Farcical Film Awards

MisterAnarchy · 16-12-2005 3:49am #1

Its that time of the year again when Hollywood has its award ceremonies.
The nominations for the golden Globes were announced this week.
Most of the films nominated havent even opened on wide release in the US.
This is becoming crazier and crazier each year.
The awards are supposed to encompass the films released in 2005.
However most of the films nominated will open in November or December 2005.
Have the voters very short span memories ?

Goodshape · 16-12-2005 3:55am

Studios release [what they consider to be] award worthy films at this time of year so that they'll be freash in voters minds. Just like they would release blockbusters during the summer when the public are more likely to go out and see them.

What do you suggest they've overlooked?

Laguna · 16-12-2005 3:58am

Pff, I don't regard the Oscars as an authority of what is a good film, they have their judgement clouded by which film made them the most money (the Industry people who are on the award panel).

RuggieBear · 16-12-2005 4:21am

What little faith i had in those types of awards was destroyed when Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture Oscar in 1998. One of the worst films i've ever had to suffer

Laguna · 16-12-2005 4:27am

RuggieBear wrote:

What little faith i had in those types of awards was destroyed when Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture Oscar in 1998. One of the worst films i've ever had to suffer

Sing it brother, I personally hate their idea to recognise "A beautiful mind", the single handedly most irritating movie I've ever suffered.

RuggieBear · 16-12-2005 4:33am

Laguna wrote:

Sing it brother, I personally hate their idea to recognise "A beautiful mind", the single handedly most irritating movie I've ever suffered.

Never seen a beautiful mind but don't really want to....looks like an over sentimental treacle fest to me.

Laguna · 16-12-2005 4:36am

RuggieBear wrote:

Never seen a beautiful mind but don't really want to....looks like an over sentimental treacle fest to me.

Aw man, don't get me started, it's like Ron Howard was on tranqulisers whilst wearing a pair of rose tinted glasses when directing the damn thing, you can smell the all-american feel good sentiment through the screen (and as for the DVD, it smells of smug isolationism).

RuggieBear · 16-12-2005 4:41am

i'm presuming the gay cowboy film will do well....

Laguna · 16-12-2005 4:43am

RuggieBear wrote:

i'm presuming the gay cowboy film will do well....

Ach, I wouldn't bet on it, the US and Hollywood (as you well know I'm sure) are very, VERY right wing and can't see them awarding and heralding a film about a couple of cowboys who're into brown love.

Goodshape · 16-12-2005 4:52am

Laguna wrote:

Ach, I wouldn't bet on it, the US and Hollywood (as you well know I'm sure) are very, VERY right wing and can't see them awarding and heralding a film about a couple of cowboys who're into brown love.

But they won't want to be seen as NOT awarding it to such a film. I'd say it'll win -- showing that they are such a forward thinking, progressive country.

Laguna · 16-12-2005 4:56am

Goodshape wrote:

But they won't want to be seen as NOT awarding it to such a film. I'd say it'll win -- showing that they are such a forward thinking, progressive country.

They chose not to recognise the fellowship of the ring and the two towers simply because they were part of a trilogy (more to do with the fact they were sour over the fact the films were made by a 100% Oz crew, showing the US how to do 'epic') even though each individual film should have won best picture IMO.

RuggieBear · 16-12-2005 4:58am

Laguna wrote:

Ach, I wouldn't bet on it, the US and Hollywood (as you well know I'm sure) are very, VERY right wing and can't see them awarding and heralding a film about a couple of cowboys who're into brown love.

Ah but you see that exactly why it might do well in award terms anyway.....pure tokenism from the academy/other awards bodies and trying to appear all encompassing and not bigoted.

Goodshape · 16-12-2005 4:58am

But the third film won absolutly everything to make up for it. I think the deal there was that it wasn't a complete story until Part 3.

RuggieBear · 16-12-2005 5:02am

Goodshape wrote:

But the third film won absolutly everything to make up for it. I think the deal there was that it wasn't a complete story until Part 3.

I agree....tbh, it would have been a bit farcical if the LOTRs won all the awards three years in a row.

Laguna · 16-12-2005 5:04am

Not really ruggie, they were better than every other film released in each of the years an LOTR was out, each film should've been judged on its own merits regardless if it's part of a greater story.

RuggieBear · 16-12-2005 5:06am

Laguna wrote:

Not really ruggie, they were better than every other film released in each of the years an LOTR was out, each film should've been judged on its own merits regardless if it's part of a greater story.

I can see where you are coming from but in my mind it was one large film production that they then split into three seperate films.

Goodshape · 16-12-2005 5:08am

Laguna wrote:

Not really ruggie, they were better than every other film released in each of the years

That never swayed their opinion before :v:

Richelieu · 16-12-2005 9:37am

actually come to think if it, this is a good point you've made.
Which award ceremony would you actually chalk up as valid at this stage? I mean cannes has been hijacked by the money men, not totally, but you get the whiff of em, Sundance likewise.
Maybe Venice? Or Berlin?

madrab · 16-12-2005 10:23am

philidelphea(sp) & boys dont cry won awards

garred · 16-12-2005 2:42pm

Is the Woodsman eligible? When I first saw it I thought it was the best performance I'd seen for the year from Bacon. Was'nt crazy about LOTR cleaning up in the Oscars seeing as it was done mostly on computer.

madrab · 16-12-2005 2:52pm

garred wrote:

Is the Woodsman eligible? When I first saw it I thought it was the best performance I'd seen for the year from Bacon. Was'nt crazy about LOTR cleaning up in the Oscars seeing as it was done mostly on computer.

well most people say that golem didnt get an award because he was comp generated & he was one of the best actors in it

RuggieBear · 16-12-2005 2:54pm

garred wrote:

Is the Woodsman eligible? When I first saw it I thought it was the best performance I'd seen for the year from Bacon. Was'nt crazy about LOTR cleaning up in the Oscars seeing as it was done mostly on computer.

bacon was awesome...but i believe he was overlooked last year. very open to correction

Farcical Film Awards

Comments