2016 Academy Awards (Oscars)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Rampling spot on. I mean of course the Oscars and Hollywood aren't liberal and diverse enough.....:rolleyes: It's already just a liberal back patting circus that nobody takes seriously. And funny when ****e like Selma and 12 Years a Slave cleaned up undeservedly just because of "diversity" and white guilt, nobody was complaining. Most of the voters didn't even watch 12 years a Slave. And Will Smiths wife and oddball family are only crying because he didn't get nominated. Just typical playing the race card. Yeah Will Smith is really discriminated against.....:pac:

Remind me again how Selma cleaned up? It was nominated for two Oscars and only won Best Original Song. In fact the song is the only thing that won any awards that weren't specifically for African Americans or women. (Go ahead now and tell me it's racist to have awards voted for by African Americans)

The fact they are talking about quotas for token Blacks has just killed the last ounce of credibility these awards had. Its a joke to most people already anyway, rubbish Oscar Bait like the Danish Girl gets lauded because of its backers and the fact there is a strong lobby for transexuals at the minute. No wonder it and Spotlight both bombed at the Box Office. Even people interested in the Danish Girl story and theme said the story was told badly and that it's subject matter and Backers just purely made top class Oscar bait.

NOBODY is talking about quotas other than the lazy journalists who can't be bothered to report on the matter properly.

Peter Anthony

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The problem is though that the myth that only white people sell has been perpetuated for so long that everyone believes it now. There are articles about how white people, particularly in America, think if there are "too many" black people in a film then it's a "black film" and not for them, so studios and casting directors make decisions based on that. Straight Outta Compton and Creed proved this isn't necessarily the case.

Or maybe it's because normal people are sick and tired of token Black characters and token women characters being shoehorned into roles that really are unsuitable, forced and change/spoil the narrative of the story.

Considering how The Revenant managed to ignore these Feminist and Minority lobbying groups and has done so well at the Box Office while gaining rave reviews, just goes to show that cinema goers don't care. Creed and SOC showed the roles and praise for Black Actors are there when deserved and warranted. I actually though Del Toro should have been nominated for Sicario, but hey he's not black so can't play the race card.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Or maybe it's because normal people are sick and tired of token Black characters and token women characters being shoehorned into roles that really are unsuitable, forced and change/spoil the narrative of the story.

Considering how The Revenant managed to ignore these Feminist and Minority lobbying groups and has done so well at the Box Office while gaining rave reviews, just goes to show that cinema goers don't care. Creed and SOC showed the roles and praise for Black Actors are there when deserved and warranted. I actually though Del Toro should have been nominated for Sicario, but hey he's not black so can't play the race card.

Nobody is "playing the race card". It's about diversity, not racism. Benico del Toro is Hispanic, which is another group of people who are underrepresented in the film industry. His exclusion is the same issue.

It seems like you're just skim reading some poorly written articles and assuming you know what the issue is about.

BoJack Horseman

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It's about diversity

I thought it was about awarding little statuettes for leading actors/actresses & film makers....

I had no idea it was about skin colour.... merit be damned.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I thought it was about awarding little statuettes for leading actors/actresses & film makers....

I had no idea it was about skin colour.... merit be damned.

It's never about merit. Even if you want to ignore the lack of diversity the Oscars are not about merit.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. I can only imagine how it feels to have to have this discussion in real life on a daily basis.

It's getting away from the point of this thread so I'll drop it but it f**king galls me to see the attitudes some people have on issues like this. It's exactly those attitudes that ensure this issue rumbles on and on. Don't worry though, you're all fine so what does it matter.

warpdrive

It's an awards show, chill out

Dirty Dingus McGee

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It's never about merit. Even if you want to ignore the lack of diversity the Oscars are not about merit.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. I can only imagine how it feels to have to have this discussion in real life on a daily basis.

It's getting away from the point of this thread so I'll drop it but it f**king galls me to see the attitudes some people have on issues like this. It's exactly those attitudes that ensure this issue rumbles on and on. Don't worry though, you're all fine so what does it matter.

Maybe it isn't actually that big an issue but you just can't say it isn't an issue because people who do that will be crucified by the liberal media.

As I pointed out earlier.15 of the last 60 acting awards have gone to black actors and African Americans only consisting of 12.6% of the population.That doesn't sound like they are being discriminated against in the Oscars.

The Oscars don't have to be diverse they are supposed to be awards for excellence not diversity.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Maybe it isn't actually that big an issue but you just can't say it isn't an issue because people who do that will be crucified by the liberal media.

As I pointed out earlier.15 of the last 60 acting awards have gone to black actors and African Americans only consisting of 12.6% of the population.That doesn't sound like they are being discriminated against in the Oscars.

The Oscars don't have to be diverse they are supposed to be awards for excellence not diversity.

1- The Oscars are an award for PR and publicity campaigns. Occasionally that overlaps with talent but it's purely coincidental.

2- I keep saying it's not about the Oscars. I know this is an Oscars thread and perhaps was not the place for this discussion but it's about the film industry as a whole. The Oscars are just the most public and high profile event where such issues come into focus.

2,947 Oscars have been handed out since the first ceremony. 32 of those to black people, across all categories. That is 1.08% of all awards. That's not reflective of the 12.6% of the population stat. If nothing else it shows that 98.02% of people admitted to the Academy from winning Oscars have been something other than black.

As for maybe it's not really an issue.... why do you think so many women in the industry, black people in the industry, Hispanics, Asians, Indians etc. etc. keep saying it is? Do you think they're making it up? Do you think they actually have exactly the same opportunities as white people, or white men in the case of women? Do you think they just like feeling sorry for themselves or do you genuinely think they're just not as good as the multitudes of white people getting the roles/jobs?

EDIT: You know what.. don't bother answering that. I'll unsubscribe from the thread and leave you all to it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

1- The Oscars are an award for PR and publicity campaigns. Occasionally that overlaps with talent but it's purely coincidental.

2- I keep saying it's not about the Oscars. I know this is an Oscars thread and perhaps was not the place for this discussion but it's about the film industry as a whole. The Oscars are just the most public and high profile event where such issues come into focus.

2,947 Oscars have been handed out since the first ceremony. 32 of those to black people, across all categories. That is 1.08% of all awards. That's not reflective of the 12.6% of the population stat. If nothing else it shows that 98.02% of people admitted to the Academy from winning Oscars have been something other than black.

As for maybe it's not really an issue.... why do you think so many women in the industry, black people in the industry, Hispanics, Asians, Indians etc. etc. keep saying it is? Do you think they're making it up? Do you think they actually have exactly the same opportunities as white people, or white men in the case of women? Do you think they just like feeling sorry for themselves or do you genuinely think they're just not as good as the multitudes of white people getting the roles/jobs?

EDIT: You know what.. don't bother answering that. I'll unsubscribe from the thread and leave you all to it.

White Male Americans dominated all industry in America for a long while it's only natural this was translate across to the film industry.However things have changed in society in recent years.There is a large degree of false victim hood involved whether people want to admit it or not.Fair enough for people in the past to claim sexism racism etc as an excuse but it doesn't have the same impact anymore across society these days and it isn't as much of an excuse anymore in any field.

If minorities feel so strongly about this maybe some wealthy minority actors should found their own production companies and help out those they feel are being discriminated against.

johnny_ultimate

Of course the Oscars have a diversity and inclusivity problem, but lord knows it isn't relegated to black actors. It's a wide-ranging bias that not only relegates pretty much all international actors and filmmakers to the fringes (if they're lucky), but seeps into the sorts of films they pick. These are as broad as biases get - whether it's the near complete absence of non-Anglophone cinema (despite the fact the Academy has shown itself willing to nominate foreign cinema when it feels like it), to the consistent ghettoisation of entire genres and modes of cinema. Take your pick: animation, documentary, comedy, action, 'slow' cinema, auteur cinema, independent cinema etc...

The Oscars display a consistent tunnel vision in terms of the type of films and in many cases individuals (whether that's actors or filmmakers) they choose to award, which severely limits the worth of the awards. Some of the problems are deeply seeded within the film industry itself - the lack of visibility and opportunities given to female directors, for example, which is such a glaring industry issue that I will politely suggest anyone suggesting otherwise is talking complete bull****. And by the Oscars 'democratic' nature surprising, off-kilter films do make the cut from time to time (ah, what a joy it would be to wake up on March 1st to see Mad Max all over the papers). But really the Academy themselves display a numbing conservatism in the films they pick.

I pretty much hate the Oscars - while their very nature means some worthy films are nominated every year, and occasionally win, to me their value begins and ends with perhaps giving a visibility boost to a few decent films. But I'm encouraged by some of the Academy's actions today, announced alongside some significant changes to voting eligibility for existing members:

The Board’s goal is to commit to doubling the number of women and diverse members of the Academy by 2020.. The Academy will supplement the traditional process in which current members sponsor new members by launching an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity

This isn't about achieving some arbitrary gender or racial quotas, which is a simplistic goal. It's about adapting to properly reflect the diversity of modern cinema, not just in terms of gender or skin colour but the broad range of films out there.

I have little hope that the Oscars will fundamentally change by 2020, and they're too far gone to be fully removed from the garish red carpet backslappery they've become, as well as all the nonsense that goes along with the selection process (they're an expensive popularity contest). And, like all awards, they're destined to always be ultimately meaningless in the general scheme of things. But maybe with a broader, international and more active membership it might give a few different types of films and filmmakers a fighting chance regardless of their genre or country of origin. That's a very big maybe, but we'll see how it plays out.

Peter Anthony wrote:

Or maybe it's because normal people are sick and tired of token Black characters and token women characters being shoehorned into roles that really are unsuitable, forced and change/spoil the narrative of the story

As a 'normal person' who watches dozens if not hundreds of new releases every year, encompassing films of every size and from many countries, I'd confidently state I can't think of a single film off the top of my head where any of the above applies, and certainly not prevalent enough to be 'sick and tired' of it :pac:

adox

Peter Anthony wrote: »

but hey he's not black so can't play the race card.

What a bizzare statement.

silverharp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Why do any of these, other than historic or geographically based ones, need to be white driven? Black people don't fall in love? Black people don't live in the suburbs? Kids hate Latinos?

You want to talk about geographically based films? Let's talk about the two very recent ones set in Egypt that had almost entirely white lead casts.

sure but the customers want what they want and the nature of the product is that its an "80/20" business. Also from Hollywood's perspective many of their movies are for a global market so its easier to sell rom coms and what not using the cultural norms that people are used to

I think it is dumb to have films set in the middle east using white actors, that is distracting but then people want to see a star draw, I mean Emma Watson in the film Noah? she would be too white to play the part of cream cheese :pac:

JP Liz V1

The kid from Room not getting a nomination as lead actor imo is a travesty

Arghus

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Or maybe it's because normal people are sick and tired of token Black characters and token women characters being shoehorned into roles that really are unsuitable, forced and change/spoil the narrative of the story.

Maybe it is, but I don't think so. I've never thought anything like that to be honest and I've never heard it from anyone else that I know. But I can't claim to speak for everyone that considers themselves nornal

You may as well go ahead there and list a few examples of token shoehorning that have left normal people, like yourself and myself, sick and tired.

caille

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The kid from Room not getting a nomination as lead actor imo is a travesty

Yes, definitely, great actor, cannot believe he was overlooked.

mansize

Speaking of minorities shoe-horned into "normal" roles... I think you'll find it's the opposite.

In Stonewall a black Drag Queen that is credited with leading the charge being replaced with a white clean cut "straight acting" mid western guy.

Movies are whitewashed for the great American audience

FortuneChip

Big Short wins the Producers Guild Awards. Massive step towards the Oscars usually.

astonaidan

Honestly I think its bull**** if their needs to be a black person nominated, if they werent good enough, they dont deserve it.
Black people like Spike Lee think they deserve privilege at every turn, if you want to google NBA 2k16 Spike Lee story, you can see how racist he is.
Why werent they complaining when Forest and Fox won, like their is a massive Asian community in the states where was the outrage when they dont win oscars. Their isnt because they dont hold the same we deserve everything cause we black attitude thats the blacks have.
Me personally if I was black and won a best ethnic actor award Id turn it down, it would be a cheap award.
It will end up like the South African rugby team, where their will have to be a black person nominated for every award just to please them.

adox

astonaidan wrote: »

Honestly I think its bull**** if their needs to be a black person nominated, if they werent good enough, they dont deserve it.
Black people like Spike Lee think they deserve privilege at every turn, if you want to google NBA 2k16 Spike Lee story, you can see how racist he is.
Why werent they complaining when Forest and Fox won, like their is a massive Asian community in the states where was the outrage when they dont win oscars. Their isnt because they dont hold the same we deserve everything cause we black attitude thats the blacks have.
Me personally if I was black and won a best ethnic actor award Id turn it down, it would be a cheap award.
It will end up like the South African rugby team, where their will have to be a black person nominated for every award just to please them.

Wow. That reads horribly.

warpdrive

Some of his points are right, though. Black people dominate the NFL and NBA yet you don't see uproar about there not being more of an effort to include more races or affirmative action to increase the presence of white players. This is because obviously it just so happens that the best athletes for certain sports happen to have black skin. Same goes for a lot of athletics such as the 100m sprint. Look at those races. They're popular because everyone wants to just see the fastest human beings on Earth racing each other and the majority of these happen to be black. I'd go crazy if some morons wanted to change this scenario just because they want more white or Asian people in the races because then it's possible that better athletes would be excluded all for a stupid quota. It'd be possible that we're no longer witnessing the absolute fastest humans racing against each other.


Why is it any different when it comes to the film industry? It just so happens that this year it was all white people that were involved in the best movies. Look at 2013 when 12 Years a Slave was up for awards. It dominated. There was nobody pulling sh!t like this, calling racism, then. Why? Because Steve McQueen, a black man, decided to put in the effort to make a movie worthy of the awards it received. Because Lupita Nyong'o had the talent that made her deserve to win for best supporting actress.


If black people want more awards at the Oscars then they're all free to put their foot forward and try their best at writing, directing and acting in movies that are worthy of awards. If they don't win then that's too bad, they're simply not talented enough just as many people of other races aren't talented enough to compete in the NFL and the NBA. If this is the case, should they cry and complain? No. They should simply try again and again and even if they never win at least they'll be increasing the black community's chances of gaining more presence in the film industry. It's all well and good calling for more black people but what good is that if there aren't many willing to actually try and do the impossible which is breaking into the film industry and making actually good movies.

astonaidan

adox wrote: »

Wow. That reads horribly.

What a well put together argument, I see the errors in my ways.
The guy above me says it perfect, in black dominated sports their is nothing ever said about racism, if were going to introduce quotas surely we should do it for every race and in every activity. Why not just have a oscar for ever ethnicity, like never mind the best at anything why not just be the best of a race, what a perfectly pc way the world would be then.
Like if a black person wins the oscar next year, it will be said that it was because of the fuss kicked up over this and he didnt deserve it

xtal191

I don't see a thread on Trumbo but I've got tickets for a screening in the Lighthouse this evening.

Anyone want them? I guess to someone with 50+ posts would be fair.

xtal191

I don't see a thread on Trumbo but I've got tickets for a screening in the Lighthouse this evening.

Anyone want them? I guess to someone with 50+ posts would be fair.

It seems not everyone is enthusiastic about Mad Max: Fury Road.

Grammy-winning comedian Lewis Black called it a "senseless nomination" that shouldn't have beaten out Straight Outta Compton.

https://twitter.com/TheFanOfWords/status/692614465150267392

Arghus

Strongly disagree.

Hococop

Same delighted fury road got numeric nomination's, my film of the year

Still have to see creed and the revenant

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems not everyone is enthusiastic about Mad Max: Fury Road.

Grammy-winning comedian Lewis Black called it a "senseless nomination" that shouldn't have beaten out Straight Outta Compton.

https://twitter.com/TheFanOfWords/status/692614465150267392

Fury Road is way more thematically rich, exciting and creative than the flat and predictable box ticking exercise that was Straight Outta Compton.

All for diversity and thinking that Creed should have got more but I don't think Straight Outta Compton excels in any category tbh, except perhaps music.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems not everyone is enthusiastic about Mad Max: Fury Road.

Spot on by Lewis .

Mad Max seems to be a Marmite film,you either love it or hate it.

e_e

JP Liz V1

Idris won a SAG award Sly wasn't nominated

Why Do We Fall

Idris won two! Supporting for Beasts of No Nation and for lead in Luthor.

The Mail online of course made a point of how voting was open until very late, posing the question of what impact the academy controversy had on the guild.

I can't really argue with any of the victors though, Idris for Luthor is a strange one (only strange because he's been at it for years).

SarahBM

I still have a lot of the nominated films to go see. But last night I went to see revenant with my best friend and I think we are probably the only two people in the world who didn't like. I found it ridiculous in places and if DiCaprio gets an Oscar for that I think I'll cry. So disappointed with it. The best thing about the film was the beautiful scenery. And Tom Hardy was decent.
I really want to see spotlight.

FortuneChip

Phew, needed that Spotlight win last night.
Bring on the Directors Guild Awards.

e_e

Finally got to see all the best picture nominees and I'd personally rank them like this:

1. Mad Max Fury Road
2. The Big Short
3. Brooklyn
4. The Martian
5. Spotlight
6. Room
7. The Revenant
8. Bridge of Spies

Think the academy will go with The Revenant or Spotlight though.

warpdrive

The Revenant deserves to win because of how excruciating it was to make. Filmed for just an hour or two per day over 9 months in terrible weather. Some scenes requiring days/weeks of planning and choreographing. One of the most immersive and realistic movies in years with very little CGI. Some ridiculously executed cinematography and editing. It just completely sets itself apart from the other films.

MfMan

warpdrive wrote: »

The Revenant deserves to win because of how excruciating it was to make. Filmed for just an hour or two per day over 9 months in terrible weather. Some scenes requiring days/weeks of planning and choreographing. One of the most immersive and realistic movies in years with very little CGI. Some ridiculously executed cinematography and editing. It just completely sets itself apart from the other films.

To paraphrase Laurence Olivier, 'they should have tried acting, it's so much easier'.

PressRun

MfMan wrote: »

To paraphrase Laurence Olivier, 'they should have tried acting, it's so much easier'.

I've never really understood the love for this quote. Why should a person's way of dedicating themselves to the craft be looked down upon or dismissed in this way? People have different ways of working. Some people might not see the value in the 'method' strategy, but for others that's the best way for them to produce the results they want.

I know the Oscars aren't for taking seriously I've seen most of the nominated ones at this point. Revenant really shouldn't be the one De Caprio wins for, i liked it but found it 30 minutes too long and far from his best movie.

I have to say Mad Max raised an eye brow with me , I loved the series but hadn't seen Fury Road, so when it was nominated so much I figured I better see what the fuss was about, it really wasn't for me

Too long and too little story and character development, could have dropped the mad max bit and it could have been the same movie to me. Wasn't awful just not want I was expecting or wanted, felt I'd seen all there was to see after 30 minutes, it did look visually stunning. Also felt Tom Hardy was wasted here, they gave him so little to work with

Don't shoot me I know many loved it , but really wasn't for me and I likely missed the point of it, it would be unfair to say it was just a 2 hour "car chase" but I really was expecting more to it. Honestly if it had been made back in the day it would likely be a cult classic today.

Canadel

warpdrive wrote: »

The Revenant deserves to win because of how excruciating it was to make.

That's exactly why it doesn't deserve to win. A movie should win based on its own merits i.e. those 2-3 hours it plays for. Just like Leo doesn't deserve to win because of the suffering he went through offset or because it's his 'turn'. It should be based on his performance on screen. I hope The Revenant wins nothing as it's absolutely terrible, and even though the cinematography is spectacular throughout, I hate that it has caused many people to overcompensate in their criticism of the rest of the film. I simply cannot abide such crap storytelling and script. I saw someone compare it to Gladiator in a thread recently. I was not entertained.

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the Oscars aren't for taking seriously I've seen most of the nominated ones at this point. Revenant really shouldn't be the one De Caprio wins for, i liked it but found it 30 minutes too long and far from his best movie.

I have to say Mad Max raised an eye brow with me , I loved the series but hadn't seen Fury Road, so when it was nominated so much I figured I better see what the fuss was about, it really wasn't for me

Too long and too little story and character development, could have dropped the mad max bit and it could have been the same movie to me. Wasn't awful just not want I was expecting or wanted, felt I'd seen all there was to see after 30 minutes, it did look visually stunning. Also felt Tom Hardy was wasted here, they gave him so little to work with

Don't shoot me I know many loved it , but really wasn't for me and I likely missed the point of it, it would be unfair to say it was just a 2 hour "car chase" but I really was expecting more to it. Honestly if it had been made back in the day it would likely be a cult classic today.

Like The Revenant, Fury Road is a film that shows a lot more than it tells but unlike that film it's nowhere near as clumsy, self-serious and unintentionally silly (DiCaprio literally hugging a tree? Really?). So much of the storytelling, theme and character development is done through symbolism, character design and visual world building instead of dialog. For a 2 hour car chase (I don't have a problem with it being called that) there's actually a lot going on under the hood and unlike good but visually flat dramas like Room and Spotlight it actually uses shot composition, sound and editing to its full advantage. It's an experience movie first and foremost but it really rewards repeat viewings because of how much is happening during the the very visually busy set pieces. Like on a second viewing I only realized just how brilliantly Nux was weaved in and out of the story and how there's a not ever highlighted relationship between two of the wives. Just watching it you can tell how every aspect of the movie was lorded over and thoughtfully considered.

To me it's the kind of film making that the Oscars should be celebrating tbh.

Irish Aris

e_e wrote: »

Finally got to see all the best picture nominees and I'd personally rank them like this:

1. Mad Max Fury Road
2. The Big Short
3. Brooklyn
4. The Martian
5. Spotlight
6. Room
7. The Revenant
8. Bridge of Spies

Think the academy will go with The Revenant or Spotlight though.

Haven't seen the Spotilight yet, for the others I would go:

1. The Big Short
2. Mad Max Fury Road
3. Brooklyn
4. Bridge Of Spies
5. The Revenant
6. The Martian
7. Room

(Mind you, all 7 of them are very close to each other, Room maybe less so. Plus I have a very good feeling for Spotlight).

MfMan

PressRun wrote: »

I've never really understood the love for this quote. Why should a person's way of dedicating themselves to the craft be looked down upon or dismissed in this way? People have different ways of working. Some people might not see the value in the 'method' strategy, but for others that's the best way for them to produce the results they want.

Method is hideous, evil and wrong. Give me a proper classically-trained British stage actor any time. Primus inter pares.

Irish Aris

After watching Youth yesterday, I am extremely curious to see where the Oscar for the best song will go.
Simple Song sounded amazing in the film.

irishmover

Haven't seen Mad Max, Room, Bridge of Spies or Brooklyn yet.

Out of the remaining Spotlight is a clear winner for me. Will hopefully tick Mad Max and Brooklyn off this weekend. Room is still in the cinema here so will see that in the next week too but Bridge of Spies might be a bit more difficult.

SarahBM

I've seen all the best film nominees except for Spotlight and the big short. Mad max was the worst out of them all. 2 hours of my life I'll never get back. There were far better films than that last year!

Bridge of Spies and the Martian were two of my favs but Room was excellent. I am going to wait til I see the last two before I make up my mind. :-)

the whole year inn

The Revenant for me ,I liked Brooklyn and The Big Short but I think Ill be going back to The Revenant alot more great movie, great performance all round.I wouldn't be surprised if The Big Short got it or disapointed but that breaking the 4th wall got annoying and they sort of made the characters out to be good guys when in actually in a fact all they cared about it money,either way a good watch.

HeidiHeidi

Apologies if this has been asked before, but are these being broadcast on any channel that I'm likely to have as a Sky variety subscriber???

(I'm in a bit of a rush to head out and don't have time to read through the whole thread)

JP Liz V1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, but are these being broadcast on any channel that I'm likely to have as a Sky variety subscriber???

(I'm in a bit of a rush to head out and don't have time to read through the whole thread)

RTE and Sky Living or Sky 1 are showing highlights tomorrow night

I think one of the Sky movie channels are showing them at 1am tonight

SarahBM

Hey everyone, I hope you all have the popcorn and chocolate and pots of tea at the ready. So I said I would refrain from rating the ten best picture nominations until I had seen them all and I have just finished watching the Big Short which was the last film on my list. This is my personal order of preference, not what I think will win. Because the films I want to actually win never really do. So here is my list. 1 being my favourite and 10 being my least favourite.
1.The Martian
2.Room
3.Spotlight
4.Bridge of Spies
5.Brooklyn
6.The Big Short
7.The Revenant
8. Mad Max

I would put Spotlight, the Big Short and Bridge of Spies on the same level. I enjoyed them all equally.
The Martian was the film I enjoyed the most though. I know people will say that that doesn't make it an "Oscar winning" film. But it's my fav.

I won't have my laptop with me so I won't be able to keep up with the thread, but I will try to check in.

Enjoy!!!! And may the best Leo win.

FortuneChip

Fairly certain The Revenant will win, I'm hoping Spotlight does (€€€), but The Big Short was probably my favourite of the lot.
So yeah, conflict of head/money & heart.

As much as I love Sly's return to form, and it was great to see him get a Globe, I'm all for Rylance in the Best Supporting.

Haven't seen The Danish Girl but I hope Vikander wins just because Ex Machina was so good.