Thread: Oscar SNubs "2016"

Never did see the film in question but I am not surprised, no reason to think "hollywood" would be anything else but very majority left leaning.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Never did see the film in question but I am not surprised, no reason to think "hollywood" would be anything else but very majority left leaning.

I didnt either ... didnt watch F 911 in its entirety until after the election..... just thought maybe just maybe they would be consistent for it did have a good box office showing.....

I think this doesn't tell us anything new. More like it affirms what we've all seen and about which we've all commented for years.

Well there is no denying that Republicans have a long history of fighting Hollywood interests (right or wrong.) You can go all the way back to Nixon to thank for that (and in other ways even further back than him.) At this point the divide between the GOP and Hollywood is enough that even if the GOP has the right idea on a particular subject it still will not matter. Then again how could it be any other way given the current climate within the GOP establishment?

Is anyone surprised by this?

Originally Posted by Jefe

Is anyone surprised by this?

Not so far...

The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, both released in 2012, are among the Top 10 grossing films of all time.

Not just top grossing among films that were released in 2012, but top grossing among all films in the history of movies.

Neither of them are being bandied about as possible Best Picture nominees.

Neither of them will be Best Picture nominees.

It's actually fairly uncommon that box office smashes are nominated as "best in class" films.

Avatar, Titanic, and Toy Story 3 are the rare and obvious (to me) exceptions.

If Gerald Molen's reasoning in that whine article had any basis in reality, and popular sentiment had any real and regular bearing on the Academy's nominating process, I would potentially be a little bit concerned that perhaps all is not right in Denmark.

But since box office gross is not now, nor has it ever been, a reliable indicator of Academy Award nominations, Molen's whole argument is kinda retarded and he should (and almost certainly does) know better.

Understand that Molen's argument being retarded doesn't discount the fact that Hollywood leans to the left, but neither does Hollywood leaning to the left mitigate the fact that Molen's argument is retarded.

The Academy doesn't care that inbred, Bible thumping hicks from North Carolina turned out in (relative) droves to see a Barack Obama hate fest of a film.

The hicks might have loved it.

The hicks may have spent the whole of the film masturbating in deranged glee to Barack Obama's cinemagraphic evisceration.

But the hicks don't get to nominate and the hicks don't get to vote.

Oh, and for the record, I have not, nor will I ever, see the film, not that it would matter, in terms of what the Academy thinks, if I did.

I have seen (parts of) several of Michael Moore's films and I can't think of one that would have been worth pissing on, let alone worthy of winning any kind of major award. Not that it matters, in terms of what the Academy thinks, that I feel that way.

Originally Posted by soot

The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, both released in 2012, are among the Top 10 grossing films of all time.

Not just top grossing among films that were released in 2012, but top grossing among all films in the history of movies.

Neither of them are being bandied about as possible Best Picture nominees.

Neither of them will be Best Picture nominees.

It's actually fairly uncommon that box office smashes are nominated as "best in class" films.

Avatar, Titanic, and Toy Story 3 are the rare and obvious (to me) exceptions.

If Gerald Molen's reasoning in that whine article had any basis in reality, and popular sentiment had any real and regular bearing on the Academy's nominating process, I would potentially be a little bit concerned that perhaps all is not right in Denmark.

But since box office gross is not now, nor has it ever been, a reliable indicator of Academy Award nominations, Molen's whole argument is kinda retarded and he should (and almost certainly does) know better.

Understand that Molen's argument being retarded doesn't discount the fact that Hollywood leans to the left, but neither does Hollywood leaning to the left mitigate the fact that Molen's argument is retarded.

The Academy doesn't care that inbred, Bible thumping hicks from North Carolina turned out in (relative) droves to see a Barack Obama hate fest of a film.

The hicks might have loved it.

The hicks may have spent the whole of the film masturbating in deranged glee to Barack Obama's cinemagraphic evisceration.

But the hicks don't get to nominate and the hicks don't get to vote.

Oh, and for the record, I have not, nor will I ever, see the film, not that it would matter, in terms of what the Academy thinks, if I did.

I have seen (parts of) several of Michael Moore's films and I can't think of one that would have been worth pissing on, let alone worthy of winning any kind of major award. Not that it matters, in terms of what the Academy thinks, that I feel that way.

love your stereotype perfect example of the "tolerati".....

Originally Posted by soot

I have seen (parts of) several of Michael Moore's films and I can't think of one that would have been worth pissing on, let alone worthy of winning any kind of major award. Not that it matters, in terms of what the Academy thinks, that I feel that way.

But don't you prove the point of this thread, even if only in your world?

Michael Moore got an Oscar Nomination for Sicko in 2007. So the Academy might not care what you and I think, but they do appear to favor politically left-of-center films and don't seem to like conservative films.

Originally Posted by Good1

But don't you prove the point of this thread, even if only in your world?

Michael Moore got an Oscar Nomination for Sicko in 2007. So the Academy might not care what you and I think, but they do appear to favor politically left-of-center films and don't seem to like conservative films.

I agree that that's one possible interpretation.

And as far as it goes it's one that I share with you.

But there are other equally likely interpretations, such as, on a completly professional and material basis the members of the Academy back in 2007 honestly though Moore made a good film whereas the members of the Academy in 2012 also on a completly professional and material basis thought 2016 sucked.

All this in light of the fact that Academy membership changes from year to year and may change signifigantly over a four or five year period. The Academy today may very well be a very different body than the Academy of 2007.

We also need to consider the quality of all the documentaries made in 2007 against which Moore's film was competing and all of the documentaries made in 2007 against which Molen's film was competing. It's possible that Sicko was a better quality film that was also up against much weaker competition.

Liike I said, I tend to agree with you that there was probably some political bias at play, but that's really only because of my own bias against Hollyweird.

With that in mind, the possibility also certainly exists that due to my ignorance of the particulars surrounding both incidents I'm making an assumption that has no real basis in fact.

I'd be hard pressed to say with any real authority that political bias was without a doubt an issue here.

I mean, I could say it, but I couldn't possibly expect anyone who might disagree with me to take my opinion seriously seeing as how I'm basing it on an observation of perceived correlation rather than any indisputable evidence of causation.

And again, if you refer back to the article posted in the OP you'll see that the filmmakers hold up the fact that moviegoers saw the film as evidence that the film was actually Oscar-worthy, or should actually have been given Oscar consideration.

Clearly that's a red herring.

The fact that a lot of conservatives went to see an anti-Obama film during an election year given America's prevailing political climate isn't any evidence at all that the film, qualitatively, was worthy of so much as an Oscar nod, let alone an Oscar.

I didn't see Sicko so I can't really argue that it wasn't worthy of an Oscar.

I haven't seen 2016 so I can't really argue that it is worthy of an Oscar.

The possibility exists that if I were to go home tonight and watch them both back-to-back and judge them based on their quality as movies rather than on their inferred or overt political message I might come away making the same determination that the Academy has made.

The possibility exists that you might feel the same.

Originally Posted by soot

I agree that that's one possible interpretation.

And as far as it goes it's one that I share with you.

But there are other equally likely interpretations, such as, on a completly professional and material basis the members of the Academy back in 2007 honestly though Moore made a good film whereas the members of the Academy in 2012 also on a completly professional and material basis thought 2016 sucked.

All this in light of the fact that Academy membership changes from year to year and may change signifigantly over a four or five year period. The Academy today may very well be a very different body than the Academy of 2007.

We also need to consider the quality of all the documentaries made in 2007 against which Moore's film was competing and all of the documentaries made in 2007 against which Molen's film was competing. It's possible that Sicko was a better quality film that was also up against much weaker competition.

Liike I said, I tend to agree with you that there was probably some political bias at play, but that's really only because of my own bias against Hollyweird.

With that in mind, the possibility also certainly exists that due to my ignorance of the particulars surrounding both incidents I'm making an assumption that has no real basis in fact.

I'd be hard pressed to say with any real authority that political bias was without a doubt an issue here.

I mean, I could say it, but I couldn't possibly expect anyone who might disagree with me to take my opinion seriously seeing as how I'm basing it on an observation of perceived correlation rather than any indisputable evidence of causation.

And again, if you refer back to the article posted in the OP you'll see that the filmmakers hold up the fact that moviegoers saw the film as evidence that the film was actually Oscar-worthy, or should actually have been given Oscar consideration.

Clearly that's a red herring.

The fact that a lot of conservatives went to see an anti-Obama film during an election year given America's prevailing political climate isn't any evidence at all that the film, qualitatively, was worthy of so much as an Oscar nod, let alone an Oscar.

I didn't see Sicko so I can't really argue that it wasn't worthy of an Oscar.

I haven't seen 2016 so I can't really argue that it is worthy of an Oscar.

The possibility exists that if I were to go home tonight and watch them both back-to-back and judge them based on their quality as movies rather than on their inferred or overt political message I might come away making the same determination that the Academy has made.

The possibility exists that you might feel the same.

no offense but that is a lot of spin... Moore has been lauded in Hollywood for his Politics not his movies.... he during a time did a "toby keith" that being during the war he capitalized on it and made an anti bush war. ( keith made a bunch of patriotic music) he is a 2% who takes tax money and a total hypocrite but is loved for the simple reason that he flipped off the most hated man in the world.. GWB.....

Originally Posted by soot

I agree that that's one possible interpretation.

And as far as it goes it's one that I share with you.

But there are other equally likely interpretations, such as, on a completly professional and material basis the members of the Academy back in 2007 honestly though Moore made a good film...

I'm sorry .. .what was that you were saying?

(j/k, Soot)

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

'2016' Oscar Snub Has Filmmakers Claiming Political Bias - The Hollywood Reporter


Typical main stream media/hollywood.... a hit piece on bush in 2004 a instant classic and a winner! A hit piece on the anointed one.... unacceptable...


Hypocrites

The producer's argument that box office success (2016: Obama's America is the 4th highest grossing documentary of all-time) is absurd. Since when does box office success make a film Oscar-worthy?

Of course, if box office is the criterion, you should keep in mind that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is the #1 highest grossing documentary of all time, (making four times what D'Souza's film made). And it wasn't nominated for an Academy Award, either. Not only that, Disney blocked distribution of the film (Reports: Disney tries to stop release of Moore film - May. 6, 2004). Yet Disney was more than happy to air the anti-Clinton hit piece Path to 9/11. Weird, huh?

But with conservatives, any time they don't get their way, it's a liberal conspiracy. God forbid they consider the possibility that their product wasn't very good... or that maybe they were subjected to the same capriciousness that everything else in Hollywood is.