The Ultimate Brokeback Forum

Author Topic: Awards Aftermath - Part 2  (Read 219073 times)

Offline dback

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2008, 11:30:37 PM »
As has been said before, screening tapes/DVDs--which were originally designed to make AMPAS members' voting more "convenient"--has instead made it more political, and more prone to bullshit.  If they were doing this right, they should have screenings of all the nominees, and you only get a ballot after you've seen all the nominees.  That way, you wouldn't have people "refusing" to see certain films. 

So, does this mean that Daniel Day-Lewis is going to probably lose Best Actor again, clearing the way for Johnny Depp to finally take home The Golden Ball-less Wonder? 
"No reins on this one."

Offline Marge_Innavera

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 3612
  • I'M WITH HER
    • Gift of Exile
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2008, 07:23:57 AM »
Is it karma that the Oscar show might be canceled this year because of the writers' strike?

I'd like to be high-minded here; but my reaction is something like Queen Eleanor in Lion In Winter:

"I never poisoned her.... oh, I prayed that she'd drop dead and I smiled a little when she did."
" 'Red' states are the meth labs of democracy."

Offline dback

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2008, 09:37:37 AM »
The number of quotable lines in "The Lion In Winter" is beyond belief.  It's amazing how often a Hepburn-intoned, withering "How NICE for YOU" comes in handy in life.  (Definitely describes my attitude towards "Crash"-lovers.)
"No reins on this one."

Offline freetraveller

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2008, 10:19:32 AM »
As has been said before, screening tapes/DVDs--which were originally designed to make AMPAS members' voting more "convenient"--has instead made it more political, and more prone to bullshit.  If they were doing this right, they should have screenings of all the nominees, and you only get a ballot after you've seen all the nominees.  That way, you wouldn't have people "refusing" to see certain films.

(...)

Exactly. If the ability of AMPAS' members to still vote in a category even without having seen all nominees in that category is not enough to discredit the overall Academy selection process, I don't know what is.
Travellers are those who find what they were not looking for...

Offline doodler

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15461
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2008, 04:35:21 PM »
Playing devil's advocate here, but how many people vote in real life without any understanding of the issues or people they're voting on? If knowledge was a prerequisite, voting would involve about 1% of the population, real or reel.
In 2010, 606 people (all ages) were accidentally killed by guns.
Almost 3000 teens (15-19) die in traffic accidents a year.
1100 kids under 19 drown each year.
44 kids under 5 died of heat stroke in hot cars in 2013.
HIGH school sports account for 1.2 million trips to the ER annually.

Offline dback

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2008, 05:23:23 PM »
Fair question; I think it's a little bit different when you're a member of a group ostensibly designed to reflect or reward excellence in your field or profession.  Voting in a national election is indeed a right, and SHOULD be a responsibility; as a representative of the AMPAS, you should be even more responsible since you've accepted membership and its accompanying responsibilities.
"No reins on this one."

Offline Roland

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2008, 10:30:01 PM »
As has been said before, screening tapes/DVDs--which were originally designed to make AMPAS members' voting more "convenient"--has instead made it more political, and more prone to bullshit.  If they were doing this right, they should have screenings of all the nominees, and you only get a ballot after you've seen all the nominees.  That way, you wouldn't have people "refusing" to see certain films. 

So, does this mean that Daniel Day-Lewis is going to probably lose Best Actor again, clearing the way for Johnny Depp to finally take home The Golden Ball-less Wonder? 

Yea, beginning in 1976, members were required to sign in at screenings of all the movies nominated for Best Foreign Film before casting a ballot in that category.  I believe that is still the rule today.  Why this can't be extended to the BP category I have no idea.

As to Daniel Day Lewis, he can still win Best Actor, just as Ang Lee was able to win Best Director despite all those voters who refused to see BBM.  The members liked Lee personally and had HEARD what a fine piece of directing it was, so they could vote for him and still shun the movie they objected to on a personal level. 


Offline Roland

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2008, 07:26:09 PM »
Oops, the old "no editing nom = no BP win" canard has reared its ugly head again, this time aimed at "Atonement" and "American Gangster."

http://goldderby.latimes.com/

And the best picture is . . . one of these ACE Eddie noms?
As every Oscarologist knows, the editing award is often the best indicator of what wins best picture. Nominations announced today are bad news for "Atonement" and "American Gangster," which got snubbed. But these pix made the cut for best editor dramatic film: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "Into the Wild," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood." Nominees in the comedy/musical slot: "Hairspray," "Juno," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," "Ratatouille" and — hooray! — "Sweeney Todd."


"Atonement" and "American Gangster" will likely not win best picture, but for other, more logical reasons.  One of them is that neither has so far won any Best Picture awards from film critics' groups (as opposed to the dozens BBM won).  Funny how that is never pointed to as being a reliable barometer, yet the lack of an editing nom is (it should be pointed out that the nominations here are not from the Academy itself but from the ACE).

Offline Roland

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2008, 07:43:22 AM »
Here's an article I found in which an actual Academy member admits to not having yet seen many of the potential nominees a mere few days before ballots are due.  Now, I realize this is a little different from not having seen all of the five actual nominees and yet still voting in the category, but it does indicate one of the serious problems with the Academy Awards.  How can one take seriously an award for excellence in which many of the potential candidates are never even seen?

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/01/heres-what-some.html


. . . how many movies he hadn't seen as of Tuesday of this week — four days before ballots were due. He hadn't seen "There Will Be Blood," "Michael Clayton," "Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "The Savages," "Away from Her" or "La Vie en Rose," among others.

But I also heard the same from a member of the producers' branch who I chatted with on Tuesday.

"Too many movies came at us at the end of the year!" he shrieked. "I haven't seen lots of them! I did watch 'Atonement' and it was OK, but it's really moved to the back burner. I'll tell you what I thought was good: 'Demon Barber,' that 'Fleet Street' one. At the end of this week I'll have a better idea. Let's talk then." Alas, we didn't have a chance to chat before today, the day ballots are due.

"Sweeney" is the number-one choice of a voter who works in the PR industry, but I didn't find his thoughts about it very encouraging.

"Every year the movie I love most and put at number one on my ballot is the one that gets screwed," he said. "Last year it was 'Dreamgirls.' And the movies I hate the most are the ones that get nominated. The most overrated film this year is 'Michael Clayton.' I can't believe how mediocre and stupid it is. I hate it, so that means it'll automatically get nominated. And 'Into the Wild'? Oh, please!"


Offline Lola

  • Membership_deactivated
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 10471
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2008, 10:54:02 AM »


This guy doesn't sound too professional, the whole article sounds kind of odd!  Without knowing his name, it is hard to comment. 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/michael_clayton/

Michael Clayton got excellent reviews!

 
FUNGURL

Offline doodler

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15461
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2008, 11:21:27 AM »
Now THAT was the best awards ever! I caught the last 3-4 minutes of the GGs and saw 2 (yes, TWO) awards given out. Way to go!
In 2010, 606 people (all ages) were accidentally killed by guns.
Almost 3000 teens (15-19) die in traffic accidents a year.
1100 kids under 19 drown each year.
44 kids under 5 died of heat stroke in hot cars in 2013.
HIGH school sports account for 1.2 million trips to the ER annually.

Offline dback

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2008, 12:11:29 AM »
Well, that does show the subjective nature of these things, since I hated "Atonement."  I'd easily pick "Michael Clayton" or "Into the Wild" as a Best Picture nominee over that one.  Still, when a film like "Brokeback" picks up more than 20 Best Picture awards, that definitely indicates a film's quality, I'd say.  No film this year has that kind of track record, though I think "No Country For Old Men" is up around 8 or 10 "best picture" citations, which is more than any other film has racked up.  So far, that's almost the only sure shot; every other film has been lauded by some, dismissed by others. 
"No reins on this one."

Offline ingmarnicebbmt

  • THE MAKER MAKES
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 164666
  • FOR HEAVEN's JAKE ! Jakeing off at Jakea.
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2008, 01:50:51 AM »
Well, that does show the subjective nature of these things, since I hated "Atonement."  I'd easily pick "Michael Clayton" or "Into the Wild" as a Best Picture nominee over that one

Absolutely!
WISE UP

Ing Kräddi Böll & Ingmariposa & Ingelspringel & Ingalicious & IngWriter & Annbilivöbäll WORD WIZARD

sausage-on-a-roll-poster & charkuterimästare



"And maybe, he thought, they'd never got much farther than that."

Offline Roland

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2008, 11:50:22 PM »
In this week's Entertainment Weekly, various critics came up with their recommended "Strike Survival Guides."  Owen Gleiberman has chosen 10 movies, one of which is Brokeback Mountain.   :)

« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 03:28:04 PM by Roland »

Offline graylockV

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Klaatu barada nikto
Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2008, 09:29:20 AM »
Our criticism of Oscar voting, in particular, that some noteworthy Oscar voters refused to see Brokeback Mountain but voted anyway, in contravention of academy rules, has led me, among others, to encourage a system similar to what the academy employs in the Best Foreign Language and documentary categories, i.e., that it must be verified that the voter has seen all the nominees in a category before being allowed to vote.

I repeat all of this because there is now a HUGE controversy over this years short-listed eligible films in the Best Foreign Language film category, in particular, that clearly outstanding films were ruled ineligible (Lust, Caution), weren't put forward by their national panel (La Vie En Rose) or did not maker the most recent cut (Four Months, Three Weeks and Two Days...and Persepolis).  So it seems the poor old AMPAS has problems with its rules in just about every category


Here's a link to an article discussing the controversy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011803357.html


The crux of the problem:  It is mostly "old fogies" who have the time available to screen all the prospective nominees, and they often reject films with "edgy" content, even though those films have won multiple awards, e.g.,  Four Months...  with its realistic depiction of abortion.   

(Sort of reminds of us the same sort of situation with BBM, i.e., that it lost for Best Picture because of it's realistic depiction of same-sex love.)
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 09:41:16 AM by graylockV »
Beulah, peel me a grape.