Obviously no one is gonna count themselves in the OP as a reference. That's the only other mention of it on the opening page. You may have more than 10 posts per page as your setting, but the standard default setting is ten.
Movies: What are the Biggest Oscar Snubs Ever?
- Thread starter Ben Grimm
- Start date
Obviously no one is gonna count themselves in the OP as a reference. That's the only other mention of it on the opening page. You may have more than 10 posts per page as your setting, but the standard default setting is ten.
So you judge people including racial minorities and gay people based on the small number of people you know, but don't hang out with. Nice. That explains a lot.
Shareefruck
Registered User
You say that like telling someone that you think something's good is intrusive in some way (as if it's the same thing as telling someone that they have to agree with you)-- It's still just a subjective opinion that is harmless and doesn't minimize or insult your own in any way, whether you disagree with it or not.
I think how good something is has as much or more to do with how tastefully it's done than it does with how high quality it technically is, personally. Technical quality is a bit overrated-- for my money, what really matters is how right every creative decision feels. I don't think it's possible for personal taste to be removed from how good you think something is. It informs so much of what makes the thing valuable in the first place.
I think Forrest Gump is abhorrent and awful. Feel free to disagree, but I think it would be childish to jump the gun and write that off as a hipster thing just because it's really popular/well received and you don't like the opinion. I hate every moment of the experience, not because I care about people's perception of what I like, but because I find it egregiously annoying/corny/manipulative and self-righteous in the most wrong-headed way possible. It's like preachy conservative dogma disguised as a cloying, BS fake-sentimental/uplifting nonsense (the latter alone is already gag-inducing enough on its own).
It honestly perfectly represents everything I don't like about movies.
Last edited:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/keller-the-entitled-generation.html
Here's an article. Now please, go talk stupid elsewhere. My post clearly has nothing to do with race or sexuality, reading comprehension is your friend, Mr. Social Justice Warrior.
How many people do I hang out with again? Lmao gtfoh.
Last edited by a moderator:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,709
- 3,688
I got a good chuckle at this.
Then I remembered Birdman beat Boyhood and I got a little angry, then a little sad. I think voters are going to want to take that one back with the benefit of time and hindsight. (Not Lubezki, the movies).
sully1410
#EggosForEleven
It was a really good eight minutes lol.
But he's not the lead actor at all, the story has very little to do with him outside of that one scene.
It's the same kind of thing for Verbal Kint in the usual suspect. He is the guy telling the story...how is he not the lead actor?
I think if anyone deserves an Oscar with very limited screen time it's Kevin Spacey in Se7en.
Finlandia WOAT
No blocks, No slappers
- May 23, 2010
- 24,343
- 24,414
I think the difference Glennie is pointing is between I think X is good" and "X is good", vs. I think X is good" and I like X". How your opinion is received has just as much, if not moreso, to do with how you phrase it as with the actual content of the opinion. Here, the point is to emphasize your opinion as an opinion, and avoid coming off as some sort of objective fact and/or Word of God.
This may be obvious to you, but believe you me, it is not always obvious to others.
Shareefruck
Registered User
That kind of is what I'm arguing against, though. I don't think it should be necessary to throw the "I think" qualifier to every opinion-- that should really go without saying, unless there's some ulterior reason/additional evidence to think there's condescension involved. It's only when an argument actually gets into the intrusive "I'm right, you're wrong, and you should feel bad" territory where an annoyed/outraged reaction is actually warranted, IMO.
I did not like Birdman either while watching it it but I knew I was watching a quality flick (even if I wasn't onboard totally at the time). I did not mind it winning the Oscar, i suspected as much (I figured it would win that category even if it wasn't my choice; Hollywood likes movies about its own). I don't mind that. It is a good artsie film, even if it wasn't my favorite. Boyhood was equally good, it was daring to make a movie over many years. But it wasn't my favorite either. I don't look at a winning Oscar as the definitive statement on what is good or bad. I figure getting nominated is a win of sorts in its own right. And it really does not matter who won or lost in the end, the discussion it engenders is good enough. And there are other awards (equally deserving IMO even if it does not have the caché of the Oscars in the public sphere).
sully1410
#EggosForEleven
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
That's not the reason I don't think you should say it. I think you shouldn't say it because to state a film is trash is to imply it is an objective fact and others who disagree are wrong.
Shareefruck
Registered User
That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with. The only meaning you could reasonably and fairly derive from "This movie is complete ****ing trash" is that this person thinks this movie is complete trash.
It's downright unreasonable to think that just because someone is ruthless, crude, mean, and insensitive about how much they think something is awful, it's therefore fair to jump the gun and assume that they're implying that this is some objective holy truth and that people who think otherwise are idiots. It's possible, but you would really need more evidence before it would be fair to jump to that conclusion.
Think of it this way-- if someone says "This movie is absolute *****ing genius!", are they implying that this is an objective fact and that people who don't think so are wrong? It's the same thing. Things aren't automatically sinister/arrogant just because they're negative. We just react that way because we don't like hearing it, but that's our own irrational impulse/insecurity to get over, not something that should be catered to.
Last edited:
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
Yeah, come to think of it, he's not in many scenes. I wonder how much screen time he had in the whole movie. Just looked it up. Apparently it was between 12 and 16 minutes. He certainly gave a memorable performance though. Great actor.
sully1410
#EggosForEleven
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Lecter is one for me that, in spite of low screen time, makes total sense as lead actor. Can't explain it, but watching the movie it feels like he's on screen for far longer.
To what was said a few posts up, I considered mentioning Birdman over Boyhood. I was a lil bit peeved when Boyhood didn't take that one. However, Birdman was a really good film in its own right (especially Keaton and Norton), so I didn't think of it as a full out snub.
DaveG
Noted Jerk
Disagreed pretty strongly with then and still do now:
The Kings Speech over The Social Network (2010)
Crash over any of the other 4 nominees that year (2005). Crash was pure garbage. Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, and Capote were the only three I was really taking seriously. Brokeback Mountain would have been fine.
Shakespeare in Love over The Thin Red Line (1998)
Titanic over LA Confidential (1997)
The English Patient over Fargo (1996)
Braveheart over Apollo 13 (1995)
Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show (1994)
Disagree with strongly in retrospect, wasn't following close enough at the time:
Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas (1990)
Terms of Endearment over The Right Stuff (1983)
... god do I ever piss all over the Academy's selections in the 90s, heh.
The Kings Speech over The Social Network (2010)
Crash over any of the other 4 nominees that year (2005). Crash was pure garbage. Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, and Capote were the only three I was really taking seriously. Brokeback Mountain would have been fine.
Shakespeare in Love over The Thin Red Line (1998)
Titanic over LA Confidential (1997)
The English Patient over Fargo (1996)
Braveheart over Apollo 13 (1995)
Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show (1994)
Disagree with strongly in retrospect, wasn't following close enough at the time:
Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas (1990)
Terms of Endearment over The Right Stuff (1983)
... god do I ever piss all over the Academy's selections in the 90s, heh.
Last edited:
irunthepeg
Board man gets paid
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Grand Final Brisbane Lions vs Sydney Swans - MCG, MelbourneWagers: 10Staked: $10,821.00Event closes- Updated: