Hmmmm... That is just simply not true. Go to the Oscarwatch forums and you will se emany people thrilled with the Oscars this year, and not only about how exciting and unpredictable the race is. Xiayun can tell you, I´ve seen him lurking around there.

Again, if Munich and Kong were to be recognized by the Academy, you would probably be overjoyed and very excited about the Oscar season. But as It doen´t look like it, the year is crap. As a personal feeling, is perfectly understandable - as the objective measure of one Oscar year´s quality, is pretty much flawed.

I think that's not offensive but idiotic. What the bloody hell does the fact it's about two "gay cowboys" (and there's more to it than that write-off the film has been brandished with) have to do with it? Because thats the frontrunner, the season automatically sucks?

Putrid.

You're off base Rod.

That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. I can't believe you said that- and whether or not you think the movie is a quality production has absolutely nothing to do with the fact it was about gays.

Shame on you Arthur.

No, really, none of the doubters are off base.

This year sucks because the films potentially being recognized do not = the films you want to be recognized.

Fine, I agree, it looks to suck.

But it does not suck because the frontrunner is about "two gay cowboys." It does not suck because 4/5 films are going to be "small." It does not suck because 4/5 (or even 5/5) films will not be remembered in 20 years. Or whatever other reason.

If ANYTHING, it is a great season for those reasons...that means the Acadamy may very well be recognizing the BEST films, not the biggest, or most hyped, or whatever.

I just cannot possibly agree with your logic. Bad personally? Ok, fine. Bad for the ratings? Very possible. Bad for your site? Maybe, though not necessarily.

But just downright a bad season, no questions or arguments? Absolutely not.

I dunno. I really need to see Capote and Brokeback.

Let's all pile up on Lect.

Oh wait, one of the headline's on Oscarwatch (from defamer):

Critics' Choice Predict Racist Vs. Gay Cowboy Showdown.

I'm not gonna argue with him calling it a gay cowboy movie because that's the cool thing to do now.

I am going to argue with the ridiculousness of saying the *main* reason the season sucks is because the frontrunner is Brokeback Mountain, which he is saying despite not having seen the film and with an obvious agenda.

ok???

or it'd be biopic vs boxing drama how is that in any way relevant?


are you saying no movie that ever deal with the subject matter should ever win an oscar regardless of how good it is, or how good people seem to think it is. (now how good YOU think it is, however)

just fce it the only reason you think it sucks and artur think it sucks and other people thinks it sucks (for the most part there are actually some people with some mildly intelligent reasons for disliking the season im sure) is because you don't like the films they're going for. well you can't always please everybody...but there happen to be people who disagree with you.

Indeed, enough already with people talking about films they haven't seen. Let's pass a rule on that.

Dar, Kypade, it's not a personal thing.

It's about the season being narrow for no apparent reason (the best doesn't hold water, we can break out reviews, rankings and scores if that's the route to take).

If 5 Kongs or Munichs were in the running, I would have the same issues.

There you go. I pretty much agree with kypade. We should go get married and see Brokeback and Capote- they're playing at the Tampa Theatre, you know?

Defamer is a satiric site. Of course they are making fun of the race... and that is not in the forums, when you said everybody was stating that this year was crap.

Nice try. But you can not prove what It is not there.

I do agree with this (Capote will get a Picture nomination just to spite me probably).

I would've loved to see King Kong and even In Her Shoes in the mix. Although if the nominees are Good Night-WTL-Munich-Crash-Brokeback (as I have said before), I can't honestly complain.

Narrow? I don´t think so... I wouldn´t like an Oscar season in which there is a quota (1 blockbuster, one indie, one period pice, one Spielberg...)

IMO, is much better if people actually vote for the 5 movies they like most, and if they are all indies, so be it. It´s more or less the same people voting every year, so if one year they go for Titanic and three after the choose American beauty, It´s cause those were the films they liked the most.

So, you want more scope, right? Call me silly, but I thought the point of the Oscars was to award excellence in filmmaking, which can pretty much only be gauged pre-nom by reviews, ratings, etc.

I like seeing variety, and I think we have so very much this year. Look at the scope of projects up for awards- nothing is poised to sweep!! I think it's great to see Awards being given to the films they find best, and damn it if one of them isn't a King Kong or Star Wars epic. Not every year needs an epic picture to be considered worthwhile or even adequate, not when here are more favorable, small scale films.

Again, we can't pass judgement (well, most of us) until we've seen all of the nominees, but why is it so terrible to assume this year is worthless because there aren't aren't any big budget films (ultimately, this is what you seem to be pushing), or films like Downfall?

It seems so silly to demerit the 06 Oscars because, for ONCE, the awards aren't dominated by glitz, glamour, and special effects?

EDIT- I misread the end of your post loyal... about the Kongs and Munichs... Meh. Don't know what to say, other than I pretty much stand by the fact that, if a movie is truly great, it shouldn't matter to you what the scale or scope is... so long as it is appreciated and voted for by the majority. Thats the way the big epics of the past have been voted, and the little films will be this year.

And how is it narrow ? Because the all the films are "small" That, ironically, is a very narrow minded way of seeing things, since as far as subject matter goes all the movies would have a hard time being any more different than they are.

BTW I think King Kong is excellent and I'd probably rank it as my second favorite movie of the year. I would love to see it nominated, like Spider-man the year before. I'm not however gonna start kicking, screaming throwing a fit and maybe sucking on my thumb once it's all over with just because things did not go the way I wanted them to. Particularly calling films I have not seen "weak"

that's not what I'm saying at all.

1). Lect isn't the first to point out the subject matter in BBM. So let's back the fuck off him.

2) One of my top BP winners ever was Midnight Cowboy. I'm all about depth and wicked sex my friend.

3) I gave Capote an A and Brokeback a B+. So yeah, I wouldn't say I dislike either. I dislike the idea of focusing on one type of film.

I pretty much just said the same thing as you in three times as much post.

..and we've all been telling them to fuck off, too. Just cuz the rest of the world thinks its cute to mock BBM doesn't mean that'll fly on an open forum. Heh, I really like Arthur, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give him a pass because it wasn't a joke.

Let´s see... assuming the line-up is
BBM
Walk the line
Capote
Crash
and Good night and good luck, we have:

-Two biopics
-One love story
-A political film and
-An ensemple piece set in the present.

They don´t feel the same to me at all, except for the fact that they are not expensive films, but should that matter?

Nice.

Which films haven't I seen did I call weak?

1. I don't think anyone is saying that lecter is the first to point it out, but when replying to a comment he made i will focus my attention on HIS comments, not what everyone else is saying.

2. ....

3. what one type of film are they focusing on? Independent? That's hardly a "type" of film.

I don't believe Artur has seen Munich, Brokeback Mountain or Capote. Yet claims to prefer seeing Munich over both. Maybe they're both better films than Munich in a lot of people's minds? Maybe if he (you, I don't know who I'm writing directly at anymore) could go in to see all 3 with an open mind he might even agree. I'm skeptical that he's capable of of that, though.

Anyone who thinks the above mentioned films aren't in the same ballpark, are either misinformed or delusional. Again, this might go back to my if you haven't seen all the films, you need to keep the commentary about what they are and aren't to a minimum.

Just to be clear, I've seen BBM, Capote, Crash, Munich, WTL, GNGL.

And I love arguing with 15 peope at once. It's chicken soup for my soul.

This'll be my last post, for a while, but I'm sure I'll get back to you.

first, I need to see the films to form my own personal opinion, not so I can argue this point...I dont believe you must see any of the films to do that. and if you want that to be a rule, anyone who lives outside the US pretty much cannot comment at all. As lecter said, most of the films in question wont open near him until AFTER the awards.


Now, onto this and some previous posts.

The reason people are jumping on Lecter's post has nothing to do (or shouldnt) with calling BBM a "gay cowboy movie". It's just the utter outrageousness of it...the main reason this award season is crappy is because the front runner is ANY individual picture? impossible. because ONE film, whatever the subject matter (though the way he worded it could cause confusion about the intentions of even saying it) everything else should be written off as crazy? it just doesnt make sense.

is the race to "narrow"? how? the subject matter of the 5 films in question are as ranged and varried as possible. the film styles, also. one black and white, one big glossy music, one gritty in your face modern day LA, one sweeping epic, out west type, and whatever Capote is. Where is this "type" that they all share? besides size? ok, none of them are 16th century epics or major blockbusters, but I'd never call those films all of the same type. I just don't see your point.


gah, whatever. it doesn't matter to me, and ultimately i agree with your end...just not really your means, i guess.

anyway, i'm out. later.