MOONLIGHT

[drednm]

Yike. How on earth did this afterschool TV special with graphic scenes added in ever get Oscar nominations in any categories? Not sure what I expected, but this movie droned on for nearly 2 hours with basically nothing happeneing. Oscars for best film, screenplay, and supporting actor? Are you serious? I think the vote got hijacked. The only good performance was from Andre Holland as the grown-up Kevin. The rest was TV quality from TV actors. Worst best film winner along with Around the World in Eighty Days!

[Sepiatone]

Hey!

 

I thought "80 Days" was a very good movie.  But I agree, not "best picture" worthy.

 

But, I suspect we all KNOW why MOONLIGHT got the nod, don't we? 

 

 

 

Sepiatone

[LawrenceA]

 

But, I suspect we all KNOW why MOONLIGHT got the nod, don't we? 

 

Because the vast majority of critics and viewers liked it?

[Hibi]

Because the vast majority of critics and viewers liked it?

 

 

LOL.

[drednm]

Because the vast majority of critics and viewers liked it?

 

 

Oh yes? Name three. BLOATED DRIVEL

[LawrenceA]

Oh yes? Name three. BLOATED DRIVEL

 

A.O. Scott, New York Times

Mara Reinstein, Us Weekly

J.R. Jones, Chicago Reader

Ty Burr, Boston Globe

Rafer Guzman, Newsday

David Sims, The Atlantic

Peter Howell, The Toronto Star

Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

John Anderson, Wall Street Journal

Dana Stevens, Slate

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times

David Edelstein, New York Magazine

 

Is that enough, or do you want more? Because I can give you about 5 times as many.

 

No one is saying you have to like it. But just because you didn't like it doesn't mean everyone else does, or should. Typing in all caps doesn't make it any more so, either.

[Hibi]

Ironically, the Academy expanding it's best picture nominees to garner better ratings for the show seems to have opened up the voting for more upsets of this kind. (Upset insofar as this was a small, independent film, but a very well regarded one that picked up other awards from other organizations). Similar to Spotlight last year. The vote now is split between 10-12 nominees per year rather than five. So more established favorites like La La Land have a harder time outflanking the competition for the prize. I also see more splits between Best Picture/ Best Director  (going to different films).

[drednm]

A.O. Scott, New York Times

Mara Reinstein, Us Weekly

J.R. Jones, Chicago Reader

Ty Burr, Boston Globe

Rafer Guzman, Newsday

David Sims, The Atlantic

Peter Howell, The Toronto Star

Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

John Anderson, Wall Street Journal

Dana Stevens, Slate

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times

David Edelstein, New York Magazine

 

Is that enough, or do you want more? Because I can give you about 5 times as many.

 

No one is saying you have to like it. But just because you didn't like it doesn't mean everyone else does, or should. Typing in all caps doesn't make it any more so, either.

 

I said THREE

[JamesJazGuitar]

Ironically, the Academy expanding it's best picture nominees to garner better ratings for the show seems to have opened up the voting for more upsets of this kind. (Upset insofar as this was a small, independent film, but a very well regarded one that picked up other awards from other organizations). Similar to Spotlight last year. The vote now is split between 10-12 nominees per year rather than five. So more established favorites like La La Land have a harder time outflanking the competition for the prize. I also see more splits between Best Picture/ Best Director  (going to different films).

 

It is my understanding the Academy expanded the number of nominees so that additional producers (studios) could promote their films as Oscar nominated films and NOT to increase ratings for the Oscars presentation.  

 

The entire purpose of awards like the Oscars is to market products.

[Hibi]

Maybe that's the official version, but that's not what I heard.........They wanted more audience friendly films making the cut so more people would watch the show. And the ratings havent improved that much.

[drednm]

Ironically, the Academy expanding it's best picture nominees to garner better ratings for the show seems to have opened up the voting for more upsets of this kind. (Upset insofar as this was a small, independent film, but a very well regarded one that picked up other awards from other organizations). Similar to Spotlight last year. The vote now is split between 10-12 nominees per year rather than five. So more established favorites like La La Land have a harder time outflanking the competition for the prize. I also see more splits between Best Picture/ Best Director  (going to different films).

 

Understood ... but to what purpose? Best film should be the result of being best film, not the winner of some ranked voting scheme in the name of "inclusion."

[LawrenceA]

Maybe that's the official version, but that's not what I heard.........They wanted more audience friendly films making the cut so more people would watch the show. And the ratings havent improved that much.

 

Hibi is correct. The idea was to include more "audience-friendly" films that would hopefully draw in viewers of those kinds of movies. It came in part as a result of The Dark Knight failing to get a Best Picture nod in '08.

[drednm]

Hibi is correct. The idea was to include more "audience-friendly" films that would hopefully draw in viewers of those kinds of movies. It came in part as a result of The Dark Knight failing to get a Best Picture nod in '08.

 

Yes, I now. Still a terrible film.

[LawrenceA]

Understood ... but to what purpose? Best film should be the result of being best film, not the winner of some ranked voting scheme in the name of "inclusion."

 

You may be right. Despite our back-and-forth, I haven't even seen Moonlight, yet. I haven't seen any of the nominees. And chances are, when I do watch Moonlight, I might not like it either. I agree with you on Around the World in 80 Days being the worst Best Picture winner previously, anyway. 

 

But there are a lot of people who do like the movie, and not as part of any conspiracy of inclusivity or PC appeasement. There's a thread dedicated to the movie in the Genre threads, and most of those who have seen it, loved it.

 

The nominee for Best Picture that I've heard the most people I actually know prefer was Manchester By the Sea.

[JamesJazGuitar]

Understood ... but to what purpose? Best film should be the result of being best film, not the winner of some ranked voting scheme in the name of "inclusion."

 

Isn't the ranked voting scheme only used to determine the nominees (nominations) and NOT the actual winner from the list of nominees (therefore for 'winner' each member only gets one vote from that pre-determine nominee list)?

[drednm]

Isn't the ranked voting scheme only used to determine the nominees (nominations) and NOT the actual winner from the list of nominees (therefore for 'winner' each member only gets one vote from that pre-determine nominee list)?

 

You may be right, but I thought the final vote was a ranked voting scheme. So if say MANCHESTER and LALA split first place votes, a consistent 2nd place vote for MOONLILGHT could give it a win even it it got zero votes for first place. It's a risky scheme and can produce bizarro results. Another reason they really should publish the final vote tally.

[Hibi]

Understood ... but to what purpose? Best film should be the result of being best film, not the winner of some ranked voting scheme in the name of "inclusion."

 

 

I agree. And as far as I'm concerned the expanding of the best picture nominees category just cheapens the process. Pandering. Why not expand the acting nominees as well to include others? Why just the films? Let every category have 10 or so nominees? Only fair.

[Hibi]

Yes, I believe the ranking voting (top 3 choices?) is just for nominations and not for final votes. But I dont keep up on voting rules or changes........

[drednm]

I agree. And as far as I'm concerned the expanding of the best picture nominees category just cheapens the process. Pandering. Why not expand the acting nominees as well to include others? Why just the films? Let every category have 10 or so nominees? Only fair.

 

I think they can barely fill 5 spots these days there's so much junk produced. Over the decades the Academy has experimented with numbers of nominees. They did 10 film nominees for many years in the 30s and 40s. They had only three acting nominees for a few years in the early 30s. I think they defeat their own purpose by having a laundry list of "best" film nominees. But that's just my opinion.

 

If they thought having 8-10 film nominees was going to bolster their TV ratings, they were wrong.

[LawrenceA]

I agree. And as far as I'm concerned the expanding of the best picture nominees category just cheapens the process. Pandering. Why not expand the acting nominees as well to include others? Why just the films? Let every category have 10 or so nominees? Only fair.

 

Even if this year's slate had been reduced to 5 BP nominees, Moonlight would still have been among them, along with La La Land, Manchester By the Sea, Hacksaw Ridge and Arrival, most likely.

[LornaHansonForbes]

sharing this really good (and really loooong) article from huffpo i just came across today. i meant to share it with many of you privately, but figured this was as good a place as any.

 

while not directly related to MOONLIGHT, it really delves into the "modern day world of gay loneliness."

 

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gay-loneliness/

[Hibi]

I think they can barely fill 5 spots these days there's so much junk produced. Over the decades the Academy has experimented with numbers of nominees. They did 10 film nominees for many years in the 30s and 40s. They had only three acting nominees for a few years in the early 30s. I think they defeat their own purpose by having a laundry list of "best" film nominees. But that's just my opinion.

 

If they thought having 8-10 film nominees was going to bolster their TV ratings, they were wrong.

 

 

Yep. It hasnt. (ratings). Some years its hard to come up with even 5 worthy best films.........

[Hibi]

You may be right, but I thought the final vote was a ranked voting scheme. So if say MANCHESTER and LALA split first place votes, a consistent 2nd place vote for MOONLILGHT could give it a win even it it got zero votes for first place. It's a risky scheme and can produce bizarro results. Another reason they really should publish the final vote tally.

 

 

I think that's only used in the nominating process.

[Hibi]

Even if this year's slate had been reduced to 5 BP nominees, Moonlight would still have been among them, along with La La Land, Manchester By the Sea, Hacksaw Ridge and Arrival, most likely.

 

I think Moonlight would've made it and Manchester and La La. Unsure about the other two.

[drednm]

sharing this really good (and really loooong) article from huffpo i just came across today. i meant to share it with many of you privately, but figured this was as good a place as any.

 

while not directly related to MOONLIGHT, it really delves into the "modern day world of gay loneliness."

 

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gay-loneliness/

 

Interesting article, but it doesn't explain how a TV movie could win an Oscar....