Have the Academy Awards and Golden Globes lost Credibility?

cinematography

cinematography

After Titanic won for best picture in 1998, and after Amelie was snubbed for best foreign film in 2002, I’ve lost a lot of respect for The Academy Awards. And now, The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 911 have been overlooked by The Golden Globes. Some suspect this was done to avoid controversy. I thought films were suppose to be judged on how well they’re made, and not on how controversial or commercial they are.

What do you think about this? I think some of these award shows are full of crap.
 
Last edited:
Golden Globes --

I heard The Passion wasn't considered for best film because of a technicality - the film being in a foreign language but not actually being a foreign film. I don't know why they would skip over Farenheit 9/11 other than the controversy thing. Personally, I think both should have been nominated. They are both visionary projects by passionate filmmakers.

Something that was mentioned to me recently is that contrary to the Academy which has hundreds if not thousands of members eligible to vote, the Hollywood Foreign Press is made up of less than one hundred members.

Academy Awards --

This awards show has long since been about marketing and power brokerage. No one can tell me Shakespeare in Love was a better film than Saving Private Ryan, or that A Beautiful Mind was a better film than Fellowship of the Ring, or that Chicago was a better film than The Two Towers. I could list more, but those are the highlights as far as I'm concerned.

Poke
 
Well the Academy Awards have always gone back and forth between being credible. Those awards have a lot of politics involved. It's all in who you know.

Movies like Citizen Kane and E.T. never won a single Oscar, and remember a few years ago when Denzel won best actor or something for his role in JOHN Q?! He won it because he was black, and since Halle Berry won an Oscar that night, they decided to make him win too (at least this is my theory, because all that week the media kept talking about how it was the first time in history that two black people won best actors...and John Q was a STUUUUPID movie by any standards).
 
Poke said:
No one can tell me Shakespeare in Love was a better film than Saving Private Ryan, or that A Beautiful Mind was a better film than Fellowship of the Ring, or that Chicago was a better film than The Two Towers. I could list more, but those are the highlights as far as I'm concerned.

Poke
Click to expand...

I'll tell you that Fellowship of the Rings is the biggest B.S. movie I've ever seen. It has no plot, it's 3 hours long, nothing ever happens, and it has the worst ending of any movie I've EVER seen. I don't care much for Two Towers either...I agree with you on Saving Private Ryan, but those movies are so different that I don't really know how bad of a decision that really was. Sorry Poke, just thought I'd tell you what no one could tell you ;) .
 
Last edited:
LOGAN L Productions said:
remember a few years ago when Denzel won best actor or something for his role in JOHN Q?! He won it because he was black, and since Halle Berry won an Oscar that night, they decided to make him win too (at least this is my theory, because all that week the media kept talking about how it was the first time in history that two black people won best actors...and John Q was a STUUUUPID movie by any standards).
Click to expand...

Denzel Washington won the Academy Award for his performance in "Training Day"...not "John Q".
 
John@Bophe said:
Denzel Washington won the Academy Award for his performance in "Training Day"...not "John Q".
Click to expand...
Oh...Sorry. Ignore what I said, then...hahaha. I love Training Day.

I don't know why I thought that, but I was so sure it was John Q. I'm an idiot...and racist!
 
What, exactly, would they have nominated Farenheit 9/11 for anyway? It can't really be nominated as a documentary, because documentaries are supposed to be based on fact, which granted some of it probably is, but when you purposefully distort peoples comments, or get them to agree to be filmed by lying about the project (the Washington state trooper..) that kind of shoots the films credibility in the foot.

Other than that, it's not like it was all that spectacular of a filmmaking job either. Nothing about it really jumped out and grabbed me to make me think, "gee, this is so absolutely fantastic, it better win some awards"

Additionally, and maybe to many peoples dislike, they probably will have to be very heavily strong-armed to nominate any Michael Moore project after his acceptance speech for Bowling for Columbine. Awards ceremonies really aren't a political soapbox vehicle. That speech, my friends, is what turned me off about Michael Moore. Not necessarily it's content (although I didn't agree with it), just that it wasn't something that needs to be done at an award show.

I seriously doubt I'm the only person who was turned off by that speech, and I'm willing to bet a number of Academy folk were as well, since they're trying to put on a good show, and thankfully, don't believe politics need to be discussed during it.

Now. All that said, I will make one last comment. I believe in people having their own opinions. If you disagree with anything I've said, that's great, more power to you. But please folks, lets not let this thread blow up into a politically motivated debate, thereby causing it to be locked.

;)

Oh, one last thing.. on a slightly different note. Yes, I agree that in some ways the shows are crap. Afterall, you can buy your way into being eligable for academy nomination with a short.. The stipulation is that it has to play for X amount of days in an actual theatrical release in either LA or NY I believe.. There's at least one theater, whose name escapes me at the moment, in LA that will play your short for X number of days, for X amount of money. I'm willing to bet there's more than one, and probably some in NY as well. Afterall, like they say, "everyone has a price." :)
 
Last edited:
Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Ingmar Bergman never won directing Oscars.
But Kevin Costner has.
 
I don't know about other categories, but Moore purposefully ruined his eligibility for a "Best Documentary" nomination. F 9/11 Showed on television shortly after it opened in theaters; which disqualifies the movie for that particular nomination.

Moore knew the consequences, though. He just thought he could change more citizens' minds before election day throuh showing his EDITORIAL on television. Maybe he did, but Bush still won...so...yeah...
 
indietalk said:
You'd love this short film ]
Click to expand...
You're right. I'd love to see it.
cinematicxtragedy said:
That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard in my life...
Click to expand...
Agreed. And he beat Scorsese for Goodfellas - who still hasn't won an Oscar. Even for Raging Bull where he was beat by another actor (albeit a fine director), Robert Redford.

The Academy lost their credibility with me many years ago. It's a popularity contest along the lines of the People's Choice Awards. Fun to watch and talk about, but meaningless when it comes to excellence in filmmaking.
 
The Academy has certainly established a (now predictable) trend in their awards. For example--with actresses, bet on the beautiful star...always. Take a look at the winners for best actress and best supporting actress in the past 5 years: Charlize Theron, Renee Zellweger, Nicole Kidman, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Halle Berry, Jennifer Connelly, Julia Roberts, Marcia Gay Harden, Hilary Swank, & Angelina Jolie. With the exception of Harden, I don't think any of them were close to 40 when they were awarded. Granted, they were awarded for brilliant performances, but I still think some other nominees were more deserving. You will never convince me that Julia Roberts' performance in Erin Brockovich was better than Ellen Burstyn's in Requiem For a Dream. That's just my opinion, though.

But I do believe the awards have become more about popularity than talent. Can't wait to see what happens this year!
 
Whatever way you slice it.. when you really get down to it, all awards are a popularity contest. Because if the people voting to give the award don't know you, or like you you won't get their vote.

Then again, are these people popular because they are oscar winners, or are they oscar winners because they are popular? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it for a while. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top