dcismyfav

Btw, I think Sean Penn should won the Oscar for best actor, execept, it should be for his role in 21 Grams rather than Mystic River.

In 21 Grams, he seems more realistic and believable, and he doesn't overact in some of the scenes, like what he did in Mystic River.

Speaking of 21 Grams, and to tie with the idea from my previous post, I believe it is not even nominated because it is not the type of movie that when it's over you feel all good and fulfilled, although it's a very affecting film, not to mention that it will not be a politically correct choice for voters due to its grim content and theme.

Maealoeki

i just have to ask one question:

WTF??

mukooh

i couldn't agree more with what you've said....i really loved '21 grams'......'21 grams' was honored at this years ifp "spirit awards" (indepedent film) though.........below is how it was honored...


The Special Distinction Award was given to the film 21 Grams, director Alejandro González Iñárritu, writer Guillermo Arriaga, producer Robert Salerno, and its stars Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, and Naomi Watts. 21 Grams was ineligible for a Spirit Award because its budget, though still modest by studio standards, exceeded the Spirit Awards nomination guidelines. The award was presented by Laura Linney.

i can't recommend '21 grams' enough....

(imo) the acting in '21 grams' is some of the best ensemble acting (naomi, sean and benicio) that i have seen....i've said it before and i'll say it again....if naomi hadn't of faced the competition from charlize she would have won the oscar this year..........












meet 'the dreamers'

"making films soley for entertainment is like making soup with only one ingredient"

UnsilentMajorty

Dcismyfav

You bring up very fundamental points in why people -- not just Academy voters -- Go to films and support them: Because something in the film moved them.

I agree with this and want everyone to understand I'm trying to pigeonhole why LOTRs trilogy is popular.

I just think that what I said (the context of what's going on in the real world) applies to ALL movies whenever they come out because a lot of times, this is what will make or break a movie (at least at the box office; with DVD there is a whole NEW market now that almost nullifies box office receipts as validation or even profit making endeavors).

This is also relevant to what you asked and stated: Do Academy voters vote simply on the films they like... Or what they think should win (or believe that is "acceptable" to win)?

I think it depends on the category.

As I stated earlier... The only reason Mystic River -- and unfortunately, 21 Grams wasn't nominated for BP -- Could have unseated LOTRs for BP was the fact that something like MR is an "actor's" movie which translates into what HW loves to term "art" or "classic" moviemaking -- Regardless of whether or not the largest voting segment of the Academy IS actors.

So, in that respect... You are right in that voters DO vote with what they think should win and what they think the studios want to win because we all have to remember, actors and thousands of other craftsfpeople who are also Academy voters are employed by... you guessed it, the studios.

This was the big "stink" surrounding Titanic's win back in 1996 (or whenever it came out).

A lot of people thought the film didn't deserve to win and mainly won because it was a big "studio" film that employed thousands of people when it was in production. Hence, Academy voters will vote for something that will put food on the table regardless if it is a quality film or not BECAUSE they want to keep food on the table with future projects like Titanic when they roll around.

Also, what I find interesting in an ironic sort of way is how the double standard HW has for big action and fantasy movies reared its ugly head once again for both Titanic and now LOTRs in terms of the fact that even though Titanic is a "historical epic", the way it was made was more like a summer blockbuster (as was LOTRs)... So what makes THESE films "better" than say something like ID4 or X-Men and "Oscar worthy?" Hmm...

Mukooh

21 Grams is an excellent film and just goes to prove what most of the hardcore movie fans have been saying:

We like big buget action flicks like LOTRs full of special effects... BUT, give us a GOOD STORY with GOOD PERFORMANCES and we will respond positively by financially supporting these films as well as by word of mouth advertising.

HW still doesn't "get it" and while I am not one of these "rebels" who loves to trash mainstream HW -- Because I work for it -- The fact is, they spend WAY to much money on movies that should only be made for a couple million, I.E. The Hours, and if they realized this they WOULD be making more money in the long run because the films wouldn't cost that much to make...

But again, it comes back around to how HW thinks: Make the big budget action/fantasy flick and use the profits (if there are any; a lot of BB action films have been flopping left and right) to fund more "artsy" films they can be proud of come Oscar time.

Why not just do this ALL the time -- with smaller budgets -- And therefore, if something does bomb, it's not that much of a loss? Then again, this is HW [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

~*Johanna*~

Muckoo- I thought 21 Grams was amazing as well. I'm a huge fan of Benicio Del Torro, he would have been another favorite of mine to win. He was also fantastic in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with Johnny Depp. The scene where he's on the floor stoned, and Johnny's character is screaming at him with the loudspeaker...it was fantastic. Benicio is definetly a favorite of mine, he's great.

ROCKSTAR

Then you and I my friend, are in good terms. I absolutely love Benicio del Toro and was rooting for him this year. When he won his first Oscar I was so thrilled, great great actor.