Forum - View topicNEWS: Miyazaki's The Wind Rises to Open in U.S. in February With Dub & Subs
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PurpleWarrior13
 Posts: 2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
What proof do you have? I'm not saying they definitely would have been nominated, but there's no evidence that suggests that they wouldn't have either. 
Dude, it was the first 2D Japanese film in five years to top $100m, and SURPASSED Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, and AVATAR in admissions. If that's not "great" I don't know what is...
The shows have similar demographics, but neither is "family". Teenage shows =/= family shows.
Not necessarily. Is Satan's School for Girls "family programming"? What about Pretty Little Liars? |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15321 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Purplewarrior:
Well, as I pointed out before, Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust didn't get nominated, and it has the same amount of violence. And the Academy hates downer movies, so 'Fireflies is automatically out.
Again, it did that after Miyazaki's retirement announcement and his anti-war comments. It was going nowhere before then. Before that, I was reading an article where it said Japanese audiences were bored watching it.
If they have topical issues which are meant to be discussed with family members-i.e. "very special episodes"-then they qualify as family shows.
For paranoid Christian viewers, probably.
I haven't seen that one, but probably not. Still, as I noted before, when I used quotes, it's not strictly family programming. But I imagine that is the bulk of their line-up. Or it skews to that demo. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
PurpleWarrior13
Posts: 2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
That's not proof. That's an assumption. Also, Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust came out in 2000. One year BEFORE the Animated Feature category existed. THIS is your proof that the academy hates violent animated films?!
Also The Wind Rises is not nearly as violent as VHD:B. The two should never, ever be compared. What makes you think the Academy hates downer movies? Look at the movies that have won! The Best Picture category ALWAYS has at least one "downer" movie nominated. Even "downer" animated films have been nominated.
So what? The film ended up being a hit. What's your point? Why are you trying to make it seem like it was a disappointment and audiences hated it? What beef do you have with The Wind Rises? LOTS of films take time to build, and even then, The Wind Rises still started off strong. As strong as most Ghibli films? Maybe not, but the film eventually built up an audience and was a hit. A pretty big one too.
Yes, but Daria was not this.
Explain to me how this is a family film in any context of the word? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan%27s_School_for_Girls_%282000_film%29
It might (the channel does have a mix, like I mentioned earlier), but that still doesn't prove that Daria is a family show. 
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15321 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Purple:
It was made in 2000, but it was not on home video or in theaters yet, so it qualified. Urban Vision was actively involved in trying to get it on the nomination ballot, and one of their reps complained that they had more bureaucracy in the registration process than Der Mouse.
No, but Princess Mononoke is as violent as VHD: Bloodlust.
Ok, so name me a movie with a bad ending which recently won BP.
For example?
I don't have any beef. I'm just saying that if Japanese audiences did not warm up to it easily, then why would the Academy?
It discussed bulimia in one episode.
Explain to me how an R-rated Mel Gibson movie about Jesus being beaten to a pulp is a wholesome Christian movie. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
PurpleWarrior13
Posts: 2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
I see a release date for August 25, 2000. I don't think it would have been eligible. Even if it was eligible, maybe the academy didn't think it was as good as Shrek, Monsters Inc, or Jimmy Neutron (all of which were critically acclaimed)? Remember, there were only THREE nominations and your opinion =/= the academy's opinion.
Princess Mononoke didn't come out when the category existed, and there's nothing that proves that it would or wouldn't have been nominated.
Lots of emotional films have been nominated or won the award fairly recently such as (note: these are only the films that I am familiar with, there very well could be others, and I'm pretty sure that is the case) Amour, War Horse, Black Swan, Precious, Benjamin Button, Brokeback Mountain, Million Dollar Baby (if that doesn't have a "downer" ending, I don't know what does), and back in the 90s, Titanic, Forrest Gump, and Schindler's List were all Academy darlings. If you want me to go back to 1928, I can.
It means very little considering that the Academy's opinion =/= general public's, and even then, while The Wind Rises did cause controversy (not unlike some other Oscar-bait films), but it's general reception is pretty good from what I've been reading.
A show dealing with teen issues still makes it a show for teens.
The Passion of the Christ is also certainly not a family film (and comparing it to Satan's School for Girls is silly since it wasn't even ever MARKETED as a family movie, but as a TV horror movie). What does that film have to do with anything? Last edited by PurpleWarrior13 on Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:42 am; edited 2 times in total |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
The Departed, that ended unwell for most of the cast. Hurt Locker wasn't exactly an uplifting experience at the end. Million Dollar Baby. Let me guess, those aren't recent enough and you only meant the last three Best Pictures so your tiny little point can be won. I wouldn't say they always have downers nominated, it really depends on that year's crop of Oscar bait and actually decent films. Like 2007 had quite a few downer films all vying for the top. And now with the category expanded, so are the chances of seeing them at least nominated. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15321 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Purple:
It still was not on home video. And festival screenings do not count for "theatrical".
Most of those films did not win Best Picture.
My point was *had* the category existed, it wouldn't have gotten in. And I guess a good equivalent which was eligible, which proves my point, is Beowulf.
There are plenty of family sitcoms which suggest otherwise.
So why did Lord of the Rings 3 and Titanic get in? walw:
No, you had better examples. Though The Departed was an exception, because they snubbed Scorsese, and Hurt Locker was really just there to check James Cameron's ego after Avatar. Plus, there was a bit of affirmative action involved, considering |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
PurpleWarrior13
Posts: 2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
It was still released in the 2000 awards time span, but like I said, even if it was 100% eligible, what makes you ASSUME the Academy would automatically nominate it?
So what? The Academy still recognized them. Also, Million Dollar Baby, which was THE saddest film I mentioned DID get the statue. Not to mention lots of other films over the award's 80 year history.
Once again, what proof do you have that it would or wouldn't have been nominated? Not assumptions, PROOF. Also, there you go again ASSUMING a film should have been nominated. Don't ASSUME something is a miss because one film in particular should have been nominated.
Yes, but Daria is not one of them...
Oh my god. I didn't say the Academy's opinions DIRECTLY were against everyone's. I was saying the public's opinions won't NECESSARILY align with the Academy's. Both Titanic and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King were popular with audiences AND critics AND the goddamn Academy... |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15321 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Purple:
I'm saying they wouldn't nominate it, because of the violence. You're the one telling me they would.
The majority of winners are feel-good pics, though.
Again, has any animated film with the violent content of VHD: Bloodlust or Princess Mononoke gotten in thus far? Waltz with Bashir had the best chance, and had the most critical support for an R-rated toon, but didn't make it.
So what makes Spirits Within better than Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust?
Ok, so if Daria isn't for family audiences, then why is Juno? |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
CrowLia
 Posts: 5505 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Come on guys, stop this. We all know there's a massive conspiration going on in which Pixar, in its attempt to take over the world and become the greatest overlords by brainwashing our children, have paid insane amounts of money to the academy so that only their films get nominated and win awards, and everything else gets blatantly ignored. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Academy's subjective tastes -regardless of what we may think of them- and whatever secret criteria they hold over what deserves an "Animation" award. Pixar just felt threatened by the Japan power and is doing everything they can to shut down all their opportunities of exposure, and they're also really evil.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
PurpleWarrior13
Posts: 2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
^ Maybe, but John Laseter is a huge Miyazaki fan.
I'm not saying they would. I'm not saying it alone makes any difference at all. Again, what PROOF (not assumptions) do you have that they would refuse to nominate a particular film SOLELY on the basis of it's violence?
Yes, but that means absolutely nothing when tragic films have won too. Especially since there are more feel-good films made than tragic films.
Not proof man, all assumptions. Try again.
What does that have to do with the tea in China?
Who said Juno was? Certainly not me. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15321 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Crowlia:
Yep. 
Again, if you weren't being bought off, would you really choose Shark Tale over Ghost in the Shell 2?
Pretty much. That's why they've co-opted anime fans by pretending to *always* have liked Ghibli, even though they looked the other way on Disney burying the library back in the late 90s, early 2000s. Purple:
Pause.
The category's been open for over a decade now with plenty of R-rated animated films which did not make the cut, even though they got good reviews. Bashir also had the best shot and the biggest push, and it didn't make it. What else do you need?
There's plenty of tragedy porn out there.
Ok, so I'll bring it back to you, then. If it's all assumptions, then why have they only picked films with no higher rating than a PG-13?
VHD: Bloodlust has a higher RT score than Spirits Within. It didn't bomb like Spirits Within. But money talks, so VHD: Bloodlust was shut out.
It's marketed to 'em. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
PurpleWarrior13
Posts: 2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Most likely, there just haven't been any R-rated films make the cut against the competition. Until there's concrete proof, all we can do is make assumptions.
Does porn get Academy Award nominations?
Like I said above, it's likely that no R-rated animated film (not that there's a whole lot of them. There's even fewer submitted) has made the cut up against the competition. Once again, consider that only 3-5 films (usually 3) are nominated.
There are LOTS of examples of films with high Rotten Tomatoes scores that aren't nominated, and films with lower scores that are. Does RT determine what does and doesn't get nominated? Same with money. Lots of flops have been nominated, and lots of hits have been shunned (this number is even less relevant since the Academy frequently nominated indie films).
No it wasn't... |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15321 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Purple:
Waltz with Bashir is 96% Fresh. The only thing that ranked the same as it that year was Wall-E. I'm not sure what else it would need to do to make the cut.
Well, Midnight Cowboy was originally X-rated when it got nominated, but that didn't entirely mean pornographic back then. I'm not sure of any recent NC-17 films which got in, though. If anyone wants to mention any, they'd be welcome to do so.
So you're supporting my point that the reasons behind their choices are generally of a political nature, and not based on the quality of the film, itself.
It helps.
Most of the time, yes.
If it wasn't marketed to them, she wouldn't be giving her kid away to a surrogate mother and father. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
PurpleWarrior13
Posts: 2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Read my post about Rotten Tomatoes.
I don't think there's been any. I know for a fact that the Oscars have been porn-free.
No. I'm just saying that the Academy's opinion is all that matters when it comes to getting films nominated.
Positive critical reception certainly helps, but it doesn't guarantee anything. Just like a critical failure won't guarantee a film being out of the race (though it certainly wouldn't help matters).
That means absolutely nothing. While I wouldn't call the film inappropriate for a family audience, it's certainly not a "family" film. Her not keeping the baby wouldn't make sense in the story Diablo Cody was trying to tell. Same with her keeping it herself. Also, a surrogate mother is the woman having the baby for another family. Juno gave away her child to adopting parents. If you REALLY want to continue discussing all this (frankly, I'd love love to just move on), then by all means PM the hell out of me. This thread is old and long derailed. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group