would say 1917 special effect were more impressive then the CGI model of Thanos or all of Lion King. Even Star wars had beautiful CGI and alot of it. But seems like the movies that use subtle CGI seem to win. And I think thats cause alot of the voters are older and have different taste. Well that's just my thoughts on it I could be way off.

[C_Miller]

The problem is that alot of these people who vote dont even watch alot of the movies. Most of them a more informed on film making( alot are older white men who have a different idea about film making then modern audiences) but they dont watch alot of the movies. I get it though, an older more conservative socially white guy probaly doesnt want to watch Hustlers. He probaly doenst like huge CGi spectacles, so movies like 1917 who have subtle CGI win. Which Is fine that movie was great but i dont think anyone working in that field would say 1917 special effect were more impressive then the CGI model of Thanos or all of Lion King. Even Star wars had beautiful CGI and alot of it. But seems like the movies that use subtle CGI seem to win. And I think thats cause alot of the voters are older and have different taste. Well that's just my thoughts on it I could be way off.

A lot of people that complain about the Oscars don't watch a lot of movies either.

I also do think you're a bit off base with the CGI complaints. Saying that hidden effects aren't as impressive as big CGI spectacle is pretty dismissive of the entire industry. Hidden special effects or ones that are realistic are the bread and butter of the industry. In fact, I'd argue that the people in the industry probably do find the CGI in films like 1917 to be more impressive than the Thanos model. Not that Thanos wasn't impressive.

[Marvelgirl]

A lot of people that complain about the Oscars don't watch a lot of movies either.

I also do think you're a bit off base with the CGI complaints. Saying that hidden effects aren't as impressive as big CGI spectacle is pretty dismissive of the entire industry. Hidden special effects or ones that are realistic are the bread and butter of the industry. In fact, I'd argue that the people in the industry probably do find the CGI in films like 1917 to be more impressive than the Thanos model. Not that Thanos wasn't impressive.

Subtle CGI are rightfully preferable. Movies that have them are the movies that wants you and I to appreciate the movie has a storyboard. Thanos CGI are not for these movies. Everytime any Avengers film is out, people are usually waiting for the big CGI Spectacle and nothing more. It is what has ruined the comic genre.

Star Wars prequels never won any Oscars. The biggest criticism of the prequels was the use and abuse of special effects. I have not seen Star Wars:Rise of Skywalker and I have only seen episode 7 and 8 once, those movies did try to scale back from the prequels.

Big CGI spectacles are not good for movies that are set in the modern era as they take too much away from the story. As you said, it is not realistic enough. It was not a benchmark for any good movie twenty years ago. The big cgi spectacles only looks good in medieval films/tv. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings.

[Kieran_Frost]

The problem is that alot of these people who vote dont even watch alot of the movies. Most of them a more informed on film making( alot are older white men who have a different idea about film making then modern audiences) but they dont watch alot of the movies. I get it though, an older more conservative socially white guy probaly doesnt want to watch Hustlers. He probaly doenst like huge CGi spectacles, so movies like 1917 who have subtle CGI win. Which Is fine that movie was great but i dont think anyone working in that field would say 1917 special effect were more impressive then the CGI model of Thanos or all of Lion King. Even Star wars had beautiful CGI and alot of it. But seems like the movies that use subtle CGI seem to win. And I think thats cause alot of the voters are older and have different taste. Well that's just my thoughts on it I could be way off.

a) just because they are older, doesn't instantly mean they have aversion to CGI. Scorcese made Hugo (2011), Eastwood made Hereafter (2010). Associating age with obsolete views when it comes to cinema... is a dangerous line to toe. Not being cutting age and being averse to CGI isn't the same thing (then again Scorcese's bias against superhero films sorta torpedoes my earlier point, ha! ).
b) Hustlers (2019) struggled to get people to watch it, not necessarily on the subject matter, but who was in it. Did Jennifer Lopez deserve an Oscar nom? I don't know, I've not seen it. Does she have a track record of being an actress people consider worth of Oscar nomination? NO! She has 8 Golden Raspberries nominations for a reason. That doesn't help. It's the same reason Adam Sandler wasn't standing much chance of nomination this year. Add in Lizzo, Keke Palmer and Cardi B and again, it's not the caliber people think of when it comes to "ohhhh, I bet the acting in this will be first rate, you can tell by all the singers they hired." Also I have a love/hate relationship with Julia Stiles. LOVE her choices of roles... but gosh darn it, I really don't like her acting. But that's more of a side note. Lastly it's about strippers. Not the subject matter of many masterpieces.

A lot of people that complain about the Oscars don't watch a lot of movies either.

Ding ding ding ding.

I also do think you're a bit off base with the CGI complaints. Saying that hidden effects aren't as impressive as big CGI spectacle is pretty dismissive of the entire industry. Hidden special effects or ones that are realistic are the bread and butter of the industry. In fact, I'd argue that the people in the industry probably do find the CGI in films like 1917 to be more impressive than the Thanos model. Not that Thanos wasn't impressive.

Subtle CGI are rightfully preferable. Movies that have them are the movies that wants you and I to appreciate the movie has a storyboard. Thanos CGI are not for these movies. Everytime any Avengers film is out, people are usually waiting for the big CGI Spectacle and nothing more. It is what has ruined the comic genre.
Big CGI spectacles are not good for movies that are set in the modern era as they take too much away from the story. As you said, it is not realistic enough. It was not a benchmark for any good movie twenty years ago. The big cgi spectacles only looks good in medieval films/tv. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings.

Both beautifully put, and my thoughts as well. I'm more impressed by CGI that I don't see, than in-your-face CGI. It's Eastwood subtly vs Michael Bay explosions. I genuinely didn't know the rats were CGI, and was wondering where on Earth the trainer was hiding in that bunker. THAT'S AWESOME! And considering the terrible CGI cats from Let the Right Ones In (2008) almost pulled you out of the film, or... ya know... Cats (2019) itself. I think subtle CGI is not easy.

[Marvelgirl]

a) just because they are older, doesn't instantly mean they have aversion to CGI. Scorcese made Hugo (2011), Eastwood made Hereafter (2010). Associating age with obsolete views when it comes to cinema... is a dangerous line to toe. Not being cutting age and being averse to CGI isn't the same thing (then again Scorcese's bias against superhero films sorta torpedoes my earlier point, ha! ).
b) Hustlers (2019) struggled to get people to watch it, not necessarily on the subject matter, but who was in it. Did Jennifer Lopez deserve an Oscar nom? I don't know, I've not seen it. Does she have a track record of being an actress people consider worth of Oscar nomination? NO! She has 8 Golden Raspberries nominations for a reason. That doesn't help. It's the same reason Adam Sandler wasn't standing much chance of nomination this year. Add in Lizzo, Keke Palmer and Cardi B and again, it's not the caliber people think of when it comes to "ohhhh, I bet the acting in this will be first rate, you can tell by all the singers they hired." Also I have a love/hate relationship with Julia Stiles. LOVE her choices of roles... but gosh darn it, I really don't like her acting. But that's more of a side note. Lastly it's about strippers. Not the subject matter of many masterpieces.


Ding ding ding ding.




Both beautifully put, and my thoughts as well. I'm more impressed by CGI that I don't see, than in-your-face CGI. It's Eastwood subtly vs Michael Bay explosions. I genuinely didn't know the rats were CGI, and was wondering where on Earth the trainer was hiding in that bunker. THAT'S AWESOME! And considering the terrible CGI cats from Let the Right Ones In (2008) almost pulled you out of the film, or... ya know... Cats (2019) itself. I think subtle CGI is not easy.

Subtle CGI was always superior. It was supposed to be a progression of the more in your face CGI. What feels so stupid to me is many other superhero films have only used subtle CGI before. Spiderman 2 won for best visual effects in 2004. Superman Returns was nominated for best visual effects in 2006.

However one or two people have misinterpreted subtle CGI as the movie not having enough budget like Endgame does. They don't understand it was the director taking proper precautions to make sure the cgi does not devalue the storyboard, especially when the movie is set in the 21st century.

[Kieran_Frost]

Subtle CGI was always superior. It was supposed to be a progression of the more in your face CGI. What feels so stupid to me is many other superhero films have only used subtle CGI before. Spiderman 2 won for best visual effects in 2004. Superman Returns was nominated for best visual effects in 2006.

However one or two people have misinterpreted subtle CGI as the movie not having enough budget like Endgame does. They don't understand it was the director taking proper precautions to make sure the cgi does not devalue the storyboard, especially when the movie is set in the 21st century.

I agree with all of this. As with acting, costume design, directing... subtle work trumps in your face efforts. The same with directing, some of the best directors you don't notice their work, and they win awards over the more "look at me directing" directors. I love Tarantino, but compare his directing to Eastwood and it's not a contest. Eastwood's subtly wins everytime.

[jetengine]

I think the reason people assumed Thanos would get the win is because of how realistic he appears, he himself is not a "spectacle" as such but an example of creating a being wholesale.

[Kieran_Frost]

I think the reason people assumed Thanos would get the win is because of how realistic he appears, he himself is not a "spectacle" as such but an example of creating a being wholesale.

Well. Yes and no. It's not like I stopped seeing a CGI person. Maybe it's me, I didn't get anything special about Thanos over other CGI work. Good performance, yes, and for me that's what made the character shine, not the CGI. Also it's more of the same we saw in another film (which never helps an Oscar win). It would be like John Williams winning best score this year for Star Wars...

[Kirby101]

I am not weighing in on Oscar worthiness. But as far as Thanos being a superior CGI character, definitely yes! Just compare how real he looked and acted compared to Steppenwolf in Justice League, who seemed to come out of a video game.

[Marvelgirl]

I am not weighing in on Oscar worthiness. But as far as Thanos being a superior CGI character, definitely yes! Just compare how real he looked and acted compared to Steppenwolf in Justice League, who seemed to come out of a video game.

Thanos is not a superior CGI model to 1917. Was Justice League nominated at all? Thanos and Steppenwolf came out of video game. Majority of these SPH films in the last 5-10 years have been a disgrace to CGI. They don't have what it takes that made Spiderman 2 win for CGI in 2004.

[Kirby101]

Thanos is not a superior CGI model to 1917. Was Justice League nominated at all? Thanos and Steppenwolf came out of video game. Majority of these SPH films in the last 5-10 years have been a disgrace to CGI. They don't have what it takes that made Spiderman 2 win for CGI in 2004.

If you read my post, I was not talking about the Oscar (I loved 1917) I was comparing Thanos to other similar CGI characters. They achieved much more realism and emotion with him than other SPH movies. Steppenwolf was paltry in comparison.

[Marvelgirl]

If you read my post, I was not talking about the Oscar (I loved 1917) I was comparing Thanos to other similar CGI characters. They achieved much more realism and emotion with him than other SPH movies. Steppenwolf was paltry in comparison.

For Millennials the Adrenaline Rush gotten from amusement rides Endgame spectacle bonanzas is now the new substitute for realism and emotion in cinema. Its better to have cheap but realistic age defining effects from The Irishman than to have in your face cgi from Endgame. Logan/X23 vs X24 is realism and emotion.

In the movie Parasite, I got more disgusted watching people siting on toilet cgi ****-poo. the toilet **** was beautifully disgusting to watch, meaning the CGI poo was excellent. subtle but very in your face real. This is not how Endgame did its cgi. Endgame's CGI is what I will categorise as kiddie not necessarily completely video game, since some video games can be very violent and graphic, Endgame's CGI is not one.

[Kieran_Frost]

I am not weighing in on Oscar worthiness. But as far as Thanos being a superior CGI character, definitely yes! Just compare how real he looked and acted compared to Steppenwolf in Justice League, who seemed to come out of a video game.

He looked pretty real, but no, I never stopped seeing the CGI. It looked like fantastic cut aways from World of Warcraft (to me). Not fooling me he was real/real; just believable a very well done CGI character. I found Gollum far more believable as a character, than Thanos. Very often I just stopped seeing CGI and saw Gollum.

[Kirby101]

He looked pretty real, but no, I never stopped seeing the CGI. It looked like fantastic cut aways from World of Warcraft (to me). Not fooling me he was real/real; just believable a very well done CGI character. I found Gollum far more believable as a character, than Thanos. Very often I just stopped seeing CGI and saw Gollum.

This is true. I didn't feel as removed as you on Thanos, but Golum was very real.