underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 08:57 AM
Original message |
Katie Couric:"Did 'The Passion' get snubbed and how did that happen?" |
|
Edited on Wed Jan-26-05 08:59 AM by underpants
Okay she might have said ..., if so,.... "Did 'The Passion' get snubbed and ,if so, how did that happen?"
To whom did she ask this to?
Michael Medved
Mr.Medved went on pick up that ball and run with it. He said that obviously this was Hollywood's bias and prejudice. Hollywood doesn't like religous films ( *cough* "Ben Hur" "The Ten Commandments") and cited that "The Last Temptation of Christ" did NOTHING at the box office but was still nominated for top honors.There was some other "media critic" on who I have never heard of and who made absolutely no sense-he actually used "Blade Runner" being snubbed over "Ghandi" as an example of how screwed up the Academy is.
I then flipped over to the Fox News channel they had on James Hirsen author of , "Tales from the Left Coast : True Stories of Hollywood Stars and Their Outrageous Politics" and you would never guess what he thought the reason that THE MOST POPULAR MOVIE OF THE YEAR* wasn't nominated.
*actually third grossing movie behind "Shrek 2" and Spiderman2"
|
DrGonzoLives
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 08:58 AM
Response to Original message |
1. They could've nominated F9/11 |
|
and yet the didn't. There goes Medved's theory.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. What? What movie is that? |
|
I heard no discussion of this movie you speak of at all. Oh I did hear Fox News trio saying that some director named Moore may have been to full of himself when submitting some movie for "Best Movie" instead of in some other category.
BTW- I added/edited the original post a bit.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. I thought Moore withdrew |
|
F9/11 from consideration in Sept. or Oct. so he could get it out to the masses prior to the election? I don't think it was eligible to even be in the running.
|
DrGonzoLives
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
it was still eligible for Best Movie. What it wasn't eligible for was Best Documentary.
|
MemphisTiger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
13. Are we the only one that remember this? |
|
I heard this mentioned yesterday. When he put it on Pay-per-view he forfeited his Oscar candidacy. This was talked about quite a bit at the time it happened. My, how short our memories are.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. Well I saw "The Passion" on pay-per-view |
|
SO I don't think that was it. They both decided what category to enter their films in and both went for the brass ring "Best Picture".
F9/11 could have been entered and (I would guess) easily won in "Best Documentary" The Passion would have probably easily won in "Best Foreign Language" ("Best Foreign fim"?).
Hey they both wanted to get the biggee and both were turned down
|
MemphisTiger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. I think it was the timing. I'll try to find a link to an article that |
|
said he couldn't be in contention for an Oscar if he released his film on Pay-per-view at that time. It may have just been best documentary that was said. I'll check.
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
11. I don't get it, either |
|
Edited on Wed Jan-26-05 09:21 AM by rocknation
The righties are cheering because F/911 got no nominations, but booing because The Passion didn't get more? How good a picture was it, anyway?
:headbang: rocknation
|
KurtNYC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:01 AM
Response to Original message |
2. CNN had the same angle on the same story |
|
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people say that further media consolidation will limit the diversity of voices. Ugh.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
F9/11 is not to be mentioned now I guess.
|
arwalden
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:05 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Michael Medved ... I Thought He Had Blown His Wad AGES Ago!! |
|
I can't believe that ANY intelligent moview-goer gives him any second glance anymore. (Other than, perhaps, as an anti-barometer. "If Medved hates it then I might like it... if Medved likes it, then I'm in for a yawner.")
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. They had two teases on this discussion |
|
I was expecting someone, you know, relevant but who pops up on the screen but MEdved and some guy in dreadlocks who I have no idea who he is.
Hey look RW radio makes onto MSM
|
peekaloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:14 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Elvis Mitchell was the other "critic". |
|
He tries so hard to appear "intellectual" but comes off as laughable.
Snuff film snubbed by Academy should have been the discussion topic.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
15. The "Blade Runner" vs. "Ghandi" thing was laughable |
|
Edited on Wed Jan-26-05 09:40 AM by underpants
I understand that a lot of people LOVE "Blad Runner" and I get his point but that isn't the best example to cite if you want to be taken seriously.
|
kick-ass-bob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:16 AM
Response to Original message |
9. WHAT DO U MEAN? IT WAS TEH GREATEST MUVIE 2 DATE! |
|
John Leguizamo rocked as Jesus!
|
WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:19 AM
Response to Original message |
12. Spiderman and Shriek were also snubbed.... |
|
Could it be that TPC was actually a bad movie that people went to see purely for the Gore....
Hey, none of the friday the Thirteenth movies were nominated....
I am outraged, shocked I tell you shocked....
Their form a Christianity heeds a scapegoat, or a leaden calve, if you will, in order to draw attention away from the fingurs dangling in he flocks pocket, swipping what ever they can get away with......
|
Beer Snob-50
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:24 AM
Response to Original message |
14. i did see this movie in the theater. |
|
it was okay. not worthy of an academy award. not becuae of the content but because it wasn't that good.
|
Crankie Avalon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message |
16. They can't be serious when they say... |
|
Edited on Wed Jan-26-05 09:30 AM by Crankie Avalon
...that the most popular movie should therefore also be the best movie.
C'mon! How can people who claim to be "critics" have such ridiculous aesthetic judgment? Shlock is popular, but this Oscar nonsense is supposed to be about artistic achievement. Spiderman 2 was entertaining and popular, but it shouldn't be included in a competition to detemine the film that was the best "work of art," either.
McDonald's has served 70 billion or whatever, does that mean it's the restaurant with the world's greatest cuisine? Are Thomas Kinkaide's paintings greater than Pablo Picasso's, too, Mr. Medved (or was it Hirsen? Same difference)?
What a tasteless Philistine!
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
18. Exactly this isn't the Grammys |
|
The Grammys set the bar at $$$$ to even be considered for the top honors. I understand that in a way because of the huge number of songs released each year and the Grammys make up for it by awarding god knows how many specfic awards in specific categories.
|
Bridget Burke
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message |
20. Neither "F 9/11" nor "The Passion" was a "Hollywood" movie.... |
|
They were both independant & non-mainstream, in their own different ways.
The Academy generally gives awards to "their own." Artistry & commercial success are considered--also, whether an artist "deserves" an award after previous neglect. The first two LOTR films were largely neglected but ROTK won big--the Academy figured out the crazy Kiwis had made some good, profitable films.
The Oscars have never been about absolute artistic quality. Or about absolute profit.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:37 AM
Response to Original message |