the only thing i know about Birdman is that Ashens thought he wasnt gonna like it, but then his friends dragged him off to see it and he loved it a lot
that may actually be the only other place besides here that i have heard of it
The pop culture panel on Q were all really ambivalent about it winning because they all thought it was a really good movie, but not Best Picture, so they weren't happy but couldn't say it was a bad choice in itself.
Also, Michael Keaton is weird and interviews with him are quite entertaining.
I really want to see it, if only to see a very different Batman doing the Christian Bale voice but more so. In a movie that isn't about that. Also long, single-take tracking shots are my fetish.
Aguirre is a great movie. The last ten minutes are pure psychedelic hell.
People here really need to know when to clarify that something they have observed is "true" or "false" within their own experience as opposed to in general. If you mean to make a universal, personal, or specific statement, be clear on the differences when there is no obvious external context to distinguish them.
Fair enough, I wasn't really in a position to be more detailed at the time though
But I figured given the history of the Oscars it was just... kind of self evident? I mean, it's not a period piece about someone with an inspirational disability but it's sure as hell not the kind of film that's new to the Oscars
I'm just pretty tired of having to not just contest Myr's movie opinions but also contend with whatever weird narrative he has for the movie's public perception
You could always explain why you disagree instead of brushing it off. I'm honestly kind of curious as to what each of your thoughts are on this subject but this non-engagement is kind of stopping anything interesting from happening.
That said, Kex, it's not like you're not being confrontational and presumptive in your own right.
I disagree because the Oscars's history of naming movies with a big cinematic gimmick Best Picture is pretty well known? I honestly don't know what else I can say here, the idea that people retroactively called it Oscar bait is just absurd to me and it strikes me as a disingenuous assertion on Myr's part.
Like I could not for the life of me explain what Myr's opinion on the movie itself is, beyond knowing that he probably likes it. But I absolutely know that he likes the *idea* of a film taking potshots at superhero movies, and I know he thinks that it's been retroactively hated by the nerd press because of some convoluted nerd reason.
I have no idea what I could possibly contend with there; it's just pretenses stacked on pretenses without any real discussion of Birdman, or even really an examination of the reaction to it/its impact beyond Myr just being vaguely discontent.
I personally think it was a safer pick than some because while it is ambitious in its own right, it is also a story about internal struggle and making art, which is relatable and interesting without being confrontational or intrinsically inaccessible. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a surprise: Boyhood was more overtly ambitious with an even more down-to-earth subject, and Selma was about a touchy subject but also classic Oscar bait. But that doesn't necessarily make them better films.
I mean, I'll admit I was taken aback when Kyle Kallgren loved it and then pretty much every other critic I follow disliked it, but I wasn't going to attribute it to retroactively hating anything that wins an Oscar because... why would anyone do that?
I disagree because the Oscars's history of naming movies with a big cinematic gimmick Best Picture is pretty well known? I honestly don't know what else I can say here, the idea that people retroactively called it Oscar bait is just absurd to me and it strikes me as a disingenuous assertion on Myr's part.
Like I could not for the life of me explain what Myr's opinion on the movie itself is, beyond knowing that he probably likes it. But I absolutely know that he likes the *idea* of a film taking potshots at superhero movies, and I know he thinks that it's been retroactively hated by the nerd press because of some convoluted nerd reason.
I have no idea what I could possibly contend with there; it's just pretenses stacked on pretenses without any real discussion of Birdman, or even really an examination of the reaction to it/its impact beyond Myr just being vaguely discontent.
Uhhhhh, you are being amazingly uncharitable and rude here, and right after he explained his feelings concisely and clearly.
There's also American Sniper, which got a nomination because anything Clint Eastwood directs is automatically guaranteed a nomination nowadays, but which nobody seriously thought would win other than right-wing pundits.
I dunno people get weird about awards shows sometimes. I definitely saw a lot more criticism of 1989 after it won Best Album than before, but you could argue that that's justified.
I disagree because the Oscars's history of naming movies with a big cinematic gimmick Best Picture is pretty well known? I honestly don't know what else I can say here, the idea that people retroactively called it Oscar bait is just absurd to me and it strikes me as a disingenuous assertion on Myr's part.
Like I could not for the life of me explain what Myr's opinion on the movie itself is, beyond knowing that he probably likes it. But I absolutely know that he likes the *idea* of a film taking potshots at superhero movies, and I know he thinks that it's been retroactively hated by the nerd press because of some convoluted nerd reason.
I have no idea what I could possibly contend with there; it's just pretenses stacked on pretenses without any real discussion of Birdman, or even really an examination of the reaction to it/its impact beyond Myr just being vaguely discontent.
Nerd press doesn't talk about Birdman much, and the hate was just a subdued thing that barely outlasted the Oscars
I disagree because the Oscars's history of naming movies with a big cinematic gimmick Best Picture is pretty well known? I honestly don't know what else I can say here, the idea that people retroactively called it Oscar bait is just absurd to me and it strikes me as a disingenuous assertion on Myr's part.
Like I could not for the life of me explain what Myr's opinion on the movie itself is, beyond knowing that he probably likes it. But I absolutely know that he likes the *idea* of a film taking potshots at superhero movies, and I know he thinks that it's been retroactively hated by the nerd press because of some convoluted nerd reason.
I have no idea what I could possibly contend with there; it's just pretenses stacked on pretenses without any real discussion of Birdman, or even really an examination of the reaction to it/its impact beyond Myr just being vaguely discontent.
Uhhhhh, you are being amazingly uncharitable and rude here, and right after he explained his feelings concisely and clearly.
There's also American Sniper, which got a nomination because anything Clint Eastwood directs is automatically guaranteed a nomination nowadays, but which nobody seriously thought would win other than right-wing pundits.
A lot of more left-leaning critics really liked it, too, and I think most people agreed that it did a good job of painting this difficult, complicated person in a fair light that neither entirely glamourised nor demonised him by just showing him as someone who, right or wrong, thought that he was doing his job and that his job was important.
I mean, I'll admit I was taken aback when Kyle Kallgren loved it and then pretty much every other critic I follow disliked it, but I wasn't going to attribute it to retroactively hating anything that wins an Oscar because... why would anyone do that?
Distaste can be increased after a major win but I... really doubt anyone's opinion on a film would completely reverse after a Best Picture win? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
There's also American Sniper, which got a nomination because anything Clint Eastwood directs is automatically guaranteed a nomination nowadays, but which nobody seriously thought would win other than right-wing pundits.
A lot of more left-leaning critics really liked it, too, and I think most people agreed that it did a good job of painting this difficult, complicated person in a fair light that neither entirely glamourised nor demonised him by just showing him as someone who, right or wrong, thought that he was doing his job and that his job was important.
this is literally the first time I have heard American Sniper described as anything other than a propaganda film.
There's also American Sniper, which got a nomination because anything Clint Eastwood directs is automatically guaranteed a nomination nowadays, but which nobody seriously thought would win other than right-wing pundits.
A lot of more left-leaning critics really liked it, too, and I think most people agreed that it did a good job of painting this difficult, complicated person in a fair light that neither entirely glamourised nor demonised him by just showing him as someone who, right or wrong, thought that he was doing his job and that his job was important.
I mean, I'll admit I was taken aback when Kyle Kallgren loved it and then pretty much every other critic I follow disliked it, but I wasn't going to attribute it to retroactively hating anything that wins an Oscar because... why would anyone do that?
You could always watch the movie for yourself.
I could and I might get around to it eventually but that's somewhat beside the point of what I was saying
That being that I absolutely hate talking about movies here because the discussions always get tangled up in what whoever is talking thinks the reaction to that movie was rather than the movie itself
Distaste can be increased after a major win but I... really doubt anyone's opinion on a film would completely reverse after a Best Picture win? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't really think it was the same people expressing the two opinions. The win understandably changed who felt like being loud.
There's also American Sniper, which got a nomination because anything Clint Eastwood directs is automatically guaranteed a nomination nowadays, but which nobody seriously thought would win other than right-wing pundits.
A lot of more left-leaning critics really liked it, too, and I think most people agreed that it did a good job of painting this difficult, complicated person in a fair light that neither entirely glamourised nor demonised him by just showing him as someone who, right or wrong, thought that he was doing his job and that his job was important.
idk I remember a lot of people being pretty upset that literally every muslim in the film is a terrorist
Comments
But I figured given the history of the Oscars it was just... kind of self evident? I mean, it's not a period piece about someone with an inspirational disability but it's sure as hell not the kind of film that's new to the Oscars
Like I could not for the life of me explain what Myr's opinion on the movie itself is, beyond knowing that he probably likes it. But I absolutely know that he likes the *idea* of a film taking potshots at superhero movies, and I know he thinks that it's been retroactively hated by the nerd press because of some convoluted nerd reason.
I have no idea what I could possibly contend with there; it's just pretenses stacked on pretenses without any real discussion of Birdman, or even really an examination of the reaction to it/its impact beyond Myr just being vaguely discontent.
The distaste towards Macklemore increased after Kendrick lost a Grammy to him, too.
That being that I absolutely hate talking about movies here because the discussions always get tangled up in what whoever is talking thinks the reaction to that movie was rather than the movie itself