Oscars! As expected nobody watched. — Page 2

Sorry, I do sort of agree with Sueleen on Hairspray. I thought it was a helluva lot of fun, and very good, but not a truly amazing piece of filmmaking.

I do agree that Bourne Ultimatum should've been a serious contender for Best Picture, however. I think it more than exceeded the quality of a similar genre film to be nominated, The Fugitive, 15 years ago.

---

Ugh, I'm quite glad HAIRSPRAY wasn't nominated for Best Picture, I honestly didn't find much about it that merited award recognition, save for perhaps costumes and art direction.
I wish BOURNE ULTIMATUM (along with its leading man) had been nominated for Best Picture.
What defines a Best Picture? Does it really have to be an awfully long 2.5 hours pretentious "edgy" and "artsy" film for it to be even considered? I found ENCHANTED far more enjoyable, fun, and exciting to watch than NO COUNTRY. Same with the BOURNE films, perhaps one of the best trilogies of action movies out there. I'm glad at least JUNO was nominated, wonderful film.

---

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Keira Knightley for PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END
Katherine Heigl for KNOCKED UP
Kirsten Dunst for SPIDERMAN 3
Emma Watson for HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
Jessica Alba for FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER

To be fair, Katherine Heigl wasn't bad in "Knocked Up".

i'm still po'd that the academy has passed over annette benning twice for a certain equus-faced tranny.

Javero, will you marry me?

I think they should nominate the BEST films regardless of their box office, except even that didn't happen.

The nominees are chosen by a vote though, right? It isn't as if there's a secret committee that meets deep below the Kodak Theater who decided not to nominate Hairspray for the Oscar because it isn't "artsy" enough.

---

Hilary Swank beat Annette Benning both times they were the frontrunners for Best Actress.

---

I think Swank is stunningly gorgeous in a beautiful, unique way.

But I do wish Benning had won for Being Julia.

---

A. I didn't make rude remarks about anyone. I was only agreeing with the **original poster's** notion that Benning was robbed of the Oscar twice.

B. My complexion looks great at the moment. Thanks for asking.

C. I should hope you would "mistake" me for a boy. I am one.

---

Oh, I am so sorry, Actor, I did not realize you were quoting some jerk. Please accept my apology. I just get pissed off when people put people down for things they have no control over, like the shape of their face, for instance.
Javero, is the ass hole.

---

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating that Hairspray, Ratatouille or Bourne Identity specifically be nominated. It's a general comment and comparison, using this year's films as an example.

Although if any of those three had been nominated for 2007, I would definitely understand why. The problem we have here is one of BALANCE. The old balancing act of "show" and "business."

Right now, the Academy is steadfastly honoring "show" over "business." Artistic success over financial and commercial success.

WRONG. Equal portions please.

Having a string of who-the-hell-cares, art-house films at the top of the recognition list is EQUALLY as bad as if the five Best Pic nominations had included Transformers, Pirates 3 and Shrek 3.

If the scales are tipped too far either way, there's a problem. And Hollywood, you have a PROBLEM right now.

Come back to "people," specifically, people who actually watch movies, or risk having no more cache than any of the film critics awards in just a few short years.

The choice is yours. Stand by your "art," or open this thing up again. Exclusive or inclusive.

---

Huh?!?!

Yeah, Gone With the Wind, The Sound of Music, West Side Story, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, etc., really needed to be seen by more people.

Okay, Titanic needed to be seen by more people.

You want popular? Watch the People's Choice Awards.
"Art isn't easy". It should make you think, move and do more than just make you feel good. I presume if Harry Potter was up against Grapes of Wrath you would vote for the wizard?

The Academy should not care about RATINGS, that is ABC's job.
The Academy should look at the film, judge them on their own merits (even if it deals with unpleasant subject matter) not popularity and vote for what THEY FEEL is the most ARTISTICALLY successful. Obviously, the subjective nature of art will cause many to fume about "how COULD they", but that is their job and responsibility.

You know, the ratings for the year Greatest Show On Earth may have been FABULOUS, but we are laughing at the Academy for THAT decision more than 50 years later, as many consider High Noon a real classic. But it was probably too violent in 1952 to win Best Picture.

---

I would agree that just because a film is very popular with the masses doesn't make it any less worthy of praise and awards as those that aren't. Art is extremely subjective anyway. I think films should be judged on how well the medium was used, to tell the story. Nothing else should really matter.

I'm thrilled you like popcorn movies, but you will be VERY hard pressed to find any professional or critic who thinks GREATEST SHOW really was.

They don't ignore the popular films. There's plenty of commercial successes nominated for Oscars--perhaps not in the categories of your choosing, but they get attention nonetheless.

And THE QUIET MAN would have been my choice, though the real Best Pic was probably SINGIN IN THE RAIN.