OP
OP
Instead people were calling for it to be removed from consideration for any awards because it received some financing from a Russian oligarch.
95th Annual Oscars
- Thread starter Brian in Mesa
- Start date
Chaplin
Better off silent
Best sound isn’t what I mean. Come on.
They did during the telecast mention movies that brought people back to the theater, the named Top Gun. They also made it part of the monologue. So, it was referenced multiple times on top of winning for Sound.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,428
- Reaction score
- 68,607
It got nominated for best picture and had its name called out every time it was up for an award.
Did you want a special moment of the night specifically carved out for Top Gun? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that happen for something that didn’t win in whatever year it was in the running.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,428
- Reaction score
- 68,607
I work, sleep and breathe the industry and I never heard word one of this. Not every article on the internet means a throng of people are pushing for something.
What I find funny about TGM getting the sound award is that sound was the weakest part of the movie. Bass was weak many times when it shouldn't be. Then the Atmouse was criminal in how little it used the surrounds and heights for a movie about fighter jets.
Problem is that for the 6 nominations it was really the only token award they could give. You know they're not giving the big awards to it and Visual Effects had no chance thanks to Avatar. I wish they have an award for practical effects because that's something I really appreciated with it.
Problem is that for the 6 nominations it was really the only token award they could give. You know they're not giving the big awards to it and Visual Effects had no chance thanks to Avatar. I wish they have an award for practical effects because that's something I really appreciated with it.
OP
OP
I just said people were pushing for this - which is a fact. It was in most national papers across the country, including the Los Angeles Times. A group called the Ukrainian World Congress wrote an open letter to the Academy and shared it with the press, calling on them to review the eligibility of Top Gun: Maverick due to major funding by Monaco-based Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,428
- Reaction score
- 68,607
Yeah… big uproar. I heard they almost took the nomination away!
OP
OP
No need to be a dick about it because you are in the industry. Just sharing what was discussed recently about the film. I never implied the movement was serious or anything, I just pointed out the irony that Chap wanted the film's importance mentioned during the ceremony while there was this kind of talk happening the week before the ceremony. Sheesh.Yeah… big uproar. I heard they almost took the nomination away!
Chaplin
Better off silent
It's not the movie itself as much as Tom Cruise the producer. He deserves a lot of credit, no matter if people think Best Sound is enough.
The Oscars has a long history of ignoring huge blockbusters and being stuffy. It's ratings have suffered as a result. Although, to me this felt like more of a gesture verses a sustained true change for the Academy, at least they made an attempt to mention the big films repeatedly during the show. It's still not enough. The Academy needs to lean more into the movies that put people in seats and stop ignoring them just because they don't have subtitles.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,428
- Reaction score
- 68,607
The dude didn’t even show up to honor the movie but the show was supposed to go out if it’s way to honor him? When he wasn’t even there? That would have made both the show and Cruise look stupid, IMO.
I don't blame him for not being there either. It was pretty much a lock it wasn't winning any of the major awards....well...because it's the Oscars.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,428
- Reaction score
- 68,607
Bizarre comment since there was literally only ONE out NINE Best Picture movies that had subtitles.
Should the Academy have leaned more into complete drek like Thor Love And Thunder or Dr. Strange And The Multiverse Of Sequels because those movies put people in seats? Because Marvel is pretty much the only thing that puts people in seats.
I was being a bit facetious. I was drawing an analogy to the types of artsy films that typically win the Awards at the academy. It's no secret that the Academy tends to ignore blockbusters, certain genre films and always has unless it's for something like FX, sound or something like that. You are making a strawman argument in that I mean every single one that makes money deserves an award. Nobody is arguing a Transformers movies deserves best picture.
I am just saying that just because something makes a ton of money, is a certain genre doesn't mean it doesn't deserve consideration for best picture, best actor/actress etc. The Academy still has some work to do there but has made progress. There is a stigma that comes with certain types of films and it seems like they are automatically disqualified if it doesn't fit into the Academy mold. Hell even if thay magically get nominated (i.e. Raiders of the Lost Ark) which is rare, 99% of the time they have no shot against the likes of Chariots of Fire in the eyes of the Academy. They nominated Prizzi's Honor over Back to the Future. Why? Because the Academy though it was just a teen genre movie not worthy. Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Who Frame Roger Rabbit, The Dark Knight, Aliens, SW: Empire Strikes Back, Boys n the Hood...etc.. I would have to think about it but I bet I could make a long list of films that didn't fit the Academy mold over the years that at least deserved a nomination. I have not even thought about horror films.
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
He was probably working, because, you know, he's Tom Cruise. But so what? Credit where credit is due. I'd think you of all people would appreciate that.
The mystery of Thomas Cruise's location on Oscar night has been solved:
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
Rivercard
Too much good stuff
Meh, IMO Blockbusters and blockbuster sequels in general tend to be rather formulaic and not especially innovative or creative. Planes fly, things blow up, batsuits are worn, etc.
Rivercard
Too much good stuff
I thought Kimmel did a great job. His joke about Robert Blake is getting some flack, but I thought it was funny.
Tom Cruise blows up the Deathstar.
Rivercard
Too much good stuff
Yeehaw, give the people what they want and they'll come back again again again. I'm in!
Rivercard
Too much good stuff
Seems like it would be rather awkward to give a special call out of appreciation to TGM apart from all the other nominated work.
Chaplin
Better off silent
The Oscars being awkward? Wut?
I'm not even saying TGM specifically. I guess nobody actually cares about how important the success of that movie meant to the industry.
OP
OP
The Best Makeup win for The Whale has gotten some interesting/mixed reactions on Twitter:
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
