Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Mike Frezon, Jan 15, 2014.
IIRC, Bullock said she didn't have cash, but had a credit card.
She should have said I take it!
The Academy Awards are just getting lamer and lamer. Ellen Degeneres wandering around collecting pizza money from the 1% is comedy gold?
My feelings about the Academy Awards.
As much as I have disdain for the Oscars, there is obviously a segment of the population that eats this stuff up so why should they nuke it to please a vocal minority? We can always exercise our right not to watch them nor participate in discussions about them.
Yes, Sandra Bullock winning 60 millions for Gravity and saying I have no money is comedy gold opportunity!
Guess I should have put a smiley or something in there. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, not a literal I want them gone. I'm aware that there are people who still enjoy watching a boring, predictable award show, which is perfectly fine.
So "earning" now equals "winning"?
One could make the argument that on some level, a $60 million payday for one movie is like winning the lottery.
I bet that's how Jack Nicholson felt back in 1989, that's when money was worth a little bit more too.
Right there with ya. After hearing about Oscar voters that didn't even watch the film they voted for was the last straw(well that, and it has been quite stale the last couple years). If it were the Olympics and two judges scored an event without watching, it would be a redo. The Oscars is a competition, so what's the difference? Why this news was barely acknowledged is a mystery. I'm done with them forever.
I thought it was common knowledge voters don't always see what they vote for, in the same way politicians are not elected for all the right reasons.
Agreed Cameron. Do people really think Errol Flynn was taking time away from the ladies to go watch every movie that was nominated? The idea that this isn't a popularity vote is somewhat naïve at times. I can't remember what celebrity said it but they do spend a large portion of the year working. Could be actually filming. Preparing for a role. Or out promoting it. There's really not too many cases where they actually gather to kiss each other's butt, if you want to call it that.
The show is incredibly popular even if the film's they honor aren't. DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, 12 YEARS A SLAVE and BLUE JASMINE were the big winners but none of them were really hits with the public, although all did fine considering they were small pictures. It just shows that the general public is more interested in a pizza boy than some of the films that are honored.
If they aren't going to watch them then they shouldn't be voting. If they are too busy to take it seriously then they should inform the Academy that they do not have the time or the inclination to judge movies. It is laughable that anyone would consider winning an Academy Award as an accomplishment if the criteria for picking a winner amounts to "I just voted for whatever everyone else voted for, because I couldn't be bothered to actually watch any of these things".
Best Actor or Actress? Here I'll just put on a blindfold, tack the nominee list on the wall and toss a dart. The first name it hits is the winner.
Best Animated film? Is Disney or Pixar on the list? That makes it easy.
A sneaky suspicion, but until last week I really didn't think that was common practice.
I think we all had our smoking gun when "Brave" won Best Animated last year.
If you could have blind-bluff voted for Pixar in any year, that wasn't the safe year to do it.
(Unless you were one of the folks pushing for Hugo to beat The Artist--
I wouldn't MIND if it'd been a fair fight, but all we kept hearing was "The Artist is the only movie this year to pay tribute to the art of silent movies! And why would famous directors do kiddy CGI movies, Scorsese should stick to his gangsters!")
Once in a while, when they start giving the show a unified "theme" that reflects one of the better-known lead-favorite Picture nominees, it's usually because the insiders are nudging each other that "Hey, c'mon, YOU know who you voted for...", and that the Picture that's "destined" to win will wrap up and cap off the evening's motif. And when the theme was "Heroes struggling in the face of adversity", I don't think they were expecting it to be Sandra Bullock struggling with the space capsule.
Sort of like in 1939, when there was no suspense about whether Oz or Jezebel would beat Gone With the Wind, and Bob Hope joked, "I'd like to welcome you to this benefit for David Selznick"...
(And Jon Stewart, on his second gig, tried, and failed, to make fun of the "silly, pointless" montages, with his "Salute to famous binoculars" in movies, with memorable clips from Patton, Rear Window and Mister Roberts. There was an audible silence afterwards, as you could clearly hear the audience thinking "Wait, show some more of that! ")
"Heroes struggling in the face of adversity" describes every movie that has ever been nominated for Best Picture.
Point is, though, I'm guessing the show planners weren't wasting time expecting Wolf of Wall Street or American Hustle to take it either.
Studio bosses had "block" voting in the old days. If Louis B. Mayer said that everyone in his studio had to vote for an undeserving vehicle such as "The Great Ziegfeld," well, that's what the MGM employees who were members of the academy did.
For the record, "Jezebel" was not up for any awards in '39, having won its awards in '38. However, Hope's comments did apply because the press had leaked out the outcome before the ceremony, so everybody knew that the gala was (to paraphrase) a benefit for Selznick.