Discussion Main / OscarBait

We don't need it, but I believe we should keep it because it illustrates perfectly the point the entry (and the movie) was trying to make regarding the use of mentally handicapped characters to fish for Oscars.

It just happens to use an unfortunate word that is (rightfully I may add) more and more seen as offensive and less widely used than it was at the time of the movie's release. I wouldn't call it hate speech or discrimination though, as the point of the speech isn't to attack people with mental disabilities.

Let me use another example. Say we have a quote from a Tarantino movie that contains the word "nigger" or any of its variations. Should we remove the quote entirely, even if outside of that one word it isn't actually attacking black people?

Also, I hope I don't go down in history as "Guy who wanted to keep using R-word".

We're not here to discuss whether "retarded" is on the same level as the N-word, because it certainly isn't.

I'll respond on the associated ATT thread.

For the record, many deem it as discrimination and hate speech and have pushed to make it so. I could provide examples if you like, but let's look at the scene in question.

I get the idea of movies that address something like mental disabilities, or race, or gender, or religion, or any other sensitive topic you would like to name, thinking that those involved are brave to use such content to win Oscars. I do. My takeaway from Tropic Thunder is that it Crosses the Line Twice and much of the humor stems from what the characters do or the writers get away with, kinda like Family Guy except better.

This scene in particular, it serves to spoof or mock the idea sure, but to use another example what if this was on the page for Saving Private Ryan?

As Tom Hanks' character stumbles onto the shores of Normandy the ocean is already wet with the blood of the young men who were just moments ago praying and puking knowing the hell that awaits them. Time seems to stop as the ringing from the shellshock of the landing craft being bombed rages on Captain Miller's mind, the terror of the drowning soldiers, his men running out burning alive, the powerful rounds from the Nazi machine gun bunkers shredding limbs off his comrades as medics futilely cut their hands trying to push back guts and intestines of the wounded a sight that will haunt him for the rest of his days.

A great scene from a great film. One most would know and those who don't can easily look up. Does it need a blow by blow account? Thoughts?

That's... hardly the same. It's not a blow-by-blow, it's a quote. A quote directly discussing this trope.

It's certainly worth mentioning the discussion here and frankly, the quote does a better job illustrating it than talking about the quote would.

If the example is not needed as suggested why then do we want this particular example?

Read Larkmarn's post.

A hate speech filled quote mocking the idea of using people with disabilities to win Oscars is worth mentioning...how exactly?

Read Larkmarn's post. Or since you seem unwilling too:

"the quote does a better job illustrating it than talking about the quote would"

Given the rampant discrimination in said quote is it really needed though? What if it was on race or religion instead?

No, you don't get to remove the quote by edit warring over it when everybody has been against you and told you as much several times.

Okay explain it to me if you would: we don't need the quote as said, we just want it and the fact that the disabled may find it offensive somehow doesn't matter. Am I getting it wrong somehow?

Okay, so to update: The quote (and by extension, the example) was pulled based on mod Fighteer saying in Ask The Tropers that the section it was in was a mess, which may be another discussion. He also explicitly said that pulling it solely because it has a quote that uses an offensive word is not grounds for pulling it. The example (and quote) have since been moved to the "Spoofs" section with fixed indentation.

Now, we can discuss if the quote is necessary or helpful here. TS, you're currently outvoted at the moment and have thus far offered no argument other than the "it's an offensive word" which is moot. If you have any other arguments, or suggested fixes, I'm happy to hear them.

Yes. It is a generalization, it is natter, it is a violation of example sorting. Hence the quote should not be used to describe oscar bait. Now as far as moving it to say it is a spoof of this trope, seeing as it is a contested entry I'd probably want to ask if that would be okay first. I don't have a huge problem with it but maybe a mod voice should have their say first.

You seem to have no idea what was wrong with the exampke in the first place based on that last post.

Please, try to just make some sort of argument without just going "it's offensive and must go". You repeating yourself is just tiring.

This was actually Fighteer's argument so I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm repeating myself. Either way whether or not the example is here isn't going to keep me up at night so if you want it that badly you can have it.

The only film that I've seen that can qualify for this trope is Seven Pounds, most definitely, but it's not even on here (but somehow American Beauty is??)

Drama =/= Oscar Baiting.

Methinks that unless the film is already out, one doesn't need to worry about troping it.

Making cynical assumptions about tropers' cynical assumptions about studio executives' cynical assumptions about audiences? We need to go deeper.

Seriously, though, the most I'd suggest, if anything, is slapping the page with a YMMV tab — it's happening to everything else remotely contentious these days, after all — but the examples listed shouldn't be pruned as long as reasons are given for their inclusion in the first place. Otherwise it just boils down to Complaining About People Not Liking the Show. (Honestly, American Beauty is the film that comes to mind when I think Oscar Bait, and at least one other person obviously thought of it as such, as I wasn't the one who added it to the list — though having been subjected to it at least four times throughout screenwriting class in college, I might be inclined to if it weren't there already.)

As for the tone of the rest of the page and the "aversions" listed, I think it's at the very least understandable. The trope describes a cynical attempt by filmmakers to bash viewers over the head with what emotions they should be feeling and how profound they ought to find the film's message, and an equally cynical attempt by studio execs to turn a profit on said exploitation. It's hard to put a friendly face on that. No one would say all movies that qualify as Oscar Bait are bad, but given the generally dead-horse nature of the plot elements that go into this sort of movie, it is a little surprising when one turns out to actually be good. Likewise, I can't fault anyone for finding it just as surprising when a sci-fi or fantasy film gets an Oscar nod, let alone an actual Oscar, simply because the Academy's attitude toward said genres is notoriously "stuffy," as you put it (yes, I do know some Academy members, and have yet to meet one who doesn't think like this).

Anyway, I personally think the page is fine as it is, but if a YMMV tab will rescue it from being put on permanent lockdown and painted with smiley faces, so be it.

Looking over some of the articles, Oscar Bait can be YMMV topic. Case in point: The Artist. This page says that it's an aversion (being listed under the aversion's list for entertaining audiences but also being an Oscar favourite) but on it's own page, Oscar Bait is listed as a trope played straight (for being B & W and silent). What's constitutes as Oscar Bait does differ with at least two people out there.

It should certainly be YMMV, with the examples all lumped together with no "aversions" or "exceptions." While the meaning of "Oscar Bait" may be objective enough, its actual hallmarks are continually evolving, "Seinfeld is Unfunny"/"Follow the Leader"-style.

This is exactly why the term is so obnoxious: it means essentially whatever the person who's saying it wants it to mean, and lots of movies are only associated with the term retroactively. Do you think American Beauty was considered Oscar Bait when it was first released in 1999? But now it's considered the pinnacle of Oscar Bait? Why?

It's just another cynical and snarky way of dismissing movies that are sincere attempts to create serious films for adult audiences, something we don't see often enough these days.

I completely agree, Hammerhead.

(nothing)

It got four nominations. That's SOMETHING. But nothing for the Big Prizes.