2017-2018 Awards Season
Well I can and I did. So I guess.... deal with it.Rohan wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 4:38 pmI've seen Get Out three times. While it's a brainless entertaining flick (nothing wrong with that sometimes), it's still full of complete film-making flaws -- editing, continuity shots, etc. One can just not seriously believe or even 'say' for the sake of it that a film like Get Out is as good as Phantom Thread or Blade Runner 2049.bootsy wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 3:59 pmThat's not what it means. It means THIS YEAR Get Out is as good as those movies, Peele directed as good a film as those directors. That's all it means. Man what is up with the piling on of Get Out. There have been more controversial movies that have got noms like this that were much worse films but for some reason this seems to have pushed quite a few buttons.Rohan wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 3:17 pmLooking at the nominations, it means Get Out is as good as, in terms of direction, filmmaking in general, Phantom Thread. And, Peele, he's as good of a auteur as let's say Paul Thomas Anderson and Chris Nolan. And, Denis, is not even on the same level as Peele as director.
What does 'he got nominated over the likes of Spielberg and Villenueve' have to do with anything. That sounds like entitlement. This is not a lifetime achievement award.If that's the case why don't we have the same established directors nominated every year and the first time directors shouldn't be nominated. Of course he got nominated over them, he made a better film than either of them this year. A more important, more discussed film than either of them. This is not a body of work nomination, this is a 2017 nomination. Of course Peele isn't on those directors levels. He may or may not get there but he's not the first or last director to be nominated over established directors. Some great directors have never even won the award. Are we supposed to nominated only established directors from now on? That some flawed logic to say he shouldn't have been nominated over the likes of Spielberg and Villenueve. Why not? Peele directed the best film out of the three in 2017.Bacon wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 5:05 pm@bootsy: I disagree with Rohan. But, it's pretty clear that Peele is inexperienced as a film director. Get Out, as good as it is, feels like an extended television episode of a modern-day Twilight Zone. Nothing inherently wrong with this, but I feel most of the backlash on this site is from a nomination to someone who clearly has a lot of flaws and kinks to work out being nominated among legends such as Del Toro, Nolan, and PTA. Not to mention the fact that he got nominated over the likes of Spielberg and Villenueve who are often masters of their craft. This site isn't specifically targeting Get Out (trust me, there's plenty of other places online that is doing just that), many just seem to be suspicious of the accolades it's receiving when, at it's core, it's a decent politically-charged thriller. Peele did a pretty good job adapting his fantastic screenplay to screen, but I'd hardly put him in the top directing jobs of the year.
Same goes to Daniel for the Best Actor nomination. The guy was good and had some powerful moments, but the performances and instances I remember from the film don't even have much to do with his characterization or acting. Seeing him nominated over the likes of Franco (or even Jackman, who in Logan delivered a fantastic performance that's been heavily overlooked) seems a little absurd.
Get Out's great, it's in my top 10 of the year currently. It's relevant, well-made, and original, but I'd say that the directing and the lead actor might actually be two of the weakest things about it and there are plenty of other people from films this year that could have been recognized instead. It seems fishy that the Academy might be doing this for the diversity rather than the talent, and that's why people are bringing up that possibility. It's not due to our distaste of the film (most of us here genuinely like it). I know you like the film more than most, so I hope you understand where we're coming from.
I also don't see people complaining about Gerwig getting nominated. She's a new director and first time nominee so does she not deserve it or like I said earlier are we just singling out Peele for some reason?
Last edited by Master Virgo on January 24th, 2018, 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
This whole paragraph is problematic though. We're not talking about which film is better (which is also debatable as always due to subjectivity, one isn't obviously better than the others to everyone), we're talking about which film was better directed. Of course it's great to have young and fresh blood in the category, but if they didn't do as good of a job directing the film as directors did that year, it's still a questionable nomination.bootsy wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 12:10 amWhat does 'he got nominated over the likes of Spielberg and Villenueve' have to do with anything. That sounds like entitlement. This is not a lifetime achievement award.If that's the case why don't we have the same established directors nominated every year and the first time directors shouldn't be nominated. Of course he got nominated over them, he made a better film than either of them this year. A more important, more discussed film than either of them. Why not? Peele directed the best film out of the three in 2017.
Haven't seen Lady Bird yet, but it seems like more people aren't complaining about Gerwig because people think the directing in Lady Bird is more important to the film's success compared to Get Out. Just what I've seen.
I could be completely wrong and everything's up to opinion, just trying to defend those of us questioning the nomination.
It's not any more problematic than this. We both feel strongly either way. So you feel The Post and BR2049 are better directed films than Get Out and I'm saying they aren't so it can't be anymore problematic than what I bolded.Bacon wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 12:30 amThis whole paragraph is problematic though. We're not talking about which film is better (which is also debatable as always due to subjectivity, one isn't obviously better than the others to everyone), we're talking about which film was better directed. Of course it's great to have young and fresh blood in the category, but if they didn't do as good of a job directing the film as directors did that year, it's still a questionable nomination.bootsy wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 12:10 amWhat does 'he got nominated over the likes of Spielberg and Villenueve' have to do with anything. That sounds like entitlement. This is not a lifetime achievement award.If that's the case why don't we have the same established directors nominated every year and the first time directors shouldn't be nominated. Of course he got nominated over them, he made a better film than either of them this year. A more important, more discussed film than either of them. Why not? Peele directed the best film out of the three in 2017.
Haven't seen Lady Bird yet, but it seems like more people aren't complaining about Gerwig because people think the directing in Lady Bird is more important to the film's success compared to Get Out. Just what I've seen.
I could be completely wrong and everything's up to opinion, just trying to defend those of us questioning the nomination.
And saying that people think Gerwig directing Lady Bird is more important than Peele directing Get Out. What? How? Gerwig is a woman directing Lady Bird and Peele a black man directing Get Out. I don't get that. They both told very familiar close to the heart stories in different ways. Not saying you specifically but that logic doesn't make much sense to me. I just don't get this Get Out backlash. People just hate to see a brotha shine as usual. And yeah I said it and yeah I don't care. He's not going to win anyway just let him have his moment.
But writing off all the people with reservations about his nom as not wanting to let someone shine isn't true at all. I haven't seen Lady Bird so I can't speak with great certainty. Directing isn't about them telling a personal story they wrote, and the judgement of a director isn't off that...? Peele wasn't recognized at the GG, but the greatest amount of backlash came from Gerwig being snubbed. I think people feel Gerwig's directorial work in Lady Bird is one of the biggest strengths of the film, while Get Out's strengths rest other places. I'm not even hating on Peele or Get Out, I'm just disappointed to not see someone like Villenueve recognized.
Dunno, didn't want to have some big debate about race or merits of directors, just wanted to defend those with similar views. Peele did a great job on Get Out, I just find it questionable to see him ranked above others, just like anyone else would about filmmakers they respect (as you said in an earlier post).
Dunno, didn't want to have some big debate about race or merits of directors, just wanted to defend those with similar views. Peele did a great job on Get Out, I just find it questionable to see him ranked above others, just like anyone else would about filmmakers they respect (as you said in an earlier post).
Films rarely work in spite of the director.
Bacon, being friends with some of these guys and having a foot in the door to that community, trust me when I say the consensus in the film world is that Get Out is a massive directorial and writing accomplishment.
The narrative around Lady Bird is a little different. It's a quiet, subtle, gorgeous little movie and folks are pointing out how hard that is to do well and she's super deserving.
-Vader
The narrative around Lady Bird is a little different. It's a quiet, subtle, gorgeous little movie and folks are pointing out how hard that is to do well and she's super deserving.
-Vader
To each his or her own. *shrugs*
EDIT: @Cil: wasn't saying that was the case.
