loyal, man, I do NOT have to see Capote and Brokeback to know they're the oposite end of the spectrum from GNaGL and Walk the Line. yknow? I can see that.

Likewise, I dont need to see Pride and Prejudice and King Kong to know they're not similar.

ok, now i'm really gone.

Again, the thing they have clearly in common is the low budget. If you think they are in the same ballpark, could you be a bit more specific as to why?

And even if theya re, again, if that is the movies the Academy likes the most, why does that makes this a bad year? Isn´t the queality of the films the most important factor? Do you need a James Ivory costume period film to feel all tingly inside?

Quotas are just wrong. If the five most loved movies of the year by the Academy are blockbusters, that doesn´t automatically make it a lousy yeat at all.

You can take any given year and argue the same things about variety depending on the information you choose to take into account. Last year we had 3 biopics for the love of god. And yet EVEN THEN, although I had 3 very different opinions on all 3 I'd hardly call Finding Neverland, The Aviatior, and Ray similar. To me, THAT is a "narrow" way to look at it but maybe we have different views on the word.

Bottom line on any given year you will find people who are not please with lineup, big deal they'll survive through it. (They seem to be more passionate about it this year though I wonder why )There are actually many other, myself included, that are very pleased with it so calling it one of the worst years ever is opinion any nothing else.


Looking forward to what I consider to be one of the most exciting award seasons in years!!!!

then it's settled.

Moving on to Dar and Rod.

Rod, if you don't see how The Aviator and Finding Neverland are very different, and Capote and Crash are very similar, I'm not sure I can help you.

Dar, the AMPAS is about recognizing the best in cinema. The ISA is about recognizing the best in a particualr type of cinema. The two have no reason to crossover in the degree we are witnessing this year.

Again, if we are talking about scores and rankings, several of the films in the top 6 should be removed. If we're talking about impact on moviegoers, again some films need to go. Industry buzz, ditto.

^ that leads to the argument that there is some sort of movement underway, it started last year and it's gaining steam.

lol I SAID Finding Neverland, The Aviator and Ray all had very little in common, other than being biopics.

However I fail to see how Capote and Crash are similar, other than both having a relatively small budget. I'd love to hear what you think makes them so similar, it's just you I thought you would have done so already.

That implies that the best in cinema can't come from a certain type of cinema. You seem to think that's the case, I completely disagree *shrug* I don't know how we'll find out who's right if anyone is

That and I still refuse to to categorize independent filmmaking as if it were a genre of its own. It's not.

ps, i am leaving for real now, but i would like to agree one final time...the "reason" quality cinema and quality cinema in a certain "type" of film (also agree that "small" is not a type) is because the films of the most quality ARE all from that "type."

makes sense to me.

(blah blahm, i know thats not true, but all the precursors and stuff are pointing towards that, and IF the oscars end up going with "the five", we should assume they agree.)

the end, have fun people.

Hehe... looks like I missed one hell of an argument, lol.

But I'll refer to the first statement that probably got this all started and that was LEcter's statement about BM...

No one is accusing him of being homophobic and no one is saying he's the first to joke about or say anythign of the sorts about the movie.
I, personally, am not offended by the statement he made but I think it's above all a very uninformed and to some degree, yes, quite an offensive comment to if anyone or thing...at least the film itself. I have no idea how he thinks he has grounds to say that, unless it wasn't intended seriously. This isn't an attack either. I just found reading his statement to be, though honestly not shocking, quite baffling.

I didn't understand your point. My mistake.

Capote
Crash
GNGL
BBM

Outside of budget

Difficult subject matter
Character studies
Largely unseen by audiences
Depressing themes (GNGL is not)
In terms of the medium, not innovative.

I can create a list if you wish

but again difficult subject matter is very broad and could mean just about anything

the painist, the hours, mystic river, in the bedroom, etc etc etc. you could say the subject matter is difficult for all and i'd still say they have very little in common. little seen by audiences...again it's not suppposed to be a popularity thing and if anything it is given too much importance it should be often. it does not say anything about the film itself. All your similarities are so broad that i could come up with similar themes for any given yar and at most maybe leave out one film. And let's face it, what was the last innovative film they awarded? They has a chance with Eternal Sunshine last year...they didn't. i can't think of any innovative film this year that is also worthy of a best picture nomination.

the one thing i would want in a best picture nominee this year would be a "lighter" movie since ther always seems to be one. and just so we're clear, a small comedy would fit the bill just fine, it doesn't need to be some blockbuster with a $100 million budget and out of this world special effects, or filmmaking techniques to be different enough, for me

and as much as i'd like that i really can't think of any one film that is worthy of the slot. sorry as good as the 40 year old virgin is it doesn't quite make the cut for me

I don't understand how Capote is a difficult subject matter. Actually, I fail to see how any of them are difficult subject matter except for BM and by a stretch, Crash.

To some extent, aren't all movies character studies? And I don't think GNAGL and Crash were character studies. Capote and BM were, in fact, direct character studies. The focus of Crash and GNAGL are concepts above characters.

I know you can argue otherwise, but acknowledging the "budget" when you say "outside of budget" sort of signals you acknowledge they are all independent films... 90%+ of which aren't seen by many audiences.

Yes, GNAGL isn't a depressing film. Considering so many Oscar nominees have somewhat depressing themes running through them, I don't see how this bunch actually stands out. I wouldn't even call Crash's theme depressing, far from it. I don't think anyone left the theatre depressed. Capote is a biopic... I doubt you will find many Oscar nominated or contending bipics that did not have depressing tones running through them. Both Capote and BM are about the characters and in their cases, both are about the tragedy of these characters.

I don't understand what you mean by un-innovative medium. you mean using film to display the subject matter is not innovative? 2 of them are adaptations. I can't see how more effectively the idea behind Crash could have been conveyed to audiences, except by a tv show which it originally was.

Loyal, again you seem to imply there should be a quota of sorts - you know, apparently It´s just simply not possible that the more liked films all come from the same group - a group you have created, by the way.

ISA and Oscar could match if the Oscar voters think the five best movies of the year are indies. Or are you suggesting that they should vote for something they don´t like just because there has to be a blockbuster there?

About your list of similarities:

Difficult subject matter? Mostly all Oscar films have that. Walk the line, a very likely Oscar nominee, does not.
In terms of medium, not innovative? How many of those have you seen in the last 20 years? If King Kong is your idea of innovative, let´s just agree to disagree...
Largely unseen by audiences ? Some of their runs are not over, yet... and for example, BBM is very likely to outgross Munich. Again, should Oscar voters take into consideration the box-office while filling their ballots? Isn´t that against the whole idea of awarding films cause of their quality?
Character studies? I can not think of a single year in which ar least 4 out of five nominees were not character studies of some sort. Of course, the category is pretty ambiguous anyway...
Difficult subject matter? Do you mean there should be a token nomination place for "safe" films? You mean safe like "Walk the line" safe?

If you think that there is a trend of awarding small films, I disagree completely. Hollywood is all about money, and there´s nothing they´d like more than to award big moneymaker acclaimed studio films. But there is not enough - or not good enough for them - of that this year, and the smaller films seem to be up for the challenge... which, again, doesn´t make this a bad year at all.

I can sorta see both sides of this argument, I myself am somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, if the Academy really thinks that Brokeback, Crash, Capote, GNAGL, and Walk the Line are the best this year has to offer I don't have a problem it at all. But certain things suggest that these are not exactly seen as the best movies of the year. Brokeback, GNAGL, and Capote (though it seems to have resonated more with critics than audiences) should certainly be here. Crash I can understand because those who love it really love it but still a bit of a stretch. But why Walk the Line, just because it's a safe, decent biopic with terrific performances? What concerns me about the Academy is their refusal in recent years to even consider certain types of movies AT ALL for a nomination. I'm talking big blockbusters (Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins), documentaries (Grizzly Man, Fahrenheit, even the Penguins), animated movies (Nemo, The Incredibles, basically anything Pixar has to offer), family films (the Harry Potter series), chick flicks (Pride & Prejudice, In Her Shoes), comedies, thrillers, etc. Why does Walk the Line get a free pass into the BP race yet something like Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire, for instance, has no chance whatsoever despite better reviews overall? That's what troubles me anyhow.

That was acutally a good tihng you pointed out. Because um, we are talking Oscar nominations here but Oscars nominations ahve not been announced

So Before it happens people are whining about how the Oscars could potentially...*gasp* agree with pretty much every other awards orgnization before it. That'd be horrible, and not at all a sign that is indeed in larger part about the quality of the films, not how similar or different they are

I agree. We could actually talk about why Oscars seem to (almost) always snub popular entertainment, but that happens every year, not this one in particular.

And the thing is that "Walk the line" is probably the one and only movie that Loyal doesn´t include in that "type" of film.

I beg to differ. BBM is yet untested. It seems quite strong even with audiances judging from its weekend intakes/theatre. We have yet to see how it will hold up with 800 theatres.

Capote has done extraordinarily well with audiances. I wonder how many other films in recent history managed to pull in over ten million (and still going strong) having never expanded over 250 theatres.

GNAGL is the only one that has a weak run compared to how critics have touted it.



Agreed. They did consider Beauty and the Beast, but since becoming its own category, there won't be any cross-overs.



Some very good points, though I wouldn't include P&P in your selection. The fact its the third or fourth version of the adapation to screen (regardless of quality, reception, or genre) is what spelled its doom. Had it been the first, like when Sense & Sensibility came out, it would certainly have gotten more BP consideration.

As to the complexity of topics, Rffiki, I have to say all of them are quite complex. Capote is afterall about a writer who opted to finish his book by finishing off someone's life (theoretically). And GNAGL did not finish on a happy note. Murrow brought down McCarthy and went on to bring down his own career. No one wanted to hear his preaching for constant vigilance, and the guy died a virtual unknown. Its made quite clear in his opening speech that he knows he will not be well received, ultimately, in the telejournalism world.


Hey guys (involved in this thread), I really like these conversations actually. They're quite fertile.

I, more or less, agree with this statement.

Walk the Line was among the most underwhleming experiences I had at the cinemas this year. It wasn't a bad film, but it deserves no mention in the contention of Best Picture nominees.

Although I thought Capote was better than WTL, I still don't think it's good enough to be remembered as one fo the year's five best. But, it seems alot of people do actually see it that way, so go figure.

I'm starting to see all these awards, critics, and lists quite pointless now... or at least the fact that they are constantly compared. Everyone has different perspectives and I'm really understanding what that means now.

Innovations to the medium can be found consistently throughout the years. Check out littlegoldenguy.com.

The term character study isn't broad at all and 4/5 doesn't gel with the recent past.

Example:

Seabiscuit - is not
Capote - is

Difficult subject matter, a BP nomination staple certainly. But there's almost always, I stress almost always, a balance to be found. A depressing lot for sure.

Larely unseen by audiences. That's a point that can't be argued. Will there all the sudden be a surge in attendance, maybe. Maybe not.

I'm going to walk all three of you at once through a history lesson in BP noms, since you're all arguing basically the same point (spooky):

I've acknowledged last year started the whole mess (exception being Ray and The Aviator).

2001-2003, the AMPAS acknowledged fantasy, something that hadn't happened since Star Wars and ET

2001/2002 the AMPAS acknowledged the musical which was a forgotten genre, not its fault.

2000 the AMPAS acknowledged a martial arts film

1999 a ghost story

1994/1996/1997/1998 comedies were nominated

1995 a children's film

1992 a western

and it goes on and on and on.

We've had sci-fi films, foreign language films in the BP race.



Point is, you guys keep harping on the quality of these films. Scores and rankings actually work against that argument for the most part.

So what makes _______ more deserving than ______?

There are many other films that could be on "the list" that were equally as praised. Nominate a documentary for crying out loud. Mix it up.

What are scores and rankings? Are you talking about critics? Cause, in that case, I think you are wrong.

2005 - The Academy aknowledges what they think It´s best, without caring about budget.

That would actually make History.

2005 could be actually the year in which no nominated film crosses $100M(If Munich gets in over Walk the line). And that would be ok, only that you see it as somehow negative, and I still don´t see the reason for it.

And to go slightly off topic

I really don't know that there are 6 contenders only.

I have a strong feeling that something else will end up sneaking in. King Kong, A History of Violence The Constant Gardner?



The Squid and the Whale even if it leads to widespread KJ suicide

Dar, I want to draw your attention in particular to the COTC and Metacritic.

[table][col color=#C0C0C0]2005 Best Picture Contenders[/table]


[table][row color=#000000][col]Film[col color=#000000]Fresh[col color=#000000]Rotten[col color=#000000]Tomatometer[col color=#000000]COTC Score[col color=#000000]Average Rating[col color=#000000]COTC Rating[col color=#000000]Average Rating[col color=#000000]Metacritic[col color=#000000]100's
[row][col]Brokeback Mountain[col]138[col]19[col]88%[col]89%[col]8.3[col]8.1[col][col] 87[col] 17
[row][col]Capote[col]137[col]13[col]91%[col]100%[col]8.2[col]8.5[col][col] 88[col] 14
[row][col]Cinderella Man[col]150[col]31[col]83%[col]80%[col]7.6[col]7.6[col][col] 69[col] 7
[row][col]The Constant Gardener[col]128[col]29[col]82%[col]91%[col]7.6[col]8.2[col][col] 82[col] 6
[row][col]Crash[col]132[col]39[col]77%[col]76%[col]7.2[col]7.1[col][col] 69[col] 5
[row][col]Good Night, and Good Luck[col]159[col]10[col]94%[col]95% [col]8.2[col]8.2[col][col] 80[col] 8
[row][col]A History of Violence[col]154[col]24[col]86%[col]94%[col]7.9[col]8.4[col][col] 81[col] 6
[row][col]Match Point[col]81[col]20[col]80%[col]89%[col]7.3[col]7.8[col][col] 72[col] 4
[row][col]Munich[col]109[col]32[col]77%[col]59%[col]7.5[col]6.8[col][col] 74[col] 7
[row][col]Pride and Prejudice[col]128[col]21[col]86%[col]86%[col]7.8[col]7.6[col][col] 82[col] 8
[row][col]The Squid and the Whale[col]119[col]7[col]94%[col]100%[col]8.0[col]8.3[col][col] 82[col] 4
[row][col]Syriana[col]108[col]40[col]73%[col]86%[col]7.0[col]7.6[col][col] 76[col] 3
[row][col]Walk the Line[col]146[col]31[col]82%[col]74%[col]7.4[col]7.1[col][col] 72[col] 2[/table]




[table][row color=#000000][col]Film[col color=#000000]Fresh[col color=#000000]Rotten[col color=#000000]Tomatometer[col color=#000000]COTC Score[col color=#000000]Average Rating[col color=#000000]COTC Rating[col color=#000000]Average Rating[col color=#000000]Metacritic[col color=#000000]100's
[row][col]The Chronicles of Narnia[col]124[col]42[col]75%[col]78%[col]7.0[col]7.1[col][col] 75[col] 4
[row][col]Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire[col]170[col]22[col]89%[col]89%[col]7.5[col]7.2[col][col] 81[col] 3
[row][col]King Kong[col]169[col]34[col]83%[col]76%[col]7.7[col]7.6[col][col] 81[col] 10
[row][col]Revenge of the Sith[col]190[col]43[col]82%[col]69%[col]7.3[col]6.9[col][col] 68[col] 3[/table]

Personally, I'm not sold on critics like I used to be. Too much celebrity involved now. BUT, if you want to talk about rankings and reviews, then the top 6 is off.

Loyal, the top six is ALWAYS off. That is why films like "Ray" and "Seabiscuit" and "Chocolat" get nominated. And, BTW, they don´t belong exactly to the category of "indie" films you are so tired of this year. The indies actually normally have it much more difficult in order to get nominated...

Let´s say that this year, the do nominate Munich and Kong, instead of Capote and Crash. Imagine this line-up:

BBM
Munich
Kong
Walk the line
Good night and good luck

Varied enough, eh? It´s also the line-up that includes the two films you would like the most to see there. Which, incidentally, is what I think all this is about.

Actually, I would like Grizzly Man above either of those. Then Munich (thriller) or Kong (fantasy) or History of Violence (graphic novel hybrid). Those 3 are all pretty even steven in my book.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.

Are you no longer arguing the whole critics thing Dar, cause I would love to put that to rest.

So, the movies that we've been arguing are the critic's darlings are all on the above list and were VERY popular with the crits at the BFCAs.

I don't see why we should put it to rest, at least in your favor. But I guess you and the rest of us see a difference when it comes to critic's favorites. Fine.

Hey, It´s no secret that you do support Kong and MUnich and, if they were frontrunners, we wouldn´t be having this conversation.

If the five nominated films are the ones everybody thinks, the critics scores and rankings would be very similar to any other year. So no, nothing is off. Also, you seem to assume that just cause there is no blockbuster in that line-up, they don´t have audience support... something that It is not true in the case of Walk the line or even Crash, with its amazing multiplier and great IMDB score.

In any case, the only thing I am putting to rest right now is myself (2 AM here). Maybe, as Rod says, we should continue the discussion when the nominations are actually out. Maybe this was all nonsense...

We´ll see. In any case, good night (and yes, good luck)