Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Marvel's The Avengers' started by Thread Manager, Aug 27, 2012.
Avengers Assemble at the Oscars!
Scott Evans was giving great shout outs to his brother and mother on Facebook this evening
I bet they went to a Shawarma joint after that...
well effects wise the Oscars went as I thought they would: Life of Pi won. I did not see the film but still wanted Avengers to win. When Macfarlane said "it was the most popular movie but only got nominated once" says a lot about the Academy to me.
Money brought in doesn't always represent quality tho. Avengers deserved the nomination but i also don't think it deserved to win just because it was popular
The point of a movie is to entertain therefore the movie that did the best at the box office is always the best film. There is plenty of discussion to be had in any other category but not that one. The people voting can like and prefer what ever film they want but how can they argue it was the best film when it only entertained 1/10 the number of people. Just having that category in any of these awards shows in kind of snobby.
I think RDJ summed it up quite nicely.
thanks for the cool GIF. I forgot about RDJ saying that. While Avengers did not deserve a best picture nod or anything like that I still feel it should have gotten more respect from the academy.
Its one of the best superhero movies of all time...Completely delivering on all levels, where most feel a feat like having all superheroes in one film is hard to do. They mastered it with the right dosage
Lol @ Sam's suit in that "Avengers at the Oscars" pic.
I got a better one for you guys:
I loved how RDJ was the only one clapping. He's not part of that Hollywood fake nice-nice.
Or maybe RDJ giving respect to Seth for putting him on Family Guy some years back .
Remember? RDJ voiced Lois' sociopathic, murderous brother.
Also here is the reason why that joke bombed. It makes no sense like some of the recent Family Guy gags that completely fail miserably.
Django Unchained is about a black slave who is freed and becomes a bounty hunter and wants to save his wife from slavery and being subjected to being a sex slave as well.
Chris Brown is a musician who brutally beat up his girlfriend and because of his celebrity was able to avoid jail time or any punishment. Not only that, he and Rihanna are now back together and many have forgiven Brown for doing something that is basically unthinkable and to some unforgivable. It's like some sort of joke. Brown wins a Grammy and its almost like he's being rewarded for his detestable behavior.
So Seth McFarlane is comparing a black man rescuing his wife from slavery to . . . Chris Brown beating up Rihanna. The punchline makes no sense and has no context.
lol wonder if they did? lol
and an honorable mention the SHWARMA
except film in this case is being showcased as an art form. Not a money grab bag.
There's plenty of horrible films that made alot of money....
Film is an art form in all cases.
It's only your opinion that they were horrible. They wouldn't have made a lot of money if everyone thought so.
Yes... Because Spider-Man 3, X-men 3, Transformers, and Pirates of the Caribbean 3 all deserved best picture nods... That's 5th grader logic. Not to mention there'd be absolutely no award show for such a thing when you can easily find out who the winner is....
If they had the highest box office total for thier year then thery were the best picture whether you liked them or not. And it's certainly more logical than your belief that if YOU don't agree with the choice it must be wrong. That's 2 year old logic.
Also my first post already said that there should'net be a best picture category in the awards show because it would be already decided. You seem to have3 selective argueing syndrome, another trait of 2 year old logic.
again, it's 12 year old logic.....
Maybe they should just give an honorary award for making the most money? Because a handful of fanboys/fangirls who see a movie 12 times by the droves doesn't exactly give the film an accurate perspective of who enjoyed it..
There are plenty of movies that made millions through front loaded opening weekends but are reviled pretty much immediately and not fondly remembered.
Well marketed does not even necessarily equal most popular much less "best."
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 made considerable amounts more money than the first film and yet I've pretty much never encountered anyone who lists it as their favorite of the series.
McDonald's has served billions of burgers but it doesn't move it any closer to being gourmet food nor does it make it better than a family's Thanksgiving meal.
Is it really? That's the sole purpose? So self expression has nothing to do with it?
There are many ways to engage with a film more than merely being "entertaining."
A film can be utterly engrossing without being enjoyable.
Also some films are only made for a specific audience rather than the lowest common denominator.
A film that successfully takes on philosophical concepts or deals with adult subject matter is very likely not going to make as much money as a 90 minute children's film, even if the children's film is a total bomb by family film standards.
What about well made movies that only play on a few dozen screens vs the literally thousands of screens even the worst reviewed action film plays on?
A handful of people see a movie 12 times by the droves? What the hell does that even mean? You insult people claiming there perspective is the mentality of a 5th grader/12 year old and yet you can't compose a basic sentence properly.
Multiple viewings only account for a small percentage of over all ticket sales in most cases. Most of the big block busters would still have sold the most tickets with out them.
Every thing you said is flawed and/or off the topic.
Many films do have a huge opening weekend only to be sunk by bad reviews and bad word of mouth. None of them have ever gone on to be the top grosser for the year. It takes a long and successful run to do that.
P3 may not have been anyones favorite movie of that series but that's irrelevant since they didn't come out in the same year. P3 was the favorite movie of many poeople for that year.
MacDonalds vs gourmet food? that has nothing to do with film but if you want to make comparisons then you just compared film to soap operas. MacDonalds is fast food and they out sell most any other fast food chain therefore the majority does consider them one of the best fast food restuarants.
I've been making my living as a small independant film maker for over 20 years so I know all about the motivations that film makers have to tell their stories but I also know it's a profession. We have sponsors or investors or both who expect you to make the best film you can and get their money back. They hope you make a profit. So even in the artsyist films money is always a factor.
No a film can't be engrossing with out being enjoyable and it certainly can't be engrossing with out being entertaining. That's absurd. You need to be interested in the subject matter to get engrossed. It doesn't have to be a thrill ride or a laugh a minute to be enjoyable. There are people that enjoy everthing from a sad tear jerker to a nail biting horror flick to a gory slasher film to a mystery or even a boring documentery that they learn something from. The fact is they wouldn't sit through it if they weren't enjoying it and weren't entertained by it.
Those well made films that only play on a few screens usually get expanded to wide release if they're any good and the audiences enjoy them.
Nobody said small films can't be good but if they only appeal to a small audience they are not the best film of the year. Elements of it might be. Often the screen play or an actor might be the best but the over all film, no.
Then by your added mcdonalds comparison...... Avengers would win best action film of the year. Not best picture. Mcdonalds is to (fast) food as avengers is to (action) movie.... Mcdonalds may not be the best tasting food but it sells more customers than wolfgang puck. But is the food better? Don't kid yourself.
If you're a filmmaker ..... Good luck
John Carter was not popular with wide audiences or critics and lost the studio millions of dollars but certainly grossed more than many well respected movies last year. It totally bombed when taken on its own standards, but according to your standards its a better film than well crafted, well reviewed films that had smaller releases.
Its a matter of living up to its own intents. A movie that is designed to appeal to as many people as possible making a lot of money is indeed a success, but its not necessarily any more successful than another film that also find its intended audience.