literally the worst piece of garbo i've seen last year, no idea why people like this gay agenda propaganda

@nolesjs17 said:

It definitely wasn't the best picture. It wasn't as good as Manchester by the Sea, Arrival, or Nocturnal Animals(which I don't even think was nominated). It's kind of annoying when a film receives awards just for having homosexual characters. In 2009 Sean Penn didn't deserve best actor either. Also, the actor that won best supporting for moonlight was only in the film for about 20 minutes. Was his performance better than Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water? This year the Oscars proved they're a complete joke.

All films were well acted, but I think Moonlight gets the nod for its cinematography. That being said, I don't think it was an excellent film. Hell or High Water and Nocturnal Animals were also extremely overrated. A lot of these films being made today are slow-paced and are content in taking the scenic route to tell a story. Although, I'm not someone who requires action every 10 seconds, I do believe a lot of the details included in the film are unnecessary. What results is a long, plodding, often depressing, tale that could have been told in less time with more creativity and nuance.

Do you guys really think Moonlight's cinematography was better than La La Land or Lion?

I've learned that if a film has "Oscar-buzz", it's not worth watching. I wasted so many hours of my life watching too much garbage. From now on, it's Beethoven sequels for me.

@buttholes4days said:

literally the worst piece of garbo i've seen last year, no idea why people like this gay agenda propaganda

There's zero 'gay agenda propaganda' in this movie. Nearly all the gay references are actually pejoratives. There is a brief gay scene that suggests more than it shows, which is balanced by one of the characters in that scene also being involved in a slightly more explicit hetero sex scene.

The story is about finding an identity in an environment that doesn't allow for it. The central character could just have easily been some other form of different: like autistic, or a talented writer. The idea that the central character who is gay but also celibate goes nowhere near being 'propaganda'. Ffs it purposefully skirts the issue throughout.

Complaining about the themes of this movie is like going to a Western and complaining it had too many horses in it.

@Dehbee said:

This kind of post is the reason IMDB forum was shut down.

Doubtful. They were more than likely getting sh!t from their advertisers (e.g. film studios).

@Heisenberg12 said:

@RCH2288 said:

Boring AF. Should have called it Blackchester by the Sea

Come on. Everyone knows why this won.

This was the line for me. it's clear the Oscars no longer wants to be viewed as credible. They just want to make political statements. They're no longer interested in what makes a truly great, enjoyable film. Want to win an Oscar nomination for best pic? Make a movie about blacks in the ghetto. Want to win the Oscar? Make the main character gay. You win!

Got that right.

Movie awards are just a part of movie marketing. In the digital era outrage has become a marketing tool.

Historically, lots of good movies have missed out. That's not a recent phenomenon. Sometimes, a real turkey wins. The Greatest Show on Earth for example.

And playing nuns, priests, concentration camp inmates or survivors, tortured artists or inventors, historical figures, and cripples has always been a short cut to an acting award. So Hollywood has been telling us what it thinks politically and socially since forever.

That it starts to bother you now probably says more about you than the movie you are complaining about. A movie that was clearly labelled as to content and that no one obliged you to see.

@MongoLloyd said:

@Dehbee said:

This kind of post is the reason IMDB forum was shut down.

Doubtful. They were more than likely getting sh!t from their advertisers (e.g. film studios).

It's obvious that content providers hated the instant feedback they got on the imdb boards.

Amazon owns imdb and they are a content provider themselves.

One of the reasons they gave for closing the forums was 'The boards were costly to run due to the system's age and dated design, which did not make business sense.' But that can't explain why every single post ever made on the site was trashed. It would have cost them nothing to have archived it.

And anyway, user generated content is at the heart of the business model of Facebook, Twitter and all the other internet corporate behemoths. No, the problem was they couldn't control the narrative.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

It's obvious that content providers hated the instant feedback they got on the imdb boards.

And IMDb are most definitely moderating the user reviews and I suspect are selling user ratings.

I wouldn't go that far. But astroturfing is a well documented phenomenon and I see no reason to think imdb is some kind of exception.

I mostly see troll farms working on the comments sections of news stories, but that is probably more a reflection on how I use the internet.

Iirc, imdb has admitted that its algorithm for ratings is weighted (ie biased) but hasn't given detail. So not all ratings are treated equally.

But I can't see studios and agents risking criminal sanctions by paying Amazon for biased ratings when armies of sock puppets can be engaged, from a suitable legal distance, for peanuts.