| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Joe Blevins 
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
 Posted - 02/23/2008 : 22:50:33
|
Entertainment Weekly recently published a list of Oscar snubs, and it got me to thinking about a possible inherent flaw in the Academy Awards. EW's list, entertaining as it is, is based on hindsight -- Monday Morning quarterbacking, to use an American expression. There is little to no room for hindsight in the Academy Awards. It's all based on first impressions. The movies competing have only been out a few months. We have no idea whether they will stand the test of time.
I've often argued that a true test of a movie is whether people still find it entertaining, engaging, worth watching, etc. after 5 years or more. The initial flurry of reviews -- the ones that appear in newspapers, magazines, and the Internet -- are only of moderate value. These reviews are too often clouded by extrinsic factors that have nothing to do with a film's quality: i.e. the film's box office potential, the advance buzz, the marketing campaign, comparisons to other recent films, etc. Initial reviews are also likely to be written in reaction to other reviews. We've all seen the pattern wherein a film receives a wave of initial hype, which is followed by a bitter backlash, which in turn is often followed by a backlash-to-the-backlash. It takes a while for this to settle down so that people can see a movie clearly for what it is and can give it a fair assessment.
An opening-weekend newspaper review of a film is the equivalent of a doctor's initial diagnosis, and the awards season is not much more than that.
By my calculations, we should only now be giving out Oscars for the films that came out in, say, 2002 or 2003.
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 01:33:13
|
| Yes, hindsight is 20/20, as they say (ever wonder who "they" is?). The politics of Oscar sometimes has little to do with complete quality, but rather marketing, who and what producers, etc., choose to promote, and popularity. It's often frustrating. |
 |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 02:15:49
|
Flicks, books, tracks, yep: they all must stand the test of time. But is five years actually enough? I say no.
Pick up a book called THE EXPERTS SPEAK for both humor and horror. |
|
|
|
chazbo 
"Outta This Fuckin' Place"
|
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 06:36:30
|
The Best Picture winners for 2002 and 2003 were Chicago and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, respectively. I wonder how many would like to have their votes back on either of those?
I agree that five years may not be enough to tell.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 06:55:39
|
Well, you certainly have a good point here. I went to www.oscars.com and they have historical data there. Looking at the list of those who won the 70th Oscars, I noticed that Titanic was the big winner. If I never see Titanic again, it will be too soon. The next year Shakespeare in Love took the lion's share, and while it was okay, I wouldn't rush out to buy the DVD and if I missed it airing on TV I wouldn't be kicking myself.
Both of those years had films with less wins and nominations, which I think were better pieces of work. Against Titanic was Good Will Hunting and against Shakespeare in Love was Life is Beautiful and if you don't accept that because it was in Italian, you can substitute Hillary & Jackie which I thought was an amazing film.
This is a random example, but what I see is a good deal of misplaced sympathies (like when they give a best actor award to someone who was snubbed the year before). If they had waited 10-11 years, perhaps the winners list would look very different. Certainly Emily Watson would have gotten it for her amazing portrayal of Jacqueline Du Pre instead of Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 02/24/2008 07:00:35 |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 16:49:09
|
Maybe they should make it like the Nobel Prizes. You get the award when the scientific community acknowledges the significance of your discoveries...regardless of when those discoveries were made (provided you're still alive when they finally acknowledge you).
Or maybe the members of the Academy should just think for themselves instead of letting the box office receipts dictate their choices. Titanic won Best Picture for only one reason: because it grossed $1,000,000,000 at the box office. Why even bother wasting time with a vote? If you're going to do something like that, just end the suspense and turn the Oscars into a film version of the Billboard Awards: whatever film was on top the longest gets Best Picture by default. Whomever gets the most invitations to late night talk shows can win the Best Actor/Actress Awards. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 22:09:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Titanic won Best Picture for only one reason: because it grossed $1,000,000,000 at the box office. Why even bother wasting time with a vote? If you're going to do something like that, just end the suspense and turn the Oscars into a film version of the Billboard Awards: whatever film was on top the longest gets Best Picture by default.
They already have that. It's called the Golden Globes. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 06:00:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Titanic won Best Picture for only one reason: because it grossed $1,000,000,000 at the box office. Why even bother wasting time with a vote? If you're going to do something like that, just end the suspense and turn the Oscars into a film version of the Billboard Awards: whatever film was on top the longest gets Best Picture by default.
They already have that. It's called the Golden Globes.
And the "People's Choice" Awards. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 06:32:00
|
I honestly think Titanic is a good movie. Not a particularly smart one, mind you, but an effective crowd-pleaser and I think it won the Oscars on its own merits.
And sure, we could award Oscars five years after the fact, but then it would not be nearly as much fun. Wins for terrible movies are far more interesting to talk about.
Tilda Swinton? Diablo Cody? Marion Cotillard? The Oscars would not be the Oscars if there were less bullshit, awful picks like those. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 02/25/2008 19:22:54 |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 15:41:35
|
I don't think it's fair to say that Titanic only won the Oscar because of its box office. Remember that at the time a lot of people were calling it a great picture (Heck, I still argue that it is).
Did it get a boost from its box office? Probably. Should it have? No. But box office (for me) is far down on the list of problems with the Oscars, behind politicking, the 'best = most' philosophy, and the recent trend toward spreading out the awards. |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 18:24:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Well, you certainly have a good point here. I went to www.oscars.com and they have historical data there. Looking at the list of those who won the 70th Oscars, I noticed that Titanic was the big winner. If I never see Titanic again, it will be too soon. The next year Shakespeare in Love took the lion's share, and while it was okay, I wouldn't rush out to buy the DVD and if I missed it airing on TV I wouldn't be kicking myself.
Both of those years had films with less wins and nominations, which I think were better pieces of work. Against Titanic was Good Will Hunting and against Shakespeare in Love was Life is Beautiful and if you don't accept that because it was in Italian, you can substitute Hillary & Jackie which I thought was an amazing film.
This is a random example, but what I see is a good deal of misplaced sympathies (like when they give a best actor award to someone who was snubbed the year before). If they had waited 10-11 years, perhaps the winners list would look very different. Certainly Emily Watson would have gotten it for her amazing portrayal of Jacqueline Du Pre instead of Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love.
Here, here. You are so right. Down with Titanic. And Shakespeare, from what I have read, certainly wouldn't have been in love with a woman. That movie was okay at best. And I also would like to join the group of people who wish to miss every future airing of Titanic.
I hate that song. I read a billboard for a hip rock station that said, "We wish Celine Dion had been on the Titanic". I second that notion. And James Cameron to boot.
My only quibble with what you have said is that the Oscar Gwynth got should have gone to Cate Blanchett for her amazing performance of Queen Elizabeth (the first time around).
And I would like to say that I thought most of the Oscars went to the appropriate people this year. What a great crop of movies and performances.
EM :) |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 18:31:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I honestly think Titanic is a good movie. Not a particularly smart one, mind you, but an effective crowd-pleaser and I think it won the Oscars on its own merits.
And sure, we could award Oscars five years after the fact, but then it would not be nearly as much fun. Wins for terrible movies are far more interesting to talk about.
Tilda Swinton? Diablo Cody? Marion Cotillard? The Oscars would not be the Oscars is there were less bullshit, awful picks like those.
Tilda's speech left a lot to be desired. Thanking her agent??????
But, I thought her performance in Michael Clayton was very good. Deserving of the nod. I think she is a very talented actress. I've enjoyed her in many films. "The Deep End" comes to mind as a great perfomance of hers that probably not many know about.
I really enjoyed "Juno." Some of that is due to Ellen Page, but a lot had to do with the script. So, I don't think Diablo was undeserving.
I have not seen "La Vie En Rose" yet. But plan to see it.
EM :) |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 20:07:18
|
quote:
Tilda's speech left a lot to be desired. Thanking her agent??????
When you win an award for your outstanding performance in a movie, it seems wise to thank the person that was responsible for your getting the part in the first place. Agents have lots of other clients, too...clients that might get those choice parts in the future if they seem to show more gratitude.
Life is not so short but there is always time for courtesy...even with a two-minute time limit. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 21:07:23
|
I think that Titanic is overly maligned. The song/scene at the prow/love story/throwing the diamond overboard is all sappy, and Leo is not very likeable or powerful despite being really quite a good actor in several films, but many aspects of it are excellent. When the ship finally goes down (as well as the impressive effects in that regard), the sight of all the people left floating like ants is spine-chillingly moving.
I think it's fine to have the Oscars in the subsequent year (although maybe a few months later would be a good idea), but if winning one is the be-all-and-end-all for any film-maker or actor, more fool them. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 21:54:24
|
Maybe they should at least do the balloting sometime in the summer, six months after the latest possible release date. That will make it more likely people will make a rational choice, instead of just making the trendy pick or selecting the "really cool" movie they just happened to see last weekend and which is fresh on their minds. This is why professional sports halls of fame typically require a waiting period before a retired player is eligible for induction: they don't want anyone making sentimental picks.
Of course they'd have to wait until fall for the actual award ceremony, because summertime TV ratings wouldn't be high enough. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 22:12:09
|
| No. Change nothing about the Oscars. The great thing about the Oscars is how insane and ridiculous they are. I honestly don't want to see great movies win all the time. I want terrible movies to win every once in a while. The critical canon can establish itself -- keep the Oscars separate from that. Let the Academy Awards give out Best Picture to awful movies like Chariots of Fire or The English Patient. The Oscars aren't about the best movie, they're about the Oscars, and that's the way I like it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
An inherent flaw in the Oscars...?
