MovieChat Forums > The Shape of Water (2017) Discussion > why does this deserve best film/director...

why does this deserve best film/director over Blade Runner 2?


Why?

reply

Because the protagonists were a deaf autistic woman, an oppressed black woman and an oppressed gay man. Also, the antagonist was an evil heterosexual christian white man and the theme of the story centered around alternate sexualities. This entitled it to win over the patriarchal values implicit in Blade Runner 2

reply

She wasn't deaf, she was a mute.

reply

[deleted]

Perhaps because Blade Runner 2 is a sequel that wasn't even nominated. Whereas The Shape of Water is a beautifully shot and acted movie that's relatively original and with a lot of subtext.
I have to admit I've not seen Blade Runner 2 and despite having watched the original many times over the years I'm not particularly interested in doing so.

reply

You better watch it then because its almost as good as the original

reply

fair enough

reply

"beautifully shot" – True. But BR2049 was at least equally visually beautiful, and on a more ambitious scale.

"relatively original" – Is it? I saw it as an amphibian version of stories like Beauty and the Beast, Edward Scissorhands, and several others, but with more fish sex and way less heart.

"a lot of subtext" – What is all this subtext? I keep hearing people talk about this movie like it's deeper than it appears, and I'm not seeing it.

I'm thinking it comes down to categoric appeal between the two flicks. BR2049 is too sci-fi and "cold" to be as "appealing", while the shape of water is warmer and quaint - though interestingly I don't find it to be any more human or sensitive than BR. Both movies have their flaws. I think it's hard to dispute that BR is at least "objectively equal" in the aesthetic / acting / originality / depth departments, if not a notch above. Definitely recommend checking it out!

reply

Sci-fi often seems to be ignored when it comes to award time but I'm not sure if that's straight forward genre discrimination or the kinds of story that gets filmed in main-stream sci-fi movies.

I don't usually watch a film looking for deeper meanings but for me a lot of the sub-text was delivered by Michael Shannon's nasty Strickland character. I saw him as a 1950's macho man crashing in to the present. His attitude to Octavia Spencer's 'people', his desire (almost a fetish) for a woman who, to paraphrase, 'should be f****d but not heard, his appeal for understanding regarding his failure. His selective quoting and perhaps misunderstanding of the books he was reading. At least in part it was a reflection of so much of the debate we see in America at the moment - at least on twitter.

reply