Page 1 of 2

2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 8:26am
by LiQuid
Nominations announced.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/01/24/ ... -for-2012/

I have literally only even heard of three of the best picture nominees (only two of which I could even tell you what they were about. I have no clue what Hugo is). I've seen none of them.

In all of my entire life, I have never had this few "horses" in the Oscar race. I usually avoid all the arty farty movies until Oscar season anyways, but they usually throw at least a couple genre films in the running somewhere that I can stick some misplaced support behind as a dark horse, but this year nope. All the acting categories too. I've not even heard of most of these movies.

So what happened this year? Has my quest to watch the most retarded drivel finally made me lose touch with movie trends, or did the Oscars go too pretentious this year? What do you guys think?

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 8:57am
by Mr_eX
Jonah Hill

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 9:08am
by LiQuid
Woah I didn't even notice that. :lol:

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 10:17am
by kenzo
I've heard of half of these, but only because I watched a year's end wrap-up episode of Roger Ebert Presents: At the Movies on accident.

As for what I think? Re: all the negative things I had to say about last year's Oscars.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 10:46am
by jinpei05
Mr_eX wrote:Jonah Hill

Did you SEE Moneyball? It's actually quite good, and so is he.

Genuinely shocked that Charlize Theron did not get a nod for Young Adult.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:05pm
by Master Higgins
I saw Harry Potter, TF3, and Planet of the Apes. :lol:

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:08pm
by LiQuid
Master Higgins wrote:I saw Harry Potter, TF3, and Planet of the Apes. :lol:

I honestly think they should branch off film awards into 2 separate shows, the normal Oscars, for everybody that doesn't give a fuck, and an award show that your movie needs to have made $X million dollars+ at the box office in order to be considered. It would still be voted on by an academy of peers instead of just being a People's Choice awards, which always devolved into stupid popularity contests.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:19pm
by Master Higgins
LiQuid wrote:
Master Higgins wrote:I saw Harry Potter, TF3, and Planet of the Apes. :lol:

I honestly think they should branch off film awards into 2 separate shows, the normal Oscars, for everybody that doesn't give a fuck, and an award show that your movie needs to have made $X million dollars+ at the box office in order to be considered. It would still be voted on by an academy of peers instead of just being a People's Choice awards, which always devolved into stupid popularity contests.


I'd be fine with that.

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

Transformers - The Dark of the Moon

FOR BEST PICTURE

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:20pm
by GiantAsianMan
LiQuid wrote:instead of just being a People's Choice awards, which always devolved into stupid popularity contests.

The People's Choice Awards *are* popularity contests. That's the very definition of "people's choice."

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:22pm
by jinpei05
GiantAsianMan wrote:
LiQuid wrote:instead of just being a People's Choice awards, which always devolved into stupid popularity contests.

The People's Choice Awards *are* popularity contests. That's the very definition of "people's choice."

It's worse than that. The producers of the show ask the nominees if they want the award, and the person who says yes gets it, which is why the audience for the show is stuffed with seat fillers.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:26pm
by LiQuid
GiantAsianMan wrote:
LiQuid wrote:instead of just being a People's Choice awards, which always devolved into stupid popularity contests.

The People's Choice Awards *are* popularity contests. That's the very definition of "people's choice."

The operative term there was "stupid" since that's what people are.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:26pm
by GiantAsianMan
jinpei05 wrote:
GiantAsianMan wrote:
LiQuid wrote:instead of just being a People's Choice awards, which always devolved into stupid popularity contests.

The People's Choice Awards *are* popularity contests. That's the very definition of "people's choice."

It's worse than that. The producers of the show ask the nominees if they want the award, and the person who says yes gets it, which is why the audience for the show is stuffed with seat fillers.

Well, not exactly. My understanding is that they do actually take the votes into account. If the winner doesn't want to show up/can't show up, it goes to the next person, and so on. With the People's Choice, you have to be present to win.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 12:32pm
by jinpei05
GiantAsianMan wrote:
jinpei05 wrote:
GiantAsianMan wrote:
LiQuid wrote:instead of just being a People's Choice awards, which always devolved into stupid popularity contests.

The People's Choice Awards *are* popularity contests. That's the very definition of "people's choice."

It's worse than that. The producers of the show ask the nominees if they want the award, and the person who says yes gets it, which is why the audience for the show is stuffed with seat fillers.

Well, not exactly. My understanding is that they do actually take the votes into account. If the winner doesn't want to show up/can't show up, it goes to the next person, and so on. With the People's Choice, you have to be present to win.

They used to. I think they just stop giving a fuck when winners didn't show up. And yeah, you're right, they want a star to show up to accept it to bump their ratings.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 3:15pm
by LiQuid
So Moneyball was a pretty great movie. I guess Jonah Hill was good but I'm still thinking his nod is a big of industry trololol. I dunno how big a part needs to be to be considered "supporting role" but even within that movie, Philip Seymour Hoffman was far more brilliant. Maybe the Academy is just sick of recognizing how amazing he is though. Who can say?

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 24th, 2012 @ 11:01pm
by Mr_eX
William Hurt was nominated for an Oscar for A History of Violence and he was in that movie for like 5 minutes.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 25th, 2012 @ 5:30pm
by MrDrifter
Muppets got a nomination for best original song (Man or Muppet)
Thats all I cared about... they got completely snubbed at the Golden Globes in the Comedy/Musical Category which was won by the "hilarious comedy" My Week with Marylin :roll:

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 26th, 2012 @ 7:45am
by Mr_eX
Rise of the Planet of the Apes should have been nominated/won best picture and Andy Serkis for best actor

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 26th, 2012 @ 8:48am
by LiQuid
Mr_eX wrote:Rise of the Planet of the Apes should have been nominated/won best picture and Andy Serkis for best actor

Image

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 26th, 2012 @ 10:45am
by flufflogic
Seriously, if Meryl Streep wins for playing Thatcher, who I couldn't revile more, I will puke.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 26th, 2012 @ 10:57am
by GiantAsianMan
flufflogic wrote:Seriously, if Meryl Streep wins for playing Thatcher, who I couldn't revile more, I will puke.

Why, because you don't like Thatcher, or because Streep's portrayal of Thatcher was bad? Because no one gives a fuck whether or not you like the character an actor is playing, its all about how they play the part. I'm sure there weren't a lot of people that liked Aileen Wuornos in real life, but that didn't stop Charlize Theron from winning an Oscar for playing her. That's why its called acting.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 26th, 2012 @ 11:38am
by Rebecca
Kung Fu Panda 2 for best animated feature!

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 27th, 2012 @ 9:07am
by flufflogic
GiantAsianMan wrote:
flufflogic wrote:Seriously, if Meryl Streep wins for playing Thatcher, who I couldn't revile more, I will puke.

Why, because you don't like Thatcher, or because Streep's portrayal of Thatcher was bad? Because no one gives a fuck whether or not you like the character an actor is playing, its all about how they play the part. I'm sure there weren't a lot of people that liked Aileen Wuornos in real life, but that didn't stop Charlize Theron from winning an Oscar for playing her. That's why its called acting.

Because there's this horrendous reverence for both Streep and Thatcher in the US I feel isn't represented over here. The fact she got a film is a subject of much hate over here, but to see that film get lauded irks.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 27th, 2012 @ 1:00pm
by ribkicker4
flufflogic wrote:
GiantAsianMan wrote:
flufflogic wrote:Seriously, if Meryl Streep wins for playing Thatcher, who I couldn't revile more, I will puke.

Why, because you don't like Thatcher, or because Streep's portrayal of Thatcher was bad? Because no one gives a fuck whether or not you like the character an actor is playing, its all about how they play the part. I'm sure there weren't a lot of people that liked Aileen Wuornos in real life, but that didn't stop Charlize Theron from winning an Oscar for playing her. That's why its called acting.

Because there's this horrendous reverence for both Streep and Thatcher in the US I feel isn't represented over here. The fact she got a film is a subject of much hate over here, but to see that film get lauded irks.

I think Meryl Streep is a good actress. I don't care about Margaret Thatcher. But 'the Iron Lady' was not good. So fucking boring... I was so close to walking out (the ticket was 12 dollars I think).

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 27th, 2012 @ 2:47pm
by jinpei05
Meryl Streep is a GREAT fucking actress.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 27th, 2012 @ 3:59pm
by Rebecca
Image

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 27th, 2012 @ 4:01pm
by flufflogic
I hate Abba, and I hate musicals, so that film was the most fucking awful thing I was ever subjected to.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 27th, 2012 @ 4:14pm
by kenzo
flufflogic wrote:Because there's this horrendous reverence for both Streep and Thatcher in the US I feel isn't represented over here. The fact she got a film is a subject of much hate over here, but to see that film get lauded irks.
Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with 'reverence', and even if it was, you shouldn't find that horrendous. We made films about Nixon and G.W. Bush that didn't paint them to be absolute monsters - and they were pretty good movies. Maybe if you set your political biases aside, you might actually find a decent film with some perspective.

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 27th, 2012 @ 4:20pm
by LiQuid
flufflogic wrote:I hate Abba

I will not allow this to happen in my presence.


Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 29th, 2012 @ 1:21pm
by Lus
I can't believe Hugo is on the list for Oscar... It's kind of a sweet story for kids, but..gosh, not hillarious enough for an Oscar :( I think the level of films nominated for this award becomes lower and lower with years..Or maybe I'm just getting older and older... :D

Re: 2012 Oscars

PostPosted: Jan 29th, 2012 @ 4:02pm
by flufflogic
Nerdist referred to Extremely Loud And Extremely Close as "the most nominated critically panned film ever".

And, sorry, but I still fucking hate Abba, and always will. The only time they were close to bearable was when Erasure covered them.