World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Passion: It was bound to happen.
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3780		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  andaroo1 [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Passion: It was bound to happen.
Funny and a bit sad:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

In my view, these Christians are looking to feel persecuted and victimized. Since the film WAS questionably recieved by the audience who was not necessarily Christian (and actually many Christians themselves) some of their comments are a little one sided and mean.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:18 am ]
Post subject: 
*shakes head*

Man, I am Christian and I am actually glad it wasn't nominated. No matter what topic it is about, it is simply not a great movie.
Author:  neo_wolf [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Im acually a bit suprised that it was nominated for 3 oscars,i thought it was going to really have just 1 nom.
If it were me i would have givin it 13 noms.
Author:  neo_wolf [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh,and i dont know why you just point out christians andaroo,Michael moore and his legion of liberal fans were doing the same thing,why dont you post about that?
Author:  Ahmed Johnson [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
wow the people intereviewed in the article were pompous :lol:



AS IF THE MOVIE HAD A "GOD-GIVEN" RIGHT


to be nominated!!


wtf!!??
Author:  Samweis Gamdschie [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ahmed Johnson wrote:
wow the people intereviewed in the article were pompous :lol:



AS IF THE MOVIE HAD A "GOD-GIVEN" RIGHT


to be nominated!!


wtf!!??


LOL yeah, I thought the same... ](*,)
Author:  Levy [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
stupid fundamentalists :???:
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
You know what is really funny, though?

Conservativs blame the Academy for being too liberal by not nominating The Passion of the Christ.

Liberals blame the Academy for being too conservative by not nominating F 9/11.


:lol:
Author:  neo_wolf [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
You know what is really funny, though?

Conservativs blame the Academy for being too liberal by not nominating The Passion of the Christ.

Liberals blame the Academy for being too conservative by not nominating F 9/11.


:lol:


True.
Liberals and conservitives are a bunch of Whiners(most of them).They have more in commen than they think.
Author:  torrino [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
OMG.

First of all, the movie wasn't even that good. It just wasn't. I didn't like it, but the overall reception WASN'T that good. It was slightly positive with audiences and mixed with critics.

Second of all, I think the three nominations speak volumes about the flexibility of Academy voters, especially considering POLITICS. Fahrenheit 9/11, a film which received MUCH more support from both audiences (who actually saw it) and critics, didn't get anything. The Motorcycle Diaries, Shrek 2, Spider-Man 2, A Very Long Engagement and other films, all of which are somewhat technical, didn't even get that many nominations.

If anything, the three nominations prove: It was considered and, AT THE END OF THE DAY, the film simply wasn't a great enough achievement in everyone's mind that it deserved a Best Picture nomination.

Fuck you, Jennifer Giroux. You're the one who isn't fair - spamming up the Academy's inbox with BS about a political bias. You represent HALF of moviegoers with your passionate "Passion" comments. Wow. HALF of moviegoers feel passionate about Bringing Down the House, too. The only difference is, you're half is more relentless.
Author:  lovemerox [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
:SIGH:

Like ahmed said...like i t had a RIGHT to get nominated..It just wasnt THAT good.
Author:  Dkmuto [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd like to know if those so disgruntled over its 'snub' have seen the 5 films nominated for best picture.
Author:  Dkmuto [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
You know what is really funny, though?

Conservativs blame the Academy for being too liberal by not nominating The Passion of the Christ.

Liberals blame the Academy for being too conservative by not nominating F 9/11.


:lol:


I don't think anyone's blaming the Academy for being too conservative. I'm sure even the Michael Moore gang knew a nomination for Fahrenheit was a long shot.

I loved Fahrenheit and thought The Passion was good, but I think it comes down to the fact that neither deserved a best picture nomination.
Author:  Rod [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Passion of Christ didn't deserve it.

Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't deserve it.


Uhh..lol. Can't really say I'm surprised. :wink:
Author:  Atoddr [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I was very pleased with the three nominations it received. I think it does show that the Academy did consider it. It would have been nice to see nominations for Jim Caviezel and Maia Morgenstern, but they just had too much competition.
Author:  El Maskado [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
torrino wrote:
OMG.

First of all, the movie wasn't even that good. It just wasn't. I didn't like it, but the overall reception WASN'T that good. It was slightly positive with audiences and mixed with critics.

Second of all, I think the three nominations speak volumes about the flexibility of Academy voters, especially considering POLITICS. Fahrenheit 9/11, a film which received MUCH more support from both audiences (who actually saw it) and critics, didn't get anything. The Motorcycle Diaries, Shrek 2, Spider-Man 2, A Very Long Engagement and other films, all of which are somewhat technical, didn't even get that many nominations.

If anything, the three nominations prove: It was considered and, AT THE END OF THE DAY, the film simply wasn't a great enough achievement in everyone's mind that it deserved a Best Picture nomination.

Fuck you, Jennifer Giroux. You're the one who isn't fair - spamming up the Academy's inbox with BS about a political bias. You represent HALF of moviegoers with your passionate "Passion" comments. Wow. HALF of moviegoers feel passionate about Bringing Down the House, too. The only difference is, you're half is more relentless.


I dont know, you seem to really hate the movie even at times berating me for liking the movie in the chatrooms. I think people on both sides of the issues are overacting. I'm not going to lie and I'll admit, it would of been nice to see it nominated. What I didnt like is how when it wasnt nominated, they wanted people to boycott the academy. Its almost as bad as when the jewish defense league wanted movie chains to boycott the movie
Author:  Levy [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
You know what is really funny, though?

Conservativs blame the Academy for being too liberal by not nominating The Passion of the Christ.

Liberals blame the Academy for being too conservative by not nominating F 9/11.


:lol:


Liberals should blame the academy for being too conservative by nearly shutting out Kinsey...
Author:  insomniacdude [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think the three nominations were well deserved. The film was technically brilliant...Make-Up, Cinematogrophy, Visual Effects, Costume, Art Direction, Score, etc. Whether it is actually a good movie is up for debate (I personally hated it my first viewing and really enjoyed it my second, so I know both sides of the argument). I think it did deserve more nominations than it got, but I would actually be surprised if it had gotten into a major category.
Author:  andaroo1 [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
neo_wolf wrote:
Oh,and i dont know why you just point out christians andaroo

The article wasn't about Michael Moore.

And I made a point of saying "these" Christians in the sense of, these particular people.
Author:  torrino [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
El_masked_esteROIDe_user wrote:
torrino wrote:
OMG.

First of all, the movie wasn't even that good. It just wasn't. I didn't like it, but the overall reception WASN'T that good. It was slightly positive with audiences and mixed with critics.

Second of all, I think the three nominations speak volumes about the flexibility of Academy voters, especially considering POLITICS. Fahrenheit 9/11, a film which received MUCH more support from both audiences (who actually saw it) and critics, didn't get anything. The Motorcycle Diaries, Shrek 2, Spider-Man 2, A Very Long Engagement and other films, all of which are somewhat technical, didn't even get that many nominations.

If anything, the three nominations prove: It was considered and, AT THE END OF THE DAY, the film simply wasn't a great enough achievement in everyone's mind that it deserved a Best Picture nomination.


Fuck you, Jennifer Giroux. You're the one who isn't fair - spamming up the Academy's inbox with BS about a political bias. You represent HALF of moviegoers with your passionate "Passion" comments. Wow. HALF of moviegoers feel passionate about Bringing Down the House, too. The only difference is, you're half is more relentless.


I dont know, you seem to really hate the movie even at times berating me for liking the movie in the chatrooms. I think people on both sides of the issues are overacting. I'm not going to lie and I'll admit, it would of been nice to see it nominated. What I didnt like is how when it wasnt nominated, they wanted people to boycott the academy. Its almost as bad as when the jewish defense league wanted movie chains to boycott the movie

I do hate the movie. But, I don't care about the movie right now.

The public reception wasn't great, first o' all. You know that. So, as it was, there really wasn't any basis for a BP nominee and it would have meant snubbing a better film (or, one that was better-received). Second o' all, the people are overacting. The Academy doesn't vote for the movies - the VOTERS do. The 6000 or so. And, if they didn't like Passion, take it out with them. But to blame it on OSCAR POLITICS is BS.
Author:  jb007 [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:25 am ]
Post subject: 
This movie had just as much Best Picture quality as Payback and that movie to its credit was at least entertaining in a bizzare way.
Author:  andaroo1 [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:26 am ]
Post subject: 
insomniacdude wrote:
I think the three nominations were well deserved. The film was technically brilliant...Make-Up, Cinematogrophy, Visual Effects, Costume, Art Direction, Score, etc. Whether it is actually a good movie is up for debate (I personally hated it my first viewing and really enjoyed it my second, so I know both sides of the argument). I think it did deserve more nominations than it got, but I would actually be surprised if it had gotten into a major category.

I pretty much agree with this. I'm lukewarm on The Passion and what Mel has achieved. It deserved a director's nomination much more than a picture nomination, but the director nomination isn't all about awarding the intent, it only becomes about the intent when the picture is supposedly deserving enough. It definately deserved the technical nods it got.

There are definately some critics and AMPAS members who would have been much, much more vocal with their support for either Passion or Farhenheit 9/11 if they were meant to be Best Picture canidates, and they could have easily given out more techs and some acting awards without breaking their ties to their "elite liberalism".
Author:  Algren [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:12 am ]
Post subject: 
It should be nominated for all the oscars.
Author:  lovemerox [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Algren wrote:
It should be nominated for all the oscars.


No...It shouldn't
Author:  MovieDude [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
It wasn't a completely awful movie and it didn't start a huge wave of Anti-Semetic attacks.

And that's about all the good stuff I can honestly say about The Passion.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/