I just went to BOM and looked at their reader poll for the question "What statement best sums up OSCAR 2005 for you?"

Look at the choices:
1) Bad Movies, Lousy Show
2) Clint Eastwood and 'Million Dollar Baby' are overrated
3) The best movies and people won for the most part
4) Chris Rock brought the Kodak down.
5) I miss Johnny Carson.
6) Martin Scorsese and 'The Aviator' were robbed
7) Next year, they'll be handing out awards in the parking lot, to paraphrase Chris Rock
8) The Passion of the Christ won nothing
9) Ubiquitous Beyonce was beyond bad. Let the original performers sing!
10) Where were the movie stars?

I count *one* choice that casts the Oscars in a positive light, and it's not even all that great ("for the most part"). I, frankly, am sick of BOM's bias towards everything and how they always seem to have some agenda.

Ugh.

While I agree with a lot of those, there was a lot of good things that happened at the Oscar's also.

I agree with mojo,the oscars sucked!

Surprisingly, this time it's not too far off. I agree with:

1) Bad Movies (not bad, but undeserving, I'd say), Lousy Show
7) Next year, they'll be handing out awards in the parking lot, to paraphrase Chris Rock
9) Ubiquitous Beyonce was beyond bad. Let the original performers sing!
10) Where were the movie stars?

As much as I hate mojo now, I happen to agree with a lot of the choices also. This years oscars were terrible.

I'm not saying they're not allowed to have those as choices. But they're creating a poll where *one* answer can be picked by someone who enjoyed the Oscars.

How is that not bias?

Sounds like a BKB poll where you are cornered into something that you may not agree with...and isn't that funny...BOM banned him

Just shows what that site is all about. I couldn't stand their reviews every week. I'm suprised they even like movies.

It is an amazing coincidence that the people that agree with the Mojo article are the same people who were not pleased with M$B winning BP. There was nothing wrong with oscars other than the gripy people being pissed at Eastwood for other reasons like putting ROTK down and kicking Scorcese's ass this year. Those sour grapes must taste real nasty to these people, hence the whining on BOM and here. :razz:

In 2004 even with a billion dollar movie (worldwide gross) winning Best Picture the TV audience were a paltry 1.5 million more. Titanic year had 55 mil. and ROTK got 43 mil. Then 2004 must have really sucked since the Gladiator year (2001) managed 3 million more people.

As for BOM, most of the articles they publish are laughable. The only thing that is credible about the site is the box office data.

Polls are supposed to have half positive half negative remarks and let the voters decide. If nine of ten are negative, its out of the hands of voters already.

I don't disagree with most those comments. I think the Oscars got worried about running length and I say, biig deal. Does the superbowl worry if it takes 8 hours to get settled? Nope. The culminating event of the year should always demand attention, not freak out if its not getting any. I just think they could start it an hour earlier, and go back to having the walking up to the podium, and I miss the clips of the shorts they always included. Those clips were vital to gain attention for the feature length compilation of the shorts that circulates after the oscars. Regardless of what I thought went wrong this time, many probably liked it or thought it went right. Where are the options in that poll for those voters?

I agree with BOM the Oscars were lousy this year. I won't bother watching the show again.

That's what you say now... :razz:

The thing is that the general public had generally no advance knowledge of the awards being given out in the seats... it wasn't publisized by the events, so I doubt that would be a defining issue that the public would take a stand on. Beyonce showing up and performing Learn to Be Lonely instead of Mini Driver didn't probably turn off any viewers either. These self proclaimed Oscar Watchers have seen worse shows (and yes, there have been TONS of worse shows than this one) and those who have followed the awards, threatening to never watch again, are probably just temporarily kidding themselves.

I think, in general, that people just aren't interested in award shows any more.... Is it Ray Charles fault that the Grammys were the second lowest ever? http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/1 ... mmys.reut/

I don't think it was Million Dollar Baby's fault the awards didn't get play. It's not The Aviator or Jamie Foxx or anybody's fault really. Probably the best argument is that it's the bulk of the films awarded in general or even 2004 itself that kept people away... but how do you fix this if you are an Academy member? Nominate The Passion of the Christ or Farhenheit 9/11 or Spider-Man 2, even if you think those films aren't very good or are not the best or don't fit your agenda (and I do think there are a TON of people who vote their hearts at the Oscars)?

We already critisize the Oscars for being too much about studio politics and behind the scenes deals, would people feel more comfortable if they just nominated the top three box office hits?

I do agree that an "Orange Award" (which is a British Academy Award for Viewer Choice) could be a welcome addition to the show and give the audience a little bit more participation, but not at the expense of completely turning over the Awards to the summer blockbusters.

Im not saying that all box office blockbusters should be nominated but at least nominate some big hits that have at least some critical merit also. They did it with Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, Titanic, Fugitive, LOTR, Forest Gump,Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator and the list goes on. Out of those best picture nomination, only one will probably barely pass 100 million dollars. And yes I do think that it pissed alot of people from both sides by not nominating either F911 or POTC

Yeah, but every academy member can only put down three pictures for Best Picture nomination, in order... 1... 2... 3... it's not a stretch to say that with the probable exception of Spider-Man 2 (despite Lord of the Rings winning sequels still rarely get nominated for much of anything) and The Incredibles (animation award now) there were no other Best Picture worthy canidates this year which were massive hits with ample critical merit. At least not enough to make that short list of three canidates on the ballots.


But not every year is filled with these types of pictures. The year after Titanic, the most populist picture nominated was Jerry McGuire, which is no more loved than something like Ray was.


I think it pissed people off that Passion of the Christ wasn't nominated, not F911, which seemed to die after November anyway. But those people rarely think of themselves of needing Hollywood validation anyway, and seem to be beyond any critisism of the film, and honestly, I personally believe there is room for praise and critisism for both films.

Maybe people are sick of award shows because they go on for fricken ever ](*,) . I would be happy if it was 1 hour, 2 tops. Everyone at those things sucks up to one another, so why should we care. Rich people congratulating rich people, sounds like a lot of fun. =; Again, how about a thanks to the fans... [-o<