Oscar Nominations - Page 3

innerSpaceman · 02-01-2006, 01:22 PM

Unfortunately, Netflix will not yet have many of the nominated films. That's why it pays to be a member of the Academy (or know one), so the DVDs come directly to your home without even ordering them. Before the onslaught of the screeners, I had seen only a couple of the nominated films - - and now I have seen the vast majority of them. Connections, baby!

* * * *

There was an article in today's L.A. Times pointing out that the best picture nominees come straight out of the arthouse world, and that no one in America has seen them. The writer accused the Academy of being out of touch, noting that the combined domestic box office of the 5 best picture candidates did not equal that of 'The Wedding Crashers,' and that the combined screen total of the b.p. nominees was a third that of 'The Dukes of Hazzard.'

I'm not quite sure what the article was getting at ... but if it was accusing the Academy of nominating obscure quality over popular drek, I think the accusation would be warmly welcomed.

Gemini Cricket · 02-01-2006, 01:51 PM

'The Constant Gardener' has been in my queue since it was released and the status of this flick still says "Long Wait". Stupid Netflix.
Grrrr.

Alex · 02-01-2006, 02:02 PM

Remember when a box office of $100 million meant something?

There is not one unnominated film in the top 19 movies of 2005 (those that crossed $100 million) that screams out for a nomination. The closest you get are Narnia and King Kong and I don't think anybody can express surprise at the lack of nominations.

If relatively underwatched movies got nominated maybe it isn't a sign that the Academy is out of touch but a sign that audiences are stupid and just go where the commercials on TV tell them.

Ghoulish Delight · 02-01-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm not quite sure what the article was getting at ... but if it was accusing the Academy of nominating obscure quality over popular drek, I think the accusation would be warmly welcomed.

That was the same drivel someone used to attack Brokeback's GG win. "How can it be the best picture when no one saw it? It's just the liberals pushing their agenda."

I guess they should just dispense with the whole voting nonsense and give it to the top grossing film every year. Who needs Ghandi when you have E.T.? And I know it was just his birthday, but the box office proved that Axel Foley is truly deserving of the Oscar, not that Mozart hack, since Beverly Hills Cop was #1 over Amadeus (pfft, 12th). Maybe Out of Africa would have actually deserved the win if it had a DeLorean, like the #1 movie that year, Back to the Future, instead of a boat. Or how's this for a travesty...The Last Emperor, the 25th grossing movie of 1987 was selected over the clearly superior (because it made the most money) Three Men and a Baby! Outrageous!

innerSpaceman · 02-01-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I guess they should just dispense with the whole voting nonsense and give it to the top grossing film every year.

Hey, it worked for Titanic!

Alex · 02-01-2006, 02:44 PM

It's just the same bitch and moan as in 1996 when Fargo (67th), Secrets & Lies (108th), Shine (41st), and The English Patient (19th) were competing against Jerry Maguire (4th). Remember how the nominations that year were a sign of doom for the studios? That the world was being taken over by independents.

I wondered what the "most popular" year recently for nominations was so I took the ranking of the nominations and averaged them. Since I did the work out of curiosity, I might as well share the results:

2004: 36.8
2003: 29.8 (and the #1 won)
2002: 36.4
2001: 36.6
2000: 15.2 (lowest was Chocolat at 32nd)
1999: 27.4
1998: 35.5
1997: 16.4 (three top 10 films nominated, #1 won)
1996: 47.8
1995: 33.0
1994: 27.8

As things currently stand the number for the 2005 nominees would be 63.0. With Oscar buzz this number will improve but likely remain higher than 1996 and will be the least commercial nominating class in a decade. The numbers seem to show that as more anomolous than a trend, though.

Cadaverous Pallor · 02-01-2006, 02:55 PM

Heehee, GD.

I would have given Back to the Future my own best picture award. No, I'm serious. BttF changed our culture forever. Same goes for many pop films that may not have been Citizen Kane but were nonetheless well put-together, enjoyable entertainment that captured our imaginations.

The Oscars are for the industry, not average joe, so I don't expect BttF to win best picture there. Anyone who wants a pop film to win at the Oscars has no clue what the Oscars are.

Gemini Cricket · 02-01-2006, 03:41 PM

'Jaws' was the beginning of the end for movies. Top grossing film, yaddah yaddah. Then everyone wanted to beat it...
I doubt anyone will beat 'Titanic's' numbers for a long, long time. ('Titanic'... bleh)

02-01-2006, 01:22 PM	#21
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Unfortunately, Netflix will not yet have many of the nominated films. That's why it pays to be a member of the Academy (or know one), so the DVDs come directly to your home without even ordering them. Before the onslaught of the screeners, I had seen only a couple of the nominated films - - and now I have seen the vast majority of them. Connections, baby! * * * * There was an article in today's L.A. Times pointing out that the best picture nominees come straight out of the arthouse world, and that no one in America has seen them. The writer accused the Academy of being out of touch, noting that the combined domestic box office of the 5 best picture candidates did not equal that of 'The Wedding Crashers,' and that the combined screen total of the b.p. nominees was a third that of 'The Dukes of Hazzard.' I'm not quite sure what the article was getting at ... but if it was accusing the Academy of nominating obscure quality over popular drek, I think the accusation would be warmly welcomed.
	Submit to Quotes

02-01-2006, 01:51 PM	#22
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	'The Constant Gardener' has been in my queue since it was released and the status of this flick still says "Long Wait". Stupid Netflix. Grrrr.
	Submit to Quotes

02-01-2006, 02:02 PM	#23
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Remember when a box office of $100 million meant something? There is not one unnominated film in the top 19 movies of 2005 (those that crossed $100 million) that screams out for a nomination. The closest you get are Narnia and King Kong and I don't think anybody can express surprise at the lack of nominations. If relatively underwatched movies got nominated maybe it isn't a sign that the Academy is out of touch but a sign that audiences are stupid and just go where the commercials on TV tell them.
	Submit to Quotes

02-01-2006, 02:44 PM	#26
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	It's just the same bitch and moan as in 1996 when Fargo (67th), Secrets & Lies (108th), Shine (41st), and The English Patient (19th) were competing against Jerry Maguire (4th). Remember how the nominations that year were a sign of doom for the studios? That the world was being taken over by independents. I wondered what the "most popular" year recently for nominations was so I took the ranking of the nominations and averaged them. Since I did the work out of curiosity, I might as well share the results: 2004: 36.8 2003: 29.8 (and the #1 won) 2002: 36.4 2001: 36.6 2000: 15.2 (lowest was Chocolat at 32nd) 1999: 27.4 1998: 35.5 1997: 16.4 (three top 10 films nominated, #1 won) 1996: 47.8 1995: 33.0 1994: 27.8 As things currently stand the number for the 2005 nominees would be 63.0. With Oscar buzz this number will improve but likely remain higher than 1996 and will be the least commercial nominating class in a decade. The numbers seem to show that as more anomolous than a trend, though.
	Submit to Quotes

02-01-2006, 02:55 PM	#27
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Heehee, GD. I would have given Back to the Future my own best picture award. No, I'm serious. BttF changed our culture forever. Same goes for many pop films that may not have been Citizen Kane but were nonetheless well put-together, enjoyable entertainment that captured our imaginations. The Oscars are for the industry, not average joe, so I don't expect BttF to win best picture there. Anyone who wants a pop film to win at the Oscars has no clue what the Oscars are. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

02-01-2006, 03:41 PM	#28
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	'Jaws' was the beginning of the end for movies. Top grossing film, yaddah yaddah. Then everyone wanted to beat it... I doubt anyone will beat 'Titanic's' numbers for a long, long time. ('Titanic'... bleh)
	Submit to Quotes