You know you really have to hate those spineless Hollywood writers. If they just held out a couple weeks longer on the picket lines there might have been a fine chance this year's Academy Awards could have been cancelled.
Or at the very least the 2008 Oscar ceremony would have been downgraded to the embarrassing historical footnote it deserves with names of the winners read off during a 45-minute ceremony in a rented dining room at the Ramada Inn.
Sadly a rare opportunity has been missed.
That's why it is important in the future for a new angle to be introduced to the Academy Awards.
Some years just don't give out any Oscars.
If all the films in 2007 were lousy - boy that's an understatement - then there is no point putting them on the same podium as cinematic greats like "Gone With the Wind", "Casablanca", "Lawrence of Arabia", "In the Heat of the Night", or "The Godfather".
That would cause excitement and generate controversy; two important elements in any form of entertainment.
It would almost be worth sitting through a four hour-long telecast to have this year's five nominees named off: "Atonement", "Juno", "Michael Clayton", "No Country for Old Men", "There Will Be Blood". Then you put some crusty old actor like Peter Falk on stage to read the verdict.
"It is the opinion of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that none of the aforementioned films have been deemed worthy enough to warrant recognition by this body. Oh... and just one more thing. When will you jackasses get your act together and make a decent movie?"
Close curtain. End of ceremony. Roll credits.
There is precedence for such a move. Every year baseball writers get together to vote on who will be inducted into the Hall of Fame at Cooperstown. Sometimes one retired major leaguer is selected to have his bust and uniform enshrined among the greatest of greats. Sometimes the number is three or four. And some years there aren't any ex-players deserving of the honor.
So when Hollywood puts out a crop of .260 hitting first basemen with no glove there's nothing wrong with giving all the nominated movies a collective Bronx cheer.
The current Oscar system rewards mediocrity. You don't have to make good movies anymore to get an Academy Award. You just have to make one that doesn't suck as bad any of the other dregs being projected on theater screens.
While we're on the subject maybe they can retroactively revoke some Oscars from previous cinematic wrecks like starting with "Titanic". Or you can correct past mistakes and give "Saving Private Ryan" the Best Picture award from 1998 and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" the nod in 1981.
I mean "Chariots of Fire"? Come on!
Posted by DonWard at February 24, 2008 05:29 PM | Email ThisI liked "Titanic" though. Maybe the sappy love story was overdone, but the portrayal of the great liner and her sinking was as I'd always imagined.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 06:08 PMPicking Streisand's "Evergreen" over the "Rocky" theme for best song back in 1976.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 24, 2008 07:10 PMSeriously. Without the Oscars and other awards the Entertainers of Hollywood would be mere actors and actresses - not any more special then doctors or mechanics -- except the later two actually make a positive contribution to society.
Posted by: CrazyFool on February 24, 2008 07:14 PMThis statement reminded me of this year's presidential election. If only we could just skip an election when we have to pick the one that sucks the least!!!!
Posted by: DopioLover on February 24, 2008 09:06 PMAnd there it is.
An arrogant bunch of self aggrandizing people, who don't really do much productive work, celebrating themselves, and hosted by someone who's only funny if you think marching this country towards Socialism deserves a laugh.
No thanks.
I have not watched the Oscars in more than 10 years. The Oscars is a show for the Left, and/or for people too stupid to know not to waste their time.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 24, 2008 10:12 PMI doubt you have.
It's always easy to take cheap shots at new movies. It takes time to evaluate them. We'll see in a few years what we think of films now.
Anyhow, Raiders of the Lost Ark may be a great action flick, but Chariots of Fire is a truly wonderful, inspiring film. You picked on the wrong film.
Now, Kramer vs. Kramer? Dances With Wolves? I'm with you on those.
Posted by: cliff on February 24, 2008 11:22 PMYeah I've watched Chariots of Fire. Alright flick. When have we gotten to the point as a country where a great action flick that has good acting, a good story line and that's enjoyable to watch and is one of the 100 most beloved and influential movies in cinematic history considered to be inferior to a film that is largely forgotten and whose only contribution is that cheesy inspirational theme-song that's mocked whenever a commercial or movie needs to show someone running?
Gotta disagree with ya man although we are in the same boat with Kramer vs. Kramer and Dances. You know a movie is bad when you're rooting for the badguys to shoot Kevin Costner's character and all of his friends.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 25, 2008 12:40 AMThe Coen brothers have been making excellent movies for years. I have watched "The Big Lebowski" (another perfect movie) countless times, and it's funny every time. Raising Arizona, Fargo, O' Brother, Miller's Crossing, all excellent. I enjoyed The LadyKillers too.
I usually tune in to the Oscars for the end of the broadcast to see the big awards now. The broadcast is just too full of fluff, and the performance of every nominated song is absolutely excruciating.
Posted by: Palouse on February 25, 2008 08:17 AM: rolls eyes :
A. That's obviously untrue. For one thing, some people have seen all 5, and I for one will eventually see all 5.
B. Even if it is true, so what? It's A Wonderful Life was a bomb at the time. So was Citizen Kane, and 100 others that are great films.
C. If you admit that you haven't seen them, then you simply cannot say they are lousy and have any credibility. For all you know, the ones you haven't seen are the best films ever made in the history of the motion picture camera.
I don't necessarily have a problem with your opinions, but I have a big problem with your arrogant tone and attitude. Every generation wants the "good old days," and every generation, it's lazy and stupid.
You don't like Hollywood, fine, I'm not crazy about them either, but judging a book by it's cover is still judging a book by it's cover. Unless you've seen all the films in question, I don't think you have an ounce of credibility in criticizing them.
Posted by: cliff on February 25, 2008 08:37 AMI also don't really get why conservatives love to hate Hollywood so much just becasue every movie they make is not something they like. I thought the whole idea of free market capitalism was that it would provide a diversity of products that could fill niches and compete in the market place. Wasn't it always a dig at communism that they had only one car, or toothpaste whereas we had many.
Why are movies any different. There is the Passion of the Christ and there is the Golden Compass. There's Happy Feet and there's Eyes Wide Shut. If anything there are more movies for every interest then there ever have been, G movies included.
Posted by: Giffy on February 25, 2008 10:19 AMI hate the "going to" movies... I hate paying to see a movie and forced to watch commercials; I hate the too loud sound-system; I hate the sticky, stinky floor; I hate crunch, dirty seats; I hate the over powering odor of chemicals pretending to be butter, I hate the rude talkers and I hate the idiots that think young children belong when they don't.... most of all I hate supporting an industry that scorns facts and expects support even though they regularly insult me with tripe.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 25, 2008 11:02 AMThe current Oscar system rewards mediocrity. You don't have to make good movies anymore to get an Academy Award. You just have to make one that doesn't suck as bad any of the other dregs being projected on theater screens.
It reminds me of the old joke about outrunning the bear. It does seem to have gotten to that.
Posted by: RBW on February 25, 2008 11:15 AMIf you drop "Juno" from the list of nominees, "Alvin and the Chipmunks" made more money than the four remaining nominees combined.
Now I didn't see "Alvin and the Chipmunks" last year, but it must be one heck of a movie to make that kind of loot. I wonder how many voting members of the Academy saw it?
I find it a bit hypocritical that Hollywood gets together each year to proclaim five films to be nominated as their best work, then they continue to produce films like "Alvin and the Chipmunks" to bankroll their industry.
Does anyone remember the last time a movie in the top five grossing films won the award for Best Picture? Was it Titanic?
Posted by: Smoley on February 25, 2008 11:18 AMSimilarly there has been enough teasers, previews, Internet trailers and written reviews (that I at least) have viewed to form the most important opinion of all with this year's nominated films. That I don't want to spend any money to watch them. When they finally come out for free on the cable channels in 18-24 months I'll probably watch Old Men and Blood.
My original thesis statement remains intact, however, about there shouldn't be any Academy Awards doled out some years.
None of these films (whether I've watched them or not) come close to "On the Waterfront" or "My Fair Lady". Heck, they're probably not even nearly as good as Boondocks Saints, Dawn of the Dead or Pulp Fiction. But then no films are...
Posted by: Don Ward on February 25, 2008 11:56 AMBy the way, La Vie en Rose is also a great film, and a fantastic tribute to Edith Piaf, one of the greatest singers, ever. Highly recommend.
Posted by: Palouse on February 25, 2008 12:41 PM
Cliff @ 15: I was forced to watch Citizen Kane for a cinema class I took many years ago. There went two hours of my life I'll never get back. It has to be the most boring, pointless movie ever made. But, somewhere along the way this Orson Wells ego trip got labelled a classic and people still waste time on it. It's a Wonderful Life is only marginally better. But hey, just my opinion.
How is that different from what you do when you post on this board? You scorn the facts and routinely insult others because they disagree with you.
I'm sure Hollywood will do just fine without your support.
Second, is Ryan Secrest that much of an icon? The guy kind of disgusts me- I prefer the eye candy myself. And then I think he made the awkward situation worse.
I kind of liked Julie Christie myself.
Posted by: swatter on February 25, 2008 03:07 PMNice to know that you wouldn't insult anyone, eh, Cato?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 25, 2008 03:07 PMDitto on movie theaters - we rarely go any more. But if I had one of these, it would certainly be alot more enjoyable (in so many ways). ;=)
Posted by: Palouse on February 25, 2008 03:21 PMI would never do such a thing unless I had good reason to do so. =)
Get a grip cato, clearly you've lost yours.
Poor cato, forced to live his life in deep in a valley of sarcharsm*. Surely he exemplifies the difficulty of attempting clear thought deep in a cloud of bozone*. I know he worries so about the possibility of karmageddon* while he willingly exposes himself to those far above his pay grade and intellect, but he suffers from an exceptionally serious case of dopeler effect* and can't help himself. We like him though because, unlike the cretins at HA, cato is mostly all glibidio* and luckily for all of us has shown no symptoms (so far) of being an ignoranus*.
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
Karmageddon: It's when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, and then the Earth explodes, and it's a serious bummer.
Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
Glibido: All talk and no action.
Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 25, 2008 09:14 PMLittle hostile today aren't we Ragnar, you forget to take your happy pills this morning?
Don't you want to help the economy? In fact I saw a movie last night. It was a fine movie free of interruption.
And there are a few movies which one BP and made a decent amount of money, other than Titanic (which I thought was pretty lousy). Gladiator, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King...did The Departed make any money?
Posted by: Zeeb on February 26, 2008 02:19 PM