DarkConvoy
Casual Collector
![*](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/gunman_sr5/reputation_pos.gif) ![*](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/gunman_sr5/reputation_pos.gif)
Autobots Fear me
Posts: 317
|
Post by DarkConvoy on Feb 28, 2005 0:55:14 GMT -5
I know this is probbably the wrong place but..... The winners are Best Actor Jamie Foxx Best Actress hillary Swank Best Director Clint Eastwood Best Picture Million Dollar baby
And I mist say it was funny seeing Chris Rock making people mad
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Feb 28, 2005 20:28:38 GMT -5
And once again ..... who cares?
The only time I was interested in the last few years was last year with Lord of the Rings. Other than that, the Academy is generally full of it ....
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Feb 28, 2005 21:48:13 GMT -5
Err? I didn't watch it all the way through, but there were some good movies and people in the mix this year? Why so hostile?
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Mar 1, 2005 21:48:36 GMT -5
Its mostly because the whole event has turned into a big political statement party. It is no longer about the movies themselves and their quality, but whether they were popular with the top cats in Hollywood.
For example, The Passion of the Christ was not even put up as a final contender in any category. I have not seen it myself, but I have talked to enough people who have that I feel it should have had at least a few nominations. However, since Mel Gibson ticked off all the studios by doing it all on his own anyway after they rejected the idea (and made money) ......
And from last year it felt like LotR only won because the Academy realized how many fans were out there and getting impatient for the recognition each movie deserved (at the very least for special effects, no matter what you might have thought of the movies themselves). So of course they finally put The Return of the King up and it (of course) swept. The whole thing, while well deserved, felt like a setup to appease fans and get them to come back and raise the show ratings (after all, it is a see and be seen media event).
Almost every acceptance speech turns includes some comment about stopping the war in Iraq or whatever other anti-Bush cause the person is currently most engulfed in. I just don't feel that the Oscars are any place for political rhetoric, no matter which side its on - it should be celebrating entertainment, not causes.
I was surprised that Ray didn't sweep, like what happened at the Grammy's. The awards tend to go to anything honoring a recent celebrity death ......
The one really good thing out of this year - Michael Moore got shot down in his attempt to put up Farenheit 9/11 for best picture. It proves that the Academy hasn't completely lost it .....
There are definitely good movies and good actors out there that get the recognition they deserve, but theres also so much money and campaigning now established into the voting process that the awards have become more of a popularity vote among the Academy than an actual consideration of a movie's merits.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Mar 1, 2005 22:04:52 GMT -5
Chris Rock had a few jokes in his opening regarding Bush, but it wasn't direct - he used sideways analogy type joking on it. It's funny because I think he was the only one to get anything in about it. As soon as Tim Robbins was to be introduced, Chris actually introduced him by saying something along the lines of "and here is a man who always bores us with his politics, Tim Robbins."
Politics didn't figure into it much at all compared to his intro and the T.R. joke.
Ray didn't sweep, but Jamie Fox did get best actor. Million Dollar Baby (while I haven't seen it) sounds like it was very impressive & it was shot in a short period of time too.
The Oscars were quite different this year - they were really tough on how long people could take to do their speeches, and some awards were presented out in the crowd. They would have people in the same category sit next to each other....or they would have them all up on stage and play it a bit like American Idol. Haha.
While that was kinda nutty, it worked for me. Honestly, I didn't want a super long show...and I really only care about the big five. I don't want 10 minutes devoted to best artwork in a foreign documentary.
I don't always agree with some of the films they choose for the awards, but the movies which do get nominated are usually pretty good ones.
So the answer to "who cares?" - Lots of people. It is a great conversation topic. You missed out, man.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Mar 4, 2005 16:31:34 GMT -5
I was upset that The Passion wasn't up for anything, but, like Jo said, it's obvious why. I don't watch many award shows, this and the grammys included, bc I don't really care who wins (and, concerning the grammys, I don't listen to many of the singers anyway). I did watch the beginning, and Rock was pretty funny, but, as far as the awards go, I could care less. The Passion not getting any nominations is the perfect example of how these shows are all about politics. I can understand why people watch these bc they can be interesting and everyone wants their favorite movie/actor/actress to win, and obviously winning is a huge deal to actors, directors, etc., but..eh, I get bored and I'd rather watch a movie than a show telling me which movies are best. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|