The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Seen as though it is oscars month i felt it relevant to speak about the so called 'buy an oscar' debate.
For years the whole idea f the oscars has been perseved as shallow. Most people have come to the conclusion that any one in Hollywood who makes a bio, historical or literatural film will have their nomination bought for them by the sudios. Then the oscar itself will go to the highest bidder. I do not think this is true, in most cases i think the oscars are genuinely a true celebration of real talent and extraordinary film making.
Take Spilberg for example. Hands up who actually enjoyed A.I? .... No one? Thought not. Yet this film is still in the best director catagory. Is this because Spilberg is repsected so he automatically get a nom, or is it because he managed to buy one? I think it is based on the fact of changing style. A.I tries to stay true to Kubricks style, lets not mention the ending. Spilberg managed to take his 'PeterPan' like film making and turn it into a style very similar to Kubrick's. For those who are un-informed, A.I is originally a Stanley Kubrick film that never got made by him, due to his untimely demise.
Ron Howard is another prime example. He has never been a major director in Hollywood and has made a few stinkers:
Willow, The Grinch. This year he is up for Beautiful Mind, which i havn't seen but hear is good. Is this because the film is a bio-pic? or is it becuase the film truely desrves an oscar?
Most oscar noms go to films that exceed the 2 hour mark. Is this because it makes the film look better? The fact that the film will require a more concentrated audience, automatically making it a more refined film. Or is the reason for this because a good director could never fit a good film into an hour and a half.
Lord of the Rings is a prime example. Three hours long! Love it or hate it, this film stays true to the book in many ways. If this film was condensed to one hour and have half of the second book in it like originally planned, then this film would have been lacking in alot of things. Mainly respectability and traditional theories such as characterisation and establishment.
Actors, cinematographers, writers, Compossers. These are also people who get nominations for their parts films, most of which come under the best picture catagory. Conicidence? Not really, a good film requires the best from everybody not just the director.
I guess what i am trying to say is that oscars cannot be bought, regardless of what people say. Most films, directors, actors etc, who get nominated for oscars usually deserve the nomination. Anyway, why would Hollywood need to buy out the oscars? They still have the baftas, critic's awards, peir's awards, and all the guild awards.
For years the whole idea f the oscars has been perseved as shallow. Most people have come to the conclusion that any one in Hollywood who makes a bio, historical or literatural film will have their nomination bought for them by the sudios. Then the oscar itself will go to the highest bidder. I do not think this is true, in most cases i think the oscars are genuinely a true celebration of real talent and extraordinary film making.
Take Spilberg for example. Hands up who actually enjoyed A.I? .... No one? Thought not. Yet this film is still in the best director catagory. Is this because Spilberg is repsected so he automatically get a nom, or is it because he managed to buy one? I think it is based on the fact of changing style. A.I tries to stay true to Kubricks style, lets not mention the ending. Spilberg managed to take his 'PeterPan' like film making and turn it into a style very similar to Kubrick's. For those who are un-informed, A.I is originally a Stanley Kubrick film that never got made by him, due to his untimely demise.
Ron Howard is another prime example. He has never been a major director in Hollywood and has made a few stinkers:
Willow, The Grinch. This year he is up for Beautiful Mind, which i havn't seen but hear is good. Is this because the film is a bio-pic? or is it becuase the film truely desrves an oscar?
Most oscar noms go to films that exceed the 2 hour mark. Is this because it makes the film look better? The fact that the film will require a more concentrated audience, automatically making it a more refined film. Or is the reason for this because a good director could never fit a good film into an hour and a half.
Lord of the Rings is a prime example. Three hours long! Love it or hate it, this film stays true to the book in many ways. If this film was condensed to one hour and have half of the second book in it like originally planned, then this film would have been lacking in alot of things. Mainly respectability and traditional theories such as characterisation and establishment.
Actors, cinematographers, writers, Compossers. These are also people who get nominations for their parts films, most of which come under the best picture catagory. Conicidence? Not really, a good film requires the best from everybody not just the director.
I guess what i am trying to say is that oscars cannot be bought, regardless of what people say. Most films, directors, actors etc, who get nominated for oscars usually deserve the nomination. Anyway, why would Hollywood need to buy out the oscars? They still have the baftas, critic's awards, peir's awards, and all the guild awards.
If Memento doesn't get best screenplay I'll...do nothing, but probably slam the door very loud.
And LotR must get all of it's 13 nominations and become best film of all time as a result.
And LotR must get all of it's 13 nominations and become best film of all time as a result.
Nice post.
You gimp
You gimp
Can the Oscars be bought - No.
Simple answer. TARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAANT!
He's not around, so - you gimp.
Simple answer. TARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAANT!
He's not around, so - you gimp.
Seen as though it is oscars month i felt it relevant to speak about the so called 'buy an oscar' debate.
For years the whole idea f the oscars has been perseved as shallow. Most people have come to the conclusion that any one in Hollywood who makes a bio, historical or literatural film will have their nomination bought for them by the sudios. Then the oscar itself will go to the highest bidder. I do not think this is true, in most cases i think the oscars are genuinely a true celebration of real talent and extraordinary film making.
Take Spilberg for example. Hands up who actually enjoyed A.I? .... No one? Thought not. Yet this film is still in the best director catagory. Is this because Spilberg is repsected so he automatically get a nom, or is it because he managed to buy one? I think it is based on the fact of changing style. A.I tries to stay true to Kubricks style, lets not mention the ending. Spilberg managed to take his 'PeterPan' like film making and turn it into a style very similar to Kubrick's. For those who are un-informed, A.I is originally a Stanley Kubrick film that never got made by him, due to his untimely demise.
Ron Howard is another prime example. He has never been a major director in Hollywood and has made a few stinkers:
Willow, The Grinch. This year he is up for Beautiful Mind, which i havn't seen but hear is good. Is this because the film is a bio-pic? or is it becuase the film truely desrves an oscar?
Most oscar noms go to films that exceed the 2 hour mark. Is this because it makes the film look better? The fact that the film will require a more concentrated audience, automatically making it a more refined film. Or is the reason for this because a good director could never fit a good film into an hour and a half.
Lord of the Rings is a prime example. Three hours long! Love it or hate it, this film stays true to the book in many ways. If this film was condensed to one hour and have half of the second book in it like originally planned, then this film would have been lacking in alot of things. Mainly respectability and traditional theories such as characterisation and establishment.
Actors, cinematographers, writers, Compossers. These are also people who get nominations for their parts films, most of which come under the best picture catagory. Conicidence? Not really, a good film requires the best from everybody not just the director.
I guess what i am trying to say is that oscars cannot be bought, regardless of what people say. Most films, directors, actors etc, who get nominated for oscars usually deserve the nomination. Anyway, why would Hollywood need to buy out the oscars? They still have the baftas, critic's awards, peir's awards, and all the guild awards.
For years the whole idea f the oscars has been perseved as shallow. Most people have come to the conclusion that any one in Hollywood who makes a bio, historical or literatural film will have their nomination bought for them by the sudios. Then the oscar itself will go to the highest bidder. I do not think this is true, in most cases i think the oscars are genuinely a true celebration of real talent and extraordinary film making.
Take Spilberg for example. Hands up who actually enjoyed A.I? .... No one? Thought not. Yet this film is still in the best director catagory. Is this because Spilberg is repsected so he automatically get a nom, or is it because he managed to buy one? I think it is based on the fact of changing style. A.I tries to stay true to Kubricks style, lets not mention the ending. Spilberg managed to take his 'PeterPan' like film making and turn it into a style very similar to Kubrick's. For those who are un-informed, A.I is originally a Stanley Kubrick film that never got made by him, due to his untimely demise.
Ron Howard is another prime example. He has never been a major director in Hollywood and has made a few stinkers:
Willow, The Grinch. This year he is up for Beautiful Mind, which i havn't seen but hear is good. Is this because the film is a bio-pic? or is it becuase the film truely desrves an oscar?
Most oscar noms go to films that exceed the 2 hour mark. Is this because it makes the film look better? The fact that the film will require a more concentrated audience, automatically making it a more refined film. Or is the reason for this because a good director could never fit a good film into an hour and a half.
Lord of the Rings is a prime example. Three hours long! Love it or hate it, this film stays true to the book in many ways. If this film was condensed to one hour and have half of the second book in it like originally planned, then this film would have been lacking in alot of things. Mainly respectability and traditional theories such as characterisation and establishment.
Actors, cinematographers, writers, Compossers. These are also people who get nominations for their parts films, most of which come under the best picture catagory. Conicidence? Not really, a good film requires the best from everybody not just the director.
I guess what i am trying to say is that oscars cannot be bought, regardless of what people say. Most films, directors, actors etc, who get nominated for oscars usually deserve the nomination. Anyway, why would Hollywood need to buy out the oscars? They still have the baftas, critic's awards, peir's awards, and all the guild awards.