OSCAR AWARDS 2015

I enjoyed the Grand Budapest Hotel, but Birdman is still the superior film for me. Boyhood feels a bit overrated, though I suppose the competition wasn't exactly fierce that year.

Based on how things usually go at the Oscars, this should be a pretty solid indicator...

I’ve got a feeling Boyhood isn't actually going to take it home.🤷

How exactly does one even begin to approach that...

I honestly can't wrap my head around the idea that Boyhood deserves to take home the win... It just feels fundamentally unearned...

Personally, I find the Grand Budapest Hotel to be an incomparably weaker film than Birdman...

Boyhood is far more significant as a feat of production than as a mere cinematic product, though even on its own merits, the film isn't half bad. People seem to overlook the sheer reality of the situation: it was filmed over the course of twelve years, with a script that had to be continuously refined to account for what might become interesting down the line. It’s an incredible eye for detail. This is precisely why Boyhood earns its accolades for both filmmaking and directing—it could easily be both. And honestly, who else could have actually pulled this off?

Over the last few years, the Academy Award winners for Best Picture have included:

Slumdog Millionaire
The Hurt Locker
The King's Speech
The Artist
Argo
12 Years a Slave

Given that list, it would be quite a scandal if Boyhood were to win, especially since I’d argue it’s actually better than any of them.

Jamie Turner80 said:Boyhood matters more as an undertaking than just a finished product. Even then, it’s far from a bad movie. People seem to overlook the sheer madness of filming this over twelve years—developing the script on the fly and trying to predict what might actually be interesting down the road. That kind of attention to detail is incredible. It’s entirely plausible that Boyhood takes home both Best Picture and Best Director. Honestly, who else could have pulled that off?

Well, Birdman definitely deserves the directing nod. If you ask me, shooting that was a much bigger technical headache than Boyhood. 🤷

I’ll concede that it could sweep both awards, but while the film is fine, I was expecting something a bit more impactful.

Melissa Sullivan said:Academy Award winners list

http://deadline.com/2015/01/golden-g...st-1201347359/

Affair? Wait, what even is Affair? 😕--seriously, anyone know?

It's that really good show with Joshua Jackson and Dominic West—you know, the one about an Affair. 👍--totally worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

Honestly, I feel like > is mostly getting all this hype just because they spent 12 years filming it... but as an actual movie? Meh... nothing special.

Check out the link

Jack Murphy5 said:Over the last few years, the Academy Award winners list for Best Picture has included:

Slumdog Millionaire
The Hurt Locker
The King's Speech
The Artist
Argo
12 Years a Slave

So now we’re acting like it would be an issue if Boyhood took the trophy, even though it’s arguably a superior film to everything on that list...

It wouldn't be an issue at all; we've grown quite accustomed to seeing mediocrity sweep the statues (sorry, The Artist)...
which one is better than the ones listed above? Birdman, perhaps...

I didn't actually mention Birdman. My point was that Boyhood is better than the ones listed above.

Jack Murphy5 said:I’m telling you, Boyhood is actually superior to everything else on that list.

I disagree.
Boyhood belongs in the same tier as those films... though perhaps not quite alongside The Artist...

I have to disagree. 🙂

The artist. 🤣
Total hipster nonsense.

I agree, Boyhood is better than anything else on that list; it’s a solid film. That said, I still find Birdman to be the superior, more challenging project. I get the whole "filmed over many years" thing, but I don't see why that makes it harder to pull off. Especially when you actually have all that time at your disposal. 🤷

Noah Roberts46 said:Personally, I think Boyhood beats everything listed above; it’s a solid film. That said, Birdman feels like a more ambitious, heavier project to me. I get the idea, but I don't understand why filming over twelve years makes it "harder." If you have all that time, why is it more difficult? 🤷

Because it's a total gimmick. Seriously, it's like they're saying, "Look, this guy filmed for 12 years, so he deserves an award."

It's the exact same thing that happened last year with the Academy Award winners list.

Noah Roberts46 said:I mean, if we're talking about directing, Birdman definitely takes the cake. Honestly? I think pulling off something like that was a way harder feat than what they did with Boyhood. 🤷

Is directing really just about how much technical wizardry goes into a movie? Like, is that the only thing they look at when deciding who gets the trophy? It’s getting tougher. Record it? Please. As if anyone actually gives a damn about watching another mediocre flick just because someone slapped a "cinematic" label on it. Most of this stuff is just noise designed to fill the void while we wait for something that actually matters. 🤔

I don't know, just asking.

I don't know, man. I’ve got this nagging feeling that isn't really the case. It feels like there are other, much more subtle nuances at play here that we're totally overlooking.

Austin Rodriguez5 said:Because it’s the exact same kind of nonsense. Look, just because a guy spent 12 years filming something doesn't mean he deserves an award.

It's just like what happened last year with the Academy Award winners list.

I agree, but I'd take this nonsense over that any day. 😁
Clearly, it's all a matter of taste. 🤷

Honestly, I have no idea what people are watching, I'm just stating my opinion. You rarely see films like Birdman—at least not in terms of how they're shot. On top of that, the movie is fantastic. I don't know when anyone else would have the guts to make such a joke out of themselves. It takes real courage to pull that off. 👍

1. The Academy is notorious for its complete lack of self-awareness when it comes to humor; they can't take a joke, which means Birdman doesn't stand a chance.
2. While Birdman is undeniably a high-quality production—engagingly shot and intriguing in its biting commentary—it feels somewhat narrow in scope. It plays out almost like an inside joke shared exclusively between the actors, the theater community, filmmakers, and critics. As far as direction goes, it’s solid, but it isn't exactly groundbreaking.
3. Boyhood, on the other hand, is a project of immeasurable significance. The result is a cohesive, well-executed meditation on growing up and the relentless passage of time. It required immense courage and intellectual foresight to select specific cultural touchstones from various eras—things like Britney Spears, Harry Potter, or even the Obama campaign—and weave them into a narrative, betting that they would still resonate with audiences years later. To marry those elements with a largely autobiographical core story is no small feat. I went in hoping the film would completely transport me and stand as the finest cinematic experience of my life. It didn't quite reach that peak, but it remains an excellent film, and likely the best one released this year.

Noah Roberts46 said:I agree, but I'd take this mess over that any day. 😁
Clearly just a matter of taste. 🤷

I don't know what they're watching either; I'm just stating my opinion. You rarely see films shot like Birdman. It's an excellent movie—you don't often see someone mock themselves like that. It takes guts. 👍

Agreed. Anything other than Birdman would be a shock. Technically, Birdman is masterfully directed. Oscars for directing are usually hit because direction is one of the few things you can judge somewhat objectively. That’s why Cuaron won for Gravity last year. He earned it.

So Inarritu should take the directing Oscar. Boyhood is good, but it's overrated and nowhere near the best film of the year. Respect for the 12 years, but in terms of direction, it's much weaker than Birdman.

Noah Roberts46 said:1. The Academy is notorious for lacking self-deprecating humor = Birdman stands no chance.
2. Birdman is a great film, interestingly shot and intriguing in its satire, but it feels niche—almost like an inside joke between actors, theater, film, and critics. The direction is good, but not exactly monumental.
3. Boyhood, on the other hand, is a project of immense significance. The result is a solid, coherent film about growing up and the passage of time. It took courage and intelligence to pick specific details from certain eras and weave them into a story, predicting people would remember them years later (Britney, Harry Potter, even the Obama campaign). You have to tie all that to an essentially autobiographical core story. I wanted the film to sweep me away and be the best I've ever seen. It wasn't. But it's still an excellent film, likely the best this year.

Point number one: that's just your opinion. Stop playing film critic; you'd be more objective if you didn't just follow the critics.

Noah Roberts46 said:The Artist. 🤣
Just a massive, pretentious hipster ego trip...

Linklater 🤣
just a little hop, skip, and a jump...
even before Boyhood, Linklater was basically the director equivalent of a light afternoon distraction...

Look, I already said I agree. I feel the exact same way about his other films, too. It’s just that I prefer those "messy" styles over the ones you're championing—but hey, like I said, it's all subjective.

@Jamie Turner80/">@@Jamie Turner80

That wasn't my point, but fine, there's probably a mountain of footage shot over the years. Regardless, I'm convinced Boyhood is going to snag the Oscar, and I won't feel bad about it once you look at what has historically won. Personally, though, I think Birdman is the superior film—easily one of the best in years. That said, if anyone deserves the directing award, it should be Inarritu. I'm genuinely counting down the days until his next project drops.