View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
marcus Expert Vidder
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 4541
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:21 am Post subject: The Oscars |
|
|
Is anybody else extremely annoyed with this year's Oscar nominations? King Kong is up for two things, but they're just visual effects and that sorta thing. There's a whole bunch of films that I've never even heard of. But that's not what bothers me majorly. It's because of a queer little film called Brokeback Mountain.
Can anybody tell me if Brokeback Mountain is good? And by good, I don't mean Million Dollar Baby good. Don't get me wrong, Million Dollar Baby was a touching story with great acting, but that doesn't mean it deserved best picture. It deserved best Actress, since Hillary Swank was the best actress that year. It would've deserved most easy-to-cry-in film if that category existed, and hell, maybe it did deserve best director, although I didn't think Clint did anything too special. But Best Picture isn't about that. It's supposed to be for most entertaining film, and I think sometimes people have forgotten that. I would never wanna see Million Dollar Baby again unless I had no choice. It's the sort of movie you see once, gasp in awe at, then never see again.
Is Brokeback Mountain just sad with beautiful scenery? Or is it entertaining, and would you be willing to see it again? I think King Kong is my favourite movie in years, and I'm not just saying that for special effects or for Peter "Oscar" Jackson. I'm saying it because King Kong made me sad, but I would still see it again, and again, and again.
The Oscars are getting less and less about the best in film each year, and I'm really not looking forward to them this year. _________________
It's official - Aislynn is 36. Add a 0 to the end of that and you've got a full circle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MovieGuy Advanced Vidder
Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 9022
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. Brokeback Mountain doesn't deserve it. Period.
And it's not really because it's gayI hate it... it's just because it is gay it's nominated for al lthis crap.
It's the same way with Naveen Andrews. Sayid is a great character and all, but there are several othe cast members that deserve nominations. Terry for just being Locke, Dom fr the whole drug stuff. I think Naveen is only nominated because he plays an Iraqi and the Academies don't want to look racist or something.
Same with Brokeback Mt. It is gonna win becuase if it doesn't the Oscar Academy is gonna be labeled homophobic.
Kong not getting a nom is bullshit. And Walk the Line didn't either. Those were two fo the best films this year.
It isn't about awarding a film with the best stories or emotions or anything anymore. It is awarding things so they dont get in trouble. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcus Expert Vidder
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 4541
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suggest they replace the current judges with the people from LVI. _________________
It's official - Aislynn is 36. Add a 0 to the end of that and you've got a full circle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Polarbear Expert Vidder
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 Posts: 13684 Location: having a bowl of brown with Davos
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guys I just realised I can edit all their nominations. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcus Expert Vidder
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 4541
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awesome. You can like control the world as an mod. _________________
It's official - Aislynn is 36. Add a 0 to the end of that and you've got a full circle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperKC Expert Vidder
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 3667 Location: On a Stick
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm gonna put my two cents here for what it's worth.
The Academy Awards has NEVER been about the best popcorn flick unless you count the year of the Titanic. Because that's what King Kong is. No offense or anything meant. Popcorn flicks are awesome, but they just don't get Academy attention, whether it's fair or not. The Academy Awards has never been about fairness. (Unless by "fairness" you really mean to say "snobbery and pretention." Because that is a far more accurate description.)
That being said, this happens every gorram year people! There are a couple of front-runners who push out other deserving flicks. It sucks, but it happens, year after year. And I am pretty confident that King Kong is NOT on the short list of replacements for Brokeback. It would be something else.
My disdain for the nature of the Oscars aside, I'm going to defend Brokeback here.
I don't see how anyone can truly comment on the quality of a film until you've seen it. So in my opinion, Brokeback does deserve a lot of the accolades that it is getting. It is a moving and powerful story to begin with. And it should be. The author of the short story, Annie Proulx, happens to be a Pulitzer prize-winning author.
One thing that bugs me is a lot of people saying that it's only getting attention because it's a "gay" movie. I'm sorry, but that's total crap right there. Off the top of my head I can name over a dozen "gay" movies (if we have to call them that) that have never been nominated for best picture or seen anything close to half of the attention that Brokeback has gotten. Not even PHILADELPHIA was nominated for best picture. So I think you can usher that totally incorrect theory right out the door.
To me, and trust me, I've seen all of them, it's the first "gay" (love story) movie that transcends the stigma of being that "token" gay movie. Now, a lot of people don't realize this, because they're kind of outside of that bubble and haven't seen a lot of the other ones, but it's unfortunately true, with few exceptions. (The Sum of Us is an awesome example of a good one, and that says a lot coming from me because I seriously have it in for Russell Crowe. That man annoys me immensely and I practically refuse to see anything he is in.)
Is it wrong to say that the people who made this movie are "brave?" This screenplay sat on the shelves for years people. It was considered "the best unproduced screenplay in hollywood." No one wanted to touch it! Actors would sign on for it and then later backpeddle because it would "hurt" their careers too much. The fact that it's doing exactly the opposite for the guys who did eventually take the role really is nothing short of poetic justice.
The performancees were spot on, the cinematography was great, the directing was amazing, the writing is outstanding, the story was moving and involving and it sticks with you for days afterwards. (And I've even read the short story, so I already knew what was going to happen.)
It's not the end of the story that really "hits you" in my opinion. It kind of hits you somewhere along the middle. The sacrifices they made due to fear. The compromised lives they had to lead. The fact that they could never truly be happy and never truly be themselves. Those are the kinds of things that I think ANYONE can connect with. We've all had a secret, or a shame, or a hurt that we never showed to anyone. We've all had something we've given up even though we didn't want to. And so in that way, it transcends the "token" gay flick and becomes something more - something worth all of the fanfare it is receiving.
- EndNovel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcus Expert Vidder
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 4541
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never said I didn't think Brokeback Mountain would be good personally. What I'm saying is, would you go see it again? "Popcorn flick" is a term that has ruined cinema in many ways. It's just as badder label as "that gay cowboy movie". I consider crap with lots of action but no plot a "popcorn flick". But if it has plot, and maybe heart, in it, then it's definetly something more. If a film can make you cry but still make you want to watch the film again, that's the most mighty achievement any director can get. I dunno if Brokeback Mountain is like that, but King Kong certainly is. That's why I'm annoyed. I think King Kong, whether or not it were to win, should've been up against Brokeback Mountain in pretty much every category. That's my problem with the whole thing. _________________
It's official - Aislynn is 36. Add a 0 to the end of that and you've got a full circle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MovieGuy Advanced Vidder
Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 9022
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree.
Popcorn flicks are useless action flicks like xXx or something.
If you're going to call Kong popcorn flicks, I guess LOTR is too. Since Peter Jackson just as hard if not harder on Kong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperKC Expert Vidder
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 3667 Location: On a Stick
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
But I thought your problem WAS with Brokeback Mountain being nominated. You called it a "queer little film." And I can't tell if you meant the word "queer" endearingly or not. I'm guessing NOT. You said your main problem with the Oscars is Brokeback and you asked if it was any good (and then gave the parameters that 'good' meant something you'd watch on repeat.)
And let me clarifiy. I would see Brokeback again. I might even buy it. But then again I have weird stuff like Mean Creek, Igby Goes Down, and even a couple of documentaries in my DVD collection.
Popcorn flick is not a term meant to generalize any action movie with a crappy plot. It's not even reserved for action flicks. It could even be a romance or a comedy. The term in the way I use it is more reserved for those kind of canned (formula) blockbuster (geared, no guarantee on that) types. Not that PJ didn't have creative control over the project because he obviously did, the story itself is already well known and has a predetermined beginning and end. And being one of those kind of movies doesn't pin you into a certain genre or pre-determine that you have a bad plot, bad writing, and over-indulged sterilized special effects *cough*starwars*cough* It's just not the kind of flick that gets writing/directing/acting awards in a general sense when it comes to the Academy Awards.
(And for the record, I personally would like to see Peter Jackson try is hand at original storytelling. That will be his true "test," in my opinion. Adaptation is one thing.)
What you are describing is an "entertaining" movie. One you can watch over and over again, with the distinction that it's also emotionally moving. Unfortunately, all of that comes down to basic personal opinion.
Last edited by SuperKC on Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fallen_angel Advanced Vidder
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Posts: 4376 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok i saw Brokeback Mountain and I think the actors gave great performances... but I personally didn't like the film.... I felt it was too slow, the casting was great and the story was nice... however i just couldn't get into the film.... that's just my opinion though, but I can see why it has received so many awards and nominations.
I do agree with KC after thinking about it, that I don't believe the academy would pick Brokeback just because of the context....
Looking back at the most recent winners.... I think the academy seem to lean toward challenging / controversial type films and biopics also.
I loved King Kong, and I think it could have been worthy of a nomination... but it wasn't received as well as LOTR plus there ws too much competition I guess. I also think Memoirs of a Geisha was well deserving of a nom... but I guess it isn't award winning material in there eyes.
hope all that made sense _________________ Pirates 3 - MAY 25th 2007!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcus Expert Vidder
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 4541
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I called it a queer little film because it's about queer cowboys, that's all. I'll have to see Brokeback Mountain some time.
You're right KC, it does come down to personal opinion. Which is why I believe it would make more sense for people to be able to vote. I seriously think that'd be awesome.
Sorry if I offended you KC. I probably didn't, I just got a feeling I annoyed you a bit. _________________
It's official - Aislynn is 36. Add a 0 to the end of that and you've got a full circle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Polarbear Expert Vidder
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 Posts: 13684 Location: having a bowl of brown with Davos
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
King Kong was a good film but I don't think it deserves to sweep the oscars. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain so I can't possibly comment _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcus Expert Vidder
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 4541
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think any film deserves to sweep the oscars. I really can't be bothered writing another long complaint about academ awards. I just think King Kong should be up for Best Picture. Whether it wins or not. _________________
It's official - Aislynn is 36. Add a 0 to the end of that and you've got a full circle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Enchirito Council Member
Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2211 Location: Billings, MT
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Which is why I believe it would make more sense for people to be able to vote. I seriously think that'd be awesome. |
well, i think the Oscars are suposed to be awards given by others in the film industry, because an award from your peers means more than from the people.
I mean, the sad fact is that many people can't tell the difference between a good movie and a well-marketed movie.
Exibit A: http://www.pcavote.com/nominees_fi.shtml _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Polarbear Expert Vidder
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 Posts: 13684 Location: having a bowl of brown with Davos
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Batman Begins- now there's a movie that should have got an oscar nom.
Just checked it did lol for Cinematography. I hope it wins
Also King Kong is up for 4 noms that's not bad. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|