And The Oscar Nominees Are....

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Isn't that a good thing, though? If two movies are of equal caliber, why not give the accolades to the movie less people saw? It would give them an incentive to see a great movie, right? All sorts of movies get a post-Oscar bump, especially indie flicks.

I mean, if your Oscar can go to something that everybody has seen or something which may cause people to see something they haven't, and they are of equal value, why not go with the latter. Why not introduce quality movies to new audiences?

-Anxiety

That's like saying "let's give it to Pujols over Jones since Pujols plays in a smaller market".

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's more how I see the Oscars- they do an ok job. I'm not saying they are awful but they need a rule to save them from themselves sometimes. I'm not talking about Starship Troopers winning the Oscar- that'd be insane. But, if there are two movies of equal caliber, one popular and the other more obscure and pretentious, I see them choosing the latter more often.

It seems that is fairly rare. Remember Forrest Gump won over Shawshank Redemption. And Titanic won over all of its opponents. I don't really remember many times where an obscure and pretentious flick won over an equally good popular flick.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's like saying "let's give it to Pujols over Jones since Pujols plays in a smaller market".

SI

If Munich had an OPS, that analogy might work.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's like saying "let's give it to Pujols over Jones since Pujols plays in a smaller market".

SI

Are you saying, then, "let's give it to Pujols over Jones because the Cardinals have a higher attendance figure"?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It seems that is fairly rare. Remember Forrest Gump won over Shawshank Redemption. And Titanic won over all of its opponents. I don't really remember many times where an obscure and pretentious flick won over an equally good popular flick.

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are you saying, then, "let's give it to Pujols over Jones because the Cardinals have a higher attendance figure"?

To keep stretching the analogy (by pretending Jones and Pujols have equal arguments as to why each is better- in baseball and in movies, that's never the case but there can be something with similar levels of acclaim), what I'm claiming the Oscars do is let the overall appeal of the movie taint their view of it. If Pujols and Jones were equal, they will claim Pujols is better just on the basis that it's more a "movie snob" movie, like how sabermetricians have their pet players.

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To keep stretching the analogy (by pretending Jones and Pujols have equal arguments as to why each is better- in baseball and in movies, that's never the case but there can be something with similar levels of acclaim), what I'm claiming the Oscars do is let the overall appeal of the movie taint their view of it. If Pujols and Jones were equal, they will claim Pujols is better just on the basis that it's more a "movie snob" movie, like how sabermetricians have their pet players.

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

I think that argument is a bit silly (as is the sabermatricians have their pet players and that leads to elitist views.. but that's another thread), seeing as how some very popular movies have won it all.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To keep stretching the analogy (by pretending Jones and Pujols have equal arguments as to why each is better- in baseball and in movies, that's never the case but there can be something with similar levels of acclaim), what I'm claiming the Oscars do is let the overall appeal of the movie taint their view of it. If Pujols and Jones were equal, they will claim Pujols is better just on the basis that it's more a "movie snob" movie, like how sabermetricians have their pet players.

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

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.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To keep stretching the analogy (by pretending Jones and Pujols have equal arguments as to why each is better- in baseball and in movies, that's never the case but there can be something with similar levels of acclaim), what I'm claiming the Oscars do is let the overall appeal of the movie taint their view of it. If Pujols and Jones were equal, they will claim Pujols is better just on the basis that it's more a "movie snob" movie, like how sabermetricians have their pet players.

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

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

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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.

Well said.

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

[Daimyo]

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.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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.

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.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

Silence of the Lambs


-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

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

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Silence of the Lambs


-Anxiety

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)

[John Galt]

WVUFAN = WrongWay?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by John Galt

WVUFAN = WrongWay?

Huh?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Dola -

Actually let me go back and clarify. Horror is a genre with aliens and monsters and ghosts - that's properly scifi or fantasy.

It's possible to have a horror film without monsters, aliens or ghost. I would cite Saw and the recent Hostel as examples of Horror without any of those things.

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)

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.

In the cases you mentioned about, I would agree with everyone of them. Gladiator and Braveheart were truly deserving (Braveheart is #2 on my favorite films list). My problem with the Academy has less to do with what won (with a few exceptions -- Million Dollar Baby, Shakespeare in Love, English Patient are notable in undeserving films), but rather that a certain subgenre of films are automatically eliminated because they are of a certain genre. If the plot consists of a sci-fi or horror element (or a combination of the two in the case of the Oscar-worthy movie ALIEN) the Academy won't even CONSIDER it. Hell, they created a new award for animated film because they didn't want a "cartoon" to win Best Picture, no matter how deserving it may be (AKIRA, and several Pixar films are examples of that).

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.

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.

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.

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?

I over-generalized. What I was trying to say (and poorly) is that if you have a period piece or a historical film in general, it has a better chance of being nominated than another type of worthy film.

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.

Well, again, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are completely different genres. I didn't think it would win simply because it's a fantasy picture. Not a fan of the movies myself, but I will admit they were well made. I would cite another Oscar-worthy film in both acting and film-making that you just mentioned: Donnie Darko was snubbed because of the style of film it was, and nothing more.

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

There's quality sci-fi movies (Alien) and quality horror films (Psycho, Exorcist). Quality has nothing to do with it. The movies are snubbed because of the style of film they are.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Specially the linking Sci-Fi and Fantasy together

Well that's how they are listed in most bookstores (Sci-Fi/Fantasy).

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.

AHHHHH! I see what it is now! WVU disagees with the politics of Million Dollar Baby and the probable winner this year, Brokeback Mountain! It makes sense now!

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.

The movies are snubbed because of the style of film they are.

Frankly, I call bullshit. Most sci-fi movies focus on special effects over emotion and the human element (actually the human element seems almost pushed underneath).

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.

Huh?

WrongWay is always, and I mean always, wrong about things. For example, he was predicting that the latest Harry Potter movie would gross under $100 million based on the past history of the HP franchise. He completely dismissed the fact that a new HP book was coming out the year of the movie, and the HP4 ended up being the highest grossing Potter film of all of 'em and was a huge hit.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by John Galt

WVUFAN = WrongWay?

Nah, although they act similarly.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well that's how they are listed in most bookstores (Sci-Fi/Fantasy).

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.

AHHHHH! I see what it is now! WVU disagees with the politics of Million Dollar Baby and the probable winner this year, Brokeback Mountain! It makes sense now!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

Frankly, I call bullshit. Most sci-fi movies focus on special effects over emotion and the human element (actually the human element seems almost pushed underneath).

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.

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.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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?

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)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

Most bookstores, especially the big guys (Barnes & Noble, Borders) put them together, so I don't think it's wrong to put them together. Hell, there are even publishing awards that put them together (the Hugo)

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.


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.

LOL! It's quite obvious that you dismissed the film because you didn't like the politics. Saying it won because of its political outlook is utterly retarded. I'm sorry, I know everyone has opinions, but yours is DEAD WRONG here. Swank acted very well in the movie. Eastwood directed masterfully. And yes, it was a SPORTS FLICK! The Sports was essential to the plot. Without the sports, the movie can't survive. Next you'll be telling me that Rocky was really a chick flick, since it really centered around the relationship betwee Rocky and Adrian.

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.

Really? I thought Anti-McCartheyism was just plain American, not left-leaning. And Munich? Left leaning? Only to the most wacko right winger I guess who can't understand that violence takes a toll on people and begets further violence.

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.

No, I think I've shown that I know far more about science fiction films than you do. Apparently, since you love the genre, you think a sci-fi film should be nominated every year. Most science fiction films do not have the directing, the acting, the scriptwork of the movies that get nominated for Oscar. There is little emotional depth in most of these flicks. YES, it IS mostly about special effects! Are you saying, say, Paycheck was deserving of a nomination? Only a few sci-fi flicks buck the trend (an argument can be made for Serenity, but I wouldn't say it was as good as films normally nominated). To deny that is to look like an utter fool.

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.

After watching both, I'd say that if Shakespeare in Love lost to Saving Private Ryan, it'd be the biggest travesty in Oscar history. SIL was a masterpiece in every way. SPR, while good, was no where near as good, but had an amazing first half hour.

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!

Maybe someone should make an anti-Bush space movie and see what happens.

If it is as technically bad as most space movies, then it won't get close.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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)

Better than Pulp Fiction?

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?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Most bookstores, especially the big guys (Barnes & Noble, Borders) put them together, so I don't think it's wrong to put them together. Hell, there are even publishing awards that put them together (the Hugo)

The Hugo has separate awards from both genres. But since you're SUCH AN EXPERT on them, you already knew that.

LOL! It's quite obvious that you dismissed the film because you didn't like the politics.

No, I dismissed the film because it, quite frankly, sucked. I watched it with 5 other people in the room. The end credits roll, we all look at each other, and say, nearly at the same time, "well, that sucked.". I dismissed it BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ENTERTAIN ME. It was POORLY acted, POORLY directed, POORLY written and had a idiotic political message. It even failed as "sports flick" which it was primarily not.

Really? I thought Anti-McCartheyism was just plain American, not left-leaning. And Munich? Left leaning? Only to the most wacko right winger I guess who can't understand that violence takes a toll on people and begets further violence.

Not gonna get into a political debate with you. Suffice to say we disagree.

No, I think I've shown that I know far more about science fiction films than you do.

Whatever. You 'know' more than me, yet dismiss them out of hand for not having depth. Yeah, right.

Are you saying, say, Paycheck was deserving of a nomination?

No. But good job of pinpointing poor sci-fi films to note as an example. ALIEN. STAR WARS. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. ET. 2001. METROPOLIS. AKIRA. (original) WAR OF THE WORLDS.

None won the Best Picture. Shall I go on?

After watching both, I'd say that if Shakespeare in Love lost to Saving Private Ryan, it'd be the biggest travesty in Oscar history. SIL was a masterpiece in every way. SPR, while good, was no where near as good, but had an amazing first half hour.

Then we simply disagree. Of course, I put Paycheck and SiL on the same vein of "poor" films, but if you like it, more power to you. In my opinion, SiL wasn't a masterpiece in any way, but different strokes ...

If it is as technically bad as most space movies, then it won't get close.

Again, you're showing your bias against sci-fi. Then again, most movie snobs haven't a clue what "entertaining movie" means.

[stevew]

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.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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?

Who were the best selling artists of 2005?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by stevew

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.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The Hugo has separate awards from both genres. But since you're SUCH AN EXPERT on them, you already knew that.

You know you are wrong? The Hugo Award for Best Novel in 2001 was Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. There was no seperate "Science Fiction" award book. Though they apparently are decided by a sci-fi group.

No, I dismissed the film because it, quite frankly, sucked. I watched it with 5 other people in the room. The end credits roll, we all look at each other, and say, nearly at the same time, "well, that's sucked.". I dismissed it BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ENTERTAIN ME. It was POORLY acted, POORLY directed, POORLY written and had a idiotic political message. It even failed as "sports flick" which it was primarily not.

Whether it entertained you is wholly and entirely irrelevent as has been pointed out to you numerous times. I'm sure one of these days you'll get it.

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.

No. But good job of pinpointing poor sci-fi films to note as an example. ALIEN. STAR WARS. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. ET. 2001. METROPOLIS. AKIRA. (original) WAR OF THE WORLDS.

None won the Best Picture. Shall I go on?

Metropolis was made in 1927. The Academy Awards began in 1929.

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'!

Then we simply disagree. Of course, I put Paycheck and SiL on the same vein of "poor" films, but if you like it, more power to you. In my opinion, SiL wasn't a masterpiece in any way, but different strokes ...

Yeah... no. Different strokes for different folks, but if you put both of them on the same vein, then I don't respect your opinion. You can dislike a film and respect it at the same time (like I have with Shawshank Redemption)

Again, you're showing your bias against sci-fi. Then again, most movie snobs haven't a clue what "entertaining movie" means.

And you have no clue that is NOT what the Academy Awards are about! We've drilled this into your head enough I think.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Who were the best selling artists of 2005?

It was posted before, but here it is again:

As a side note, here's the top 20 albums by sales of the year. Do you believe these were the 20 best CD's made in 2005?

1 THE MASSACRE 50 Cent Shady/Aftermath/Interscope
2 ENCORE Eminem Shady/Aftermath/Interscope
3 AMERICAN IDIOT Green Day Reprise/Warner Bros.
4 THE EMANCIPATION OF MIMI Mariah Carey Island/IDJMG
5 BREAKAWAY Kelly Clarkson RCA/RMG
6 LOVE. ANGEL. MUSIC. BABY. Gwen Stefani Interscope
7 DESTINY FULFILLED Destiny's Child Columbia/Sony Music
8 HOW TO DISMANTLE AN ATOMIC BOMB U2 Interscope
9 GREATEST HITS Shania Twain Mercury/UMGN
10 FEELS LIKE TODAY Rascal Flatts Lyric Street/Hollywood
11 CONFESSIONS Usher LaFace/Zomba
12 GREATEST HITS 2 Toby Keith DreamWorks (Nashville)/UMGN
13 NOW 17 Various Artists EMI/Universal/Sony BMG/Zomba/Capitol
14 X&Y Coldplay Capitol
15 CRUNK JUICE Lil Jon & The East Side Boyz BME/TVT
16 THE DOCUMENTARY The Game Aftermath/G-Unit/Interscope
17 HOT FUSS The Killers Island/IDJMG
18 MONKEY BUSINESS The Black Eyed Peas A&M/Interscope
19 GOODIES Ciara Sho'nuff/MusicLine/LaFace/Zomba
20 GENIUS LOVES COMPANY Ray Charles Hear/Concord

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

Gladiator was better than Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Traffic?

Btw, Gladiator is ANOTHER example of a high grossing film that won Best Picture. Another nail in your coffin.

[dervack]

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.

[stevew]

Requiem for a Dream and Almost Famous were also better than Gladiator IMO, among tons of other films.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by stevew

Requiem for a Dream and Almost Famous were also better than Gladiator IMO, among tons of other films.

Don't forget "O'Brother Where Are Thou" .

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.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Don't forget "O'Brother Where Are Thou" .

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.

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.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Whether it entertained you is wholly and entirely irrelevent as has been pointed out to you numerous times. I'm sure one of these days you'll get it.

And again, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MOTION PICTURES IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT. A film cannot be considered "Best Picture of the Year" if it's not entertaining to watch. I don't understand why that isn't clear.

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.

No, I didn't like it because I thought it was a poor movie. Sure, the message helped, but even without that, if she had somehow recovered or chosen to live at the end, or if Eastwood's character had not made the choice he did at the end, the movie would still have sucked.

Btw, Mr. "Power to the People", IMDB has it listed as the #53 movie on the Top 250.

Saving Private Ryan is listed as #65. Strangely enough, Shakespeare in Love isn't rated at all.

Metropolis was made in 1927. The Academy Awards began in 1929.

I was talking about the anime.

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.

Wow. We actually agree on something. That was an amazing film and tremendously acted. Definiately a Oscar-worthy film.

Yeah... no. Different strokes for different folks, but if you put both of them on the same vein, then I don't respect your opinion. You can dislike a film and respect it at the same time (like I have with Shawshank Redemption)

You know what? You're absolutely right. My apologies. SiL was a better-made film than Paycheck. Still wasn't Oscar-worthy, but then again, neither was Paycheck. I personally enjoyed Paycheck more, but I'm a Sci-Fi guy, and didn't like SiL. Personal preference, although Colin Firth did do a good job as the bad guy.

And you have no clue that is NOT what the Academy Awards are about! We've drilled this into your head enough I think.

Again, if you label a film as "Best Picture" it better damn well be entertaining.

[Daimyo]

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.

[Daimyo]

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?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Entertaining to who? the lowest common denominator?

Yes. The average American movie-goer.

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?

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.

[ThunderingHERD]

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.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

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.

This may be the smartest thing in this thread. I haven't even really read this thread, and I still think that.

[John Galt]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And again, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MOTION PICTURES IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT. A film cannot be considered "Best Picture of the Year" if it's not entertaining to watch. I don't understand why that isn't clear.

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.

No, I didn't like it because I thought it was a poor movie. Sure, the message helped, but even without that, if she had somehow recovered or chosen to live at the end, or if Eastwood's character had not made the choice he did at the end, the movie would still have sucked.

Bullshit. Your posts betray you. It was a liberal message movie and therefore it had to suck.

I was talking about the anime.

I don't watch anime, so I have no idea how good or bad it is.

Again, if you label a film as "Best Picture" it better damn well be entertaining.

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.