Another reason to hate the Oscars - Tree of Souls

Jachyra · #1 02-24-2011, 08:14 PM

As if we needed any more.

Anywho, here's what Anthony Mackie (one of the stars of the Hurt Locker) had to say recently:

"Last year, we were like the dolls of the Oscars. They couldn't even stop us from going up onstage! This year, they don't even give us a ticket! So I hit 'em up (phoned them). (They said), 'Negative'. I'm like, 'I don't need two, I ain't bringing a crew!' and they were like, 'Nah.' Third tier, seat filler, nothing." THE HURT LOCKER star ANTHONY MACKIE has been shut out of Sunday's (27Feb11) Academy Awards, despite the fact he starred in last year's (10) Best Picture winner.

They pampered them last year and look at what they do to them this year.
What a bunch of ungrateful b*stards.

Needless to say, I'm not watching that crap fest this year.

/rant

**Grif** · #2 02-24-2011, 08:33 PM

They try to put the nominees up in the front. And I wouldn't call Anthony Mackie that big of a star to be honest. I will not be watching the Oscars though.

Jachyra · #3 02-24-2011, 08:38 PM

The point is, he's not invited back, period.
Not even in the balcony somewhere (where a lot of people can be seated). Completely shut out.

Total lack of class, IMO.

Edit: Btw, he's second billed in the cast (right behind Jeremy Renner). So it's not like he's an extra or something.

**Woodsprite** · #4 02-24-2011, 10:51 PM

The Hurt Locker was an excuse to win against Avatar (a poor one, but one nonetheless). It wasn't about critical acclaim, it was about politics, money, and advertising. There's no reason for the Academy to treat anyone related to THL so highly anymore.

The film was picked, advertised, used, and promptly thrown away. It practically held the life of a disposable camera.

Ashen Key · #5 02-25-2011, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The Hurt Locker was an excuse to win against Avatar (a poor one, but one nonetheless). It wasn't about critical acclaim, it was about politics, money, and advertising. There's no reason for the Academy to treat anyone related to THL so highly anymore.

The film was picked, advertised, used, and promptly thrown away. It practically held the life of a disposable camera.

...seriously? That movie blew me out of the water. It's an amazing, amazing film. Politics were probably a part of it, but that doesn't mean that THL DIDN'T deserve to win.

Which is actually why I'm so peeved at the Oscars for treating it this way - it deserves better than this.

Human No More · #6 02-25-2011, 12:05 PM

I really don't care. The Hurt Locker was a terrible film. This just shows that they only gave it awards for two reasons: 1. because they don't like JC (long known, and already proven even BEFORE Avatar with The Abyss) and 2. for the novelty, so they can go 'oh yes, we gave an award to a female director'
I really couldn't care less about this. Woodsprite is absolutely right, it was a terrible film, which they just chose in order to avoid giving the awards to the much better film and director. It genuinely did NOT deserve to win anything, even Avatar aside - there's a reason it is now in bargain bins, and will be completely forgotten in 2-3 years apart from as an entry on Wikpedia's list of oscar winners.

Ashen Key · #7 02-25-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human No More

I really don't care. The Hurt Locker was a terrible film. This just shows that they only gave it awards for two reasons: 1. because they don't like JC (long known, and already proven even BEFORE Avatar with The Abyss) and 2. for the novelty, so they can go 'oh yes, we gave an award to a female director'
I really couldn't care less about this. Woodsprite is absolutely right, it was a terrible film, which they just chose in order to avoid giving the awards to the much better film and director. It genuinely did NOT deserve to win anything, even Avatar aside - there's a reason it is now in bargain bins, and will be completely forgotten in 2-3 years apart from as an entry on Wikpedia's list of oscar winners.

Poor old Hurt Locker. It gets so much hate from the Avatar fandom just because it got one award. And the two are so different, I'm not sure how you can easily compare them.

Why didn't you like it, just curious?

Human No More · #8 02-25-2011, 01:22 PM

To be honest, I just didn't like it. The clips they showed during the Oscars didn't have me that interested. Also, then apparently, it's full of inaccuracies and mistakes too, even other than the blindingly obvious ones (something about shooting open a car that contained a bomb?!). Other than that, the simple fact that I'm not pro-Iraq war, so its message is in complete opposition to my view.

Ashen Key · #9 02-25-2011, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human No More

To be honest, I just didn't like it. The clips they showed during the Oscars didn't have me that interested. Also, then apparently, it's full of inaccuracies and mistakes too, even other than the blindingly obvious ones (something about shooting open a car that contained a bomb?!). Other than that, the simple fact that I'm not pro-Iraq war, so its message is in complete opposition to my view.

...You haven't actually SEEN it? Wow, okay. I can't imagine calling something terrible if I haven't actually sat down and watched the whole thing.

Also? It's not pro-war. Not in the slightest. It's message is that war is a drug that utterly f*cks you up - the main character? He has a wife (technically ex-wife, but it's complicated) and a baby and a nice house, and...he feels dead out there. He has to go back to war, and you KNOW he's happier in war. That's what it can do to you, and that's what the movie is about.

Woodsprite, that makes sense! I have to diagree with you on the plodding pace - to me it was a character-study, so character-driven instead of plot - but to each their own.

Human No More · #10 02-27-2011, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

...You haven't actually SEEN it? Wow, okay. I can't imagine calling something terrible if I haven't actually sat down and watched the whole thing.

Also? It's not pro-war. Not in the slightest. It's message is that war is a drug that utterly f*cks you up - the main character? He has a wife (technically ex-wife, but it's complicated) and a baby and a nice house, and...he feels dead out there. He has to go back to war, and you KNOW he's happier in war. That's what it can do to you, and that's what the movie is about.

Woodsprite, that makes sense! I have to diagree with you on the plodding pace - to me it was a character-study, so character-driven instead of plot - but to each their own.

Fine - maybe I was too critical. I wasn't trying to say that I actually don't like it (as you said, I never watched the whole thing, only parts of it), only that I don't like what I understood the premise to be, and that I'm not interested in watching it. Yes, I resent it being awarded over an infinitely better film, but even if it wasn't, I would never have chosen to watch it. Indeed, I hadn't heard of it at all beforehand.

Ashen Key · #11 02-27-2011, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human No More

Fine - maybe I was too critical. I wasn't trying to say that I actually don't like it (as you said, I never watched the whole thing, only parts of it), only that I don't like what I understood the premise to be, and that I'm not interested in watching it. Yes, I resent it being awarded over an infinitely better film, but even if it wasn't, I would never have chosen to watch it. Indeed, I hadn't heard of it at all beforehand.

Not being interested is fair enough - war movies aren't everyone's cup of tea, nor are war movies that focus on psychology as opposed to blowing things up. I'm certainly not going to tell you that you should watch it.

What had me startled was you seemed so anti-it, and the way you were talking about it...yeah, I assumed you had seen it. *shrugs* If I'm not interested in watching a movie, I just say I'm not interested in it. I don't say that it's terrible, because I have no idea. But I suppose that might be a personality difference.

**Icu** · #12 02-25-2011, 05:28 PM

Oh... please tell me that you're not calling it terrible without having seen it? You know you would hate someone for doing that to Avatar.

That said I saw it before Avatar, so I was fortunate enough to have an unbiased viewing, and it was wonderful. Dramatic, Suspenseful, excellently constructed.

If it didn't beat Avatar I'm sure more people on here would like it.

**Icu** · #13 02-25-2011, 05:31 PM

And there are other reasons to dislike the Oscars.

For example, this year The Social Network was a LOCK to win best picture two or so months ago. It wasn't even close. Then suddenly a media wave comes out of nowhere and The King's Speech is now the clear favorite. So basically, it's just a matter of who can generate the most hype right before the awards, because it seems that most everyone will simply jump on board. People should make up their own mind and stick with it.

ahoragi · #14 02-25-2011, 05:37 PM

I liked the THL but I don't think it came out on the level that Avatar did.

But anyways, about the Oscars......I wonder if any of the cast of Avatar or Cameron were invited.....heheheh.

Tey'Kan · #15 02-25-2011, 06:51 PM

Jim Cameron isn't very popular with the "Hollywood Bunch"... this we know. And for the most part, everyone knows why. BUT, that does not mean that you give the awards and cudos to a different film or director because of it.

AVATAR was a masterpiece and a genuine work of art. It required ALOT MORE imagination and creativity, as well as graphic artestry than THL did, IMO.
Not to slight THL, the acting was very good and I did enjoy the movie, but doesn't even come close to the "buckets of sweat" and "pints of blood" it took to put AVATAR together, and have it work as well as it did. Look at the box office revenues... that speaks volumes for Cameron and his crew, as well as the actors.

Tey'Kan