Off Topic Messages

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:49 pm

My sister-in-law visits the official Dolly website, as a fan, and she says there's been a banner ad there a long time now for TransAmerica the film.

Dolly did something on the soundtrack - and it turns out to be a "Southern Gospel Song" :roll:

Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:42 pm

Even though I thought Stewart was underwhelming on the whole, he did get better as the evening progressed, but the audience just didn't seem to warm to him.

I thought that bit with Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin went on too long, and wasn't particularly funny.

Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:55 pm

That's a good way of putting it.

As the MSNBC article pointed out, the celeb audience didn't appreciate his digs at them.

It seems like a real loser of a job to have: everyone who does it faces criticism.

I thought Billy Crystal was fair enough over the years and I recall Carson being okay.

It's probably better to play it straight and not try to do your standup act.

Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:19 pm

Ben Stiller was funny with his "green screen" sfx bit.


Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:27 pm

yes, very absurdist. I liked it. :lol:

Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:33 pm

what was the starting bit they did on Mel Gibson speaking in Aramaic?

I was in the kitchen and missed it.

Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:22 pm

It was part of a skit showing the cameraman asking previous hosts - and other current stars - if they wanted to host the Oscars...

They showed a mountainside tent with Chris Rock & Billy Crystal nervously saying no , along with new visits with Whoopi, David Letterman, and others all saying "no" before Mel ...

It all led up to Stewart being in bed with George Clooney. :x :evil: :lol:


You didn't miss much. :lol:

Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:10 am

A bad host for the Oscars is often a good host for the Oscar audience. I don't know who got the idea of letting Chris Rock host a few years back. He was a sensational host on the MTV Music Awards for the same reasons he would not be a good host for the Oscar gang as he punctured every balloon that came along. What's more the insular community of Hollywood as (well as Washington) deserves a zing from time to time. In the words of Edward G. Robinson- "You're getting so you can dish it out but you can't take it anymore."

Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:22 pm

imo...i loved chris rock insulting the oscars. it was the best show i'd seen in a long time.

i mean, the fact that everybody in his town didn't give half a sh*t about the oscar winners and were all going to see "white girls" was just the perfect insult to how out of touch hollywood is with normal joes.

now what i REALLY loved, was lord of the rings knocking the socks off of everybody else's winnings. yeah, baby. the fantasy nerds took over the oscars for a bright shiny moment. it was a real pop-culture impact instead of a critically acclaimed one that doesn't mean sh*t to the world.

plus, isn't peter jackson flanked by the hobbits and their rather nerdy looking crew just the perfect insult to hollywood? :lol:

sorry, i have very little respect for hollywood outside of various 70s/80s--for the most part--critically-vacant blockbusters, the old musicals and horror flicks, and the fantasy genre. :lol: in other words, i usually hate the oscars.

hey i'm still fuming about how tom hulce didn't win best actor for amadeus. it went to the more 'elitist-friendly' (though amazing--"mediocrity everywhere") portrayal by f. murray abraham. you can't give pinto from animal house an oscar, even if he did in fact steal the show 110%. :lol:

i'm sure the mediocre elitist character appealed to the critics (who are in reality people who weren't talented enough to become famous for talent, so they started critiquing it to puff themselves up). there is nothing more repelling to critics than a mainstreamist characterization of a genius. perhaps the critics felt like that laugh was laughing at them.

the elitist stuffy liberal critics are picky about who they give oscars to. it's always about by giving what to whom makes the statement they want to make. the gay oscars were given a miss by moi.

funnily enough, i suspect the oscars have been slipping in nielsen ratings these last few i right? i've heard the elitist award shows have been struggling to keep the mainstream audience, outside of the several hours of 'what are they wearing?'.

lord of the rings will do it, and the nerds will be out in costume to celebrate.

brokeback mountain and artsy fartsy liberal message films WON'T.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:13 am

You do know the Oscars are not a critic's award- right? The industry gives the award to its peers and it hasn't been an especially elitist award over the years although some areas like horror and comedy have been past over. If you look at every film that won Best Picture in the 1950s they were almost all box office blockbusters. And if you go back and review the various critics' awards they are usually different. In fact a critic like Roger Ebert is much more likely to put a movie like "Superman" in his year-end Top Ten. In fact for Roger Ebert, both "Batman Returns" and "Spiderman 2" received four star reviews.

I don't give much weight to the Oscars for other reasons. One is that I don't think you give absolute quantification to a work of art. This is a very important thing I think. Because Humphrey Bogart won in "The African Queen" that doesn't mean that what Marlon Brando did in "Streetcar Named Desire" doesn't resonate. Yet in many ways when you have this award as a standard of artistic worth that's what many people believe. There's this perception that so and so's career is incomplete without an Oscar. Then you have voters scrambling to make up for not awarding them in the past. In 1986 Paul Newman won for his role in "The Color of Money", it was basically belated recognition for him originating that role in "The Hustler" in 1961. I remember back then he was like the Susan Lucci of the Academy Awards. Are they going to snub Paul Newman again this year? They felt guilty because he'd had a good career and they couldn't let it go by without some official recognition as they had to that point.

Another is though that is often a popularity contest. Members of the Academy vote who work in a given field- actors vote for actors, cinematographers vote for cinematographers, directors vote for directors. If an actor or something though has a grudge against another performer or a personal affection for another performer that colors their judgement. A good example of this is Elizabeth Taylor's win for "Butterfield" in 1960. It was widely considered to be her worst work. However, during the voting period she took sick with pneumonia and almost died and got was generally conceded as a sympathy vote.

Even more members of the Academy are not required to see the films under consideration to cast a vote. I'm glad the Oscars are there to bring an audience to certain smaller films and to ensure that older films are still screened regularly but I don't view it as any great artistic validation.

Although critics' awards are greatly flawed as well I much prefer them because the critics have seen the movies and have devoted their lives to examining movies. Whether their perspective is in line with most of the public or not, at least they care about what they're doing.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:41 am

oh whoops, sorry 'bout that. i'm not particularly fond of both groups for that matter--i'd much rather take stock in the box office or long term remembrance of the mass audience for which movies last the test of time. we nerds, for example, do VERY well in the long-term classics that have a habit of being snubbed.

the lord of the rings crowd (cast, crew, fans) were actually quite upset about fellowship of the ring getting snubbed for a few things (all they were given were technical behind the scenes awards--nothing for acting or best picture). part of the amount of awards that return of the king got loaded with was partially because of what happened with fellowship getting snubbed from the non-technical awards.

nerd genre stuff does great in technical awards, but gets ignored by the real showstopper awards.

same in the comedy and horror genres, which frequently can be better movies that take more talent than the last soppy drama. comedy in particular is a victim of this. it's a lot harder to be funny or imaginative than to cry on cue and give out a tirade of message movie material.

the problem is that often these "celebs" think of themselves as critics of their 'craft' (giving us shows like inside the actors studio)...when a lot has to do with favoritism and political snobbery.

and i'm quite aware of awards that are given to make up for mistakes (usually far in the past-tense) or doing a susan lucci to a particular person.

for example: the wizard of oz and star wars are examples of movies who only are respected because the audiences prevailed over the critics.

and in the music world, our boy elvis is another example of a critic's #1 enemy who lasted because of his fans, to the point that the little respect he does get critically was given in past-tense. notice elvis' utter lack of grammys outside of gospel (which is about as exciting and competitive a genre as best makeup or stunts).

Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:34 am

The more I think about it, Jon Stewart had a tough row to hoe and I give him credit for some of his barbs. Not having his usual audience couldn't have made it easier. I liked that line at the end that he slipped in: "I'm a loser." :oops: :D :lol:

There's something so serious about some of the celebrities that a court jester is a good idea. Still, maybe a comedian won't host in the future.

A few more interesting reviews of the Oscar telecast: ... 9?nav=news

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... 00029.html

And finally, the NY Times has an interesting piece that comments on why "Brokeback" fatigue may have set in, as well as the role of less liberal minded academy voters:
******************************************************** ... 7osca.html
" 'Crash' was far more representative of the our industry, of where we work and live," said David Cohen, one among hundreds of Hollywood players joining in the festivities. " 'Brokeback' took on a fairly sacred Hollywood icon, the cowboy, and I don't think the older members of the academy wanted to see the image of the American cowboy diminished."

Just as many critics were put off by the tidy interweaving of parables in "Crash" that managed to wind themselves into a neat little bow at the end of the movie, others found the pacing of "Brokeback," moved along by the pluck of a guitar, to be taxing, and its stunning visuals were lost to many members who watched it on television sets, however large.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:31 am

For all the "out of touch" uber liberal criticism the Academy is a very conservative body. They are not as slow as the Grammys to respond to new trends and ideas they are slow in that area although the nominations are generally hipper than the winners. Look at the winners of the 1950s. Especially look at 1951 where everyone but Marlon Brando was awarded a statuette for "Streetcar Named Desire" because Brando more than the other performers represented a break from tradition. Look at some of the other winners that won in that decade. They were mostly big musicals or epics while most of the films we now know from that decade went without. "Rio Bravo", "Sweet Smell of Success", "Some Like it Hot" etc. "On the Waterfront" and "All About Eve" were the exceptions. I knew for a fact "Brokeback Mountain" was not going to win because of its subject matter. Just like when Woody Harrelson was nominated for "People Vs. Larry Flynt". There was no way someone was going to get award for playing a pornographer. It was just too much for some voters.

The critics can also be a little behind the curve at times as well. For instance 1960's "Psycho" was most often greeted with revulsion for its then unprecedented violence but then time changes things that we appreciate.

I would point out that "Star Wars" has always gotten considerable praise from critics as has "Wizard of Oz". Both were nominated for Academy Award Best Picture as well. "OZ was beat out by the equally beloved "Gone With the Wind".

I understand in some ways why comedy gets the shaft. It may be harder to make people laugh than to make them cry but it's also more imprecise. We mostly agree on what is sad but disagree on what is funny.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:14 am

actually star wars had the habit of getting shafted at award shows by getting mostly just technical awards. same with lord of the rings until hollywood started kissing it's hairy feet when return of the king came around.

pretty much any show/movie/game ( :lol: ) whose fans show up in costume is going to get the shaft by hollywood or the critics at some point.

comedies are harder, yeah...but there's some that have become total classics regardless of critical value. look at animal house's popularity with college kids for example. :lol: it actually affected the whole college culture to the point that there are people who try to break the record for world's largest toga party because of that movie. blues brothers is another classic (yes, i know i have bias) with irreplaceable classic performances that did a lot to rejuveniate quite a few careers of blues artists and introduce new fans, as well as some of the most hilarious movie moments of all time (dropping a pinto on chicago for example).

in 1978, the two top-selling movies were grease and animal house. and i just looked up the academy awards for that year, and i doubt these movies play on amc half as much as the neverending playing of blues brothers endlessly for a month or more that the amc channel has a habit of doing at least every year. i have in fact, seen a brief bit of the deer hunter (i probably spotted chris walken)...

guess what. ask your kid (especially if they're a girl--in that case they'll know every song--"look at me i'm sandra dee, lousy with virginity..."...not to mention dialog like "your hair looks like an easter egg") if they've seen grease. you'll get a big "duh". ask your older teen or young adult if they recognize "toga! toga!" or "i'm a zit. get it."

if you go to universal studios, hollywood, and go on the little don't see all that many best picture winners on their little screens. you'll see household name actors (and some who are critically acclaimed indeed)...but mostly you'll see things that have POPULARITY with the masses.

the big representatives for the horror genre on that tour are psycho and jaws. two movies excessively known for their simple themes meaning attack! :lol: eee-eee-eee! dun-dun...dun-dun...dun-dun. dun-dun. dun-dun...CHOMP. and yes, psycho is sort of a one scene will forever live in everyone's minds kind of movie.

just like how tom cruise is still famous for dancing in his underwear in risky business and singing "you've lost that lovin' feeling" in top gun, and johnny depp alternates now between being edward scissorhands and captain jack sparrow. notice the genres of those movies. notice the massive FUN factor in those movies.

harrison ford is another actor who gets most of his recognition as han solo and indiana jones. he gets more acclaim for dramas...but let's face it...he's a household name because of two franchises.

disneyland has star wars and indiana jones attractions.

chris walken is a guy whose career really took off in the last decade or so because of the massive amounts of really wacked-out eccentric characters in his later career that tend to be audience favorites...some of which have included the headless horseman and an exterminator who eats a mouse turd (mouse hunt is in fact my dad's favorite movie).

with the people i live around...this is the kind of fun that is mainstream.

if you've seen the star wars documentary...the crew on it was falling asleep because they thought they were making a fantasy bomb. when the trailer was first played, people thought it would be a bomb. it played. it was a smash. the imaginative loved it, the serious sticks up their asses who were afraid it would burst the then current influx of hard reality in hollywood films didn't. it was the little family friendly fun movie that could.

and it brought on the 80s boom of big adventure blockbusters like back to the future, indiana jones, etc...

not to mention the fantasy shows/movies definitely bring out a fun show for the news people to make fun of...complete with spock ears, wizard capes and lightsabers. :lol:

then again, i actually do own a princess leia costume. :oops:

now, i get the drama thing. really. my mom watches nothing but dramas and doesn't have a funny bone in her body. the billionth british fop hugh grant-like romance movie or jane austin novel movie is outright annoying at this point. though anthony hopkins is one of the better actors my mom does have a habit of liking. my mom will watch all that amelie stuff. and lost in translation for example (which even she found excessively boring...i walked out towards the end). in mom put lost in translation in the give-away pile to my liberal half-sister in san francisco that she hates. :lol:

bill murray was made with ghostbusters, man. that's the bill murray i like. ditto with aykroyd, moranis, etc... ghostbusters, now...that's a classic.

"critically better" means dog sh*t when it comes to history. there's a lot of "critically better" movies that get mentioned about once a decade until it's "what?"
Last edited by Elvis' Babe on Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:11 am


could you post a picture of yourself in that Princess Leia costume. :P


As Bill McCuddy said about this year's Oscars: the best picture nominees -- no one went and saw!

Star Wars III and Walk The Line were probably the most-seen films of 2005. (well, the only must-see imo)

Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:18 am

i mean com'on. name the movies you think of/love for each decade. start seeing a pattern of how many got awards.

really early stuff--voyage to the moon, the movies with charlie chaplin's tramp character

20s--dr. jeckyl & mr. hyde, the phantom of the opera

30s--wizard of oz, snow white, mickey rooney & judy garland musicals, gone with the wind (pretty much just the "frankly my dear, i don't give a damn" line is what sticks with me--oh and the fact that clark gable was HOT), universal horror flicks (the mummy, frankenstein, the bride of frankenstein, dracula, etc...), shirley temple movies

40s--boys' town (i cry every damn time when pee wee gets hit by the car--and i adore rooney), dumbo, a tree grows in brooklyn (yet another sob-fest that i love)

50s--jailhouse rock & other ep movies, house of wax, the ten commandments, rebel without a cause (though i found it frightfully boring), streetcar named desire, the 7 year itch, some like it hot, peter pan, alice in wonderland, sleeping beauty, the king and i...

60s--the sound of music, notoriously BAD teen flicks from the likes of frankie & annette...and the elvis movies, night of the living dead, mary poppins, the birds, psycho, cleopatra...

70s--sw: ep IV: a new hope, american graffiti, grease, national lampoon's animal house, willy wonka & the chocolate factory, young frankenstein, hairspray, the godfather (i know mostly about vito and the horse head), carrie, the exorcist, jaws...

80s--sw: ep V: empire strikes back, sw: ep VI: return of the jedi, raiders of the lost ark, indy and the temple of doom, indy and the last crusade, ferris bueller's day off, risky business, top gun, blues brothers, ghostbusters, the little mermaid, back to the future I, II & III, amadeus, the breakfast club, sixteen candles, pretty in pink, curly sue, my cousin vinny, e.t., beetlejuice (I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!), planes, trains & automobiles, la bamba, great balls of fire, nightmare on elm street, the 'burbs, big, when harry met sally, rain man, revenge of the nerds, batman, honey, i shrunk the kids...

90s (and excuse me for having been a child)--casper, the addam's family flicks, hocus pocus, jurassic park, aladdin, beauty & the beast, buffy the vampire slayer: the movie, clueless (the ultimate in horrible valley girl movies--then again--everybody in my grade flocked to spice world), titanic (gag me--i saw it 4 times in the theater), tom & huck, sleepy hollow, edward scissorhands, mission impossible, men in black, the nightmare before christmas, flubber, mrs. doubtfire, home alone 1 & 2, my girl, cool runnings (i got very tired of that movie in rehab), batman returns, coneheads, now & then, the adventures of huck finn, grumpy old men, grumpier old men, sleepless in seattle, meet joe black, mouse hunt, interview with the vampire...

00s--pirates of the caribbean, the lord of the rings trilogy, the harry potter flicks (and i'm not really fond of harry anymore) far that's all that's really stuck with me. i've been utterly unimpressed outside of the fantasy genre and a few movies i probably won't see again anyway.

the last recent big movies i saw were cinderella man and million dollar baby...the last fun movie i saw was corpse bride. the next biggy i want to see is walk the line.

i know there's a lot more famous movies...but as far as i'm concerned, in my environment these are the ones that get some of the most recognizability.

the only movie i'm salivating about this year-- pirates of the caribbean: dead man's chest. and yes...i really am salivating. that's exactly the kind of movie i'd look forward to.


i don't have pictures of me in my princess leia costume...but i was OBSESSED with hocus pocus and wore a witch costume for 3 years because of it...

"say whatever you want, just don't breathe on me." "dead man's toes!" "aren't you broads a little old to be trick-o-treating?" "ok, boys, who's ready for the jacuzzi. angelo, you need it bad." "i'm sorry, emily. i had to wait 300 years for a virgin to light a candle." :lol:

you know...i kinda still have that movie memorized...blame the disney channel for playing it 100 times every october.

and that movie is a perfect example of a box office flop that everybody knows and has become a bit of a holiday classic after the fact. it sort of did an "it's a wonderful life" turn-around.

Last edited by Elvis' Babe on Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:28 am

Elvis' Babe- I'm not sticking up for awards. As I said before I oppose them on principle. I just point out that the Academy Awards are a bad example of an award that is out of touch with the common man. All those movies that no one watches these days like 'Marty" or "Gigi" or "Around the World in 80 Days" (Maybe I should exclude this last as it is popular enough to inspire a two disc DVD major studio reissue.) were all very popular with audiences in the 1950s. The same with something like "The Sound of Music" which was far more an audience movie than a critric's movie.

They have a kind of pompous sense of importance that they use to often inflate the value of costume drama and mild social comment but overall they do not often thumb their noses at the popular audiences.

Some critics do but most don't and I think in general you underrate their input. Their impetus is not to tell you what to tell you what to like but more to entertain/challenge as to the value of a given work. Plus, they go to bat for movies in a way that the general audience can't by celebrating certain works in their books and reviews they make people think about them and want to see what they're talking about. Plus, they deserve the respect for putting in the time. While everyone is entitled to their opinion and for them it's equally valid, an opinion carries that much more validity if you've gone to the trouble of seeing the movies. When Roger Ebert calls "Citizen Kane" the greatest movie ever made it doesn't mean it definitely is but the comment is worth a little more than usual because the man has seen 10s of 1000s of movies. Isn't kind of silly for someone to go and say "The Breakfast Club" is the greatest movie ever made when they have never seen much of the competition? I'm not saying it can't be someone's favorite movie and that doesn't have a legitimacy but when you haven't seen the history it makes it an ill-informed opinion. I remember seeing "Independence Day" when it came out. My college roommate was knocked out. I liked it but wasn't knocked out because I had seen "Star Wars" unlike my roommate and countless other sci-fi flicks that did much of the same thing.

The movies playing on AMC aren't necessarily a validation of worth. A lot of it is just nostalgia. People like to see what they liked as kids. It brings back good memories. It just so happens that the generation being catered to now came of age in the 1970s and 1980s and the most popular movies from those eras get repeated on AMC.

I very much agree with you that genre movies are underrated but I don't think that there's anything wrong when a movie shoots for a higher target. Not that I'm saying that a work like "Star Wars" doesn't have an important message. Just that more narratively ambitious works shouldn't be dismissed.

BTW- My point about comedy wasn't so much that is hard but that it differs from person and it's hard to come up with an agreement as to what is funny. You mention the Blues Brothers to me that's a fairly laughless movie to you it might be a riot. However, if both of us watch "Bambi's" mother die we'll both probably agree that that is sad.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:00 am

Watching it with no bias for or against him (never seen his show), I thought he did a pretty good job. Kept things going nicely and threw in some amusing quips without overstepping the mark. I'd be quite happy to see him do it again.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:19 am

actually, i did like billy crystal when he used to do it. for some reason the titanic boob sketch parody with billy crystal posing has stuck with me for years--it's seriously all i remember from that year's awards. :shock:

chris rock was rude and loud...but i personally think hollywood needed to be taken down a few notches at that point. it was sort of the average joe vs. elitists...or that's what it felt like. the 'what are people going to the theaters to see in harlem' or whatever sketch was the best damn thing of that show. it was legitimately funny.

now i didn't watch this year's awards, mostly because i was rooting for a total of NOTHING...cinderella man was probably the biggest snub job of the night. walk the line sounds good, but i haven't seen it yet, so i don't know. the political atmosphere is a total turn-off for me. and it didn't help that they got mr. liberal faux politics to be the host--they should of gotten somebody a little less known for being politically famous.

best reaction ever given by hollywood??? HOLLYWOOD liberals booing michael moore. now that was great. i almost liked hollywood that night when they booed.
Last edited by Elvis' Babe on Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:29 pm

Elvis's Babe wrote:
belushi's dead-on marlon brando and joe cocker (he did a better joe cocker than joe cocker)...

Elvis's Babe...

Just an aside, but if you ever get a chance try to catch a re-run of SNL where Belushi does Elvis. I haven't seen it in about 20 years, myself. Belushi plays Elvis as short-order cook named "Lucky" who flirts with the waitresses and eventually does a pretty good job on Jailhouse Rock.

There was also another SNL bit by Eddie Murphy who plays Elvis returned from the dead and shocked to discover he's now a black man.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:27 pm

I recall both the Belushi & Murphy versions of Elvis. And both were fans. There's something about these impersonations that I actually enjoy. Plus, they were fresh - at the time.

Good movie discussion as usual. A big part of giving awards is to "chat up" the industry anyway. Ever sit through that circus movie won in '56 ? I did as a kid and today's it's totally forgotten, probably for the better.

'Bike's right that our cultural memory is off as far as great films go, although, like baseball, to be a true cine buff, you should have seen the classics - or know who Honus Wagner or Ty Cobb was.

AMC really sold out a few years ago, giving up the commericial free format and then running things like "Grease" and '80s & '90s flicks repeatedly. They basically swore off the golden years.

Thank goodness for DVDs but especially Turner Movie Classics, which even runs silent movies on Sunday nights (or is that Monday mornings?).
Lillian Gish lives!

I have to say again if I didn't: that rap song "Oscar winner" ("It's Hard out here for a pimp") was a joke. That stuff just will not endure like Mancini or other songs of yore and for good reason.

In the only state with legal "gay marriage," the Boston Globe has this op-ed article that's making the rounds. It seems some gays are still smarting over the "Brokeback" snub. ... community/

It's quite the over-heated rant. I dare say America has fatigue with this boring subject.

I suggest that one should never look to any industry to fully champion one's social causes. It make come in spurts on certain years, but Hollywood is and shall remain by definition constrained by the financial aspect of its art. Given this year's low ratings, we can expect a turn away from even a movie as political as "Crash."

'Bike: not one yuk about "the Blues Brothers"? :roll: :lol:

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:20 pm

It's not that I found it unwatchable. It's just that I don't laugh. Comedy is very subjective. Iwatched "Quick Change" the other day and watched dumbfounded as my brother in law sat staight faced through many of Bill Murray's one liners.

A lot of people are complaining about that song. However, nobody said great music is supposed to be moral. Look at Pat Hare's "Gonna Murder My Baby". The untold story about the pimp's song win is that nobody writes exclusive original songs for the movies anymore. So, you pretty much have to take what you can get if you want to have an original song category. This year the pickings were so slim the category was cut to three nominations. You could pretty much just burp in tune and get it nominated because there is no competition.

I can't comment about "Brokeback Mountain" because I didn't see it but this kind of disappointment often happens when the Academy shafts a sure winner especially for a tidier, easier movie. The one no one will forget is the elevation of the enjoyable and occasionally insightful albeit lightweight "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan" a movie that was almost too real. It seems almost a joke to compare those two movies now.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:36 pm

What I can't believe is that LTB just used "Brokeback Mountain" and "shafts" in the same sentence....more on this when I stop laughing! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:25 pm

Who are you, Beavis?

Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:52 pm

likethebike wrote:I can't comment about "Brokeback Mountain" because I didn't see it but this kind of disappointment often happens when the Academy shafts a sure winner especially for a tidier, easier movie.

I don't think that happened though. I wouldn't call Crash a 'tidier, easier movie.' It’s not like Brokeback lost to a glitzy blockbuster. The subject of ubiquitous racial prejudice is hardly trivial and the non-PC approach taken by Crash was both welcome and fairly brave. Yes, the way the lead characters’ lives interweaved was a little too convenient to make this a wholly believable and realistic piece, but it was an artistic triumph and very effectively drove home the central themes.
Last edited by TJ on Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.