Create a New Forum Owner Login Contribute & Create Your Member account VoyUser Login (see contribute) VoyForums Directory/Categories No-ads: Completely remove ads from your forum VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News Help Desk VoyForums Exchange FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions Search VoyForums
Natural Pain Relief

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

Subject: Academy Award Controversy

Author: Conrad

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 19:41:30 03/08/08 Sat I know the Academy Awards are over now, but I read an article in a local paper that I thought might generate some conversation here. Now, understand I didn't see any of the films nominated for major awards this year, so I'm not one to judge them, so I'm only bringing up this reporter's comments in his weekly column. The gist of the reporter's remarks were that the films nominated this year were: 1)Mostly box office duds with the exception of "Juno." (I don't know if that's true or not.) 2) The most popular films of the year were ignored. And he listed the most popular films box office wise. I can understand that point of view, because I remember when the Academy frequently nominated popular movies, and they often won awards. Like "Sound of Music," "Mary Poppins" and so forth. In the past, films nominated were frequently the most popular films of the times. However, I can see a major flaw in this reasoning. If you look at the five most successful films of the year as the reporter listed them, all but one ("Transformers") were sequels: "Spiderman 3," "Shrek 3," "Pirates of the Carribean 3," "Harry Potter 5." Under the current Hollywood system of sequel making, to nominate only the most popular films could lead to the same people being nominated year after year. And much as I loved "Transformers" (in particular because they filmed one scene inside the long-deserted Detroit train station) I couldn't see this movie being nominated for acting honors! If that were to be the rule, only the performers who did the voices of the robots would win, because the human actors spent most of the movie running or fighting. I don't envy the Academy members having to decide who and what to nominate under the system the way it is today, with sequels ruling the box office. I can't really come up with an answer for this problem, so I'm going to turn over discussion to the rest of you folks. (And let's get some of the old members posting. We need more people putting in their opinions here. Come on in and join the fun! If anyone is new to this forumn, feel free to join the fun.) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: It's...SLOW....in here, to say the least! Thank you for keeping it going. I will admit to having been wishy-washy at spreading the word about the forum, and if I get some spurt of energy, I'll bandy the forum url around some of myspace movie friends. I'll admit it's not the most professionally decked out forum I've seen, but I feel it has a homey touch, and I'll keep it going, for that reason...and because I enjoy reading your missives. To reply to your post, yes, the conflict between entertaining movies (which often bring in the bucks) and the artistic films (which can also be entertaining). I'll most often go for the art films. Once you've seen a Hitchcock, Fellini, Bergman, etc., it's hard to root for a matinee flick. With exceptions, of course!

Author: Judith....all that being said, I lOVE many of the old 30's flicks that weren't necessarily so artful, but just because they ARE 1930's! [Edit]

Date Posted: 22:57:47 04/01/08 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ]