It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Coming back 'round quite late but it is f*cking criminal that he didn't get an Oscar nomination for this.
All I'll say is that I hope you aren't one of those people who parrots this bullshit and then proclaims themselves to be a Breaking Bad fan. If so, I have some real troubling news for you re: who directed the greatest episode of that show...
Wasn't it a too obvious Oscar bait?
Is everything that's well-made with strong performances "Oscar bait"? It's a ridiculous term that's thrown around with abandon these days. It's a two-and-a-half hour period piece arthouse film with a climax so cerebral that it goes borderline 2001: a space odyssey near the end. "Oscar bait" is the likes of Crash or Gandhi. Someone calling Queer "Oscar bait" with genuine earnest is someone who hasn't watched it.
I think Craig should have gotten nominated. Not a fan of Queer but his performance was better than Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan, or Sebastian Stan as Trump that year in my opinion.
I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made
Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.
Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.
The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.
If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.
Does Steven Seagal have much of an audience for his movies nowadays? Seems if anything very few people are watching those...
Marketing a movie's a whole thing in itself. Yes, at some point the idea of 'prestige' and who will see this film will be considered. Yes, Oscar campaigns and the award business are real in that sense. But what I'm saying is no film is made with the single purpose of simply winning Oscars, even if they're steered in specific directions creatively or in marketing.
Queer cost 50 millons. You don't spend that money if you don't have the awards in mind.
Look at Babylon. 80 millions. How do you make money without the awards? It's impossible.
I don't think either of those films would be the way they are if they were designed specifically to be 'Oscar baitey' (especially Babylon). Not saying no consideration for award prestige was made when marketing or even making big decisions for these films, but neither were made with the single and only purpose of winning an Oscar.
Well, it must be that they are bad producers, then ;)
Who knows man. Maybe you know better than them ;)
Thank God it wasn't my money.
The poster?
Just kidding.
I found it ironic that DC didn't get a nom for playing (basically) William S. Burroughs...and Sebastian Stan did for his portrayal of Donald Trump.