Shit I'm very impressed with your paint job. Much better skills then me.... That's why in part I hate building models. I hate the painting part, so try to avoid that if possible, or just don't do it depending on what subject the model is.
Apparently people on the internet think that every movie that can quantified as "good" should get an Oscar nod. I liked Wonder Woman, I thought it was a great movie that had some good depth to it and worked, in part, well as even just a "war movie" with WW seeing the horrors of the war on the people, her break-down over the destruction of the town, etc. But I don't think there was anything stellar, ground breaking or even that noteworthy about the acting, script, direction or any technical elements other than it being better than what we've seen in the other DCU movies. It was a good movie. Nothing in it, though, I would say is "Oscar Worthy." But, apparently, people think any movie that's even slightly "good" should get nominated for an Oscar no matter how impractical and illogical that it.
I thought it was just a OK, moderately entertaining product and because its contemporary DC movies range from mediocre (Man Of Steel) to fooking shite (Suicide Squad), in addition to the zeitgeist of female empowerment, it got overhyped to Hell and back as supposedly the best DC movie since The Dark Knight (when in the cold light of day Wonder Woman will not age as well as even the semi-maligned The Dark Knight Rises!).
I loved it, but even I was a bit shocked when people started talking about it being an Best Picture contender. It did what it did very well, but there really wasn't anything that noteworthy about it did. Of all the big blockbuster movies that came out this year, the only one I saw which I actually could have seen as a nominee was Logan, which I thought was a lot more unique and noteworthy than WW. Logan did get a nomination for it's screenplay, which I do think it deserved. The only reason I thought a nomination for WW might have been possible, is because a few years ago they said that the Oscars were possibly going start giving a bit more attention to the big, popular blockbusters.
I'm honestly not disappointed by WW receiving no Oscar nommination, merely surprised, as the Oscars really aren't about quality, really, but about what people liked. There was this thing about 12 Years A Slave where a majority of people who voted for the movie for Best Picture hadn't seen it and just thought it should win based on the subject matter, which kind of illustrates the point. And if it were about quality, I'd find the snub of Valerian in SFX and the design categories far more outrageous.
Wonder Woman was never going get Oscar nominations for anything. I don't know why some people are trying to make a big deal out of it.
If by "people" you're referring to folks go to movies, you're wrong. The popularity of a movie has had little to nothing to do with Best Picture noms in many years. Just look at a list of past winners and nominees. If by "people" you mean academy voters, well that's the way it's supposed to be. My understanding of the process is that Academy members vote in categories that correspond to their respective backgrounds in the industry. Actors don't get a vote in the tech categories, tech people don't get a vote in the acting categories, etc. I never heard anything about this. Do you have a citation?
I was referring to Academy members. And I admittedly phrased it so poorly, it came out as the opposite of what I meant (as the thing about 12 Years A Slave kinda contradicts the "vote for liking best" point). I was in a hurry and didn't check what I had written. What I meant to say is, Academy members vote not just by the work itself, but people they like and issues they want to promote. As we all do, subconsciously, in many of our decisions in life. I checked, and I actually misremembered (in my defense, it's been four years). It wasn't a majority at any stretch, but as the LA Times reported back then: So, yeah, no majority in any sense, but two that we know of.
Honestly I felt that, while not a dumpster fire like Suicide Squad or misjudged mediocrity like Man Of Steel, Wonder Woman was a bit middle of the road like the average MCU output, such as Doctor Strange (for example). TDKR, despite its faults, felt more special to me as it capped off the Nolan series. And the rave reviews over the slightly above average Wonder Woman after a couple of years of misfires (it's just pretty good people!) highlights what dire creative straits the DCEU is stuck in...
I don't think anybody involved with 'Wonder Woman' did so with the expectation or even hope that it'd be Oscar material. Indeed I'd say this movie felt more like the beginning of something than a culmination. A foundation to build on rather than an end-goal in and of itself, and as such expecting that level of recognition straight out of the gate is just unrealistic. There's also the fact the people that vote on these things are still mostly crusty old white guys, so the nominations & winners are always going to be skewed in that direction, with the odd quite obviously conscious decision to reward a particular actor or director with a win that allows them to command a higher fee. That's just how Hollywood works. So again, not on the cards for WW. All that said I think WW deserved all the praise it's received, both for being a genuinely good and entertaining movie despite a few flaws and because it did so in the midst of it's DCU stablemates which have been just downright schizophrenic. I've seen people try and downplay it, but it really can't be understated what an achievement it is simply for this movie to exist and work as well as it does.