Oscar Nominations

[pk500]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Wow, thanks for all the condescention and insults.

My point wasn't that Crash was a "sh*t movie" as you kindly put into my mouth, but more to illustrate that it got a best picture nomination because its studio marketed the hell out of it. Which, obviously, they did because they didn't think it would have gotten one otherwise. I'm not really sure the point you're trying to make here.

Also, you're kidding yourself if you think Brokeback Mountain hasn't made a huge promotional push as well, despite its "still being in the f*cking theaters" as you so eloquently put it.

You probably think Titanic is a better movie than Good Will Hunting and LA Confidential, huh? Of course it wasn't, but it had buzz and tons of promotional dollars behind it....

Your points are all over the board.

The promotion certainly helped "Crash" get a nomination. But your post indicates that it was the ONLY reason it got nominated, which is off the mark. It's a damn good movie.

For the third time, did you see it?

You also seem to insinuate that the only reason studios promote films to the Academy is because they wouldn't get a nomination otherwise. If that's the case, then why was there such a big push behind "Brokeback Mountain," which had a ton of pre-release buzz?

Because the push behind "Brokeback Mountain" was made more to overcome the homophobic tendencies of the American public and get their butts in the theaters to see the movie than to woo the Academy. The promotion surrounding "Crash" was aimed directly at Academy voters and the industry. Different deal.

"Titanic" won the Oscar simply because DiCaprio was white-hot then and because it was the largest-grossing picture of all time. It was a marketing machine that mowed down the Academy voters. But a movie either carrying a huge marketing campaign or a searing star winning the Best Picture Oscar is nothing new. Just look at "Gladiator." A decent movie, but no way was it the best film of that year. I thought "Traffic" was WAY better, for example.

By the way, "L.A. Confidential" was MUCH better than "Titanic." I'm really stoked to see the film adaptation of Ellroy's "The Black Dahlia," which I thought was an even better book than his "L.A. Confidential."

Oh, did you see "Crash?" Your silence on that question is deafening.

Take care,
PK

[APOC]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Your points are all over the board.

The promotion certainly helped "Crash" get a nomination. But your post indicates that it was the ONLY reason it got nominated, which is off the mark. It's a damn good movie.

For the third time, did you see it?

You also seem to insinuate that the only reason studios promote films to the Academy is because they wouldn't get a nomination otherwise. If that's the case, then why was there such a big push behind "Brokeback Mountain," which had a ton of pre-release buzz?

Because the push behind "Brokeback Mountain" was made more to overcome the homophobic tendencies of the American public and get their butts in the theaters to see the movie than to woo the Academy. The promotion surrounding "Crash" was aimed directly at Academy voters and the industry. Different deal.

"Titanic" won the Oscar simply because DiCaprio was white-hot then and because it was the largest-grossing picture of all time. It was a marketing machine that mowed down the Academy voters. But a movie either carrying a huge marketing campaign or a searing star winning the Best Picture Oscar is nothing new. Just look at "Gladiator." A decent movie, but no way was it the best film of that year.

By the way, "L.A. Confidential" was MUCH better than "Titanic." I'm really stoked to see the film adaptation of Ellroy's "The Black Dahlia," which I thought was an even better book than his "L.A. Confidential."

Oh, did you see "Crash?" Your silence on that question is deafening.

Take care,
PK

Apparently, all the promotion for Crash seemed to have missed me. I can't say I even remember seeing a movie poster for it, yet alone a commercial. I saw it with friends for the first time without hearing anything about it. I guess that's me though.

[pk500]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Apparently, all the promotion for Crash seemed to have missed me. I can't say I even remember seeing a movie poster for it, yet alone a commercial. I saw it with friends for the first time without hearing anything about it. I guess that's me though.

Same here! I don't even remember it when it was in the theaters. I saw it on DVD after reading a bunch of year-end reviewers lists of the best movies of 2005.

Take care,
PK

[Skerik]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Your points are all over the board.

The promotion certainly helped "Crash" get a nomination. But your post indicates that it was the ONLY reason it got nominated, which is off the mark. It's a damn good movie.

For the third time, did you see it?

"Brokeback Mountain" has made a huge promotional push, but more to overcome the homophobic tendencies of the American public and get their butts in the theaters to see the movie than to woo the Academy.

"Titanic" won the Oscar simply because DiCaprio was white-hot then and because it was the largest-grossing picture of all time. It was a marketing machine that mowed down the Academy voters.

By the way, "L.A. Confidential" was MUCH better than "Titanic." I'm really stoked to see the film adaptation of Ellroy's "The Black Dahlia," which I thought was an even better book than his "L.A. Confidential."

Oh, did you see "Crash?" Your silence on that question is deafening.

Take care,
PK

I didn't see Crash (or Walk the Line, for that matter). But I did see how the public reacted to it when it was released, and I did see the marketing blitz its studio engineered to get it a nomination. I'm sure it's a very good movie, but all I tried to say in this thread is that an above average movie can be marketed by its studio as an Oscar darling and then suddenly it becomes an Oscar darling regardless of whether it was the best movie that year or not. If it were really amazing, would they need to remind people of how good it was? Probably not.

Crash was the best example of that phenomenon this year because without the marketing, it probably wouldn't have received a nomination. That doesn't say anything about the movie, just about how the system works. Remember a few years ago when Cold Mountain came out and there was that big stink about the studio being unwilling to support it with Oscar publicity because they thought Renee Zellweger looked too pretty in it for it to be considered realistic and a great movie? No backing = no nomination. A lot of it just comes down to who has the most money and is most willing to support their film to get people to see it and talk about it.

[pk500]

Re: Oscar Nominations

If it were really amazing, would they need to remind people of how good it was? Probably not.

You overestimate the attention span of the American consumer. Quick -- ask 10 of your friends to name the Best Picture of last year without Google at their fingertips. Bet more than half can't remember. Hell, I couldn't even remember without a Google search, and I like to think my attention span is pretty good.

Americans are bombarded with entertainment and media options, so everything in those industries is fleeting.

Your point is valid, but "Crash" is worthy of the nomination, with or without promotion. You should check it out. It's a powerful, well-written, superbly acted flick.

Another thing that worked against "Crash" is that it's a true ensemble piece. There's no big megastar like Cruise or Crowe who dominates the picture and can be splashed all over a marquee. Plus the subject matter -- racism that's still pervasive in modern American -- is pretty heavy for a lot of people.

Take care,
PK

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Didn't Zellweger get a supporting actress Oscar for that role in Cold Mountain?

[Skerik]

Re: Oscar Nominations

You overestimate the attention span of the American consumer. Quick -- ask 10 of your friends to name the Best Picture of last year without Google at their fingertips. Bet more than half can't remember. Hell, I couldn't even remember without a Google search, and I like to think my attention span is pretty good.

Americans are bombarded with entertainment and media options, so everything in those industries is fleeting.

Your point is valid, but "Crash" is worthy of the nomination, with or without promotion. You should check it out. It's a powerful, well-written, superbly acted flick.

Another thing that worked against "Crash" is that it's a true ensemble piece. There's no big megastar like Cruise or Crowe who dominates the picture and can be splashed all over a marquee. Plus the subject matter -- racism that's still pervasive in modern American -- is pretty heavy for a lot of people.

Take care,
PK

Your first point is a valid one, but don't forget that these aren't Joe and Jane Public who are voting for these nominations. These are the members of the Academy. So while a movie may have disappeared from the consciousness of the general public, these movie buff types don't forget about what's good.

As for your point about the ensemble cast, American Beauty won with an ensemble cast a few years ago. And in doing so it beat out The Insider, which featured Russell Crowe whose face can be splashed over marquees. So I don't think that's as big a factor as you believe it to be.

I do plan on watching Crash, eventually. My DVD backlog is pretty large at this point though.

[Skerik]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Didn't Zellweger get a supporting actress Oscar for that role in Cold Mountain?

Yes. But there was a lot of talk at the time about the studio being unwilling to campaign for the movie financially because they didn't think it could win an Oscar. And one of the reasons people mentioned was her appearance in the film. Just sayin'....

[pk500]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Your first point is a valid one, but don't forget that these aren't Joe and Jane Public who are voting for these nominations. These are the members of the Academy. So while a movie may have disappeared from the consciousness of the general public, these movie buff types don't forget about what's good.

As for your point about the ensemble cast, American Beauty won with an ensemble cast a few years ago. And in doing so it beat out The Insider, which featured Russell Crowe whose face can be splashed over marquees. So I don't think that's as big a factor as you believe it to be.

Yeah, but Crowe was a geek in that role. Not exactly the macho gladiator, ship commander or boxer to paste on a poster. But he was excellent in "The Insider," which was a damn good flick.

As for the Academy members, I've read where some of them really take their vote seriously and watch a lot of movies, while others vote for their friends in the industry and take the vote about as seriously as returning a stock annual shareholders' proxy.

Sad, but true.

Take care,
PK

[aholbert32]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Your first point is a valid one, but don't forget that these aren't Joe and Jane Public who are voting for these nominations. These are the members of the Academy. So while a movie may have disappeared from the consciousness of the general public, these movie buff types don't forget about what's good.

As for your point about the ensemble cast, American Beauty won with an ensemble cast a few years ago. And in doing so it beat out The Insider, which featured Russell Crowe whose face can be splashed over marquees. So I don't think that's as big a factor as you believe it to be.

I do plan on watching Crash, eventually. My DVD backlog is pretty large at this point though.

The American Beauty/ Insider comparison is a bad one. The Insider was pre Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind Russel Crowe. That was one of the first films he got real recognition and press for. If you remember, the studion pushed Pacino as the star of the Insider. Its arguable that Kevin Spacey was just as famous (maybe more) than Crowe at the time.

[aholbert32]

Re: Oscar Nominations

Yeah, but Crowe was a geek in that role. Not exactly the macho gladiator, ship commander or boxer to paste on a poster. But he was excellent in "The Insider," which was a damn good flick.

As for the Academy members, I've read where some of them really take their vote seriously and watch a lot of movies, while others vote for their friends in the industry and take the vote about as seriously as returning a stock annual shareholders' proxy.

Sad, but true.

Take care,
PK

LOL, I know two people in the Academy and they ask me what movies where good. I swear I've seen more movies than them this year. Most Academy members live by the screeners. If they dont get a free screener they probably wont see the film.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Oscar Nominations

I think it's a joke that Walk The Line isnt included with the best picture nominees.

[dales]

Re: Oscar Nominations

I think it's a joke that Walk The Line isnt included with the best picture nominees.

Damn right its a joke. That's the best movie I've seen in like 3 or 4 years.

[Brandwin]

Re: Oscar Nominations

PK, Do yourself a favor and rent it. Its a weird film in that if you read the plot you would think its going to be a horrible film. The director and Howard found a way to make it a great film.

That was my reaction to the previews..has to be garbage..but I heard so many good things about the movie. I have yet to see it, but I want to.

Thinking about it..there are a ton of movies from last years Oscars that I wanted to see but have yet saw them. One weekend I need to rent about 7 movies and watch away.

[GenoG]

Re: Oscar Nominations

I can't believe Clooney got a nomination for Syriana, that was a crap movie.