Wow, the Oscars sucked (a la 'the grammy's sucked'). Why do awards shows suck?
because their geared toward whatever will score them the most money. It makes more sense to have big name people win all the awards, because that's who people care about, and thats why they watch. This draws in mor emoney to awards ceremonies, so, voila.
big names + money + popular opinion = "good taste"
Jesus people did any of you see the films nominated? This year was great for mainstream cinema. Hotel Rwanda was outstanding and Don Cheadle should have won best actor. Ray was good but not worth any awards. If not Don Cheadle for best actor, then Johnny Depp. Do I even need to explain how great this man is? And Jesus people, did you see Million Dollar Baby!? This was definately the best film of the year and captured my emotions better than possibly any film before (except Magnolia).
I think Sideways got screwed. I hatethese award shows in general and I don't think there is any connection between seeing good movies and watching a self-congratulations fest. Too much good stuff is ignored by Oscar and Grammy for various reasons and I find it disgusting.
who is this Martin Scorsese guy? And why does he keep getting nominated?????
Quotewho is this Martin Scorsese guy? And why does he keep getting nominated?????
heh.
I hate the Oscars. HATE THEM. Can't even watch them anymore it makes me so grossed out.
In my opinion, Scorsese is the best director to never "WIN" an Oscar for "Best Director." I mean he directed "Goodfellas" and "Mean Streets"--WTF.
I wonder if "Elizabethtown" will be nominated for anything next year--possibly best fukin' rock scene ;D
How about Beyonce singing three times....ouch. I did hope that Sideways would have won best picture....great flick.
D.
hey im up for spending a few quid when im a little flush...but it makes you sick, when these people are wearing the running of a small hospital around their necks..."ooooh it's a diamond necklace by blah blah"..who gives a shit..if i went to the Oscars (i never would..no talent :'()..i would wear a pair of Dixies and my middle finger would be pointing straight up. Hilary swank looked fine though ;)
I'm still pissed that "Without a Paddle" didn't get nominated:)
yep jeans, t shirt, and Chuck Taylors would by wardrobe choice for this "Award" show :D
"Ray was good but not worth any awards"
I whole-heartedly have to disagree with you on this one. Jamie Foxx became Ray Charles. It was just amazing. Haven't seen Hotel Rwanda yet, but its on my list. But it has been a decent year for mainstream films. People seem to br writing stuff with more thought these days.
PapJoeBear
QuoteIn my opinion, Scorsese is the best director to never "WIN" an Oscar for "Best Director." I mean he directed "Goodfellas" and "Mean Streets"--WTF.
Definitely a big WTF. >:( I think they're just toyin' with Martin Scorses, bless his heart. Good night, everyone from the Aviator it seems won an Oscar except for him.
Seriously I think they should go back and pick a year where a great movie didn't win and give them this year's award. Not one of these movies made me walk out of the theatre and say "That was one GODDAMN GOOD MOVIE!", ie. Braveheart, American Beauty, Matrix. etc. I liked MDB, but the bad girl not getting disqualified/thrown out of the match made me hate the whole thing. Seriously, was it a WWF referee or what?
And what's the deal with "The Passion" only being nominated for a little award for music?
Just saw this thread... the Oscars are a certainly more political than anything, and this was NOT a great year for film but the show serves it purpose well, which is above all, to honor movie making and get people to discuss and watch movies.... claiming that the Oscars only focus on the films that will make money is stupid and shows little awareness of the shows history... films like Hotel Rwanda and Sideways only made it to certain theaters because of their respective nominations... If you look back over the years and the films and people nominated, they have historically done a pretty good job honoring good movies and people... any time you are selecting a certain number of things, someone is going to get left out... no one will ever agree 100% on what the best of a category is... I would have loved to see more or some nominations for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, A Very Long Engagement, Friday Night Lights, and Spanglish... all which I think were top 10 films this year.... but to condem the whole process for their omitions would be a tad bit self centered...
As for Passion of the Christ... thank Christ it didn't get more nominations... then the whole show would have turned into a religous debate with people voting based on religious beliefs and not on the product... Mel Gibson has his Oscar and his 300+ million.. he'll be ok
historically, the show may have done a good job but the people and the environment of Hollywood was also not as infantile or purposely provactive. Make good movies, accept your reward, siddown, and shut up! I am sick and tired of the movie industry being a one way street. I am glad however that Mr Clint Eastwood received the amount of recognition he did--he is one class act.
I don't understand your comment about Hollywood being a one way street, but I agree (if this is what you were saying) that the Oscars should not be a forum to launch personal views or politics. It's for that reason alone that I think it was a good thing that both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Passion of the Christ were overlooked. When Michael Moore won a deserving Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, the aftertalk wasn't a celebration of his film, it was a talk about what he had to say about President Bush.
The Emmy's suck because they typically only honor popular music, thus missing many of the bands the people on this forum listen to. Movie fans can root for or against films in just about every category, but the Emmy's are packed with categories where an average viewer doesn't like any of the choices....
I agree the Oscars are much better than the Emmys. But it does the raise the question about who is it that gets to pick the awards? Should the popular vote win as it does at the Emmys(remember this is how we pick our President?)There are plenty of people that love Britney Spears and Usher.
QuoteWhen Michael Moore won a deserving Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, the aftertalk wasn't a celebration of his film, it was a talk about what he had to say about President Bush.
But that's what his film was about. That's what he does. If anybody ever thought for one second that Michael Moore wasn't going to milk the fuck out of his opportunity, then they'd never watched his films.
Okay, I seriously loathe these award shows for a number of reasons. One, I think they're a huge waste of time and money. Like, a disgusting waste of money. Two, they're incredibly self-serving and in no way reflect the real world or real people. I'm not saying that movie stars and big rock stars aren't real people, but sitting around watching fancy people dressed up in necklaces that cost more than an entire country's budget, to me, is ludicrous. Three, most of these people started from a place, and it bugs me to see a lot of them forget that. And the music is always shit, and the "numbers" always suck. They're never interesting or creative or different, they're always the same kind of silly crap that is of the same calibre as most of the movies that they're awarding.
Every once in a while a truly amazing actor or film or musician actually wins an award for their superior achievement, and they just look so weird up there.
And I guess my main problem with all of it - and don't get me wrong, I'm not begrudging anybody's right to have the Oscar's and the music awards exist - is that it glorifies all of the crap that exists in this world. It exaults it. And I can't stand that. It's so frustrating to see all this crap that's labelled as art, that has zero integrity and is made by people who don't give a fuck. For the most part, human beings aren't idiots. We know when somebody has been careful about their creation, and we know when somebody's just trying to make themselves into a popular star. But the problem is that the junk is more easily available than the good stuff. And maybe people are lazy, I don't know. I can't figure out why people listen to Britney Spears, and I guess I don't care. Well, I do care, but I don't want to spend time thinking about it.
And, for those people who exist in the world who DON'T know about the "other" kind of art, the "other" kind of music - the stuff that you have to seek out - I am always thrilled that a person like Michael Moore exists. Someone who isn't afraid to kind of brings things down to reality. I know that people get upset when stars use these forums as their platforms, but I don't. I love it. I say, if you've got something to say, and you know that half the world is watching you, and you think your thing is really fucking important, you say it. And thank you for saying it.
That's what I think.
One way street=conservative film makers shut out--e.g. Mel Gibson and his fine work. This is one example of the prevailing attitude in Hollywood.
P.S.--Bowling for columbine was loaded with exagerations and misleading twists of fact.
QuoteP.S.--Bowling for columbine was loaded with exagerations and misleading twists of fact.
I wouldn't disagree with that. The Charlton Heston interview was a terrible, terrible thing. However, I think that Michael Moore is capable, for whatever reason, of providing a good role model for an opposite way of thinking than is generally presented in mainstream media. He's not your average good looking newsperson, he wears whatever he feels comfortable in, he speaks well, he's intelligent. Yes, I agree, the dude needs to understand that the more manipulative he gets with his facts, the less credibility he'll have. However, Michael Moore is actually out there doing something about this world - whether you agree with him or not, and for that, in my eyes, the dude's the shit.
I'll give Moore his props for what he is--an entertainer. he has a captive audience (read: choir) that loves to hear him preach his propaganda. I take his "info' with a large grain of salt :)
QuoteI'll give Moore his props for what he is--an entertainer. he has a captive audience (read: choir) that loves to hear him preach his propaganda. I take his "info' with a large grain of salt :)
Ah come on. He's more than an entertainer.
And I don't think it's fair to say that he's only preaching to converted. In fact, I learned a lot of things from Michael Moore that I didn't know before. AND, there was a time when I would have thought that Michael Moore was an idiot. And now I don't. He convinced me not to think that.
I also take his work with a grain of salt, as I do with everyone. You're never going to agree with everything that a person stands for - that's why we're all different. That's why political parties are a terrible way to create a system, and why it's more important to focus on individual issues than on platforms.
Anyhow, I hear you on Michael Moore - unfortunately, he isn't as effective as he could be because he says stupid things like "Canadians don't lock their doors." Let me tell you something - I know that town. People lock their doors. I'd lock my door if I lived there.
Yes. I suppose we shall agree to disagree. :)
I think what Michael Moore has to say is mostly true, its just that he bombards people and yells and screams. But are his antics any different than George Bush landing on an aircraft carrier in the gulf? I mean he's our president, he has a huge responsibility to the country, why should he take the risk? Because the only way to reach Americans is to be loud and stupid. George Bush is a great president for the times, because he's stupid.(ok he's not really loud though, you got me on that :)) As far as Mel Gibson's movie, yes he's a great director and he's a great actor but do you really think that movie was great or that its message was great. Maybe a best actor nominee would be inline, but the movie? Nah, not great, though visually stunning at times. Now I am not one to bash music of any kind as too commercial, but maybe I just won't listen too it. The point of music is to make people feel good and The backstreet boys made my sister feel that way, so as a doting older brother(I'm 27 she's 14)I went out and bought hercd's and posters. Might I try to play MMJ when I take her to a movie? Yes. Just think, thanks to George Bush maybe the BBB will tour in Afghanistan :) :)
I wonder why so many people feel The Passion is not a great movie. Is it perhaps it makes us squirm just a bit more than we care to? The fact is Mr Gibson tried to capture as best he could the horror endured by a gentle, wise man at the hands of barbarians (Romans) and fearful vengeful weak men (Pharisees and Jewish leaders in bed w/Rome). There is a definite battle occurring now in the US between secularists and those who choose to follow the religion of their choice. It is a disturbing battle but if I have a voice in it I will not be pulling for the secular side.
The reason you have a voice is because of the secularists! Wait till one religion takes over the country and it turns out not to be yours. That would suck, no?
Good point Vic, and it ties in with mine:
QuoteThere is a definite battle occurring now in the US between secularists and those who choose to follow the religion of their choice.
fanatic, if you're referring to any form of religion in politics (ie Bush's pushing of Christianity), then I have to respectfully disagree that politics and religion should never be joined. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is that so many people believe in so many things, and the US is made up of so many different religions.
I don't know about the battles between the secular and the religious, so perhaps I'm wrong, and you're not talking about politics...
I wonder if we are gonna get a sticky label on this? I have never seen one before!
On Michael Moore: While I agree with little of his politics, I agree with EC, that he is clever, and provokes both thought and discussion on his chosed topics. I think Fahrenheit 9/11 was the weakest of his three films, but at the same time, had Kerry won the election, we would be viewing that films spot in history much different.
On Passion of the Christ: Passion of the Christ was honored at the Oscars in some technichal categories, but wasn't nominated in the Best Picture/Director categories, nor any of the acting areas. The reason is quite simple too: IT DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE NOMINATED. POTC was hardly present on any respected critics top 10 list (and you can't have it both ways- if you hate the mainstream film industry, than the critics always toting the more obscure works are the polar opposite; their tops choices are often passed over and they are considered professionals in the field *side note- Gene Siskel went to the grave believing critics should vote the Oscars*). You think it's great because you like the message it sends because it jives with your religious beliefs, and that's fine- but the hardest thing for people to realize about film is- what you like and what are good are NOT the same thing.
"It's so frustrating to see all this crap that's labelled as art, that has zero integrity and is made by people who don't give a fuck. For the most part, human beings aren't idiots. We know when somebody has been careful about their creation, and we know when somebody's just trying to make themselves into a popular star. But the problem is that the junk is more easily available than the good stuff. And maybe people are lazy, I don't know. I can't figure out why people listen to Britney Spears, and I guess I don't care. Well, I do care, but I don't want to spend time thinking about it."
You right, the junk is more available and I can't remember Independence Day, Armageddon, The Fast and the Furious, Con Air, National Treasure, Twister, etc receiving many nominations. Sideways, Hotel Rwanda, Kinsey, from this year- would likely have been accessible to far less people if it were not for the attention the Oscars brought them. I think you are WAY off base claiming that directors like Speilberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, and many others have no integrity and don't give a fuck. Half of what our kids in school know today about history- Speilberg made possible. I'm sure Roman Polanski's "The Pianist" which won best director and actor was also an empty tale made for the financial benifit of it creator?
"And, for those people who exist in the world who DON'T know about the "other" kind of art, the "other" kind of music - the stuff that you have to seek out"
How many films in your entire life time have you seen that have been nominated in the Best Short Film Live Action, Best Short Film Animated, Best Documentary Short, and Best Documentary? Most people probably average 0... I'm guessing many have seen Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me and little else. Are you seeking these films out? Or are you "lazy?"
The bottom line is this: we will never agree 100% on the choices, films will always get left out, and personal politics will never be totally void in these selections... but the Oscars do a good job of honoring film, creating discussion, and bringing people to the movies. They have more consistently nominated more artistic efforts than major studio crap which turns a lot of people away who have never seen any of the films.
QuoteI think you are WAY off base claiming that directors like Speilberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, and many others have no integrity and don't give a fuck.
To be sure, I never claimed that. I'm not a huge fan of any of those directors at this point in their careers. Eastwood, I give credit to. But I think that Speilberg and Scorsese have lost a little of what they once had. I'm NOT taking away their major roles in the history of filmmaking, of course. But I find that the big Hollywood films that they make, are not interesting to me. To ME. It's me. That's who I'm talking about.
QuoteHow many films in your entire life time have you seen that have been nominated in the Best Short Film Live Action, Best Short Film Animated, Best Documentary Short, and Best Documentary? Most people probably average 0... I'm guessing many have seen Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me and little else. Are you seeking these films out? Or are you "lazy?"
Personally, I've seen quite a few. But that's because I am familiar with the industry.
I will agree with you that the Oscars get people out to see movies. That's all you hear around Oscar time "How many of the best picture nominations have you seen?"
And perhaps I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped - my major problem with the Oscars is the presentation of them. Now granted, I haven't watched them in a couple of years, so maybe everything's changed. Who knows.
Well I'll agree the presentation leaves something to be desired, and they made changes this year that made it worse.
First off, in an attempt to appeal the show to a younger hipper audience, Chris Rock was chosen as the host over more conservative hosts like Hope, Carson, Crystal, and Martin in the past. This was a big mistake. Rock appeals to people who watch Chris Rock movies, none which will ever likely warrant award attention. The conservative route is much classier.
Cut the best song category- it's only purpose is to give Oscars to the Beatles, Phil Collins, Sting, etc. The songs nominated usually play while the credits role and have little impact on the films themselves (Bob Dylan's Wonder Boys song did set the feel for that movie). They're aren't enough musicals anymore, and even if there were enough quality song selections, for a group so concern on trimming the shows time down, do we need to see every performance? Show a clip and tell us who wins!
They presented a few awards this year in the aisle! How special. You just won the biggest award of your life and they're going to give it to you in the aisle like handing the beer man money at a ballgame.
Show more clips! I hate when they don't show the clips of the actors performances before the tell the winner! The more clips of the movies they show- the better. The less lame presentation jokes the better.
QuoteThe reason you have a voice is because of the secularists! Wait till one religion takes over the country and it turns out not to be yours. That would suck, no?
I know that will never happen because the government is set up not to promote one religion over any other that's why a radical muslim high school sponsored by saudis exists right in Virginia, probably not far from a nice Catholic High School.
Quote
On Passion of the Christ: Passion of the Christ was honored at the Oscars in some technichal categories, but wasn't nominated in the Best Picture/Director categories, nor any of the acting areas. The reason is quite simple too: IT DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE NOMINATED. POTC was hardly present on any respected critics top 10 list
I think your are completely wrong. The reason this movie was marginilized is because Hollywood is full of secular people who want no moral judgements made on their behavior or anyone else's and also because Mel Gibson is a man ostracized because of his views.
Yeah my heart bleeds for mel, he just bought a 20 million dollar island near fiji. Since you are his #1 fan, maybe he'll let MMJ play there ;D
I never said I was his #1 fan (although I have almost the whole dialogue of Mad Max memorized, as I am a motorhead) I just used him as an example of how Hollywood is a one-sided pulpit soapbox (rethunk ma 1st word choice, pulpit seems out of place applied to H'wood)
QuoteI think your are completely wrong. The reason this movie was marginilized is because Hollywood is full of secular people who want no moral judgements made on their behavior or anyone else's and also because Mel Gibson is a man ostracized because of his views.
Well, I'll partially agree with you, fanatic. However, in all honestly, I thought Passion was crappy and self-serving. And I actually kind of WANTED to like it.
I mean, religion is hard. Christ is hard. It's hard to try and make a movie that pretty much every single person in the world has an opinion on, and most of those opinions are going to be pretty different. Jesus Christ is the most popular celebrity, I would imagine. And people are PASSIONATE about him.
However, in truth, and being distanced enough from all of the hype and propaganda that came along with it (I hardly ever read the news, and I never watch tv), I was extremely disappointed. I thought the film was very interesting on a cinematic level, but I thought it was fairly manipulative, in the sense that I felt as though I was trying to be made to feel something. As opposed to just allowing me to feel what I felt. And that always bugs me, and it ruined the film for me. Plus, I don't understand how a director thinks he can direct a film in a foreign language to him. To me, that is plain megalomaniacal. Is that the right word? I think it is.
And it's a stupid thing to do. According to me.
The saddest part about Passion of the Christ is that all it would have taken was one high ranking church official to go out and condem this movie, and it wouldn't have made cent one. All the goof balls who flocked to this thing, were told what to believe about it, as the church lead them be their noses as usual- none of them would have seen. I know several churches in the area that were arranging church outing to go see this.
WoW! this topic has gotten heavy. I just want to mention that I haven't seen the Passion, and I don't plan to, even though I consider myself Christian. This is because Christianity as I understand it should focus more on the life of Christ, and how to be Christlike, than on the gory details of his death.