Half of them were in the friggin' movie. Why would they give "Lincoln" the most noms at each of these ceremonies and then vote for another picture?
Because Spielbergo demanded it.
Because it was a shitty and whitewashed piece of crap.
Because Hollywood can't take the fact that Republicans were the anti slavery party and the Democrats were pro slavery.
Because it is a great movie with a brilliant screenplay acted superbly. Ask a stupid question and you will get an obvious answer.
It's boring. ...and you know it. A performance by one or two actors doesn't make a movie great...
Because it's friggin HOLLYWOOD.
It doesn't get more Hollywood than a Kathleen Kennedy production of a Steven Spielberg movie.
It is simply not that good. Spielberg lost his touch long ago and while DDL is magnificent and the screenplay solid the whole thing is not very cinematic. It has an uneven pace, one moment it tries to be a serious drama then the next you have three characters that seem to belong to a stooges movie. It is a cold movie for the most part, so when Spielberg puts his signature sentimentality, like Lincoln watching his son or walking down the hallway while the noble black servant watches him with a look of admiration, all of that while a rehash of 5 different John Williams scores plays, it all feels very fake.
It may sound like I completely hate the movie but I don't. There are many things that you can admire, performances and screenplay mostly. It is miles better than Spielberg's last POS, but the fact that everyone kept shouting "THIS IS A MASTERPIECE, IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT MOVIE SO YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT" obviously turned off a lot of voters.
Argo is an nice movie where Hollywood saves the day. They are going to feel good choosing that. After Lincoln is the safest choice.
With the exception of Les Mis, all the other BP nominees would be more worthy winners than Lincoln and Argo. A lame ending to an exciting race.
I watched it a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember much about it. That says it all.
Because it sucked and the Academy is paying lip service to Spielberg and everyone knows it.
For the same reason they waited until after the election to show it, Republicans freed the slaves and are the bastions of the civil rights movement(Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican) and the Democrats are the party of the KKK, Jim Crowe, and keeping the masses chained to their masters (now the gubment is the master)
It is an admirable movie but not an inspired one, and again the script to me comes off as Aaron Sorkin lite. And don't get me started on that opening scene where the black fanboys were quoting the Gettysburg address. This all seemed so fresh when it was the first season of The West Wing.
Here here R11.
It's "Hear Hear", R13. Think about it.
No it isn't hear hear.
It is actually both in America. Here here and hear hear.
Actually, here here is used more but hear hear is technically correct. Both are accepted.
It IS "Hear, hear."
[quote]Dear Straight Dope:
[quote]When you agree with someone, do you say "Here Here!" or "Hear Hear" ? And what does it mean? What is the origin of "Here Here" or "Hear Hear"?
[quote]The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"
[quote]Of course, if the speaker is actually asking a question, such as "and just where do you think we should open the new strip club?" it's not hard to imagine that at least one yahoo in attendance might yell, "here, here!" But this would be the exception that proves the rule.
Because so many people associated with the film are insufferable pricks.
Dear god the trolls are tiresome. Everyone who knows anything about US history is well aware that the Republicans were the party that ended slavery. What happened in the 1860s has nothing to do with our current political dynamics and it seems so sad to see people trying to cling to that.
And I agree with R8, matches my feelings about it exactly.
Did you know that Marilyn Monroe was a size 16? No things never change over time.
Since when does preferring one movie to another equate with not liking the one you prefer less?
I like Lincoln. It doesn't mean I have to think it's the best movie of the year.
I happen to prefer some other films i saw this year to Lincoln. That doesn't mean that those films deserved as many oscar nominations as Lincoln did. Even movies I don't like at all can deserve multiple nominations because their individual achievements merit recognition. There are bad movies with great performances, bad movies with exquisite cinematography, even bad scripts that are brilliantly directed.
I happen to love the art direction and score for Anna Karenina. The fact that I think the movie is a huge disappointment doesn't change that. I happen to love the cinematography of The Mater and Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance. The fact that I couldn't stand the movie doesn't change that. In addition
Lincoln is a beautifully shot movie, it's technically exquisite in all respects and the cast is outstanding. Hell, I would have nominated james Spader in addition to Day-Lewis, Field and Jones. And it's a good movie, in fact a very good one.
That doesn't mean I have to think it's the best movie of the year.
So if one likes, for example, Amour or Argo much more than Lincoln, that means that one doesn't like Lincoln or that one thinks that it didn't deserve its numerous nominations?
No. It doesn't.
Because it kind of sucked. Totally unrealistic and superficial.
Puzzling. I thought it was the best movie of the year by far. I liked Argo and Silver Lining Playbook, but thougt Lincoln worked on every level. It aimed big and delivered big. I think it is the best work Spielberg, DDL and Jones have done in years and the best work ever from Kushner and Field.
[quote]I happen to love the art direction and score for Anna Karenina. The fact that I think the movie is a huge disappointment doesn't change that.
I saw it for a second time recently and it was much better. I appreciate what Wright was doing, even if sometimes didn't work... but when it worked? My god! The waltz, the horse race, that beautiful "Did no mean never?" scene, some of the best movie moments of the year.
In a perfect world Anna Karenina would be a lock for Production design, costumes and especially score. I'm hopin that it wins at least two of those.
[quote]Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican
Personally, I did not find the movie compelling, and debris from its construction was showing throughout. Maybe I would have been compelled if it were the first movie I'd ever seen.
As for The Academy, we can only guess. But all of highly-distributed filmmaking is pretty arbitrary, and which ones are acclaimed and/or win awards are even more (systematically) random.
And I'm sorry, but...Daniel Day Lewis' performance came off more contrived than I'd ever seen from him. It got old and annoying after 20 minutes.
I loved Lincoln. I saw it twice. Argo has no chance to win best picture.
Lincoln is a very good movie. My favorites were Life Of Pi and Beasts Of The Southern Wild. I would give it to BOTSW.
It was a pretty racist movie. No mention of Frederick Douglass or other black leaders in the abolition movement and then that horribly racist scene with Thaddeus Stevens and his housekeeper. I'm sure white people who love to pat themselves on the back for being so tolerant loved it and can't understand why some would call it racist.
DL has really become the receptical of the disgruntled and angry. Lincoln is a magnificent film, perhaps also one of those accurate cinematic histories as well- with a brilliant script.
Spielberg is a terrible Oscar campaigner, which makes sense considering his power in Hollywood. He spends most of his time being flattered by everyone around him, so it's hard for him to flatter Oscar voters whenever he has a film in contention. Voters like underdogs, and it's hard to feel Spielberg is one when he does things like enlisting Bill Clinton to introduce his movie at the Golden Globes.
Merits of the film aside, who really feels like giving the most powerful man in Hollywood, a guy who can enlist former presidents to shill for his movie, more trophies to boost his ego?
[quote]Because it kind of sucked. Totally unrealistic and superficial.
It did not suck, give me a break.
Leos Carax's HOLY MOTORS was absolutely the best film of 2012. Go see it.
Most film execs will drive a Cadillac SUV. Lincoln is not considered classy at all.
The screenplay didn't seem very gay to me at all.
I don't think it was overtly racist at all, but the absence of Frederick Douglass is mind boggling.
Not enough tits and ass. Not enough special effects. Boring. Plus, i already knew how it ended
[quote]Merits of the film aside, who really feels like giving the most powerful man in Hollywood, a guy who can enlist former presidents to shill for his movie, more trophies to boost his ego?
I refute your theory with two words: Harvey Weinstein.
Harvey Weinstein may be powerful, R40, but he never places himself front and center of his campaigns. Rewarding "The Artist" or "The King's Speech" is about choosing the charming silent movie with the funny dog, or the crowd-pleaser with beloved actors like Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. Notably, Harvey never accepts the prize (at least, not since "Shakespeare in Love.")
In the Oscar race, Spielberg is always the candidate, Weinstein is always the campaigner manager.