Award Season In Hell

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:57 pm

I have to say, my favorite part of the evening was watching Oscar Scorsese stick his head out of his trash-can every so often to make faces about how none of this is Cinema.
User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 2784
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Captain Terror » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:59 pm

Wooley wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:53 pm
I posted it somewhere around here, but this would be probably 6 months ago. I don't think you stole it I think great minds think alike.
Romero convinced the world that he didn't have a moustache, without CGI. Take that, Henry Cavill!
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:03 pm

Captain Terror wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:59 pm
Romero convinced the world that he didn't have a moustache, without CGI. Take that, Henry Cavill!
Honestly, I watched that show every single day and I never noticed he had a moustache under there until years later when it was pointed out.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Slentert » Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:41 pm

Wooley wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:56 pm
That's not the way I read it.
I've always thought it was the best screenplay as it turns out that is adapted from a source, not how close an adaptation is it of that source.
Otherwise you could just have some low-level print-editor extract the dialogue from the text and use Cliff's notes for your story.
I wasn't talking about judging how close a movie tays to the original source, but how it adapts and differs from that source. Like how Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye changes the setting and time period from Chandler's original novel and makes it its own while still staying true to a lot of the book's characteristics.

If you're not judging a movie as an adaptation, why make the distinction between "adapted" and "original"? Original screenplay is often viewed as the more prestigious award, which is fucking bullshit because it's incredibly hard to translate something from one medium to the other and do it well.

We could go even further and say that it is weird to judge a screenplay without having actually read the darn thing, because how can you know what made it on the screen was actually in the script.
User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 2784
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Captain Terror » Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:54 pm

Slentert wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:41 pm

If you're not judging a movie as an adaptation, why make the distinction between "adapted" and "original"? Original screenplay is often viewed as the more prestigious award, which is fucking bullshit because it's incredibly hard to translate something from one medium to the other and do it well.
On the other hand, if you've written an original mystery story it would hardly be fair if you lost to someone who adapted an Agatha Christie story the same year. It could be argued that Agatha did most of the heavy lifting for the other guy, regardless of how well he'd adapted it. I'd guess that's partly why they're still separating the two.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:50 pm

Slentert wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:41 pm
I wasn't talking about judging how close a movie tays to the original source, but how it adapts and differs from that source. Like how Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye changes the setting and time period from Chandler's original novel and makes it its own while still staying true to a lot of the book's characteristics.

If you're not judging a movie as an adaptation, why make the distinction between "adapted" and "original"? Original screenplay is often viewed as the more prestigious award, which is fucking bullshit because it's incredibly hard to translate something from one medium to the other and do it well.

We could go even further and say that it is weird to judge a screenplay without having actually read the darn thing, because how can you know what made it on the screen was actually in the script.
Your last point is kinda what I'm getting at. I don't think it matters. If virtually none of the source material gets to the screen beyond the most basic plot ideas and a few characterizations or whatever, it is still an adaptation. If the screenplay that arises from it is great, regardless of how little it may have used from the source material, then, to me, it is eligible for Best Adapted Screenplay. But not Best Original Screenplay, for whatever that's worth.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:25 pm

Slentert wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:29 pm
I always wonder if those award juries have actually read the original source material when they vote for Best Adapted Screenplay, because otherwise how can they judge it as an adaptation? If the answer is no, why make a distinction between Best Adapted and Best Original at all?
I think the one that stretches the distinction most is Joker, because it isn't actually based on any single source material at all except the pre-existing character itself, which seems very broad. I had thought that the distinction was put into place as a way to partially credit the source writer's contribution, but Joker isn't based on any particular Joker origin story. But, as I previously joked, it almost makes sense "as an acknowlegement to its thoroughly derivative nature".

I haven't read Caging Skies, so I'm really unfamiliar with how radical Waititi's adaptation is. As I said, I liked the film more than some people, it seems, and its farcical nature didn't disturb the film's ultimate emotional weight for me.

Still, Gerwig's Little Women is an exemplar of adaptation, fresh and modern without any significant sacrifice of content.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:29 pm

Wooley wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:57 pm
I have to say, my favorite part of the evening was watching Oscar Scorsese stick his head out of his trash-can every so often to make faces about how none of this is Cinema.
:? I'm pretty sure he's aware that Cinema won last night. What are you so sore about?

And it's kinda ironic that the only comic book film to win anything happens to be deeply indebted to Scorsese.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:09 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:29 pm
:? I'm pretty sure he's aware that Cinema won last night. What are you so sore about?

And it's kinda ironic that the only comic book film to win anything happens to be deeply indebted to Scorsese.
The super-hero films isn't the only thing he's grumped about in the last couple years, he just, to me, seems to have become the curmudgeon of Hollywood and I ain't interested. He got his props too, obviously from Bong, so it's not all hate. But he needs to learn a little grace.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Slentert » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:55 pm

Captain Terror wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:54 pm
On the other hand, if you've written an original mystery story it would hardly be fair if you lost to someone who adapted an Agatha Christie story the same year. It could be argued that Agatha did most of the heavy lifting for the other guy, regardless of how well he'd adapted it. I'd guess that's partly why they're still separating the two.
I get your point. I guess that's as good a reason as any to make that distinction.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Slentert » Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:43 pm

Wooley wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:50 pm
Your last point is kinda what I'm getting at. I don't think it matters. If virtually none of the source material gets to the screen beyond the most basic plot ideas and a few characterizations or whatever, it is still an adaptation. If the screenplay that arises from it is great, regardless of how little it may have used from the source material, then, to me, it is eligible for Best Adapted Screenplay. But not Best Original Screenplay, for whatever that's worth.
I think the way I phrased my last point a little confusingly, I meant to say it's a bit absurd to judge any screenplay if you never read the screenplay in question, because you don't really know what was on the page and what wasn't. For example, Alun Owen received a Best Original Screenplay nomination for writing the script for A Hard Day's Night, though a big chunk of his work was thrown out during the actual shooting of the film in favor for what the Beatles conceived on set.

Reading back my original comments from yesterday, I was kind of being a jerk and splitting hairs, so I apologize for that.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3634
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by crumbsroom » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:54 pm

Wooley wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:09 pm
The super-hero films isn't the only thing he's grumped about in the last couple years, he just, to me, seems to have become the curmudgeon of Hollywood and I ain't interested. He got his props too, obviously from Bong, so it's not all hate. But he needs to learn a little grace.
Is this Scorsese thing really much of a controversy though? He isn't really even being a crank about it. This isn't like Ebert denying the artistry of video games, then outright refusing to engage in a video game to see what he might have got wrong. That was annoyingly obstinate grumpery. This here is Scorsese simply saying superhero films don't do anything for him cinematically, even though he's tried. That he worries about their homogeneity, which is a legitimate concern of any big budget endeavor since forever. It's hardly like the Marvel universe is some aggrieved property here. I think they can survive a directors stated indifference considering these are the films that have their hands on all of the levers of power in the film industry at the moment. Do they need an obligatory pat on the head from Scorsese as well? Are they that delicate? I've been known to liken them to uninspired dishwater, which seems like a fair criticism to me. But is this really that heretical? None of this takes away from the audience that get something out of them. They are still going to be made en masse. They are still going to be fawned over by most critics. Where is the issue with what he said?
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:06 pm

Slentert wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:43 pm
I think the way I phrased my last point a little confusingly, I meant to say it's a bit absurd to judge any screenplay if you never read the screenplay in question, because you don't really know what was on the page and what wasn't. For example, Alun Owen received a Best Original Screenplay nomination for writing the script for A Hard Day's Night, though a big chunk of his work was thrown out during the actual shooting of the film in favor for what the Beatles conceived on set.

Reading back my original comments from yesterday, I was kind of being a jerk and splitting hairs, so I apologize for that.
Ah, now I understand what you're saying. And I appreciate the grace on your part, but no need, I took no offense.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:16 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:54 pm
Is this Scorsese thing really much of a controversy though? He isn't really even being a crank about it. This isn't like Ebert denying the artistry of video games, then outright refusing to engage in a video game to see what he might have got wrong. That was annoyingly obstinate grumpery. This here is Scorsese simply saying superhero films don't do anything for him cinematically, even though he's tried. That he worries about their homogeneity, which is a legitimate concern of any big budget endeavor since forever. It's hardly like the Marvel universe is some aggrieved property here. I think they can survive a directors stated indifference considering these are the films that have their hands on all of the levers of power in the film industry at the moment. Do they need an obligatory pat on the head from Scorsese as well? Are they that delicate? I've been known to liken them to uninspired dishwater, which seems like a fair criticism to me. But is this really that heretical? None of this takes away from the audience that get something out of them. They are still going to be made en masse. They are still going to be fawned over by most critics. Where is the issue with what he said?
No, I really don't think it's a controversy at all, I think it's just an old man looking bad.
I feel like you're warping the conversation to "Wooley's mad at Scorsese because he likes super-hero films and Scorsese doesn't but Scorsese made his comments respectfully", as opposed to what I'm saying which is that it doesn't matter what KIND of movies Scorsese is disparaging, he's clearly throwing shade at other films and films that are not his own personal idea of what films should be, even though something like Joker doesn't really fit under his criticism of super-hero movies, and that he should be above that. It's a bad look for someone who should kind of be an Elder Statesman of the art form to be throwing shade. I didn't like it from Ebert, and I don't even just mean his video-game blind-spot, I mean his dismissal of 90% of modern horror-movies without any consideration of the craft that may have gone into many of them, it really didn't make the movies look bad it made Ebert look bad. And, to me, Scorsese is coming off the same way. He sounds elitist and condescending and old. And he should be better than that.
You wanna blame somebody for the death of "Cinema"? Why don't you call out your old runnin'-pardner George Lucas while you're snipping "get off my lawn" at movies that are clearly the progeny of his Star Wars and Indiana Jones series.
Or better yet, have some class and don't throw shade.
Either way, if you're gonna be an ass, I don't care how many great movies you made, I'm gonna laugh at you for it.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2697
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Rock » Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:10 pm

My favourite part of the "controversy" was when FFC called the MCU "despicable". I legit lol'd when I read that.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:31 pm

Rock wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:10 pm
My favourite part of the "controversy" was when FFC called the MCU "despicable". I legit lol'd when I read that.
Hee hee. Bless his little old heart.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3634
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by crumbsroom » Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:33 pm

Rock wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:10 pm
My favourite part of the "controversy" was when FFC called the MCU "despicable". I legit lol'd when I read that.
This is more along the lines of curmudgeonly and hyperbolic trolling that I can understand riling people up. It's empty and obviously silly nonsense from someone who is willfully being out of touch. Differeent from the personal criticisms that Scorsese brought up, which while maybe inelegantly worded ('not cinema'), were hardly inflammatory or....anything.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:20 pm

Wooley wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:09 pm
The super-hero films isn't the only thing he's grumped about in the last couple years
Oh? What else then? What other films has he specifically questioned their value as "cinema"? Because I'm only aware of that criticism being directed at the Marvel franchise, none of which were on display at the Oscars. Let's talk about grump and grace for a minute.

The prominent point is that Scorsese didn't really come off as too grumpy in his comments: "The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself." Let's consider that he might even be right that these films resemble amusement park rides. Do you think Scorsese frequents a lot of roller coasters these days? Does that equate into him calling for them to be shut down? Or that he simply isn't interested in participating? What he's criticizing isn't the existence of Marvel films or their fans, but their dominance in an increasingly homogenous industry: "In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever....", "If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing." There's nothing wrong with FX-immersive sensual experiences in themselves, except when they become the only type of film the major studios are willing to produce, and which major theater chains are willing to screen, at the expense of those films defined by Scorsese as involving "human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being". Of the 9 films in the best picture category, 4 never saw a theater screen in the majority of the country. The theatrical experience is increasingly becoming devoted to the sensual FX thrill, while more esoteric films of human expression are becoming the domain of home viewing.

If anyone is being grumpy, maybe it might be the fanboys who can't tolerate one old man not bowing to their beloved pajama gods?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:29 pm

Slentert wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:43 pm
For example, Alun Owen received a Best Original Screenplay nomination for writing the script for A Hard Day's Night, though a big chunk of his work was thrown out during the actual shooting of the film in favor for what the Beatles conceived on set.
In addition to that, the bulk of his original screenplay was literal transcriptions from the band's conversations whilst he spent a few days in their company.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Ergill » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:38 pm

I thought Scorsese went easy on the Marvel movies and was complimentary of all the talent involved on- and off-screen. But I don't see a lot riding on whether or not he thinks Captain Marvel is "cinema" according to his personal definition. He doesn't have to esteem all the stuff you or I do, or anyone does. He can be a sassy bitch about it if he wants, like a Welles, or he can do what he did, which was respectfully make a case for the kinds of movies he sees getting crowded out in today's market.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:31 am

Ergill wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:38 pm
he can do what he did, which was respectfully make a case for the kinds of movies he sees getting crowded out in today's market.
This is the basic point. Scorsese's criticism was aimed at the narrowing risk-averse industry, not any particular set of films or fans.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:37 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:20 pm
Oh? What else then? What other films has he specifically questioned their value as "cinema"? Because I'm only aware of that criticism being directed at the Marvel franchise, none of which were on display at the Oscars. Let's talk about grump and grace for a minute.

The prominent point is that Scorsese didn't really come off as too grumpy in his comments: "The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself." Let's consider that he might even be right that these films resemble amusement park rides. Do you think Scorsese frequents a lot of roller coasters these days? Does that equate into him calling for them to be shut down? Or that he simply isn't interested in participating? What he's criticizing isn't the existence of Marvel films or their fans, but their dominance in an increasingly homogenous industry: "In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever....", "If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing." There's nothing wrong with FX-immersive sensual experiences in themselves, except when they become the only type of film the major studios are willing to produce, and which major theater chains are willing to screen, at the expense of those films defined by Scorsese as involving "human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being". Of the 9 films in the best picture category, 4 never saw a theater screen in the majority of the country. The theatrical experience is increasingly becoming devoted to the sensual FX thrill, while more esoteric films of human expression are becoming the domain of home viewing.

If anyone is being grumpy, maybe it might be the fanboys who can't tolerate one old man not bowing to their beloved pajama gods?
Ok, now someone's getting grumpy. And I'm starting to think you have Scorsese pajamas. I read the same article and several more today to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass and even in that cover-his-ass response to the backlash he apparently wasn't prepared for, he couldn't resist a little condescension.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:43 am

Ergill wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:38 pm
I thought Scorsese went easy on the Marvel movies and was complimentary of all the talent involved on- and off-screen. But I don't see a lot riding on whether or not he thinks Captain Marvel is "cinema" according to his personal definition. He doesn't have to esteem all the stuff you or I do, or anyone does. He can be a sassy bitch about it if he wants, like a Welles, or he can do what he did, which was respectfully make a case for the kinds of movies he sees getting crowded out in today's market.
And I didn't say he did. I said I thought it was bad form to publicly demean these other films, including Joker (which again, I have not seen and have no stake in) which he was really condescending about, and to start arbiting what is and isn't even "cinema".
I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like super-hero movies, or horror-movies, or mob-movies, I just think, as I've said, he should be above making statements like these so I take a little savor if he loses a little shine over it. I have colleagues I think maybe don't do things at a very high level and sometimes not even as professionally as should be, but I don't make public statements about whether or not they're even doctors. Because it's tactless. And kinda low-brow. And I like to think I'm above that. And I'd sure like to think someone of Scorsese's stature would be above it.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:07 am

Wooley wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:43 am
I said I thought it was bad form to publicly demean these other films, including Joker (which again, I have not seen and have no stake in) which he was really condescending about, and to start arbiting what is and isn't even "cinema".
I'm sorry, what did Scorsese say about Joker again?
EW wrote:Scorsese called Joker “a remarkable work,” saying it is “very different” from superhero films.
Even if your characterization of Scorsese's comments weren't so off-base, I would still say that he's earned the right to have opinions on the things he's dedicated his life to making.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:21 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:07 am
I'm sorry, what did Scorsese say about Joker again?



Even if your characterization of Scorsese's comments weren't so off-base, I would still say that he's earned the right to have opinions on the things he's dedicated his life to making.
He said he didn't need to see it. "I know what it is. I don't need to see it." What a dick. The guy who made that film loves Scorsese's work and practically made the film as an homage to him and Scorsese pisses on it. Just weak.
And that may be where you and I differ philosophically. I don't believe anybody, EVER earns the right to be an asshole. No matter what they do.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:00 am

Wooley wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:21 am
I don't believe anybody, EVER earns the right to be an asshole. No matter what they do.
Fine advice.

But getting back to Scorsese, the problem with your disconnect to the issue is that he clearly is not acting as much like an asshole as his detractors. Here, he has seen the film - aside from calling it a "remarkable work", he compliments its "energy" and Phoenix's performance - and the absolute worst thing he has to say about it or any other comic book film is "it's not for me". This is essentially what he says in his original comments ("I tried"), and his op-ed above ("a matter of personal taste and temperament"). How you're reading some kind of oppressive hate in these comments is simply beyond my understanding. And again he reiterates his central point, lost in all of this noise, which has more to do with the industry's homogenizing of available types of films in theatrical runs, a dearth in a variety of films to accommodate a variety of tastes.

User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Ergill » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:26 am

Wooley wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:43 am
And I didn't say he did. I said I thought it was bad form to publicly demean these other films, including Joker (which again, I have not seen and have no stake in) which he was really condescending about, and to start arbiting what is and isn't even "cinema".
I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like super-hero movies, or horror-movies, or mob-movies, I just think, as I've said, he should be above making statements like these so I take a little savor if he loses a little shine over it. I have colleagues I think maybe don't do things at a very high level and sometimes not even as professionally as should be, but I don't make public statements about whether or not they're even doctors. Because it's tactless. And kinda low-brow. And I like to think I'm above that. And I'd sure like to think someone of Scorsese's stature would be above it.
But he's not saying the directors who directed these movies or the actors who acted in them aren't directors or actors or whatever. He even says that he thinks they're considerably talented and if he grew up at this time, he probably would've loved them and set them as his templates. He even draws some comparison between them and one of his favorite directors -- Hitchcock. The problems he's concerned with aren't at the level of individual talent, but systemic incentives. He grew up in a time where movies generally garnered little respect, where it was a battle to prove they had much potential beyond diversion, so clearly he has a stake in proffering a certain vision of movies to the world, and not just keeping it a special little secret for himself.

Like he says in the piece, and like Jinn and Crumbs have mentioned, it's not a simple matter of live and let live when we're talking about an industry in which productions and theater-venues are massively dominated by the mega-budget corporate-behemoth vehicles he's so unconscionably dishonored by denying them a commendation. Do superhero movies have to be CINEMA? Are all elder filmmakers supposed to acknowledge them as, or stay silent on whether or not they're, CINEMA? Why are more people complaining so thoroughly at Scorsese's quiet criticism of Goliath when Disney is stowing away Fox classics in their vault and withdrawing them from circulation in struggling theaters that used them for much-needed revenue? Even despite his huge pull in the industry, Scorsese is still the little guy in this fight (not just literally).

I don't think he lost any shine over it. He looked like he was tearing up during Bong's speech and then got a Bong-prompted standing ovation. I bet he's pretty jazzed at Bong's win as Parasite is directly in the wheelhouse of the kind of film he was lauding. Scorsese seems really generous about trying to promote other filmmakers (see his World Cinema Project).
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Ergill » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:36 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:00 am
Scorsese, the problem with your disconnect to the issue is that he clearly is not acting as much like an asshole as his detractors. Here, he has seen the film - aside from calling it a "remarkable work", he compliments its "energy" and Phoenix's performance - and the absolute worst thing he has to say about it or any other comic book film is "it's not for me".
Not to mention, he does do his Scorsese super-fast-talk with a few mumbly asides thing, essentially stating he doesn't want to get in to all his feelings on the film. (Only sounds like he read the script and respects Phoenix, but I dunno.) In essence, he's trying to do what Wooley is demanding, and respectfully spare it all his scruples.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Wooley » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:09 pm

Well, this is way too much "discussion" over my one-sentence post but this is apparently something some people are passionate about.
Just not me.
I've read what y'all have said out of respect (for you, not Scorsese) and read his comments multiple times and watched the video posted here and I just don't see y'all's point of view, each time it reads the same to me.
But this just isn't a big enough deal to keep going back and forth. To me, old man gets cranky, Wooley chuckles at him. People who like old man defend him vigorously. That's it. Let's move on.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17499
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by The Nameless Two » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:17 pm

I'm a huge Marvel Stan and Scorsese did nothing wrong, this whole controversy dialed up over it is the absolute stupidest shit of 2019 (high honors). Disney has people on something and I hate it, same with WB, it's all trash garbage cinema and we're sitting here pretending it smells like roses. Irishman was the worst movie I saw last year so whatever, I'll watch Endgame fifty more times over that shit. Cinema!
User avatar
IPlayTheBlameGame
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:18 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by IPlayTheBlameGame » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:00 pm

I absolutely love the fact that the best movie of the year actually won. I knew they still had it in them to do right by cinema!

And Scorsese can suck it, ha! I greatly enjoyed his bitter tears.
Asante Sana, Squash Banana
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:49 pm

if Scorsese thinks he knows so much about movies, maybe he should put his money where his mouth is and make his own.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Torgo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:20 pm

This Indiewire article argues that The Irishman went empty-handed at the Oscars due to "Netflix reducing friction in the movie-watching experience."

I'm not buying it. It seems like clickbait to me, especially since "lack of friction" didn't hurt Roma, Marriage Story or Netflix's various documentaries that have won Oscars. Its lack of gold is probably due to "been there, honored all of those guys many times before for the same kind of material" reasons.
Last Great Movie Seen
Razorback (Mulcahy, 1984)
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:47 pm

Ergill wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:36 am
(Only sounds like he read the script and respects Phoenix, but I dunno.)
I dunno either. In quick succession, "its energy...incredible....and Joaquin...it's remarkable work." That sounds to me that "work" implies something involving the sum of all of these parts, and Phoenix obviously had not worked on the mere script itself. But, ok, it could be Scorsese getting criss-crossed in his excitable stream-of-consciousness. I'm more inclined to suppose that the quote mentioned by Wooley was a joke. "I know Todd very well", "I know the script very well". He spent some amount of time considering a production role, which he then passed on to the producer who's collaborated on all of Scorsese's projects over the last 15 years. That's a hell of a lot of help to then publicly piss on someone. No, more likely is that this is the kind of humor Todd Phillips would recognize, and it's almost as if, in addition to hallucinating grumpy tears where there empirically were none, such stray comments become capitalized by interested parties.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:57 pm

Torgo wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:20 pm
I'm not buying it. It seems like clickbait to me, especially since "lack of friction" didn't hurt Roma, Marriage Story or Netflix's various documentaries that have won Oscars. Its lack of gold is probably due to "been there, honored all of those guys many times before for the same kind of material" reasons.
I don't think there's any need for explanation for why Irishman didn't win anything. There's a lot of factors, not least of which is the fecklessly fickle nature of the Oscars to begin with. A lot of films have gotten ignored by the Oscars, friction issues not required, just as a number of less deserving films win only to be quickly forgotten. Silence was a better film than Irishman and wasn't even nominated, so you can't blame Netflix for that (although the theater chains? probably), while Departed cleans up. The Oscars are pretty weak tea leaves when all is said and done.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3634
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by crumbsroom » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:12 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:47 pm
I dunno either. In quick succession, "its energy...incredible....and Joaquin...it's remarkable work." That sounds to me that "work" implies something involving the sum of all of these parts, and Phoenix obviously had not worked on the mere script itself. But, ok, it could be Scorsese getting criss-crossed in his excitable stream-of-consciousness. I'm more inclined to suppose that the quote mentioned by Wooley was a joke. "I know Todd very well", "I know the script very well". He spent some amount of time considering a production role, which he then passed on to the producer who's collaborated on all of Scorsese's projects over the last 15 years. That's a hell of a lot of help to then publicly piss on someone. No, more likely is that this is the kind of humor Todd Phillips would recognize, and it's almost as if, in addition to hallucinating grumpy tears where there empirically were none, such stray comments become capitalized by interested parties.
The short of it is an awful lot of what Scorsese has had to say on the matter needs to be skirted over in order to maintain a narrative that he is some kind of petty asshole.

Once again, the media taints the conversation with its choice of headline (Scorsese Declares Comic Book Movies NOT Cinema!!) leaving the more nuanced conversation buried in the actual story (or, no story at all in some instances, since who needs a story once you have the headline).

This is a larger story than Scorsese. It is the now well worn tale about the media being a pile of shit.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:21 pm

It doesn't seem that Todd Phillips is too offended by Scorsese. Isn't that odd?

I think that the relevent definition of "old" is being too stubborn to admit a flawed impression.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:29 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:12 pm
It is the now well worn tale about the media being a pile of shit.
"The media" has got a lot to answer for, with thir clickbait headlines, but there's very little excuse for why people can't be bothered to read past the headlines. It's a synergistic ignorance. A lot of social media outrage is based on people reacting to headlines without bothering to read the stories, or even verify the sources. The hot takes are locked and loaded.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3634
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Award Season In Hell

Post by crumbsroom » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:47 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:29 pm
"The media" has got a lot to answer for, with thir clickbait headlines, but there's very little excuse for why people can't be bothered to read past the headlines. It's a synergistic ignorance. A lot of social media outrage is based on people reacting to headlines without bothering to read the stories, or even verify the sources. The hot takes are locked and loaded.
Oh, I know. I wouldn't expect the public reaction to this sort of junk reporting to change any time soon though. I have a family that is ground zero for lapping this stuff up and they've never felt more informed politically and this just causes them to lap up even more. It is no end of aggravation to me. But watching supposedly legit news organizations capitalize on that is even more infuriating to me than the public not making the slightest apparent effort to fend off this transparent nonsense.

At least I know I've been guilty of taking a snippet of a story and running with it (before realizing my error and retracting what I said). I've never been put in a position of authority and willfully abused that position though. The notion of deliberately skewing the perception of stories to garner clickbaits is just so nauseating to me, there is no comparison in who the real criminals are here.
Post Reply