Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 11342793)

It's simple then: Don't watch.

Originally Posted by Numbah One (Post 11342885)

The movie or the Oscars?

Unfortunately I enjoy both. But Birdman winning best picture was poppycock.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 11343011)

It's not the People's Choice awards

Originally Posted by Numbah One (Post 11343013)

It's the Pretty And Rich People's Choice awards.

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 11342806)

Look, Birdman wasn't my favorite film of the year. Not even close. But I totally get WHY it won. It's fresh and original. I didn't personally identify with it, because I'm not an actor, screenwriter, performer or creative. It was a film for "those" people. And I think if I had the eye to look at it that way, I would probably have liked it a whole lot more. And I DID like it; I just didn't LOVE it.

I thought Foxcatcher was a better film. Yes, it was slow. It was deliberate storytelling, and I think making it a faster paced film would have ****ed the whole vibe up. I thought it had better acting than Birdman, too, from everyone in a starring role. BUT, I get why it didn't get nominated. Hell, I thought Whiplash was better, too, but that's because I identified with it more as a musician. I get why it didn't win, too.

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 11343070)

If Birdman didn't have the apparent stigma of being about showbusiness then it would be hailed as the kind of movie that doesn't tend to win the big one. It is, as you say, fresh & original. It's got its own frenetic energy. It's meta. It's darkly comic. Its choice to score only using jazz drums is unique. This win feels like the Academy going out of their collective comfort zone in many ways.

Originally Posted by Numbah One (Post 11343120)

No one is saying Birdman isn't a good film. It's excellent.

Don't think it was the best film of the year by any stretch, though. I think it's pretty forgettable, too. The average person can't really connect with any of those characters. I know I didn't give a shit about any of the shitty people in that movie.

And if it didn't have it's cute LOOK MA NO CUTS gimmick, it wouldn't be worth shit.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 11343128)

their perspectives are different.

Originally Posted by Numbah One (Post 11343120)

No one is saying Birdman isn't a good film. It's excellent.

Don't think it was the best film of the year by any stretch, though. I think it's pretty forgettable, too. The average person can't really connect with any of those characters. I know I didn't give a shit about any of the shitty people in that movie.

And if it didn't have it's cute LOOK MA NO CUTS gimmick, it wouldn't be worth shit.

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 11343151)

Both excellent and forgettable? Hm.

Originally Posted by Numbah One (Post 11343152)

Yes. For instance, Star Wars is an example of a completely unforgettable movie. I have no idea what won the Oscar that year. Nobody gives a shit.



Yes. It's a niche film.

Originally Posted by Numbah One (Post 11342787)

Just silly that this movie won best picture.

It was OK, but it's best achievement was the slick editing, and it wasn't even nominated for that.

Typical elitist Hollywood snob garbage.

Interstellar, Boyhood, Gone Girl and St. Vincent were all better films than Birdshit.

But it was a FIIIILM! About ACTINNNNNG! And ACTOOOOOORS!!!! GIVE IT THE GOLD MOTHER****ER! AND LET SEAN PENN DO THE GIVING!

Disgusting.

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 11343236)

I looked it up, because I didn't remember either. Turns out everyone reading this thread has heard of the movie, fairly well regarded as a classic, that beat Star Wars for Best Picture that year: Annie Hall.

Nobody forgets that Woody Allan's best-known film exists, but it does seem really easy to forget that it won Best Picture, when, and which films it beat.