atleast they invite others.

Still it WOULD be nice of the Oscars "meant anything" beyond Hollywood jerking itself off in public.

This is my favorite description of the Oscars

Literally this.

i don’t know, i agree it wasn’t her intention but the term "Oscar bait" can be seen as a massive insult to the film, like calling Birdman or 12 years a slave Oscar bait (or at least implying it) without looking at the film as what they want. showing Birdman as a Oscar bait film while ignoring how impressive the film is from a production and acting level. of course these films want awards but cmon, a movie like crash is Oscar bait due to how shitty and manipulative the whole thing is ment to trick you into thinking the racist piece of shit is worthy of a Oscar, and it ain’t cool to put 12 years a slave, a movie that is terrific and won best picture on the same level because the movie wanted awards

​@@tbrown5836 That's a fair point! I think 'Oscar bait' does have different meanings depending on the context. It depends whether it's being used as a way to diss/smear a film for no reason, used as a stand-in for any substantive criticism - or whether it's being targeted towards wider patterns in the industry, being used to criticise the Oscars as an institution, and the way the film industry revolves around them. I understood Lindsay as meaning it in the second way. Also while I think both Birdman and 12 Years A Slave were very good movies which can totally stand on their own separate from the Oscars, there are creative aspects of both films which may have been influenced by seeking awards, and the way they were marketed were clearly influenced by the Oscars. I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation. It's not wrong for filmmakers to want to get awards - that's how they can get their movies seen, and be able to advance their careers! The issue here is the underlying structure which means filmmakers are bound to be influenced by an outdated and prejudiced institution. That underlying structure is what's being criticised (or what should be criticised) not the individual filmmakers trying to get an audience and an award. There's nothing wrong with wanting those things. And good filmmakers find ways to fit into the Oscars' criteria while still making good films. Great filmmakers find a way to fit in while still making great films. Let's take birdman for example (a film I think is very good!) because at first glance that might seem like an 'oddball' choice for the Oscars. It's artsy and quirky and takes some risks. However it does tick some major boxes: 1. The filmmaking techniques: I think the single-take thing was really cool and effective! I think it added creatively to the film! But it was also a great marketing gimmick. It's the kind of impressive technical trick the Oscars loves. If the film had just been shot with long takes to prioritise acting, but not been a single take, it would have recieved no coverage for that. The fact it appeared to be shot in a single take made headlines. Doesn't mean there was no artistic justification for doing that. Also doesn't mean we can't talk about how awards shows eat that kind of thing up. 2. Subject matter: The film is about an actor in New York. Movies about acting, rehearsal, the process of making creative works, and the personal lives & psychology of artists 'behind the scenes' tend to be catnip for Academy voters. Movies set in LA or New York also tend to be extremely popular with the voters. The film also had strong echoes of the classic movie Opening Night by John Cassavettes, which might not be known by a general audience but would definitely be picked up on by people in the industry. The Oscars historically LOVE movies which reference classic American cinema. Again, nothing wrong with any of these things, but they do tick some boxes! 3. Most important of all, casting: Michael Keaton gave a fantastic performance in Birdman, I think he was extremely well cast. But if another, equally talented actor had been cast, one who wasn't well known, who wasn't primed by this movie to have a widely publicised 'career renaissance' after being a major Hollywood star in the past (not to mention big names like Edward Norton and Emma Stone rounding out the cast) would this film still have recieved the attention it did? No way. The arthouse crowd would have watched for Iñárritu, the mainstream audience and the Oscars likely would have ignored it. Does that mean Keaton shouldn't have been cast? No way! In this case he gave a truly worthy performance. This marketing technique synced up perfectly with real talent, so it was a win-win situation. 4. Like all true 'Oscar bait' the film was marketed directly at the Oscars, with a round of 'for your consideration' ads in trade papers and around LA. Movies need to have a significant distribution budget to be able to run these kind of ads. Again, there's nothing wrong with running ads and wanting awards, but it does show the filmmakers were intentional in targeting the Oscars. Not a judgement, just an observation. So I hope this shows what I mean - even if it's possible to call a film like Birdman 'Oscar bait' in some ways, that doesn't mean it's not a great film, or that the filmmakers sacrificed quality so the film could tick the right boxes. In this case things lined up perfectly, so they were able to make a movie which was genuinely great and ALSO ticked the right boxes. However if the same movie had been made, but they had chosen to set it in a different location, had chosen to cast equally talented but unknown (or foreign or non-white) actors, if it had just been shot in long takes to focus on acting, but not wowed people with the 'single take' conceit, if it hadn't been referencing a classic, if it wasn't funded by a major studio with the multi-million dollar budget required to hire these actors, to pull of these technical feats and fund the CGI required to present the final movie... then... it would have been almost the same film. Almost exactly. Just as artistically great. But it would never have won an Oscar, or recieved anywhere near the attention it did. Personally I wouldn't single out Birdman as 'Oscar bait', I just used it as an example because you did. It's not like that film ticked every single box, it just ticked enough that it can fit into the category. While Birdman cleverly managed to tick enough boxes to win without having to make creative sacrifices, a film like Crash is at the other end of the scale - ticking every box, but also making every creative sacrifice. A film like Crash is totally defined by its 'Oscar bait' qualities because it has nothing else going for it, whereas a film like Birdman easily stands on its own - people would still call it a great movie if it didn't have any awards - but nonetheless certain aspects of it can be critiqued as part of a larger pattern in the industry. The way Lindsay was using 'Oscar bait' seems like a critique of this wider pattern. It's not a judgement of a film's overall quality, but an observation (a weary, frustrated observation) of the way Hollywood works. The focus isn't on judging individual filmmakers for "playing the game," it's about critiquing the parameters of that game - the fact that game exists in the first place. It's a nuanced conversation, so I hope I managed to explain what I mean in a clear way.

Ahahahah that was a great movie but I totally agree

I mean, OUATIH was fantastic… But yeah, you’re totally right.

Perhaps the Weinsteins would say you can't be sure how anyone or anything in Hollywood will age.

Like a fine sleeping wine. 🍷

As someone not really acquainted with the depths of behind the scenes Hollywood connections, how exactly did the Weinsteins become so prestige in Hollywood? Like, what did they actually DO that made them so desired for films, and so trusted that for the longest time noone dared cross them for so long?

The best part is that Weinstein is probably more responsible than any other individual for the state of cinema now.

@@alphamone They had privilege & money, which they then invested in projects. Rince & repeat.

That kind of makes it worse. Giving a movie bonus points for a name attached to it is just as bad as dismissing a movie for a name attached to it.

Schwarzer Ritter well not really if you think about it. If Michael Bay's name is attached, you kinda know what you're gonna get, but if David Finchers name is on something, the film or show is probably gonna be better.

CameraGuy322 Like I said, that makes it worse.

Schwarzer Ritter I disagree. If there's a good chance people (or animals, for that matter) were hurt during the production of a film, or when big players like producers, directors or lead actors were involved in criminal behaviour during production, I feel like that should be more than enough reason to dismiss a movie. The artwork may not have suffered, but that doesn't mean bad people should be awarded for their work.

TheGalacticGrizzly Does that also mean Oscars should be retroactively be revoked?

Dylan McMahon yeh

Yep

@Dylan McMahon Why is that? Who are they anyways?

Yeah, that aged hilariously badly.

Who are the Weinsteins . . . two of the biggest producers in the history of cinema.

Poor Into the spider-verse has no chance. It broke a lot of ground technically but since the mouse didn't make it, it's dead in the water.

totally agreed. even films like "the wind rises", "Howl's moving castle", and "when marnie was there" where beaten down, and those only got in because they where released in LA county theatres. other movies that WEREN'T released in LA county didn't even get a nod. also, NONE of the above films count as Disney, even if they were translated by Disney, since they were made by Studio Ghibli, a studio that famously forbids any alterations to their movies beyond those needed to make sure that they translate properly. (changing 'it tastes like water' to 'it tastes like donkey piss' is okay. cutting a guy getting graphically and brutally decapitated by an arrow isn't. both of those are from the same film, BTW: Princess Mononoke).

@@clockstomper i've got some good news for you

No,it’s whether Pixar made it

Disney has 3 animated best picture awards,Pixar has 9 wins and 12 nominations..

It's so amazing!! I was afraid it might go to that Ford movie or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood but it was a pleasant surprise. Very happy for the ream who worked on Parasyte

All Oscar nominated movies were great this year, but I think Parasites deserved to win

All the film's were genuinely. while I personally would've preferred marriage story or little women to win, I'm still very happy!

@Bored Orange yeah foreign countries make movies to get American awards. There are way more none English movies than there are English, Americans just hate subtitles

@Bored Orange are you dumb

Where do you live/work? I want to be in your movies.

+Annie Trinity production starts this Saturday near Ft Smith Arkansas.

Hezekiah Bennetts Oh wow, you're serious? Unfortunately I'm no where near AR

+Hezekiah Bennetts Don't do it! Movies that are bad by accident are great, but there's nothing sadder than a movie that's bad on purpose!

Good luck beating M. Night Shyamalan and Joel Schumacher

I was with you until you said "small town in the US," because how many of those ever get highlighted? It's always LA, NY, or some place like Vancouver or Toronto.

I love this, I love everything about this

That's hysterical

true, but the movies they like being ignored is probably a big part too. why would anyone sit and watch movies they've never seen and have no interest in get awards? no one is invested.

Especially this year, where a majority of the films nominated have links to Disney, who now help fund the awards

People think this, but a public vote system is as bad as the "club" voting, unfortunately there is no perfect voting system, but personally I prefer this way over public voting, they just have to be more diverse. Awards based on public voting have the issue of being extremely biased with fandoms or controversy especially on the internet age.

I always get confused when people whine about political Oscar shows. Most displays of politics are met with award silence and mixed applause because it's not really the point of the show.

This is old, but I think really a chief problem for normal people isnt that the Oscar's are too political, or that the movies they like aren't in it(although that is the biggest one). It's that the main reason for these rewards to most people is to find out "what movies are considered the best movies this year" so that they can watch them, yet appallingly the movies that win awards are all really boring. Nobody wants to watch a sad 3 hour long movie about a mentally challenged child in the holocaust. But, because the Oscar's said it's the best movie of the year someone might decide to watch it, waste 3 hours of their lives and just not give a shit about what the Oscars say anymore.

+slashandbones13 trans people hate that movie so feel free to rag on it.

***** why is that?

+slashandbones13 its an extremely poor representation of the actual events. It's basically the trans version of Patch Adams.

Scoldpedia that paints a pretty clear picture

+slashandbones13 There's also the fact that eddie redmayne is not a trans woman, and this casting kinda implies that all trans woman are just men in drag. And yeah, we don't actually have a lot of trans actresses out there in Hollywood, but there's nothing to say a talent search couldn't be done fairly effectively. Sense8 managed to find Jamie Clayton, an actual trans woman, to play their trans female character (probably because both Wachowskis are trans women and probably cared more than your average cis male director). The Danish Girl is just more of the "let's watch the freak have delusions and die so we can feel sorry for anyone who isn't normal like us" that LGBT+ people know to expect in films made about them for straight cis people. Every creative choice made shows that no one was actually interested in telling a trans story. Carol, which got some Oscar nominations this year, was a much better prestige film about LGBT+ issues, and lesbians and bi women absolutely loved it, so I recommend watching that instead (even though it was utterly snubbed and definitely should have gotten at least one of the six awards it was nominated for). The fact that Alicia Vikander won over Rooney Mara shows how out of touch Hollywood is. Sorry about the length, I got carried away :p

An Animated film winning best picture would somehow render acting obsolete? That's like saying that broadway became obsolete because The Jazz Singer introduced sound in 1927 or that Star Wars destroyed Experimental film (it didn't and neither did superhero films, studios and multinationals did).

Ay dude it sucks. Animation is treated by too many people as a genre rather than the medium it clearly is. Edit: Which sort of justifies the whole "separate award" thing, but honestly, a film is a film is a film. It shouldn't really matter how it was made, rather what it actually is.

Because if an animated film wins best picture I suppose that means we're just skipping the "best actor" and "best actress" categories now?

@@blackroserevolution3989 Do you think voice acting can be included or is it in its own separate lane?

@@heyryanisonx3141 A vocal perforamnce is different to an overall acting performance. Think seeing a band live against hearing it on the radio. Different performances.

Madeleine Heath What about Willem Dafoe not getting an Oscar nomination?

I believe Parasite, while a incredible movie is not in my opinion better than the lighthouse or Jojo Rabbit.

@@rdomino7418 Jojo Rabbit wasn't that great at all. It didn't even deserve to be nominated.

@@13strong I can definitely understand why some people may not enjoy the movie and that is completely fine. I can also understand some people's feelings towards Parasite and why they love it. I personally believe that Jojo Rabbit is the better of the two but all people are entitled to their own unique opinion

@@rdomino7418 You're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is still wrong though.

It is one of her all time favorite movies after all. Too bad it wasn't nominated. It's a fantastic animated film.

Yeah the academy voters don't seem to give a fuck about the art of animation and view it as kid's stuff.

+Priya Sridhar there certain group of films that never get nominated. 1) comedies, while a few have shown up on occasion comedies in general never seem to get nominated much even if a comedy is one of the hardest medium 2) horror/sci fi. science fiction actually will get nominated on occasion but horror seldom. I blame it on the years of the slasher films. blood and gore with weak acting will do that so the entire genre as a whole has suffer. 3)animation cause its just voice work not "acting" at least that is the way it seem to be treated most of the time.

+simone robson A lot of them admit that they don't even watch the animated films and just vote on the ones their friends have worked on.

I agree. I feel that the animation category is far more complex then what the Oscars give it credit for. Should beautiful animated films from foreign countries compete with the CGI snowman from Frozen? Is that a truly fair category to judge them by since the English speaking countires view animation solely as a children’s medium? I was very disappointed by the lack of care people had when voting for the best animated films, they had either only seen one of the films in the category and it was most likely the big children’s film of the year, or they hadn’t seen any of them and only went by a friends recommendation who had also only seen the big children’s film of the year. This is why I do not try to pay attention to the Oscars anymore, I do not think it is the sole judge of animation quality that gives America a pat on the back while international films are only there to give the line up a little spice.

MsAbixxx I agree apart from the western world comment.Europe definitely puts a lot of effort into animation and unlike English speaking countries doesn't see it as kids stuff.

Yeah, it isn't all doom and gloom. Though it can be depressing when a genuinely great film is passed over for some drama about something something political the Academy loves, and the winner goes on a five minute speech about said politics. That is grating beyond belief.

For me, it's sort of like a harvest season on a farm. Some years, you have a great crop yield like this year where almost every movie on the list was unique and lovable in its own way, and then you have years like 2016 where only a couple of the nominees are actually decent.

Crash, for me. As a child, I found that movie to be unrealistic... a suburban child.

And the Will Smith topped that up with Collateral Beauty.

+CaptainJZH as well as a cool Iron Giant t shirt

-and if any animated film is discussed,many always think it's Disney,whoever really did it.

The actors rarely are. Time's Up for Cripping Up!

Hoohooho true

And not "Full Retard" disabled... Less "Sam I am" and more "Forest Gump". Tropic Thunder reference

Or are they suffering from life-threatening diseases like Cancer or AIDS? Cause Instant-Oscar right there!

Hollywood 'disabled'. Same type of thing as Hollywood 'ugly'.

112steinway Thankfully

Thanks for telling me that Weinstein is controversial, if it weren't for you ( And the 2,000 other comments pointing it out) then i would have not known, now can we please discuss how dumb "Crash" is.

@@noblechief4023 You are very welcome. Would you like to talk about the Catholic Church next? Because holy crap do I have some news for you!

Oh come on dude, its just that old "Adam West is a nutjob" joke extended for three hours filmed with a gimmicky technique and dusted with a coating of "Oh, how hard it is to be an artist, oh, the angst!" Its a piece of shit.

Adler Köning​ You might view it as that, doesn't mean it is that way.

You know what? You are right. I think its shit, you think it isn't. nuff said.

Spotlight wasn't as well

Adler Köning and your opinion is wrong

Swoooze The Artist is one of my favourite movies. It's brilliant! The artistry and the acting are ingenious, imo. But people relentlessly tell me it's a gimmick snore fest?

It is gimmicky, but also very emotional and beautiful. The two can work together.

yes.

I was going to post that The Artist is brilliant and then saw that I already did!

But Ordinary People is really good.

Those are good ones. I'm not trying to one-up you, but I sort of am. 1975 Best Actor Nominees - Jack Nicholson (Chinatown), Al Pacino (Godfather 2), Albert Finney (Murder on the Orient Express), Dustin Hoffman (Lenny), and Art Carney (Harry and Tonto). Carney won.

Cal tbf I think How Green Was My Valley did deserve that win, it robbed Citizen Kane of cinematography though

Too soon man

I'm not that old

I know right, Jupiter Ascending, such Oscar bait

Meryl Streep will never lose that title

If you're willing to watch Harvey jerk into a plant, you *may* land an Oscar nominated acting role.

i think she meant in the context of the public eye, special effects are a huge draw for audience but the sad fact of it is that many viewers don't know/care anything about the painstaking effort that goes into them

The problem with things like sound editing, sound mixing, art direction, and so on are that the better they are in a movie, the less you notice them. That's why people don't pay as much attention. Anyone in the industry knows what that is, but the Oscars focus little on them anyway because they know half the viewers will be like, "Wha? What does that mean?"

In terms of what people want from films, technicality is often seen as supplementary to substance such as directing, acting, and writing.

They are awarded the day or night before the ‘prestiegous’ awards and are not mentioned beyond a brief overview during the broadcast. Nowadays they are getting more attention but before the internet not a lot of people even knew what movies were nominated unless your local paper happened to print the full list of nominees. They were usually were genre films were relegated to and weren’t taken very seriously outside of genre circles. It’s a load of crap but prestige movies are still treated as better even if a studio just generates the scripts and cast lists with a computer.

technical awards are literally a money contest

Huhuhuh. Pianist.

Its also an emotional discharge from an holocaust survivor in the same vain platoon is one from a Vietnam Veteran...and a big risk to acclaim a movie directed by an US criminal.

@@iHeartHPandTwilight It doesn't need to be glossed over, but if a pedophile rapist makes a decent movie I'm not too apt at clutching my pearls to say "congratulations rapist pedophile, you helped make a good movie." Admittedly I experienced diminishing returns with The Pianist on future viewings, they never really match up to the first time I saw the film, but I can still appreciate it on a technical and artistic level. That said, I actually think it's a bit disrespectful to go right to "Polanski was a rapist etc etc" when talking about the film because Polanski didn't make it single-handed. Like all films it was a collaborative effort - I think in general we're too quick to lump all detraction or acclaim for a particular film on its director.

It can be both

My impression is that mainstream directors rarely control the marketing direction though, so even if those themes were explored earnestly, it could have been sold to the academy (and audiences!) in the same way as one by a director who liked the idea of making a prestigious, character driven film about the Shoah but wasn't motivated by having anything valuable or personally important to say. The way people talk about The Pianist even now, it seems like it rose above those films for those who watched it, though it's odd for me to hold in my mind the image of a man who presumably helped create a film with something moving to say about the human condition and also raped a child and was defended for it.

I could add it to the list!

emily collins

+

-and shirt.

Well, Inarritu's two latest movies (Birdman and The Revenant) are becoming a new genre of "seemingly Oscar baiting movies." Both films deviate in one way or another from the typical tropes of oscar bait movie, but the themes and visuals of his films often get accused of being too "style over substance." I also loved Birdman, and while I don't think its as oscar bait as others, it still is pretty much lumped into that pile by the detractors of the whole Oscar gimmick

+Pablo Aquiles Exactly, I was going to comment about it, but I'm glad you were able to in such an eloquent way.

I understand why some people call it Oscar Bait. Hell I wasn't even rooting for it to win, I was one of the people that wanted Wes Anderson to win. And speaking of that, I have heard people say he is to much style over substance, so I don't know what to say. For my money Oscar Bait is a movie that was made for some big political agenda that the Academy loves to prod out. Those sorts of movies do annoy me sometimes.

I think it's going too far to call Birdman Oscar bait (The Revenant is another matter but that's really just because of the lead, he had his own prerogatives). A project can have more than one purpose or goal or target for a film - it detracts too much from good films to file them off as Oscar bait. Sometimes a good film is just that, and if Oscar bait was a consideration well then it's still a good film, even with that motivation.

it wasn’t even oscar bait tho! i think people are misinterpreting the films intentions

+Shawn Ravenfire same story. btw, thank you very much for your comment, I didn't notice it was different channel until you mentioned it.

+Shawn Ravenfire I was relegated to checking her Patreon (I'm not a patron).

+ConvincingPeople critics are always baffled or disappointed by the Oscars

I didn't watch Birdman yet, but Crash wasn't that bad either. I watched Crash almost a month ago and it was a really good 8 over 10 movie (and I very barely give a movie 10 over 10). The story, the morals, the lesson, the acting, the editing, the soundtrack (especially the song In the Deep) was wonderful. And for the people who are saying that the story and the subject matter was preachy, I disagree as racism and stereotyping happens everywhere to the extent it's covering our lives: in Asia (many Syrian people mock and criticize us the Lebanese people and we mock and criticize them), in Africa (where many of them mock white people for being different), or even in Europe and America (they have a long history of racism and even nowadays a vast number of them treat people of color harshly and don't give them the proper rights). So this movie kind of let me wish we are One and that we don't crash into each other

+stonekold10x Its a good film but it not what i would consider the best film ever. It was strange that it got top mark, but at least it was funny and enjoyable

Other than maybe No Country For Old Men, all movies from Miramax/Weinstein Co. that won best picture owe their thanks to the campaign put forth over how great the movie actually was.

StoneKold10x Then you’re delusional.

Beat out Saving Private Ryan, by default that makes it the best picture of the year.

@@fromthehaven94 No Country For Old Men is a remarkable film, one of the few that (for me anyway) truly deserves the oscar in the history of the award. Its a pity that There will be Blood has been nominated the same year, though (also produced by Miramax).

Definitely. But I'm really hoping Moonlight ends up winning Best Picture like it did @ the Golden Globes!

Well La La Land won too, they just won in seperate categories

Lew Archer 1949 La La Land does have quality, IK it's a movie in Hollywood but it does have some background because it's actually a Passion Project. I mean, don't be surprised if it wins but there is effort to not show it's Oscar bait

I don't think it's Oscar bait either. Chazelle I believe said he only made Whiplash so he could be able to make La La Land, which has been his passion project for a while.

Lew Archer 1949 From the future, they almost won, until they realized their mix up and Moonlight won. Still, Moonlight had all the troupes for Oscar Bait.

La La Land is such flipping Oscar's bait but I still love the movie for some reason.. the colors are just gorgeous

nope

@ned mode everything everywhere all at once deserved its win there is hope

@@emmabennett7699 yeah but everytime they do that the next oscar awards will be another middle finger and the rating will drop like in 2021 and 2022 and they will go panic mode again and nominate popular movies again like they did in 2023 with avatar

@ned mode yknow what that's valid. Bright side is; every other year a movie that deserves it will win

I agree. The Deer Hunter is one of the greatest films ever made IMO and it's definitely my favorite movie, but it definitely did start the trend.

That's interesting. Thanks for sharing, I've got to look into that!

I quit because of John Carney's Begin Again.

#justicefortransformers

@@pepsimilkhotel ...transformers?

@@fuzzydunlop7928 transformers are a go-to example of "the more popular, mainstream and (let's face it) exciting films" that some people think deserve an oscar for that reason but which also have zero artistic merit so everyone can agree they don't (also a nod to this particular channel's history with the transformers franchise)

Rising Of the Thorn That's because she is better.

That's because she has studied film and can discuss the themes, history, and inner working of film. Meanwhile Doug couldn't even tell that Last Action Hero was a parody, or that Mars Attacks wasn't supposed to be a laugh-a-minute comedy :/

Rising Of the Thorn is that nostalgia chick? Small world! LOL

Look Doug is that rare thing hilarious! I just like this story.

@@strangeclaims Doug has good reviews too though, the Room review for example

I both care and I don’t. I watch what I want but like to get mad when stupid shit wins.

It was the first film to make me ugly cry in a long while. I can get behind these kind of films. While gimmicky, at least was a bit refreshing so see how much craft goes into acting. Jean Dujardin really deserved all the awards he received.

i loved it too, it's a true story of the era.

roarshach13 IKR!! I LIKE lots of dramas and shit but most of the best picture noms are fucking BORING

@@artbysarf Watch "Roma"

I think she was trying to suggest that there used to be a time where critics and audiences basically agreed on the quality and as a result the movie was equally successful commercially as it was critically, but now it's gotten to a point where the mediocre movies earn a ton of money and the high-quality movies have become more of a niche pick.