|
Post by arkhaminmate on Mar 24, 2006 12:02:22 GMT -5
It's only a statue, it means nothing in the real world. All it means is that some rich pricks like movies! WOOPIDEE-DO!
|
|
|
Post by jabsy on Mar 24, 2006 17:00:54 GMT -5
The oscars are just a bunch of Actors slapping each other on the back and telling each other how good they are.
Any awards that have film fans involved by voting etc, then they are deserved and hold a lot more weight with me.
|
|
|
Post by jabsy on Mar 24, 2006 17:01:49 GMT -5
It's only a statue, it means nothing in the real world. All it means is that some rich pricks like movies! WOOPIDEE-DO! I think it means a lot in the film industry itself but holds nothing for us.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Mar 24, 2006 18:45:54 GMT -5
The oscars are just a bunch of Actors slapping each other on the back and telling each other how good they are. Any awards that have film fans involved by voting etc, then they are deserved and hold a lot more weight with me. [shadow=purple,left,300]Actually, it's about 1600 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voting for the good movies that get released each year (the relatively few, nowadays). Most of the time, the movies that get rewarded deserve the attention they get. Basically, the Oscars are for smart people who know a thing or two about film, and for people in that industry who think of film as an artform rather than a way to make money (and again, its changed over the past decade).
But I have differing opinions about crap like the Superbowl and the World Series, so I guess its a matter of taste.[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 24, 2006 19:00:00 GMT -5
I honestly wasnt expecting Brokeback Mountain to lose Best Picture. Bet it was jsut something the media did on purpose to et everyone mad -_-
|
|
|
Post by enchantaurora on Mar 26, 2006 16:38:12 GMT -5
Honestly, Brokeback wasn't that good. If the movie had been about a man and woman it would havebeen just another movie, an okay movie but still just another movie. The excitement came from its controversy not its exceptional quality, but that's off topic.
I don't think that the Academy Award is just some statue/some award so those in the movie industry can pat themselves on the back but it's not a totally artistically driven either. The balance is somewhere in-between. While some of the movies do deserve to be there, we all know those years where everyone else is scratching their heads asking what the frick the Academy was thinking.
|
|
|
Post by jabsy on Mar 26, 2006 17:01:16 GMT -5
The oscars are just a bunch of Actors slapping each other on the back and telling each other how good they are. Any awards that have film fans involved by voting etc, then they are deserved and hold a lot more weight with me. [shadow=purple,left,300]Actually, it's about 1600 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voting for the good movies that get released each year (the relatively few, nowadays). Most of the time, the movies that get rewarded deserve the attention they get. Basically, the Oscars are for smart people who know a thing or two about film, and for people in that industry who think of film as an artform rather than a way to make money (and again, its changed over the past decade).
But I have differing opinions about crap like the Superbowl and the World Series, so I guess its a matter of taste.[/shadow]I get what you are saying here but if it is all about the art form of movie making then why all the bling, the massive amount of dollars spent on the show, the elaborate gifts they are given and all the normal fake stuff that normally goes hand in hand with the oscars. To me, the Oscars comes across as a back slapping party for the rich and famous and nothing else. But as you say J-Man, it is all about personel opinions and taste.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Mar 26, 2006 19:50:27 GMT -5
Honestly, Brokeback wasn't that good. If the movie had been about a man and woman it would havebeen just another movie, an okay movie but still just another movie. The excitement came from its controversy not its exceptional quality, but that's off topic. [shadow=purple,left,300]But it's not like that all. What makes "Brokeback Mountain" what it is is because it is about two men and their struggles to accept who they are and be who they are. It's about a different relationship, it's entire message is to accept homosexuals and to see how hard it is to be different in a society so pig headed and unaccepting. If it was about a man and a woman, it wouldn't be anything at all. It would serve no purpose whatsoever.[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by enchantaurora on Mar 29, 2006 6:07:04 GMT -5
My point exactly. To me, it felt like the movie was being held up by its controversy, not by the quality of the acting, the plot, the directing, the cinematography, etc. If you look at the technical points it was an okay movie, maybe even a good movie, but it wasn't anything special. While I do believe that the message a movie is trying to send is important, whether I agree with it or not, that is not how I judge movies, or books, or any other artistic medium. I judge them by their quality. Who cares about your message if you don't do a great job at sending it, if your sense of the aesthetic is kind of off? That's how I feel anyway.
|
|