[Arman]

Roger Ebert - "But you have to understand that the academy doesn't vote for the best film. It votes for the best headline. This year, it sees big type that shouts "The Musical Comes Back!" Having failed to honor "Moulin Rouge!" last year, the academy will vote this year the way it thinks it should have voted the year before. (Example: The 2001 Oscar for best actor went to Russell Crowe, who more reasonably should have won a year earlier for "The Insider.")

Bravo! Exactly my thoughts. (But then again he said GONY is the best of the nominated films which I don't agree. )

[Craig S]

Quote:

This is much the same way that New Line was willing to gamble on shooting all three Rings pics at once due to the gamble taken by Titanic (and let us look at what that one did folks, and let us be honest, would the Rings trilogy have been possible-the pitch to do all three at once, that kind of gamble, without Titanic's runaway Oscar, and B.O. sucesses? I doubt it.)

What possible connection is there between Titanic and the three LotR films? You are stretching big-time here.

And, BTW, the LotR pitch was for two films. It was New Line's Bob Shaye who said to PJ "there's 3 books, we should make 3 films". Yes, the decision to make this expensive trilogy wouldn't have been made if they didn't think they would profit from it. But I believe that decision was made because (1) Shaye knew there were millions of Tolkien readers throughout the world and that they would flock to well-made LotR films, and (2) Peter Jackson & his crew demonstrated to him the skill and, more importantly, the passion to make these films right. Somehow, I doubt a completely unrelated project like Titanic entered into it at all.

[Malcolm R]

Quote:

the academy will vote this year the way it thinks it should have voted the year before.

Yep, and that's why I've mostly lost interest in anything to do with the Oscars.

It's no longer about awarding the best films of the year. It's about righting perceived past wrongs.

That's why Denzel Washington won last year.

It's why Martin Scorsese will win this year.

It's no longer just the five nominees against each other. Instead it's the whole career history of each nominee, with bits and pieces of the associated filmmakers, studio, and politics that are against each other.

[Vickie_M]

Quote:

It's no longer just the five nominees against each other.

When did the Oscars ever NOT reward for past deeds if the time seemed right? When exactly were the Oscars free from industry politics? When were the Oscars free from rampant marketeering and glad-handing fools? When were the Oscars a time of ALWAYS gloriously giving the RIGHT award to the RIGHT person/movie in the RIGHT year? When WERE the glory days of Oscar, that people seem to pine for? When did it all "go bad"? When did it sell out? When did the gold man tarnish?

Give me a year, give me a date. Tell us (with a straight face) that everything concerning the Oscars before that date was beautiful and wonderful and free of strife or any hint of "corruption."

The Oscars are what they are and they've ALWAYS been that way. Part of the fun and "charm" of the Oscars is what a big old roiling mess it is. It's much more interesting nowadays now that indies (or, more accurately, "indies") have been poured into the mix.

If I were gifted with Seth's mind and writing skills, I could express my frustration with snooty pronouncements about how the Oscars are crap now (as opposed to, when exactly? I want an answer) elegantly and intelligently. As it is, all I can say is, man, don't pay attention to any of it if it bothers you so much (not just *you*, but chris and several others, all over the net).

[Thi Them]

Right on, Vickie!

~T

[Julian Lalor]

Quote:

It's no longer about awarding the best films of the year.

It's never been about that. Ever. And never will be. It's an industry awards ceremony.

[chris rick]

If I were gifted with Seth's mind and writing skills, I could express my frustration with snooty pronouncements about how the Oscars are crap now (as opposed to, when exactly? I want an answer) elegantly and intelligently. As it is, all I can say is, man, don't pay attention to any of it if it bothers you so much (not just *you*, but chris and several others, all over the net).

Sorry the first line just made me laugh...but anyway I digress. As to the end of your quote above Vickie, OH BUT I WILL PAY ATTENTION. First, how arrogant of you is it to assume that its okay for the whole "mess" aspect of the Academy Awards to be part of the appeal of the show when these are supposed to be the most prestigious awards of the film industry? I don't exactly think Mr. Ebert is praising the Oscars when he cites them as not rewarding the best, but rather the best stories, do you? What is the best picture of the lot, well unlike Mr. Paxton and some on the board, (no I don't mean this offensively gang, I'm sorry!) I, much to your dislike Vickie, do not have all day to get into a semantics debate about what components define the term "best". But is that what qualifies these films in the Oscar race?...without even getting into that debate about which characteristics make a film the "best", can we honestly say that the Academy Voters are thinking this way when they vote for Chicago, or are they voting because of what Mr. Ebert terms the "best story"? The latter is most certainly the case. But I guess Roger Ebert might be wrong too...well let's be honest he could be...but methinks he isn't. I also tend to think he knows (no offense here) a tad bit more about film than any of us here on this board do...but I'm rambling...let me go back to not caring about the Oscars some more and concentrating on my life where I have to work at my job and focus on getting my masters. This will be the last post I ever type about this moronic awards show, you guys can waste hours of your life continuing to do so while they make millions and award films that will allow the industry to have the best chance to continue to make millions in the future. Rewarding mediocrity...it is truly the American way.

[Chuck Mayer]

Quote:

Rewarding mediocrity...it is truly the American way.

Yeah. Any old jerk can even get a degree. But I digress.

I don't even disagree with the fundamentals of your argument, but I truly am not happy with your presentation. You manage to insult the industry (for which I could care less), this board in general, and specific members in particular. I don't care for that, or your presumptuous attitude. You cared enough to post here. That says enough. Good luck on your degree. It should put you way ahead of the idiots on this board

Take care,
Chuck

P.S. Vickie, they do seem worse than usual, but that might very well be the immense reporting that goes on. It could be just us finally seeing behind the curtain. I still don't have to like that it goes on.

[Robert Crawford]

How on earth does a discussion thread about the Oscars becomes a thread with insults towards other HTF members? The next member that makes any personal references towards another member in this thread will have their posting privileges suspended.

Furthermore, if you feel the Oscars are a waste of time then don't post in this thread again and move on to discussion items that are more up to your level of importance.

I hope I've made myself clear because there won't be any further warnings.




Crawdaddy

[Ray Chuang]

Robert,

Thanks the warning. The ad hominem attacks was getting a bit old, in my opinion.

But seriously folks. I think AMPAS (in my humble opinion! ) may have to start looking at the possibility of awarding separate Oscars for Comedy/Musical features and Drama features. There has been WAY too many movies of Oscar-worthy caliber that were shut out because they couldn't fit into the single categories of Best Director, Best Original and Adapted Screenplays, Best Actor/Actress, Best Supporting Actor/Actress and Best Picture. After all, they give out awards for separate Comedy/Musical and Drama categories for the Golden Globes and Emmys (and in many ways the Tonys); why not do it for the Oscars eventually?