Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If there was some protest we'd know about it. I bet it was more an attempt by producers / ABC to get 'hip, young' presenters to capture younger viewers -- Marvel folk, Awkwafina, Tessa Thompson,  Bryan Tyree Henry, et al. (Not that anyone tunes into a 3+ hour show to see a celeb do a bit for 90 seconds, but try as they might!)

Downside of course is you don't get the star-wattage to just show up for no reason. If Meryl, Angelina, T. Hanks have no duties / aren't nominated, they probably just wanna watch on their couch same as the rest of us (if at all?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 9:14 PM, Trey3216 said:

Pretty much this.  And they left several noticeable names off the dead people montage as well, like R. Lee Ermey.  

 

Carol Channing being left out is bizarre. I know she was 100 years old but for fucks sake what do you have to do:

 

A Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination

A Golden Globe

4 Tonys (7 noms)

A Grammy (2 noms)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, smuggs said:

 

Carol Channing being left out is bizarre. I know she was 100 years old but for fucks sake what do you have to do:

 

A Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination

A Golden Globe

4 Tonys (7 noms)

A Grammy (2 noms)

 

 

Pretty damn shameful

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

after the kevin hart backlash on twitter, celebs may have just kinda quietly avoided it (attending/presenting).  no real upside.  i miss the old days where nicholson was always sitting right up front with his shades on, regardless of whether he was nominated or not.

i know emily blunt didn't come because she wasn't nominated and was pissed.  other than that, no idea.  i'm sure everyone will claim they were busy working (probably on tv shows, which is the great irony).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Finally saw The Favourite.  Damn fine movie, but still would place second behind Roma. 

Boy, this director is challenging.

Ultimately, I thought Kubrick was kind of doing the same thing in Barry Lyndon, so I might give The Favorite more pure stylistic points than doing something particularly unique with the costume epic.

Nicholas Hoult was great, as was the whole cast. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
15 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Yeah.  Enjoyed Green Book.  Pretty much completely because Viggo is always good and I have a thing for Linda Cardinelli.

But could totally see how it would piss off lots of folks.

Could you explain it to me?  I missed it.  Seemed like the black guy was the educated, talented, dignified one.  The white guy was...well he was an Italian guy from NYC and all that implies.  What did I miss?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Go Pokes said:

Could you explain it to me?  I missed it.  Seemed like the black guy was the educated, talented, dignified one.  The white guy was...well he was an Italian guy from NYC and all that implies.  What did I miss?   

The fact that the black guy was the guy who didn't know the meaning of life.  You probably did get, however, that a little racism isn't too dangerous -- it's a character builder and might get you some new friends, to be honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also saw Green Book recently and thought it was great.  And I also don't get why it upset some people, as I really didn't see any "white savior" theme at all.  Yes, occasionally the white guy would save the black guy, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT HE WAS PAID TO DO FOR HIS BOSS.  Both guys learned from and eventualy grew to respect and admire each other.  And the black guy helped the barely literate white guy write affectionate letters to his wife. 

The acting performances by Mahershala and Viggo were outstanding.    

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the general criticism (from those who criticized it) was that it was basically a "heart-warming story about a schlubby white guy coming around on his racism."  forget the fact that it was a period piece, i think some didn't love that it pointed out what, nowadays, is a fairly obvious lesson - judging book by its cover, etc - and that this angle can come off as patronizing.

obviously it was written from the perspective of the guy (by his son) so i don't know what people were expecting.

(i haven't visited this thread in a while, so what i posted may already be up-thread someplace)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You two really, honestly, "don't have any clue" why it would upset some folks?

Again, it was a nice little movie, and I want to separate it from the idea that some folks may feel that it varnished racism in the South, or didn't accurately portray the relationship (google).  All I am saying is, yes, I can see the criticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think the general criticism (from those who criticized it) was that it was basically a "heart-warming story about a schlubby white guy coming around on his racism."  forget the fact that it was a period piece, i think some didn't love that it pointed out what, nowadays, is a fairly obvious lesson - judging book by its cover, etc - and that this angle can come off as patronizing.

obviously it was written from the perspective of the guy (by his son) so i don't know what people were expecting.

(i haven't visited this thread in a while, so what i posted may already be up-thread someplace)

I just found that the white guy in the movie ended up playing Carmine Lupertazzi in The Sopranos

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The fact that the black guy was the guy who didn't know the meaning of life.  You probably did get, however, that a little racism isn't too dangerous -- it's a character builder and might get you some new friends, to be honest. 

Is that seriously the reason for all the uproar or are you guessing?  Assuming that is the reason:

A guy who lives in his comfy bubble because he is truly special is shown there is more to life that what is in this special guy's little bubble by a average guy who works hard for a living and has to experience the day to day bullshit that comes along with being an average guy.  So basically, the same plot we've seen 100 times in the movies, but this time it is racist because the average Joe is white and the special guy is black?   If that's the reason Spike Lee made an ass of himself on Oscar night, he's an even bigger ass hat than I thought.  I'm just going to hope you're guessing or you have left out something very important to the other side of the argument.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

obviously it was written from the perspective of the guy (by his son) so i don't know what people were expecting.

Again, I certainly wasn't expecting anything more, but I just saw the flick last night, so I knew to be open minded.

The context of this thing is that it won some awards, so I think in fairness if that is the case, one can expect it to be held to a high standard.  One should also expect that any director directing a movie about slavery, or Jim Crow, or the Holocaust, or 911, or the Middle East conflict, will have to grapple and address the issues associated with the viewers having an emotional linkl to those eras and issues. 

Personally, if someone did a movie called "Me and Hitler in New York" and it was a jaunty comedic romp and it was true, I could probably enjoy it.  But if there was a criticism that the subject matter was too heavy not to address the underlying evil of the guy, or if there was a legitimate criticism that the underlying story may not be factually correct, I'd have some sympathy for that viewpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Again, I certainly wasn't expecting anything more, but I just saw the flick last night, so I knew to be open minded.

yeah, i was more referring to the folks making the criticism (articles and news stories) and what they expected out of a lesser known story written from the son's perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Personally, if someone did a movie called "Me and Hitler in New York" and it was a jaunty comedic romp and it was true, I could probably enjoy it.¬† But if there was a criticism that the subject matter was too heavy not to address the underlying evil of the guy, or if there was a legitimate criticism that the underlying story may not be factually correct, I'd have some sympathy for that viewpoint. ÔĽŅ

This is fair.  But I thought the film did a good job with a serious portrayal -- among some humorous moments -- of a part of America that would welcome and applaud an extraordinarily talented artist in one discrete setting, yet treat him like a subhuman in all others.  I know the story has been told a thousand times, but I thought it was a fairly fresh take. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

You two really, honestly, "don't have any clue" why it would upset some folks?

Again, it was a nice little movie, and I want to separate it from the idea that some folks may feel that it varnished racism in the South, or didn't accurately portray the relationship (google).  All I am saying is, yes, I can see the criticism.

Obviously, I honestly don't see it.  I still don't.  Even with you trying to help me see it, I still can't see it.  

 

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No, you asked me what you missed.  From your original comment, that was a big fucking miss. 

Not sure I see what the difference is.  I missed what the uproar was about.   

Edited by Go Pokes
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Green Book well before the Oscars happened, and I enjoyed it for what it was. I never thought it had a chance at winning best picture, and after it won was when it really started to get criticism. It was a weak year for Best Picture, but I'm still surprised it won over other contenders. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I missed it.  Seemed like the black guy was the educated, talented, dignified one.  The white guy was...well he was an Italian guy from NYC and all that implies.  What did I miss?

Addressing simply this point, what I think you missed was that in about 30 seconds upon being introduced to the black character, you knew he was the educated, talented, dignified one.  What the rest of the movie showed you was that he was an empty soul, and it took the big-hearted, worldwise, open-minded and kind assistance from the Italian guy from NYC to break open how empty he was, and to show him salvation through an Italian family gathering.

It doesn't really relate to any particular criticism of the movie.  I just didn't see the movie being about "dignified black guy" and "undignified Italian from the Bronx".

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I watched Green Book well before the Oscars happened, and I enjoyed it for what it was. I never thought it had a chance at winning best picture, and after it won was when it really started to get criticism. It was a weak year for Best Picture, but I'm still surprised it won over other contenders. 

Yep, have yet to see Vice, but to me:

Roma>>>The Favorite>>Black Klansman=Green Book>Bohemian Rapsody>Black Panther>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A Star is Born

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

green book was great.  if you had a problem with it it’s because you’re a misanthropic asshat addicted to identity politics.  there was nothing political about it; it’s two different guys learning to accept their differences and form a friendship.  it’s great.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Go Pokes said:

Obviously, I honestly don't see it.  I still don't.  Even with you trying to help me see it, I still can't see it.  

 

Not sure I see what the difference is.  I missed what the uproar was about.   

A highly educated and talented black man¬†needed a white man to show him what it means to be ‚Äúblack‚ÄĚ (eating fried chicken and listening to black artists)¬†and only with his help could they overcome racism together in the South.¬†To sum up,¬†a black man needed a white man to overcome racism.¬†

This may be a shock to you, but black people might find this notion insulting. Mostly because it makes the white person,  aka the racist, look good. 

Don’t get me wrong, I liked the movie. Viggo as a dumb Italian was hilarious and Mahershala was amazing, but it’s very easy to see why this movie was criticized 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Addressing simply this point, what I think you missed was that in about 30 seconds upon being introduced to the black character, you knew he was the educated, talented, dignified one.  What the rest of the movie showed you was that he was an empty soul, and it took the big-hearted, worldwise, open-minded and kind assistance from the Italian guy from NYC to break open how empty he was, and to show him salvation through an Italian family gathering.
It doesn't really relate to any particular criticism of the movie.  I just didn't see the movie being about "dignified black guy" and "undignified Italian from the Bronx".


Ok that helps. And Neon’s response. I think its pretty ridiculous, but at least that clears it up a bit for me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...