Nice little article from the New York times a couple o’ days ago: films that win Best Picture at the Academy Awards are how the industry wants to be perceived:
Big, Important Picture? Sure. But Is It Best?
It’s always a big mistake when during an Academy Awards ‘special anniversary show’, (like the 60th annual, 70th annual, etc), they show a chronological montage of all the best picture winners – it’s like watching a list of films that, with rare exceptions, seem like also-rans – sure a lot of them are good movies – but the ‘best’ picture that year? C’mon! (and some are just outright turkeys – I’m looking at you Greatest Show on Earth, Ordinary People and Beautiful Mind).
(Photo above from ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ – Jimmy Stewart: as a Clown!!)
posted in forum Miscellaneous by zad1138
posted in forum Miscellaneous by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by Jett Loe
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by prawnman
There are a lot of good films here. What would be interesting would be to see what else was out there at any given year. Do you have a few examples?
Yes well that's the thing isn't it? A lot of the films are fine – but when you see what else was made that year = yikes!
so for 1968 = Oliver! won best picture. 2001 wasn't even nominated.
1979 = Kramer vs. Kramer won best picture. Not Apocalypse now – how many people watch Kramer vs. Kramer these days?
here's some more examples: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/top-5/the-best…
and some more:
100 Great American Films that Didn't Win Best Picture
I guess I don't understand the significance of the Academy Awards. I wanted to know who the “Academy” was so I went to http://www.oscars.org/index.html. and found that,
“Membership in the Academy is by invitation of the Board of Governors and is limited to those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures.”
That sounds all well and good but then you look at the list and there's Keira Knightley, next to Benicio Del Toro.
None of it makes any sense to me, and every year after I watch I think I wasted three hours of my time.
I was shocked when I watched last year's awards ceremony re: how poor it was –
+ but historically it was a big part of u.s. pop culture – now much less so it seems = last year's ratings below that of American Idol, etc. — so they're gonna try to make it culturally relevant again -will be curious to see how 'modernized' the festivities are gonna be this year
Sadly, like with most awards, the 'Academy' seems to be who can throw the most weight around to get their picture nominated. Not rigged, but kind of rigged.
My opinion is they gear the awards toward the mass populace, for ratings obviously – they don't want to nominate a bunch of films that likely few people have seen – they're going to pander to people like my sweet wife, who really only wants to know what kind of tuxedo Harrison Ford is wearing, and wants to be familiar with the movies they have nominated (like “Beautiful Mind”).
Sadly, like with most awards, the 'Academy' seems to be who can throw the most weight around to get their picture nominated. Not rigged, but kind of rigged.
My opinion is they gear the awards toward the mass populace, for ratings obviously – they don't want to nominate a bunch of films that likely few people have seen – they're going to pander to people like my sweet wife, who really only wants to know what kind of tuxedo Harrison Ford is wearing, and wants to be familiar with the movies they have nominated (like “Beautiful Mind”).
[...] Hey there – I imagine Professor Dr. Gareth Higgins will be posting his own predictions – but here’s my first thoughts on the Academy’s nominations, (as we’ve mentioned before, being nominated by the Academy is, of course, no indication of filmic quality or lasting value): [...]