02-01-2006, 03:04 PM | #151 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
02-01-2006, 03:08 PM | #152 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-01-2006, 03:09 PM | #153 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
If Munich had an OPS, that analogy might work.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
02-01-2006, 03:09 PM | #154 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-01-2006, 03:10 PM | #155 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
That's what I noticed when I looked over the list of past winners. There were a few exceptions, but popular movies seemed to do quite well.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
02-01-2006, 03:22 PM | #156 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
I've spoken about this, in particular, with reference to comedy nowadays, the concept of proprietary knowledge. It's the whole basis of an inside joke: while something isn't all that funny, people want to act like it's funnier and better because they're in on the inside joke. A lot of internet humor is like that- it's not that it's very funny, a lot of its popularity is derived from the fact that you can derive status from thinking it's funny ("that's really funny. oh, you just found that now. i saw that 3 months ago" translates to "i'm 3 months more up on internet humor than you for teh win"). To turn this back on movies and the Oscars, it's the idea of "I'm a better moviegoer than you so I'm going to put my vote behind this thing because it's more 'mine' than yours and not because it's a better movie." I hope that didn't get too long and winding... SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
02-01-2006, 03:28 PM | #157 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-01-2006, 03:30 PM | #158 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Conyers GA
|
Quote:
I think what you're seeing is actually the fact that critics reward movies that are different and break the mold of what we're all used to. Summer Blockbuster type movies - even the most well made of them - are usually pretty standard fare to folks who have seen 10,000 or more movies in the past decade. However, a film with quirky, interesting characters (Sideways) or movies with a new angle or point of view (Brokeback Mountain) will likely get noticed. Now, they'll have to be very high quality films to actually garner a nomination, but they definitely have a leg up on the typical "Popcorn Movie" or any other genre film that doesn't break the mold or at least stretch the boundries of the genre. |
|
02-01-2006, 03:52 PM | #159 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Catonsville, MD
|
Quote:
I like the Internet humor part - that's good. Now, about the Oscars: Every awards show has biases. If I held the Abe Show and gave out Abies, even if I tried to be as objective as possible, I'd still give out awards that you would rightfully question. For example, Abe's Best Dialogue award for the last year would go to Serenity. But you might not even like Serenity that much. Or you may have seen an indie movie that had much better dialogue. Or you may not like the admittedly masculine nature of the dialogue, preferring a more gender neutral dialogue. I don't like some of the decisions that the Oscar has made in the past (A Beautiful Mind, for example winning Best Adapted Screenply over Fellowship of the Ring when Fellowship had a much more difficult job to do in order to translate into a script.) Still, I've never seen the Oscars just out and out screw a genre altogether. In the past few years, we've seen quite a few genres get accolades on Oscar night. (By get accolades, I mean win best picture, best director, or get nominated for one of those and get a best actor/actress/supporting win as well). Comedy - Forrest Gump Romantic Comedy - As Good as it Gets Fighting - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Foreign - Amelie, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon SciFi/Fantasy - Return of the King Cop/Crime - Traffic, LA Confidential, Training Day Historical Epic - Gladiator Historical Romantic Comedy - Shakespeare in Love Biopic - A Beautiful Mind, Ray Musical - Chicago, Moulin Rouge Sports - Million Dollar Baby Drama - American Beauty Romance - The English Patient War - Saving Private Ryan So, seriously, this isn't much of a bias. All sorts of genres have gotten serious accolades over the past ten year. Action movies are represented in fighting movies, cop and crime moves, war pics, and epics. Comedies of both the historical and romantic variety have gotten acclaim. War movies are represented, not just in Saving Private Ryan, but in Return of the King as well. There's romance, comedy, action, and more all in the past ten years. That's a pretty good selection. So, while I'm happy to concede that the Oscars aren't perfect, I do think that their bias is not nearly as strong as some would imply. -Anxiety
__________________
Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent |
|
02-01-2006, 03:57 PM | #160 | |
Poet in Residence
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
|
Quote:
I won't get into the arguments surrounding aesthetic theory here (mostly because I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make any difference), but KWhit's point will do: after years and years of viewing films critically, one becomes familiar with standard elements. Because of this, it takes something special to overcome the critical mentality -- either something new, or an extremely well-done version of a standard element. No matter how many people see Big Momma's House 2, for an experienced viewer of comedies, its surprises and rewards are going to be less than they will for an inexperienced audience. The vast majority of the moviegoing public is not interested in a critical, aesthetic response to film as an artistic medium. Giving an award for aesthetic excellence thus falls to those who are experienced in the medium, rather than the inexperienced. It's by no means a precise science -- popular enthusiasm in most cases carries the day -- but the Oscars still exist as one of the very, very few major awards for aesthetic excellence that are popularly accepted and noted. And sometimes they even get it right. But lord -- compare the Peoples' Choice or Blockbuster Awards to the Academy's list if you want a clear contrast between films of lasting artistic merit and films that (soullessly?) target the mass-market audience in every aspect of their creation and marketing. Edit for an errant apostrophe Last edited by NoMyths : 02-01-2006 at 03:58 PM. |
|
02-01-2006, 05:14 PM | #161 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkeley
|
I agree with NoMyths and KWitt. I don't consider myself a movie snob by any stretch, but I've seen so much derivative crap that I'm completely bored with blockbusters and the majority of what runs in the "mainstream" theaters. Occasionally you get a big movie that is different and interesting or one that is done well (first half of History of Violence maybe?), but in most cases big movies aren't done well because doing them well is not a requirement for making boatloads of money... its just so much safer to stick to a formula then it is to take a chance and try to be different.
At this point I don't want to see explosions or Matrix-style action sequences because I've already seen them hundreds of times... show me something I haven't seen before or something I have seen but presented in a whole new way. |
02-01-2006, 05:22 PM | #162 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
I disagree with the "all genres have gotten serious accolates" part, and I disagree with a few of your genre listing. Specially the linking Sci-Fi and Fantasy together, when you separate "Historical Romantic Comedy" and "Comedy". No Sci-Fi or Horror film have ever won a Best Picture Oscar. That's bias right there. Period Pieces (Shakespeare in Love, Gladiator) seem to engage the Academy's eyes a little more. There's been plenty of Sci-Fi and Horror films that are worthy, but will never be considered because of the genre they're in. |
|
02-01-2006, 06:31 PM | #163 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Catonsville, MD
|
Quote:
Silence of the Lambs -Anxiety
__________________
Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent Last edited by Abe Sargent : 02-01-2006 at 06:32 PM. |
|
02-01-2006, 06:53 PM | #164 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Catonsville, MD
|
Dola -
Actually let me go back and clarify. Horror is a genre with aliens and monsters and ghosts - that's properly scifi or fantasy. Suspense movies are ones without scifi or fantasy elements. Both movies do the same thing, and its just a minor plot device as to whether or not the suspense and terror of the movie comes from ghosts or imagined ghosts (like in the original House on Haunted Hill with VIncent Price) So, if we allow horror/suspense to be one genre, which is fair, then we see two things: We have two winners - Silence of the Lambs and Hitchcock's Rebecca. We also have what is arguably the greatest snub in Academy history by not even nominating a film, which is Psycho. Obviously, the academy has been more biased in the past then it is now, and the historical bias was true in the past. But recently? Braveheart won, but it was truly an amazing movie, and a blockbuster to boot. Ditto Titanic, albeit with less quality acting outside of the two stars. Gladiator really was one of the best made movies of the year. Now, I personally think giving the win to Shakespeare in Love was mistake. It was an okay movie, but nothing major. Remember though, that was a realtively down year for movie quality. There are a lot of Oscar historians that think it was one of the worst movies to ever win the best picture but who are not aligned as to who, esactly, go snubbed, since there were no can't miss prospects that year. But, your sweeping historical bias is...um...where over the past few years? Where are the awards for Alexander or Troy or Master and Commander or that new Colin Ferrell movie? The problem with Scifi is that, as a genre, there haven't been any real top quality movies over the past ten years (BTW, the line between scifi and fantasy is invisible. I could show you numerous sources that suggest that they are same.) Some of the best scifi movies over the past ten years just aren't as good from, an acting standpoint. Even the most stalwart fan has to admit that Lucas's new Star Wars films were wooden, especially the acting. The Matrix was really good, but despite Keanue Reeves acting, not because of it. Even Serenity has a feeling of dropping you in the middle of a plot instead of developing it slowly. I love SciFi. Look at my DVD collection and you'll see scifi after scifi. Babylon 5? My favorite TV show. Donnie Darko? My favorite movie. Dracula? My favorite novel. HP Lovecraft? My favorite author. I have a bias towards scifi, and even I admot that there have been glaring holes in virtually every genre offering in the past ten years. Except for the LotR trilogy. That hit practically every note. And despite the fact that NO fantasy movie has ever one, all three were nominated and one has a clean sweep of 11 awards. Five years ago, you might have said that there was a serious bias agaisnt fantasy movies in the Oscars since none has one. Fast forward a few years and you would've seen that all it takes is quality. -Anxiety
__________________
Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent |
02-01-2006, 07:02 PM | #165 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Oh, no. The director and the producer of that film made is ABUNDANTLY clear the film was not a horror film. It's labeled either a crime drama or suspense by the major retailers (Amazon.com as an example: ASIN is B00005LINC) |
|
02-01-2006, 07:10 PM | #166 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
WVUFAN = WrongWay?
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
02-01-2006, 07:37 PM | #167 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Huh? |
|
02-01-2006, 07:54 PM | #168 | ||||||
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
I think Wikipedia notes the difference between a suspense/thriller film and a horror film much better than I could: Thrillers emphasize nervous tension and anxiety. Thriller films are distinct from horror movies which emphasize fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_film) Quote:
It just seems to be with a few exceptions, and expecially within the last two years, the Academy seems to be moving away from quality films regardless of subtext and moving towards smaller films with political overtones, and the Academy Awards doesn't seem to me to be a good platform for political statements. Quote:
Well, I think Saving Private Ryan was a better film that year, but "good" is subjective. Again, my point is that is seems the Academy refuses to accept that the word "good" and "genre film" can ACTUALLY go together, and I disagree with that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by WVUFAN : 02-01-2006 at 08:03 PM. |
||||||
02-01-2006, 11:02 PM | #169 | ||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I must ask, did you see Million Dollar Baby? It was an absolutely incredible film. I'd say it was Eastwood's best directing effort since Unforgiven (maybe even better). Swank was very good as the lead. And Hell, it was a genre flick. It was a sports flick! And what political overtones was in Return of the King or Chicago or A Beautiful Mind or Gladiator? I guess you can make a case for American Beauty, but it's hard to say that Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, English Patient, Braveheart, Forest Gump had anything to do with politics! What is that, TWO films in the past 10 Best Picture winners that had anything to do with politics? You are talking out your ass. Quote:
Remember, first you were claiming bias against war movies. This from the award show that gave best picture to Bridge on the River Kwai, Patton, Platoon, and nominated both Saving Private Ryan AND The Thin Red Line for best picture in the same year. Btw, The Exorcist WAS nominated for Best Picture back in 1974, but it lost out to The Sting, a movie that make $156 million in the US back then. Not exactly some small prententious film. Oh and since you like the voice of the people, IMDB has The Sting as the #80 highest rated film in its Top 250, while The Exorcist is #203. Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 02-01-2006 at 11:13 PM. |
||||
02-01-2006, 11:05 PM | #170 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Quote:
Nah, although they act similarly. |
|
02-01-2006, 11:23 PM | #171 | ||||||
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
My bookstore in my area has fantasy and sci-fi, while in the same area, in different sections. If yours put them together, that's their choice. Doesn't take away from the fact that they are two SEPARATE genres. Quote:
Yes I do, but that's not the point. The Oscars shouldn't be a platform for political debate. If you re-read my post, I state in the PAST TWO YEARS this has been certainly visable. Quote:
A sports flick? BullSHIT. You know what the film is about (yes I did watch it -- I try to watch all the Academy Award Best Picture noms, though I'm not gonna get to this year). It was a picture centering around the idea of euthanasia. It WASN'T a brilliant film. It was FAR from Eastwood's best movie (which was Unforgiven, I agree), and it was very poorly acted, especially by Swank. It won because of it's political outlook. PERIOD. Quote:
I said the last two years. THis and the past year. Million Dollar Baby and ALL FIVE nominated films this year have left-leaning political overtones, with Crash being the most reasonable of all of them. Quote:
This just proves you know dick about sci-fi films. You must be a Academy voter. It certainly proves you're a psuedo-intellectual movie snob, thumbing your nose at an entire genre because they use special effects. What if someone said period pieces aren't worthy because of their elaborate costumes? Both statements are idiotic. Quote:
Kwai was done in a completely different Hollywood that exists today, as was Patton. Platoon is a political statement wrapped in dressing. Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespeare in Love (the second biggest travesty in Oscar History). The Thin Red Line never had a shot in winning to begin with. My issue is that genre movies NEVER GET CONSIDERED, by BY GOD if you put a political message, especially one that leans left, you'll get a nod. It's a Oscar Death Nod if it's a unabashed horror or sci-fi, because, by your own logic, they're not "emotional" enough. Again, I say BULLSHIT. Maybe someone should make an anti-Bush space movie and see what happens. |
||||||
02-01-2006, 11:26 PM | #172 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Oh, and I like to point out the one year that really hurts WVU's hypothesis (and if it is too old, I have another one).
The 1977 Academy Awards Best picture nominees: Rocky All the President's Men Bound for Glory Network Taxi Driver Now All the President's Men had the politics that WVU thinks the awards have devolved into. Network and Taxi Driver BOTH made under $30 mil gross in the US (which is amazing to me... especially with Taxi Driver) and were the small pretentious films that in WVU's world would have won (AND Network won for Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actress). I know nothing of Bound for Glory. However, the movie that, BY FAR, grossed the most money won the award. Yes, Rocky was the big winner (a year before Annie Hall won... so any bias against big movies is laughable). Too late for ya? How about the 1995 Academy Awards? The nominees: Forrest Gump Four Wedding & A Funeral Pulp Fiction Quiz Show Shawshank Redemption If we're looking for the small, pretentious film, Shawshank fits the bill. It grossed $28 million TOTAL in the US (though ranked #2 at IMDB). Or Quiz Show, which made $24 million in the US. Four Weddings made $51 million and Pulp Fiction made $107 million (and ranked #8 at IMDB). HOWEVER, the WINNER, Forrest Gump made $329 million in the US ALONE, more than tripling what Pulp Fiction (the next highest grossing film that year) made. And Forrest Gump won! What small, prententious film bias? Hell, most of the 'average fan' I hear on message board these days say that Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction should have won! Are the 'average fan' pretentious?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
02-01-2006, 11:33 PM | #173 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Occasionally, they get it right. All this proves is that sometimes the Academy and the public do agree on what the best film is. Rocky was the best film of that year (yes, better than Taxi Driver). Forrest Gump was the best film of 95. (yes, better than Shawshank) |
|
02-01-2006, 11:44 PM | #174 | ||||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thin Red Line never had a shot? What do you consider getting nominated? Genre movies don't get considered? If they are technically good they most definetly do. I bet 5 years ago you would have put Fantasy as the genres that don't get considered and you'd have looked like a total fool now. And I love this "if you release a left leaning message film it'll be get nominated" BS. Where is Syriana then? Which is, by far, more politically left leaning than Munich. What about The Life of David Gale, which was strongly anti death penalty? Didn't get in sniffing distance. Farenheit 9/11 was never close to Best Picture. Hell, it wasn't even nominated for Best Documentary!! If anything will shut up your left-leaning pictures are favored that should! Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||||||
02-01-2006, 11:45 PM | #175 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Did the Oscars get the Titanic pick right? Are you just basing what is the 'best film' on box office numbers? I note, once again, that you haven't answered the music question. You know, if the best selling artists of 2005 where the best musicians of the year?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 02-01-2006 at 11:47 PM. |
|
02-02-2006, 12:13 AM | #176 | |||||||
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
None won the Best Picture. Shall I go on? Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by WVUFAN : 02-02-2006 at 12:44 AM. |
|||||||
02-02-2006, 12:15 AM | #177 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Watch Gladiator again, and tell yourself that piece of shit was the best film of the year when it was released. It hasn't aged well at all, and it wasn't that great when it was first out.
Last edited by stevew : 02-02-2006 at 12:15 AM. |
02-02-2006, 12:17 AM | #178 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Who were the best selling artists of 2005? |
|
02-02-2006, 12:19 AM | #179 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Gladiator was the best film of the year when it was released. I watched it last week. It doesn't hold a candle to Braveheart, a similar style of film, but it was good for the year it was released. |
|
02-02-2006, 12:39 AM | #180 | |||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
And no, it was wonderfully acting, masterfully directed, and the "idiotic political message" is the only reason you disliked it. Its quite obvious. You didn't like the politics, so you weren't going to like the rest of the film, even though it was an incredible work. Btw, Mr. "Power to the People", IMDB has it listed as the #53 movie on the Top 250. Quote:
Star Wars and ET were nominated. Close Encounters came out the same year as Star Wars and it was nominated for a lot of other awards (such as Best Director) that year. Just didn't make it for Best Picture, one reason, IMO, is that Star Wars hurt Close Encounter's chances (as some speculated Thin Red Line hurt SPR's chances for the win). 2001 was 'eh' to me, but I'm sure others will disagree. Didn't deserve the award in my opinion. Was it a snub as a nominee, probably, but then again if you think sci-fi films are the only ones that are snubbed, I'd like to point you to a masterpiece known as Cold Mountain. As for the original War of the Worlds, if we refer to IMDB's votes, it falls behind every one of the nominated films, except one (The Robe). So I'm not sure it'd win if the 'public had its say'! Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|||||
02-02-2006, 12:41 AM | #181 | |||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Btw, Gladiator is ANOTHER example of a high grossing film that won Best Picture. Another nail in your coffin.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|||
02-02-2006, 12:45 AM | #182 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Jun 2005
|
Just to jump in, Gladiator was not better than Traffic, and while I extremely dislike Crouching Tiger myself, Gladiator is also not better than that either. Back to your regularly started flame war.
|
02-02-2006, 12:49 AM | #183 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Requiem for a Dream and Almost Famous were also better than Gladiator IMO, among tons of other films.
Last edited by stevew : 02-02-2006 at 12:50 AM. |
02-02-2006, 12:51 AM | #184 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Though I did have fun with Gladiator. A great flick to see in the theater, btw, with the big screen and the massive surrround sound.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-02-2006, 12:53 AM | #185 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Quote:
Yeah, Schmidty said it was like the best movie ever or something. Meh, i tried to watch it, was annoyed with it, probably will try to watch it again some time. |
|
02-02-2006, 12:59 AM | #186 | |||||||
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by WVUFAN : 02-02-2006 at 01:01 AM. |
|||||||
02-02-2006, 01:32 AM | #187 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkeley
|
Entertaining to who? the lowest common denominator?
I didn't see The English Patient, but every other winner since 1991 except for Titanic was pretty darn entertaining to me. Last edited by Daimyo : 02-02-2006 at 01:37 AM. |
02-02-2006, 01:40 AM | #188 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkeley
|
DOLA and as for your claim that the Academy Awards lean to the left, how do you reconcile the fact that Fahrenheit 911 won the award for Best Movie of the Year in the 2004 People's Choice awards, but didn't even sniff the Academy Award for best picture?
|
02-02-2006, 01:47 AM | #189 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington, WV
|
Quote:
Yes. The average American movie-goer. Quote:
Justice. It wasn't a documentary, and it was a poor motion picture. Not deserving. Then again, in my version of the Academy Awards, if the people votes for it as Best Picture, it should have won, and I, while not agreeing with it, would have accepted it. But the "people" don't get to choose, because obviously they're too "stupid" to know what a good film is. That's what you guys are basically saying -- the people can't judge quality, but you can. |
||
02-02-2006, 01:52 AM | #190 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
The "people" are too stupid to know what a good movie is--it breaks down like this:
Dumb people don't like smart movies. Smart people sometimes like dumb movies. For various reasons, smart people sometimes don't like smart movies. Therefore, dumb movies will always dominate the box office.
__________________
"I'm losing my edge--to better looking people... with better ideas... and more talent. And who are actually really, really nice." "Everyone's a voyeurist--they're watching me watch them watch me right now." Last edited by ThunderingHERD : 02-02-2006 at 02:17 AM. |
02-02-2006, 08:50 AM | #191 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Edmond, OK
|
Quote:
This may be the smartest thing in this thread. I haven't even really read this thread, and I still think that. |
|
02-02-2006, 08:55 AM | #192 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
I'm totally confused.
WVUFan wants the people to decide who wins. He also wants sci-fi to win. He also wants horror to win. Given that sci-fi and horror rarely top the box office for the year (with the Star Wars exception of course), how are these goals at all consistent? It seems like you just want the WVUFan awards (involving a dart board, a 40 oz., tarot cards, and whatever is on late night Skinemax) and everyone else should just like it.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
02-02-2006, 09:05 AM | #193 | ||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Yeah, and we've already said you have a People's Choice Award for that. Go there for your fix. The Acadamy Awards award filmmaking. They award the craft. If is doesn't entertain bubba as much as Big Momma 2, who the Hell cares? It isn't for that. It isn't which movie entertains WVUFAN the most. It is for who has created the best artistic work in the medium of film. And if it makes more than $1, it probably entertained someone. Quote:
Bullshit. Your posts betray you. It was a liberal message movie and therefore it had to suck. Quote:
I don't watch anime, so I have no idea how good or bad it is. Quote:
And what if the critics who voted on it DID consider it entertaining? Then what? They aren't 'the people'? The people have their own award shows, they just give more respect to the one that Academy runs. Why? Because they watch a Hell of a lot more movies than the 'people' and the people trust their judgement in which film was a better piece of filmmaking.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|