The 89th Academy Awards (2017) Movie • Page 17

But what you're describing aren't predictions, is all I'm saying. That's talking about personal preference. I can go on for hours about why Moonlight is the best film in the field, because it is, but that doesn't change the fact that, based on all the relevant factors, my prediction is La La Land. And when he does use external factors, they have no basis in what is actually predictive of an Oscar win.

 

I know, but I guess I just don't care, haha. I'm sure every publication wants Oscar prediction pieces, let a writer use that excuse to talk about whatever they want to talk about.

 

And if we all basically know what's going to win anyway because of the SAG awards or whatever, then every piece would basically be the same. Let writers make bold predictions, it's way more interesting than everyone going "yeah La La Land is obviously gonna win"

 

Well that's why places like The AV Club do "What Will Win/What Should Win." That's a way better format because it allows for both.

It's one thing to make a bold prediction based on sound reasoning, I just couldn't follow his logic in a number of places, is all.

 

You couldn't follow it, or you don't agree with it? He provides historical examples for his Moonlight/La La Land split, and I don't agree with part of his Isabelle Huppert argument ("sex sells"), but I get what he's saying.

 

I couldn't follow it. His logic about the Best Picture/Best Director split in particular was kind of shaky. He doesn't take into consideration the tiered voting system for Best Picture that essentially is designed to reward films like La La Land over Moonlight. If anything, the split will be the other way around, with Jenkins winning Best Director and La La Land winning Best Picture. The historical statement and significance of Jenkins getting the win could be enough to help him pull off the upset. And yeah, that sex sells thing has been true in the past (see: Kate Winslet), but not in the context that Elle presents it. I mean, the subject matter of the film kept it from even being nominated in the Foreign Language category. Plus it's going up against Emma Stone's crowd-pleasing turn in La La Land, where she fulfills so many of the criteria that typically spell Oscar victory. Just my take, though.

 

I understand. But again the logistics of voting and the structure of the Academy are my least favorite part of all this. It frames the discussion by their standards, and their standards are old and white. I want more unconventional predictions and takes, thoughtful writing and discussion and highlighting of films that didn't get nominated, and the more interesting films that were nominated but won't win. More talk about Elle and Moonlight and Paterson and Silence and the Handmaiden. But I get where you're coming from and it makes sense to frame conversations from the existing structure of how the Academy works, since it's their award show. As long as the perspective doesn't end there. There's so much more!

 

Well I'd hope by now you'd know that my perspective, at least, isn't limited to that. Honestly, I just look at Oscar predictions as a game, more than anything else. I know what the best films really were, to me, I just like to make guesses and see if I can tell where the Academy is going to go.

 

Oh no we've interacted enough I know and appreciate your perspective. I just don't like the game aspect of the Oscars haha. But I get that others do. It's all fair.

 

Bunch of screenplays for download.

https://gointothestory.blcklst.com/2016-award-season-screenplay-downloads-47-total-220fb52317b1

 

Thank you for this! This is now my cover photo on Facebook.

 

Haha nice!

 

I don't like the term "Oscar bait". The movies that should be considered Oscar bait are the ones about Hollywood. Movies about racial tension (Selma, Do the Right Thing, Malcolm X) or movies about homosexuality (Carol, Moonlight, Brokeback Mountain, Milk) famously rarely, or don't ever, win. Movies about actors/LA/show business stack it (La La Land, Birdman, the Artist, Argo, Chicago). A real Oscar Bait movie trailer would look like a self-important white guy who works in movies/LA saving the world/finding personal fulfillment by making a movie. The movies Seth Myers pokes fun at (foreign language, racial, queer) fight uphill battles to get made/released in the states, let alone win awards. Academy voters admitted they didn't watch Brokeback Mountain based on the subject matter. Which isn't to say that studios aren't making self-important movies about suffering and tragedy hoping to win awards, but movies like Manchester by the Sea and Elle and Moonlight and Silence are passion projects from auteurs, some of whom have labored for years to get movies made and garnered little to no recognition for those passion projects. Granted La La Land is a passion project too, but that's part of why I just don't like the label in general.

I like Seth though, balloon foot was a fun gag.

 

I think honestly the term Oscar Bait should be used when a movie they know the academy will like is held for release during the fall Oscar season for the reason of it being fresh and in everyone's minds.

 

Yeah that's a really good point. I also hate the term "Oscar bait" because it gets thrown around in a derisive manner and lumps together films that actually deserve Oscars (Carol, Moonlight, Brokeback Mountain, Malcom X, etc) with films that decidedly do not (my personal favorite example of "Why the fuck was this nominated for Best Picture?" of this decade, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close). So, in addition to your 100% accurate observation that the real Oscar bait are the films that are literally baiting the Academy into voting for them by being about showbusiness, the term also does apply to certain non-showbiz-centric films (Collateral Beauty comes to be mind, just thinking of 2016).

 

Oscar bait is really just a marketing term and not the intention of the filmmakers

 

I agree it's more for people like Harvey Weinstein who are thirsty for Oscars, still unfathomable that he'll never release About Ray or Tulip Fever

 

I don't know that it's a "marketing term," as much as it is an insult thrown around by people on the internet far too indiscriminately.

 

With that said, there's gotta be *some* filmmakers and/or performers who take on a project with the intention of awards, right? I'm not talking about films like Moonlight, but maybe the team behind that Will Smith movie that flopped

 

It's clearly the reason he made After Earth, was probably true for Collateral Beauty as well.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened with Dallas Buyers Club

 

You're right but I think that type of hype is generated by the studio's marketing department without the filmmakers' involvement

 

Well, yeah, of course studios market their films as "awards-worthy" (especially when they can crow about the stars being "Academy Award-winner X" or "Academy Award-nominee X") but they never use the term "Oscar bait." That's really intended more as an insult, is what I meant, and it shouldn't really be used to describe something as beautiful, passionate, and artistic as, say, Carol, while also being used to describe something as cloying and lazy as Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (which I will not stop saying is just the worst).