Interstellar Oscar Chances

Christopher Nolan's 2014 grand scale science-fiction story about time and space, and the things that transcend them.
Posts: 8437
Joined: August 2012
Nomis1700 wrote:
Cilogy wrote:are we able to lock an entire sub-forum?
Yes please.
Kill it with fire.

User avatar
Posts: 8266
Joined: October 2012
Location: Gran Pulse
Ruth wrote:
Nomis1700 wrote:
Cilogy wrote:are we able to lock an entire sub-forum?
Yes please.
Kill it with fire.

User avatar
Posts: 946
Joined: July 2012
LelekPL wrote: Sticking with semantics, we won't have a consensus of opinion if even one person disagrees. And in the case of opinions that one person won't be wrong (or right for that matter). Film and its quality is thus still subjective. What you're talking about is popularity! What films the majority of people enjoy. And yes, this is countable and can be objective. .. But it's not the quality - it's popularity (or at least the number of positive reviews - popularity of opinion - since one could argue that general popularity can be based on box office alone and not on reviews). I know, semantics. But still, quality is not objective and never will be. We can discuss it as much as we want and much like with "influence" we won't reach a clear consensus. You're suggesying debating what films have the biggest amount of positive opinions. Again, that's not exactly quality...
What do you mean it's not a consensus of opinion if even one person disagrees? Rotten Tomatoes posts a "consensus" for every film after 50 or so reviews have been counted. Whether or not I'm talking about popularity or quality depends on whether or not you consider critics to be an authority on film quality...

User avatar
Posts: 13958
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mumbai
oscar for best bluray release goes to...

the avengers: age of ultron

User avatar
Posts: 3344
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
lcbaseball22 wrote:
LelekPL wrote: Sticking with semantics, we won't have a consensus of opinion if even one person disagrees. And in the case of opinions that one person won't be wrong (or right for that matter). Film and its quality is thus still subjective. What you're talking about is popularity! What films the majority of people enjoy. And yes, this is countable and can be objective. .. But it's not the quality - it's popularity (or at least the number of positive reviews - popularity of opinion - since one could argue that general popularity can be based on box office alone and not on reviews). I know, semantics. But still, quality is not objective and never will be. We can discuss it as much as we want and much like with "influence" we won't reach a clear consensus. You're suggesying debating what films have the biggest amount of positive opinions. Again, that's not exactly quality...
What do you mean it's not a consensus of opinion if even one person disagrees? Rotten Tomatoes posts a "consensus" for every film after 50 or so reviews have been counted. Whether or not I'm talking about popularity or quality depends on whether or not you consider critics to be an authority on film quality...
They just use the word incorrectly on RT because the critics that have their reviews posted on there do not negotiate the "final verdict". That "consensus" is written independantly of those reviewers by one of the writers working for RT.

Furthermore, NO ONE is, or ever will be, an authority on film quality because that's a subjective opinion. The opinion of critics is no more valid than yours or another joe schmoes of the street. They have a more educated opinion but it will never be "correct" or "incorrect" since no film is "objectively" bad or good. The Godfather is not objectively good and The Room is not objectively bad. That's just a popular opinion but it's neither wrong nor right since film's quality is subjective.

The role of a critic is to give advice to viewers, give their educated guess on the themes of the film, which then you might check with yours and to tell an unbiased PERSONAL opinion. But they're not an "authority" because no one can objectively decide what film's good or bad. They cannot decide for you whether the movie your going to watch is good or bad. That's your decision.

User avatar
Posts: 8266
Joined: October 2012
Location: Gran Pulse
Wait, you people are gonna do this back and forth for the rest of the week?

User avatar
Posts: 3344
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
Havoc1st wrote:Wait, you people are gonna do this back and forth for the rest of the week?
I don't know, maybe. In my opinion, comments like yours are more redundant. We're just politely discussing semantics. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to.

User avatar
Posts: 8266
Joined: October 2012
Location: Gran Pulse
LelekPL wrote:
Havoc1st wrote:Wait, you people are gonna do this back and forth for the rest of the week?
I don't know, maybe. In my opinion, comments like yours are more redundant. We're just politely discussing semantics. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to.
I was just being curious.

User avatar
Posts: 3344
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
lcbaseball22 wrote:So speaking of the Oscars have you all noticed the articles floating around that the Oscar committee may revert to only five Best Picture nominees? How do you think this would affect Nolan's chances? Will he ever have a film nominated for the big prize again?

source- http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2015/03 ... k-to-five/

I feel that this commenter has some good ideas to counter the Oscar issues...
ANTOINETTE wrote:What I think is that this is a great opportunity. If they want to go back to their exclusive club, let them. They can have their award ceremony in some country club where only they get to know who won because nobody needs them to tell us what the good movies are anymore. We have the internet for that. *waves bye bye*

The great opportunity is actually for something like the IMDb to make their own awards ceremony that the people who really do like movies can tune in to and see the best movies of the year actually win awards. Last year, the winner would have been INTERSTELLAR if it were up to them and I hold that it will be the 2014 film remembered years from now as a classic. The people get it right most of the time. Their system already works. So why not? The could even have an award to correct a year they got wrong. Maybe call it the Before Its Time award going to the film that history shows was greater than the people of the time thought. The inaugural winner would have to be THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Or maybe in its honor even call the award the Redemption award. :)

Otherwise the People’s Choice Awards could get serious and allow people only one ballot by way of registering with a phone number. Allow people to nominate ten in each category on their single ballot and then allow one vote after the nominations. They could have a big nominations show and then the actually awarding ceremony where the winners did not know in advance so that there would be some suspense instead of just looking at the list of attendees to see who won. If they tighten up their rules it could be a great night. Or nights. Maybe the music awards one night and the movie and TV awards the next night. Or 3 nights. Music on Friday, TV on Saturday, then Movies on Sunday. That would be a hoot. The People’s Weekend! The best way to do it, in my opinion would be to not open the nomination voting to happen until the end of January, so that the normal folks will have had a chance to see the “Oscar movies” and deem them crap. And then have the ceremony in March. You know, like the old days.

I really think this going back to 5 stuff is the perfect situation for some group that wants to get the fans that the Hollywood elite don’t want. You know, the ones who actually BUY tickets.
Going back to the topic (since I feel responsible for derailing the discussion):

I honestly don't care about the amount of nominees the Oscars will have the next year. They can have 5 or 10, it doesn't matter to me really. When they changed it to "more than 5" I was actually excited because I thought it's a chance for more quality mainstream films to be recognized... but that didn't help as we already have seen. Over the last couple of years only 2 films took advantage of more nominees - District 9 (I still don't understand how it got nominated) and Inception. Avatar would have been nominated either way knowing the Academy's love for Cameron.

So it's not like it added more variety to the Oscars. I mean it's good that they highlight more lesser known films that are mostly really good but actually no matter how many films they nominate, there will always be a debate whether this movie should have been nominated or shouldn't; what movies were snubbed and what weren't. If they decide to go with 5 nominees, there will be these two films that definitely shouldn't be on the list and a couple that should have been instead. The same goes with 10 nominees. It really doesn't matter. We will always argue and disagree with the Academy's choice.

And yes, Nolan would have a statistically better chance... but Spielberg didn't need it in the past. Kubrick didn't need it. David Lean didn't need it. I think someday Nolan will win, maybe much like Spielberg, after YEARS of being snubbed, and it won't matter how many nominated films there will be that year. All he needs is the right film and the right campaign and the right connections in the industry at that time.

As for People's Choice Awards or imdb awards... I wouldn't be too quick to decide that the audience awards should be the ones that matter. Mostly because most of the audience doesn't watch that many movies. How can Marvel fans say that GotG was the best film of the year when they haven't even seen Boyhood, Whiplash or The Grand Budapest Hotel? How can Transformers or 50 Shades of Grey fans be treated seriously?

Audience awards would allow people who see 10-15 new releases a year (and that's the VAST MAJORITY of viewers) to decide what film was the best one out of all the movies that year! It would be a popularity award. I think Oscars are much better than that. So no, I don't think that audience's votes are more indicative of what was the best movie. You would need only the votes of people who actually see A LARGE number of films. At least 52 new releases (one for each week) and that's the lowest amount I could go. A 100 would be even better with the amount of films that are made in Hollywood and around the world right now.

So maybe the critics? They watch a lot of movies and are usually passionate about films. But then again, we know that their recommendations aren't always the most popular. Many people accuse them of being too snobby, having too much prejudice, too populist or too biased.

So my solution? Just don't care about the awards. Create your own amongst your friends or be happy with what you have seen and what you liked. The Oscars don't tell you what movie was ACTUALLY the best one that year - it's just Hollywood's way of patting themselves on the back, saying good job for a good film, not fucking anything up during campaigning (not being racist, sexist or in any other political way insensitive) and being liked in the industry. That's it.

Sure, it helps lesser known films get more publicity and that's the only good thing about them. But Interstellar doesn't really need them. It was a hit and a great movie. History will only tell which movies will be remembered as classics. Whether it's Birdman or Interstellar, a statue doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter when "Oliver Twist!" won and "2001: A Space Oddyssey" wasn't even nominated.

Posts: 16
Joined: February 2015
LelekPL wrote:
lcbaseball22 wrote:So speaking of the Oscars have you all noticed the articles floating around that the Oscar committee may revert to only five Best Picture nominees? How do you think this would affect Nolan's chances? Will he ever have a film nominated for the big prize again?

source- http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2015/03 ... k-to-five/

I feel that this commenter has some good ideas to counter the Oscar issues...
ANTOINETTE wrote:What I think is that this is a great opportunity. If they want to go back to their exclusive club, let them. They can have their award ceremony in some country club where only they get to know who won because nobody needs them to tell us what the good movies are anymore. We have the internet for that. *waves bye bye*

The great opportunity is actually for something like the IMDb to make their own awards ceremony that the people who really do like movies can tune in to and see the best movies of the year actually win awards. Last year, the winner would have been INTERSTELLAR if it were up to them and I hold that it will be the 2014 film remembered years from now as a classic. The people get it right most of the time. Their system already works. So why not? The could even have an award to correct a year they got wrong. Maybe call it the Before Its Time award going to the film that history shows was greater than the people of the time thought. The inaugural winner would have to be THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Or maybe in its honor even call the award the Redemption award. :)

Otherwise the People’s Choice Awards could get serious and allow people only one ballot by way of registering with a phone number. Allow people to nominate ten in each category on their single ballot and then allow one vote after the nominations. They could have a big nominations show and then the actually awarding ceremony where the winners did not know in advance so that there would be some suspense instead of just looking at the list of attendees to see who won. If they tighten up their rules it could be a great night. Or nights. Maybe the music awards one night and the movie and TV awards the next night. Or 3 nights. Music on Friday, TV on Saturday, then Movies on Sunday. That would be a hoot. The People’s Weekend! The best way to do it, in my opinion would be to not open the nomination voting to happen until the end of January, so that the normal folks will have had a chance to see the “Oscar movies” and deem them crap. And then have the ceremony in March. You know, like the old days.

I really think this going back to 5 stuff is the perfect situation for some group that wants to get the fans that the Hollywood elite don’t want. You know, the ones who actually BUY tickets.
Going back to the topic (since I feel responsible for derailing the discussion):

I honestly don't care about the amount of nominees the Oscars will have the next year. They can have 5 or 10, it doesn't matter to me really. When they changed it to "more than 5" I was actually excited because I thought it's a chance for more quality mainstream films to be recognized... but that didn't help as we already have seen. Over the last couple of years only 2 films took advantage of more nominees - District 9 (I still don't understand how it got nominated) and Inception. Avatar would have been nominated either way knowing the Academy's love for Cameron.

So it's not like it added more variety to the Oscars. I mean it's good that they highlight more lesser known films that are mostly really good but actually no matter how many films they nominate, there will always be a debate whether this movie should have been nominated or shouldn't; what movies were snubbed and what weren't. If they decide to go with 5 nominees, there will be these two films that definitely shouldn't be on the list and a couple that should have been instead. The same goes with 10 nominees. It really doesn't matter. We will always argue and disagree with the Academy's choice.

And yes, Nolan would have a statistically better chance... but Spielberg didn't need it in the past. Kubrick didn't need it. David Lean didn't need it. I think someday Nolan will win, maybe much like Spielberg, after YEARS of being snubbed, and it won't matter how many nominated films there will be that year. All he needs is the right film and the right campaign and the right connections in the industry at that time.

As for People's Choice Awards or imdb awards... I wouldn't be too quick to decide that the audience awards should be the ones that matter. Mostly because most of the audience doesn't watch that many movies. How can Marvel fans say that GotG was the best film of the year when they haven't even seen Boyhood, Whiplash or The Grand Budapest Hotel? How can Transformers or 50 Shades of Grey fans be treated seriously?

Audience awards would allow people who see 10-15 new releases a year (and that's the VAST MAJORITY of viewers) to decide what film was the best one out of all the movies that year! It would be a popularity award. I think Oscars are much better than that. So no, I don't think that audience's votes are more indicative of what was the best movie. You would need only the votes of people who actually see A LARGE number of films. At least 52 new releases (one for each week) and that's the lowest amount I could go. A 100 would be even better with the amount of films that are made in Hollywood and around the world right now.

So maybe the critics? They watch a lot of movies and are usually passionate about films. But then again, we know that their recommendations aren't always the most popular. Many people accuse them of being too snobby, having too much prejudice, too populist or too biased.

So my solution? Just don't care about the awards. Create your own amongst your friends or be happy with what you have seen and what you liked. The Oscars don't tell you what movie was ACTUALLY the best one that year - it's just Hollywood's way of patting themselves on the back, saying good job for a good film, not fucking anything up during campaigning (not being racist, sexist or in any other political way insensitive) and being liked in the industry. That's it.

Sure, it helps lesser known films get more publicity and that's the only good thing about them. But Interstellar doesn't really need them. It was a hit and a great movie. History will only tell which movies will be remembered as classics. Whether it's Birdman or Interstellar, a statue doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter when "Oliver Twist!" won and "2001: A Space Oddyssey" wasn't even nominated.
Brilliant post.

Post Reply