And The Oscar Nominees Are....

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is Hustle and Flow any good?

Yes. And I think Terrence is a believable dark horse for the win at best actor as well.

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Calis

I do however think Reese deserves the win for actress, and also feel there isn't a lot of competition.

First of all, let me say that I agree with you, I think Reese will win. I also think she is the second best actor of her generation (Kate Winslet would be #1 to my way of thinking.) Having said that, here's my point:

Judi Dench is always competition. She's brillant and the Acadamy likes her, which is a powerful combination.

-Anxiety

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I also think she is the second best actor of her generation

Well, she won't win best actress at that rate.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And as usual. I've seen zero of the nominated best picture movies.

...and haven't even heard of two of them.

Ditto. Ugh, the Oscars need a moneymaking floor- if you can't even reach enough of an audience to get $50M gross in the theater, you don't get invited. I mean, for chrissakes, if Big Momma's House 2 can make $27M in its opening weekend, anything that's not a pile of crap should be able to make $50M. There were 55(!) movies that did that last year and if you can't connect with "the common folk" at least a little, then, either you're horribly advertised or you're not that great- just something pretentious Hollywood types like to fawn about.

Get rid of this arthouse/indy thing. For instance, I want to see "Good Night, Good Luck" but there's only one place who shows it in a 50 mile radius and it's the small and smelly Liberty Hall in downtown Lawrence. If nothing else, that movie should make decent money in big release for having George Clooney. Let everyone see it.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

You'd never see a film about hot lesbians get nominated, that's for sure. That's really what the people want.

I think that's a different awards show

SI

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ditto. Ugh, the Oscars need a moneymaking floor- if you can't even reach enough of an audience to get $50M gross in the theater, you don't get invited. I mean, for chrissakes, if Big Momma's House 2 can make $27M in its opening weekend, anything that's not a pile of crap should be able to make $50M. There were 55(!) movies that did that last year and if you can't connect with "the common folk" at least a little, then, either you're horribly advertised or you're not that great- just something pretentious Hollywood types like to fawn about.

Get rid of this arthouse/indy thing. For instance, I want to see "Good Night, Good Luck" but there's only one place who shows it in a 50 mile radius and it's the small and smelly Liberty Hall in downtown Lawrence. If nothing else, that movie should make decent money in big release for having George Clooney. Let everyone see it.

SI

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think a movie has to be in wide distribution for it to be a good movie. To shift the context a little, just because FOF doesn't have the distribution or name recognition that an EA game has doesn't mean that FOF isn't a great game. Was "Baseball Mogul", when it first came out, not deserving of it's critical acclaim even though that game didn't have distribution reach either?

[Calis]

While we're at it, lets give Pulitzer's out to Danielle Steele and Tom Clancy.

Ughh, when was the last time they let the big money maker have its way? Titanic? Ughh, no thanks.

I guess I just never understood the need for it to be an overly popular movie to win an Oscar, I mean..this isn't the People's Choice award. Not to say that the winners don't suck or don't deserve to. I just don't want to see Star Wars Episode III up there for best picture.

I would love to have an easier time seeing some of these films though. Good Night, and Good Luck I've had the same problem finding, as with Brokeback and Capote was gone very quickly also.

In a perfect world, people would go see movies that didn't suck.

[sterlingice]

That's why it's not some insane floor I propsed: "The Oscars for $300M movies" or some such nonsense. It's $50M gross. That's barely 5 million people in our country. If you can't even connect with under 2% of the country then you're just making movies to pander to the elite.

SI

[stevew]

It would be great if they could work on some sort of "web window" for movies, after the initial theatrical release, and before DVD. For instance you could pay for a downloadable copy that you could watch like 2 times or something from the same machine. Most people easily could run their machine out to a TV if they wanted to. Anything to get the small projects out there that don't have a wide release.

[WVUFAN]

I thought Crash was by far and away the best film of the year. I'm personally tired of biopics of musicians, and Brokeback Mountain was only nominated because it's politically correct to do so (and yes, I've seen the movie)

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by stevew

It would be great if they could work on some sort of "web window" for movies, after the initial theatrical release, and before DVD. For instance you could pay for a downloadable copy that you could watch like 2 times or something from the same machine. Most people easily could run their machine out to a TV if they wanted to. Anything to get the small projects out there that don't have a wide release.

I've been reading about a concept Steven Soderbergh is trying with his latest movie Bubble. It's a low-budget movie about 3 teenagers in a poor West Virginia town. IIRC, it's going to be released on DVD the Tuesday after its Friday theater release.

Edit - so much for my short-term memory. After looking around a bit, it appears as though the movie was released last Friday - in theaters, on DVD, and PPV all on the same day.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I thought Crash was by far and away the best film of the year. I'm personally tired of biopics of musicians, and Brokeback Mountain was only nominated because it's politically correct to do so (and yes, I've seen the movie)

Radii and I both loved Crash as well, I'd like to see this win Best Picture. I think the casting was awesome, and all the actors did a wonderful job. Yes, it was a little over the top and predictable, but most of the movies we see are. I think the message it sent was well worth a little bit of "over the top-ness".

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I've been reading about a concept Steven Soderbergh is trying with his latest movie Bubble. It's a low-budget movie about 3 teenagers in a poor West Virginia town. IIRC, it's going to be released on DVD the Tuesday after its Friday theater release.

Yeah, read about that as well, I know Cuban is involved in that heavily as well.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Calis

While we're at it, lets give Pulitzer's out to Danielle Steele and Tom Clancy.

Ughh, when was the last time they let the big money maker have its way? Titanic? Ughh, no thanks.

I guess I just never understood the need for it to be an overly popular movie to win an Oscar, I mean..this isn't the People's Choice award. Not to say that the winners don't suck or don't deserve to. I just don't want to see Star Wars Episode III up there for best picture.

Since what "sucks" and what doesn't is completely subjective, why shouldn't Star Wars: Ep III be nominated? Because it's Sci-Fi? Or because it doesn't fit within the politicially-charged Hollywood environ? It just seems to me that if a film is enjoyable to the audience it targets, it's a good film, and just because SW isn't targeted to Oscar voters doesn't mean it or others aren't worthy.

To me, financial success of a film should have impact. Despite what others may believe, popularity does indicate quality. If 13 million people like a film and a vocal minority does not, to me, even if I don't like it, it probably means I'm wrong. Example: I wasn't a big fan of Brokeback Mountain -- I wasn't it's target audience, but I recognize it's a good film.

In a perfect world, people would go see movies that didn't suck.

They do, just not the ones you like.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Despite what others may believe, popularity does indicate quality.

[Calis]

I had hoped it was overly obvious that my comment was made in jest.

I was apparently wrong.

There's lots of award shows out there, and there's lots that pander to the general populace. I guess I don't see the need to change how the Oscars works it. Is it sometimes bad now? Most definitely, but I don't think adding in a minimum intake qualifier is going to help in the least.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

Perfect example: to those that this film is designed for, it's a good movie. Just because you or I may not like it has no bearing on this fact. If it sells 50 million, there's good indications it's a good movie, because people are going to see it.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Calis

I had hoped it was overly obvious that my comment was made in jest.

I didn't take offense to your listing Star Wars, I was just using this same example as you did. You can insert any genre movie, and my point stays the same.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If it sells 50 million, there's good indications it's a good movie, because people are going to see it.

I'm not sure it is humanly possible for me to disagree more with this sentiment.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Perfect example: to those that this film is designed for, it's a good movie. Just because you or I may not like it has no bearing on this fact. If it sells 50 million, there's good indications it's a good movie, because people are going to see it.

That's why they have awards shows like People's Choice and the MTV Movie Awards show. I see no reason to change the Oscar's even though I often disagree with their choices. Different awards shows fill different niches.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's why they have awards shows like People's Choice and the MTV Movie Awards show. I see no reason to change the Oscar's even though I often disagree with their choices. Different awards shows fill different niches.

I agree with this, but you also would admit that Oscars carry more weight in the general populace. An Oscar winner is generally considered to be more "legit" than an MTV Award Winner. Why not make the Oscars an indicator of what the general populace think is good? A horror film will never be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar because it's a horror film. A Sci-Fi Film will never win a Best Picture Oscar because it's a sci-fi. Genre films are always excluded, regardless of quality because of their nature, but put a film with a political message like Brokeback Mountain or Syriana and you have yourselves a sure-fire Oscar film.

[Cuckoo]

While I do wholeheartedly agree that quality films of the more "popular" genres such as sci-fi or comedy are often ignored by the Academy, I don't see how that brings us to a component of money the movie brought in at the box office for the award. That seems like quite a leap to me.

Shawshank Redemption was barely thought of at the box office and lost Best Picture to Forrest Gump. Now, however, I think a LOT of people would say Shawshank is the better movie. And Shawshank is often ranked as one of the people's favorites.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I didn't think War of the Worlds was awful. The ending was bad, but the movie as a whole was not awful. I've seen much worse.

I agree. The movie wasn't awful. It sucked, but wasn't awful.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I don't see how that brings us to a component of money the movie brought in at the box office for the award. That seems like quite a leap to me.

Because, generally speaking, the money-makers are the genre films. I am of the opinion that box office sales should have an impact, but nowadays it seems to be the opposite -- the more people stay away from a film (Syriana, Good Night are examples), the more the Academy seems to love them. That just flies in the face of rationality, at least to me.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Because, generally speaking, the money-makers are the genre films. I am of the opinion that box office sales should have an impact, but nowadays it seems to be the opposite -- the more people stay away from a film (Syriana, Good Night are examples), the more the Academy seems to love them. That just flies in the face of rationality, at least to me.

That Return of the King movie sure was a box office stinker.

[John Galt]

dola,

In fact, looking at the most recent best picture winners, almost all of them have been successes at the box office.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That Return of the King movie sure was a box office stinker.

I didn't realize Lord of the Rings was a sci-fi movie, or a horror movie which was my examples. My bad.

Also, considering Return of the King was one of, if not the only fantasy/Sci-Fi film that has won a Best Picture Oscar in 50+ years. Even Star Wars, which has had more of an impact on American society that any other movie of that time, lost to Annie Hall. Don't tell me the Academy doesn't have a genre bias.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Yup, all these Best Picture winners have been duds.

2004 Million Dollar Baby WB $100,492,203
2003 The Return of the King NL $377,027,325
2002 Chicago Mira. $170,687,518
2001 A Beautiful Mind Uni. $170,742,341
2000 Gladiator DW $187,705,427
1999 American Beauty DW $130,096,601
1998 Shakespeare in Love Mira. $100,317,794
1997 Titanic Par. $600,788,188
1996 The English Patient Mira. $78,676,425
1995 Braveheart Par. $75,609,945
1994 Forrest Gump Par. $329,694,499
1993 Schindler's List Uni. $96,065,768
1992 Unforgiven WB $101,157,447
1991 The Silence of the Lambs $130,742,922
1990 Dances With Wolves Orion $184,208,848
1989 Driving Miss Daisy WB $106,593,296
1988 Rain Man MGM $172,825,435

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I didn't realize Lord of the Rings was a sci-fi movie, or a horror movie which was my examples. My bad.

Also, considering Return of the King was one of, if not the only fantasy/Sci-Fi film that has won a Best Picture Oscar in 50+ years. Even Star Wars, which has had more of an impact on American society that any other movie of that time, lost to Annie Hall. Don't tell me the Academy doesn't have a genre bias.

Annie Hall was a better 'film'. I love Star Wars, but that's just a fact.

Why bring the Oscars 'down' to the people? The people have already decided that they think the Oscars, the way they are, deserves the reputation it does. Most people realize that while they liked a schlock blockbuster that it isn't great moviemaking and realize the Oscars reward great filmmaking. The public has decided that an awards show that rewards more than simply making money or showcasing explosions should be treated with more respect than those that do.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Annie Hall was a better 'film'. I love Star Wars, but that's just a fact.

Why bring the Oscars 'down' to the people? The people have already decided that they think the Oscars, the way they are, deserves the reputation it does. Most people realize that while they liked a schlock blockbuster that it isn't great moviemaking and realize the Oscars reward great filmmaking. The public has decided that an awards show that rewards more than simply making money or showcasing explosions should be treated with more respect than those that do.

Yeah, see this is the point of contention: what you define as great filmmaking is not the textbook definition of "great filmmaking". It's what a small, pretentious segment of the population thinks is "great filmmaking" and by claiming the Oscars define "great filmmaking" is what all of us disagree with.

Just because you can make the most pretentious movie which appeals to a bunch of old movie fogies doesn't make it great. Similarly, in class, when you read the "classics", didn't it strike you as odd that they were put on such a lofty perch despite being so darn boring, for the most part?

SI

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Making more money does not equal great filmmaking. With an ad budget of fifty-sixty million like some movies do, I could make home movies of me cutting the grass have a fifty million dollar opening weekend.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, see this is the point of contention: what you define as great filmmaking is not the textbook definition of "great filmmaking". It's what a small, pretentious segment of the population thinks is "great filmmaking" and by claiming the Oscars define "great filmmaking" is what all of us disagree with.

Just because you can make the most pretentious movie which appeals to a bunch of old movie fogies doesn't make it great. Similarly, in class, when you read the "classics", didn't it strike you as odd that they were put on such a lofty perch despite being so darn boring, for the most part?

SI

The public has decided that these people's opinions on what are the best movies deserves a Hell of a lot of weight. Therefore it isn't a "small, pretentious segment" that defines something that "all of us disagree with". Most people agree with them and that is why the Oscars have the status that it does.

As for "classic" books. Give me Les Miserable over Steven King anyday.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

C'mon now, the Academy has totally overlooked The Longest Yard & Fantastic 4.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The public has decided that these people's opinions on what are the best movies deserves a Hell of a lot of weight. Therefore it isn't a "small, pretentious segment" that defines something that "all of us disagree with". Most people agree with them and that is why the Oscars have the status that it does.

As for "classic" books. Give me Les Miserable over Steven King anyday.

Actually the bigger problem is that self-proclaimed movie snobs think they hold weight while a significant portion of us think they don't. Yet, you seem to think that an Oscar is valid scoreboard for bragging rights ("This movie won/is nominate for the Oscar, it's the better").

And way to make a fair comparison on the "classic" books front. Next let me compare the English Patient to, say, one of the other two LotR movies...

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Actually the bigger problem is that self-proclaimed movie snobs think they hold weight while a significant portion of us think they don't. Yet, you seem to think that an Oscar is valid scoreboard for bragging rights ("This movie won/is nominate for the Oscar, it's the better").

And way to make a fair comparison on the "classic" books front. Next let me compare the English Patient to, say, one of the other two LotR movies...

SI

The first LotR movie was nominated for an Oscar, so you can't really use that one (and I thought TTT sucked, so that won't work with me either). While I thought the plot of the English Patient was kinda boring, I can't deny the directing and acting were top notch.

And YES, most people think the Oscars hold weight and a small amount of 'anti-movie snobs' think they don't. You have it backwards. You think only a small amount of people think the Oscars are valid scoreboard for good movies, when it is only a small amount that think they don't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lemme see here ...

78th Annual Academy Awards Nominations
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE -- check
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- check
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- check
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- check
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM OF THE YEAR -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION --check
ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING -- check
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE -- check
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING -- check
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM OF THE YEAR -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES(ORIG SCORE) check
ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES(ORIG SONG) check
BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR -- check
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS -- check
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY -- check
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY -- check

Total number of nominees in the above categories I've seen -- Zero

But I did see one of these:
ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
CINDERELLA MAN
STAR WARS: EPISODE III REVENGE OF THE SITH

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme see here ...

78th Annual Academy Awards Nominations
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE -- check
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- check
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- check
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- check
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM OF THE YEAR -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION --check
ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING -- check
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE -- check
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING -- check
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM OF THE YEAR -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES(ORIG SCORE) check
ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES(ORIG SONG) check
BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR -- check
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING -- check
ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS -- check
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY -- check
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY -- check

Total number of nominees in the above categories I've seen -- Zero

But I did see one of these:
ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
CINDERELLA MAN
STAR WARS: EPISODE III REVENGE OF THE SITH

So do you just not go to movies? You didn't see HP GoF? Or War of the Worlds? Or Narnia?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Annie Hall was a better 'film'. I love Star Wars, but that's just a fact.

Honestly, man, this is one of the most laughable statements I've seen in awhile. Me, along with 95% of movie going public out there knows Star Wars is above and beyond anything Woody Allen has ever conceived in his entire life. Star Wars certainly has had most longevity.

Why bring the Oscars 'down' to the people? The people have already decided that they think the Oscars, the way they are, deserves the reputation it does.

Because it has the reputation it does. Why SHOULDN'T it be brought to the people? What makes the Academy any more suitable to determine what constitutes what is good? Because they make them? The people determine what is made by what they watch, so it only stands to reason they should determine what films are considered the best of the year.

Most people realize that while they liked a schlock blockbuster that it isn't great moviemaking and realize the Oscars reward great filmmaking.

Um ... what? "Schlock Blockbuster"? So ... wait ... a film is schlocky but it makes 300 million. It's schlock because ... why? It's poorly made because ... it's not an art film? It's doesn't appear to pseudo-intellectuals who believe they know film better than the average person because they've watched a Bergman film? What's your definition of "schlocky" as opposed to "quality"?

The public has decided that an awards show that rewards more than simply making money or showcasing explosions should be treated with more respect than those that do.

And here is where we differ. I believe a film should be treated with respect for it's ability to draw people to watch it, regardless of how many explostions are in it.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Star Wars IV-VI, Indiana Jones, LotR, Harry Potter movies - blockbusters, but well made.

Armageddon, Fantastic Four, The Grinch, War of the Worlds, The Matrix sequels - Shlock.

For crying out loud, Batman & Robin made 125 million dollars? Do you respect that movie?

[oliegirl]

And here is where we differ. I believe a film should be treated with respect for it's ability to draw people to watch it, regardless of how many explostions are in it.

That is what the People's Choice Awards are for.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Star Wars IV-VI, Indiana Jones, LotR, Harry Potter movies - blockbusters, but well made.

Armageddon, Fantastic Four, The Grinch, War of the Worlds, The Matrix sequels - Shlock.

I personally enjoyed the Matrix sequels, and Armageddon. My point is yes, all these made over 100 million. Its OBVIOUS people enjoyed them. Why shouldn't that have meaning?

For crying out loud, Batman & Robin made 125 million dollars? Do you respect that movie?

More than I respect The English Patient. Of course, most movie-going folks hate obnoxious over-long, over acted drivel.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I thought Crash was by far and away the best film of the year. I'm personally tired of biopics of musicians, and Brokeback Mountain was only nominated because it's politically correct to do so (and yes, I've seen the movie)

You better watch it or else JG will call you a dipshit too.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Honestly, man, this is one of the most laughable statements I've seen in awhile. Me, along with 95% of movie going public out there knows Star Wars is above and beyond anything Woody Allen has ever conceived in his entire life. Star Wars certainly has had most longevity.

It reminds me of the Shakespeare in Love v. Saving Private Ryan debate. Where a lot of people were upset when SPR lost, after seeing SIL, they realized it was the right choice. Most people haven't seen Annie Hall. It's utterly brilliant. Star Wars was definetly a fun film and a pop culture phenomenon, that doesn't make it an example of great filmmaking.

Because it has the reputation it does. Why SHOULDN'T it be brought to the people? What makes the Academy any more suitable to determine what constitutes what is good? Because they make them? The people determine what is made by what they watch, so it only stands to reason they should determine what films are considered the best of the year.

And why does it have the reputation that it does? Because it is little more discerning than the MTV Awards of People's Choice. It awards great filmmaking, which is something more than simply being a fun movie. The reputation is given by the public at large. If most people thought it was a bunch of small elitist pretentious bastards (as sterlingice believes), it'd NEVER gain the status that it has right now. NEVER!

Um ... what? "Schlock Blockbuster"? So ... wait ... a film is schlocky but it makes 300 million. It's schlock because ... why? It's poorly made because ... it's not an art film? It's doesn't appear to pseudo-intellectuals who believe they know film better than the average person because they've watched a Bergman film? What's your definition of "schlocky" as opposed to "quality"?

It's poorly made because the acting is bad, the script/dialogue is bad, the directing is bad. It makes money because of special effects and/or explosions. You know the type... Batman & Robin comes to mind. So does Starship Troopers.

And here is where we differ. I believe a film should be treated with respect for it's ability to draw people to watch it, regardless of how many explostions are in it.

Yeah, it is... by the studios. Don't expect the critics to put much stock in it if it doesn't display quality. And the people trust in the critics' opinion, which is why the Oscars has such a high rep.

And as said, there is a People's Choice Award. If people believed that what was popular was the same as what is quality, that award would be the most watched.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It reminds me of the Shakespeare in Love v. Saving Private Ryan debate. Where a lot of people were upset when SPR lost, after seeing SIL, they realized it was the right choice. Most people haven't seen Annie Hall. It's utterly brilliant. Star Wars was definetly a fun film and a pop culture phenomenon, that doesn't make it an example of great filmmaking.

Again, couldn't disagree with you more. Shakespeare in Love won because it's precisely the style of overacted, period-piece crap that the Academy LOVES (example: the sucky Elizabeth) whereas Saving Private Ryan was a war picture, and hense lower in the "art food chain" than period pieces.

[sarcasm]Cause it's much easier to act in a war movie than a film based in the 1600's. [/sarcasm]

By the way, most people haven't watch it for the same reason most people haven't watched any Woody Allen films -- 1: He's a pedophile, and 2: He sucks, and so does his films.

30 years later, and Star Wars is still high in the culture, and Annie Hall is a trivia question. Which one is better again?

And why does it have the reputation that it does? Because it is little more discerning than the MTV Awards of People's Choice. It awards great filmmaking, which is something more than simply being a fun movie. The reputation is given by the public at large. If most people thought it was a bunch of small elitist pretentious bastards (as sterlingice believes), it'd NEVER gain the status that it has right now. NEVER!

Again, I disagree. The Academy Awards have their reputation because they've been around longer. Longevity breeds comfort. People are used to seeing the Academy Awards, and the MTV/People's Choice awards are newer, lesser hyped by the entertainment media. Nothing to do with them "awarding great filmmaking", it's just been around longer, and people are used to it.

It's poorly made because the acting is bad, the script/dialogue is bad, the directing is bad. It makes money because of special effects and/or explosions. You know the type... Batman & Robin comes to mind. So does Starship Troopers.

Again, Starship Troopers is a better film, it's more ENTERTAINING (which is the whole purpose of movies) than the English Patient. Or 3 of the 5 movies nominated in this year's list.

Yeah, it is... by the studios. Don't expect the critics to put much stock in it if it doesn't display quality. And the people trust in the critics' opinion, which is why the Oscars has such a high rep.

See above. The critics will put stock in any film that is "artsy" BECAUSE it's artsy. Many critics are movie-snobs, and hate anything that is mainstream.

And as said, there is a People's Choice Award. If people believed that what was popular was the same as what is quality, that award would be the most watched.

And if it had been started at the same time as the Academy Awards, it would be.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Because it has the reputation it does. Why SHOULDN'T it be brought to the people? What makes the Academy any more suitable to determine what constitutes what is good? Because they make them? The people determine what is made by what they watch, so it only stands to reason they should determine what films are considered the best of the year.

You seem to think the Oscars just somehow randomly got its reputation. In fact it has the reputation it does because of what it is. If you turn it into a popularity contest its reputation will soon be no better than the People's Choice awards.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

If you turn it into a popularity contest its reputation will soon be no better than the People's Choice awards.

That's my hope. That one day the movie-going folks get to determine what the best film is. They're the only ones that should be making that determination.

[oliegirl]

Again, couldn't disagree with you more. Shakespeare in Love won because it's precisely the style of overacted, period-piece crap that the Academy LOVES (example: the sucky Elizabeth) whereas Saving Private Ryan was a war picture, and hense lower in the "art food chain" than period pieces.

So Schindler's List and Platoon, which IIRC both won Best Picture Awards weren't war movies???

It sounds to me like you prefer a specific genre of film, the Blockbuster...summer opening, HUGE box office numbers, etc...and that it bugs you that "your" movies aren't more represented at the prestigious Academy Awards. If you dislike what you call "art" movies, that is fine. But at least respect and understand that to film critics, producers, directors, and a lot of movie goers, those are not "cinematic masterpieces". They don't rank up there with Gone with the Wind, The Godfather 1 and 2, Silence of the Lambs, Platoon, Gladiator, etc...movies that when you watch them, leave you more than entertained. Where every aspect of the movie from the writing to the directing to the special effects (if there are any) to the editing, sound, etc...give you chills and are just a step above the "average" movie that is released throughout the year.

I am not saying that the Big Budget Blockbuster movies aren't good or entertaining, only that there is a difference between the two and the Academy Awards has ALWAYS been the award show that rewards this "one step above" type of movie. If you don't want to watch them, fine, but don't try to argue 70+ years of history and say they need to start catering to the masses.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Again, couldn't disagree with you more. Shakespeare in Love won because it's precisely the style of overacted, period-piece crap that the Academy LOVES (example: the sucky Elizabeth) whereas Saving Private Ryan was a war picture, and hense lower in the "art food chain" than period pieces.

[sarcasm]Cause it's much easier to act in a war movie than a film based in the 1600's. [/sarcasm]

Wow... I couldn't disagree with you more. Shakespeare in Love is one of my favorite films of all time. A definate all-time great with wonderful self-references and jokes. Knowing something about Shakespeare also makes the movie a lot more amusing.

SPR was a good war film. Aside from the first half hour, it was equal to the Thin Red Line, another good war film, but not deserving of the top spot.

Again, I disagree. The Academy Awards have their reputation because they've been around longer. Longevity breeds comfort. People are used to seeing the Academy Awards, and the MTV/People's Choice awards are newer, lesser hyped by the entertainment media. Nothing to do with them "awarding great filmmaking", it's just been around longer, and people are used to it.

I'm sorry, if people disagreed with it so much it wouldn't matter if it had been around longer. People put a LOT of creedence into the Oscars. It isn't because it is the longest, but because they agree that these are the best films and not the best 'blow-em-up' films.

If people didn't think these were the best films, why do they watch the show? It sure gets a LOT better ratings than the People's Choice?

Reputation can be argued round and round for years, but ratings can't. Unless you are going to argue that people watch something about movies they can't stand because of its reputation? That's absurd.

Again, Starship Troopers is a better film, it's more ENTERTAINING (which is the whole purpose of movies) than the English Patient. Or 3 of the 5 movies nominated in this year's list.

Oy.

Like other forms of art, you realize that films are made for more reasons that JUST being entertaining. It's a big part, sure, but there are other things that great directors are going for. Hell, Starship Troopers is far more entertaining than Schindler's List, but Schindler's List blows the PANTS off of Starship Troopers. No contest.

See above. The critics will put stock in any film that is "artsy" BECAUSE it's artsy. Many critics are movie-snobs, and hate anything that is mainstream.

Can we please put up the list of blockbusters that won the Best Picture award again? Including... the HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL TIME?!

And if it had been started at the same time as the Academy Awards, it would be.

Bullshit. I think people probably put more stock in the MTV awards over the 32 year old People's Choice.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That's my hope. That one day the movie-going folks get to determine what the best film is. They're the only ones that should be making that determination.

Do you also consider Brittany Spears and NSync to be among the best musicians of the last decade?

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That's my hope. That one day the movie-going folks get to determine what the best film is. They're the only ones that should be making that determination.

And they do. By buying movie tickets and making Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Steven Spielberg, Harvey Weinstein, and the like filthy rich! When those people accepted their Oscars they said it was about the films, their art, etc...and for some actors/actresses it might be...but for most actors/actresses it's about the money. Most actors/actresses will never win an Oscar, so they are rewarded by making a profitable movie. Their Oscar is in their wallet in the form of an American Express Black card, or sitting in the driveway of their multi million house in the form of a $200,000 car.