2006: The year the OSCARS died?- Page 2

[roquat]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:33pm

I can't think of a single film this year that was a completely unqualified hit with critics and the public in the way that LORD OF THE RINGS (all parts) was, except maybe CRASH (and it still did nowhere near the business of NARNIA, KING KING, et al). The biggest grossers this year were MR. AND MRS. SMITH, BATMAN BEGINS, and STAR WARS III: REVENGE OF THE SITH, or whatever it was called. You couldn't seriously give those things Oscar nominations, if the award is to mean anything. And most of the movies that were groomed for Oscars (GEISHA, RENT, MUNICH, arguably KING KONG0 hasn't taken off as expected. I hail this "indie" film revolution. Those films will turn out to have more staying power than the big noisy "blockbusters" anyway.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:06pm

Of course it is a bit difficult when EVERY single film nominated is an indie...but you have to look at the amazing quality of work that has been coming out of the indie circuit that has been ignored by the Academy -I'm glad that some of the films that are being considered are bit more risky. It's probably good that there be some sort of happy medium, but I'd rather have this result than a completely blockbuster set of nominations.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:08pm

But if they were to select a blockbuster, does it have to be WALK THE LINE? What a bland and safe biopic.

(Yes, I know the movie has its fans here. But it's hardly a picture I would hold up as one that helps define the year's achievement in cinema.)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:12pm

Agreed. I found it rather bland, though that could be coming right off of Ray.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:31pm

Actually CRASH's reviews were very mixed. It's Metacritic score was only 69 with negative reviews coming from the New York Times, LA Times, NY Daily News, Miami Herald, San Francisco Chronicle, Salon, The Voice and several other sources.

Capote, Wallace & Gromit and Brokeback Mountain each had a slate a mostly positive reviews with only a handful of detractors and have done well on a small scale at the box office.

[roquat]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 9:14pm

Thank you. What I meant was that there hasn't been an obvious breakout hit that really invaded the public's consciousness and was also worthy of serious discussion (what the Hollywood statisticians call "water-cooler buzz.") CRASH, for good or ill, was one, and I think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will be another, but that's it. The big blockbusters come and go without leaving an imprint (what could you really say about REVENGE OF THE SITH, other than rave about the special effects?) and the interesting movies are mismarketed or ignored and slip under the radar. That, I think, is the reason for the box-office slump, the Oscar blues, and this entire thread--the movies just don't seem to connect with our lives in ways that matter any more.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 10:41pm

Better movies? Studios aren't interested in that. They're interested in more money.

"Who gives a **** about art? Give me a dollar." - Any Studio Exec.

(In fairness, some do care and have passion projects. But not the case mostly).

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/5/06 at 12:02am

Better movies? Studios aren't interested in that. They're interested in more money.

You know, with movies like Cheaper by the Dozen 2 and X: State of the Union flooding the theatres, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why box office receipts have gone down. But, oddly enough, it is the good movies that tend to underperform.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/5/06 at 12:08am

Good point, broadway86. If moviegoers actually supported the good movies these studios are churning out, maybe Hollywood would produce more of them.

I believe 2005 has given us a lot of good films; certainly not less than previous years. So what did audiences see? WEDDING CRASHERS is one of the year's top-grossing movies.

I don't believe the immediate problem is a lack of quality films; I think it's that the cinema-going experience has become unbearable, due to a complacency among theatre chains to do the least for their patrons while charging them the most.

Updated On: 1/5/06 at 12:08 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/5/06 at 12:11am

I highly doubt that the Oscars will go entirely independent. I can't imagine Munich (and possibly even King Kong), not getting a Best Picture nod. Although, I guess it's no secret that I'm rooting for BROKEBACK all the way.