Interstellar Oscar Chances

Christopher Nolan's 2014 grand scale science-fiction story about time and space, and the things that transcend them.
Posts: 102
Joined: November 2014
Aili wrote:
Apocalypse wrote:Wolf of Wall Street is meant to be a satire. Lol at anyone thinking it was misogynistic. Probably one of the ballsiest films we have had in years.
You just made my case.

Yeah, it was MEANT to be a satire. Just didn't work out that way, satire not being a Scorsese strong suit, unlike OTT misogyny and violence.
The man who made Goodfellas and The King of Comedy does not have a strong suit for satire?
yikes

Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time (and is known for satire) and that is not even up for debate.

I frankly love how mixed the reviews were for that (as in, people either thought it was a masterpiece or gave it a 1/10 because they felt insecure about watching all the nudity and drugs). Proves that Scorsese doesn't give a shit about pleasing the audience.

Posts: 836
Joined: January 2014
Apocalypse wrote:
Aili wrote:
Apocalypse wrote:Wolf of Wall Street is meant to be a satire. Lol at anyone thinking it was misogynistic. Probably one of the ballsiest films we have had in years.
You just made my case.

Yeah, it was MEANT to be a satire. Just didn't work out that way, satire not being a Scorsese strong suit, unlike OTT misogyny and violence.
The man who made Goodfellas and The King of Comedy does not have a strong suit for satire?
yikes

Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time (and is known for satire) and that is not even up for debate.

I frankly love how mixed the reviews were for that (as in, people either thought it was a masterpiece or gave it a 1/10 because they felt insecure about watching all the nudity and drugs). Proves that Scorsese doesn't give a shit about pleasing the audience.
Thanks, Apocalypse, I appreciate being informed of the error in my ways in not realizing WoWS was a masterpiece as opposed to a piece of amusing (well it would have been amusing if it hadn't lasted 3 hours and been so damn repetitive) junk. It is always so awe-inspiring to have the point of view of one of the world's great film critics such as yourself, Apocalypse.

User avatar
Posts: 1016
Joined: April 2013
Apocalypse wrote:
Aili wrote:
Apocalypse wrote:Wolf of Wall Street is meant to be a satire. Lol at anyone thinking it was misogynistic. Probably one of the ballsiest films we have had in years.
You just made my case.

Yeah, it was MEANT to be a satire. Just didn't work out that way, satire not being a Scorsese strong suit, unlike OTT misogyny and violence.
The man who made Goodfellas and The King of Comedy does not have a strong suit for satire?
yikes

Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time (and is known for satire) and that is not even up for debate.

I frankly love how mixed the reviews were for that (as in, people either thought it was a masterpiece or gave it a 1/10 because they felt insecure about watching all the nudity and drugs). Proves that Scorsese doesn't give a shit about pleasing the audience.
I love The Wolf Of Wall Street. I think it's one of the most entertaining movies ever made but I don't think it was satire. Maybe Scorsese did try to ridicule the lifestyle of Wall Street cutthroats but the movie ended up mostly glorifying what they did.

User avatar
Posts: 3855
Joined: June 2010
Interstellar need 600 votes(10%) to be nominated for best picture:
It’s math. With 5 nominees, roughly 20% of voters need to like a movie for it to be nominated. With 10 nominees, roughly 10% of the Academy needs to like a movie (although preferential balloting shifts the odds just a little.)

“…if a film has enough passion despite being weird or off-putting to some viewers…”

translated into a concrete example in mathematical terms:

10% of the Academy can feel passionately about Tree of Life even if 90% of the Academy find it weird or off-putting, and those 10% of the Academy (approx 600 individual voters) are enough to push ANY fringe movie to a Best Picture nomination.

But unless the other 90% of the Academy can then be convinced to reassess how they feel about Tree of Life, the 600 voters who love it passionately are not nearly enough to carry it to a win.
source

But before think about the Oscar, we have to see if the movie will appear in some lists, it will be decisive for a nomination. AFI, National Board Review, BFCA, Golden Globe, SAG, Bafta, some critics lists. This is important for a positive buzz.

User avatar
Posts: 946
Joined: July 2012
Monicabbm wrote:Interstellar need 600 votes(10%) to be nominated for best picture:
It’s math. With 5 nominees, roughly 20% of voters need to like a movie for it to be nominated. With 10 nominees, roughly 10% of the Academy needs to like a movie (although preferential balloting shifts the odds just a little.)

“…if a film has enough passion despite being weird or off-putting to some viewers…”

translated into a concrete example in mathematical terms:

10% of the Academy can feel passionately about Tree of Life even if 90% of the Academy find it weird or off-putting, and those 10% of the Academy (approx 600 individual voters) are enough to push ANY fringe movie to a Best Picture nomination.

But unless the other 90% of the Academy can then be convinced to reassess how they feel about Tree of Life, the 600 voters who love it passionately are not nearly enough to carry it to a win.
source

But before think about the Oscar, we have to see if the movie will appear in some lists, it will be decisive for a nomination. AFI, National Board Review, BFCA, Golden Globe, SAG, Bafta, some critics lists. This is important for a positive buzz.
It's more complicated than that and there's another part which is where the often quoted 5% now comes in...
If there are fewer than 10, the ballot counters look for so-called surplus votes. Any film that receives votes at least 10 percent above the 9.1-percent automatic nomination threshold will have the surplus votes re-allocated according to the voter’s second choice – or third choice if the second choice is already nominated.
Each first-place vote for that popular film is given a lesser weight so the film barely crosses the threshold, and that ballot’s second-place votes help another film, to a lesser degree.
So if “12 Years a Slave” received 10 percent of the votes, all of its first-place votes are counted with a weight of roughly 0.9 votes, and all of the second-place votes on the same ballot are redistributed to those films (like “American Hustle”) with a weight of roughly 0.1 votes.

Another check is done to see if any films cross the 9.1 percent threshold.
Next, films with less than 1 percent of the first-place votes are eliminated and those ballots are reallocated according to the voter’s second choice – or third choice if the second is already nominated.
Finally, all films with more than 5 percent of the votes are automatically nominated. If there are between five and 10, the counting is done. If there are more than 10, the films with the fewest votes are eliminated and their next-choice votes are redistributed until only 10 remain. If there are less than five, the counters start over and eliminate from the least vote-getters up, while redistributing voters’ next-choice votes until only five remain.
Last edited by lcbaseball22 on November 18th, 2014, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 3855
Joined: June 2010
^^^ I haven't seen this, thanks.

User avatar
Posts: 946
Joined: July 2012

Posts: 102
Joined: November 2014
Apocalypse wrote:
Aili wrote:
Apocalypse wrote:Wolf of Wall Street is meant to be a satire. Lol at anyone thinking it was misogynistic. Probably one of the ballsiest films we have had in years.
You just made my case.

Yeah, it was MEANT to be a satire. Just didn't work out that way, satire not being a Scorsese strong suit, unlike OTT misogyny and violence.
The man who made Goodfellas and The King of Comedy does not have a strong suit for satire?
yikes

Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time (and is known for satire) and that is not even up for debate.

I frankly love how mixed the reviews were for that (as in, people either thought it was a masterpiece or gave it a 1/10 because they felt insecure about watching all the nudity and drugs). Proves that Scorsese doesn't give a shit about pleasing the audience.
I love The Wolf Of Wall Street. I think it's one of the most entertaining movies ever made but I don't think it was satire. Maybe Scorsese did try to ridicule the lifestyle of Wall Street cutthroats but the movie ended up mostly glorifying what they did.[/quote]



Well the movie is in the perspective of Jordan Belfort and what he thinks about his actions. It clearly doesn't glorify what they did if the film alludes to some terrible and disastrous consequences of their lifestyles (and as can be seen by the few times we see some other perspective whether it's from Robbie's character or another character) that sees them as dangerous psychopaths. It's brilliant satire that never takes a moment to be self aware to show the audience that "hey this is meant to be us poking fun at greedy sex addicted people!"

I feel the film is trying moreso to show the corruption and greediness of the upper class (Wall Street in this case)
And from the interviews of the cast, it seems that's what they think too

User avatar
Posts: 19013
Joined: June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
I hope this wins Best VFX. Should get Best Director, Best Script (original I guess?), Best Art Direction, Best Soundtrack nominations and I also think it should win all that.

User avatar
Posts: 946
Joined: July 2012
After seeing the spread of scores from the BFCA site I'm not too concerned about the overall score; if it weren't for these extremists it would have the 85+ that dictates award consideration

http://www.criticschoice.com/members/ccampbell/ (50)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/acampbell/ (30)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mdelarosa/ (60 but I point this one out become of how love/hate his ratings are, it's ridiculous)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/dfreedman/ (50)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rjay/ (50)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/TalkCineman/ (40)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/kjohnson/ (20)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rjustavick/ (50)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/zkit/ (20)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/fmastracci/ (20)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jmurphy/ (50)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rmurray/ (40)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mpaurich/ (50)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/msmith/ (50)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/hstratford/ (50)

I just don't see how anyone could rate the film a 50, let alone a 20. I mean I didn't love the film but I'd have to say there's enough quality craftsmanship to warrant at least a 60 even if an individual doesn't like it. :roll: Personally I'd give it an 80 or 90 by their rating scale and fortunately there's enough that agree and many who rate it a 100 to balance out all the imbeciles listed above for an overall average of 80/100 which given all those low scores is quite impressive! :clap: I noticed also that the higher grades tended to come from more legit critics such as Laremy Legel of Film.com He is an RT Top Critic and he scored Interstellar a 100. Also Chris Knight of the National Post gave it a 100 and Dave Karger (Fandango) and Justin Craig (FoxNews) are a few among those who gave 90's.

Post Reply