The 78th Annual Academy Awards, Hosted by Jon Stewart der=0>

[Drosselmeier]

Whoa, nellie! Exactly where did I say homos, rather than Hollywierd, is the corrupting influence? And if you've forgotten, Hitler quite liked using movies to influence the population. Besides, Jooz don't hold a candle to Scientologists...

Hollywoods *** agenda has been discussed on this forum before. I could of course have you mixed up with someone but I'm fairly certain we've had words over that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Might have been better if you hadn't, since you seem to have gone astray - and it sounds like that's exactly what you're implying.

Then you misunderstand me. What I'm getting at is that you're letting yourself get fooled by the likes of coulter into thinking there's some form of conspiracy in hollywood to bring down Jesus and the American Family, or something. There's no such thing. They want to make money. Period. That's the reason so much crappy film is being made.
It surprises me that Coulters kindergarten level argumentation actually convinces you. Even if you choose to see Brokeback Mountain as propaganda for gaydom, that does not mean the people who get behind the movie wants to turn people into homosexuals. The likely explanation would be that the people who get behind the movie are trying to get a piece of a good new market. The people with an artistic role in the creation of the movie might have an agenda, but those who finance and advertise it are out to make some money. Those who promote it (reviewers and such) know that it's bound to become a hit in a certain camp, and they may or may not choose to jump that train.

[Drosselmeier]

Whoa, nellie! Exactly where did I say homos, rather than Hollywierd, is the corrupting influence? And if you've forgotten, Hitler quite liked using movies to influence the population. Besides, Jooz don't hold a candle to Scientologists...

Hollywoods *** agenda has been discussed on this forum before. I could of course have you mixed up with someone but I'm fairly certain we've had words over that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Might have been better if you hadn't, since you seem to have gone astray - and it sounds like that's exactly what you're implying.

Then you misunderstand me. What I'm getting at is that you're letting yourself get fooled by the likes of coulter into thinking there's some form of conspiracy in hollywood to bring down Jesus and the American Family, or something. There's no such thing. They want to make money. Period. That's the reason so much crappy film is being made.
It surprises me that Coulters kindergarten level argumentation actually convinces you. Even if you choose to see Brokeback Mountain as propaganda for gaydom, that does not mean the people who get behind the movie wants to turn people into homosexuals. The likely explanation would be that the people who get behind the movie are trying to get a piece of a good new market. The people with an artistic role in the creation of the movie might have an agenda, but those who finance and advertise it are out to make some money. Those who promote it (reviewers and such) know that it's bound to become a hit in a certain camp, and they may or may not choose to jump that train.

[Drosselmeier]

Whoa, nellie! Exactly where did I say homos, rather than Hollywierd, is the corrupting influence? And if you've forgotten, Hitler quite liked using movies to influence the population. Besides, Jooz don't hold a candle to Scientologists...

Hollywoods *** agenda has been discussed on this forum before. I could of course have you mixed up with someone but I'm fairly certain we've had words over that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

I watched some of the opening to see if John Stewart was goign to be good. The little I saw, he was. I especially liked how he went after the Hollyweird establishment. Even better was the hate he received on the blogs later that night. It's always good to see the other side attack itself.

Other than that, I couldn't care less. They keep awarding movies that aren't what a movie is supposed to be about - escapism. For a couple of hours I want to be entertained. I don't want to be preached to.

I watched Independance Day on Saturday and go to thinking, why don't they make movies like this anymore? An absolute blockbuster without any political message. It didn't make you think, it didn't preach at you. Great special effects, lots of humor, good story, etc. Simple a movie that you get engrossed in for a couple of hours and then go back to your life.

Why not that instead of a movie like Brokeback Mountain? Why make a movie meant to divide us further? Oh yeah, they're out of touch. And they're proud of it. Just ask George Clowny I mean Cooney.

[jmervyn]

Yeah, it's all about the evil studios, man, forcing their crazy neo-liberal opinions on everyone. Except that Brokeback was an indie, and Crash was made for $7.5 million, and only got made because the actors, writers, director and producers believed in the script enough that they worked for free. Slamming the 'Hollyweird studios' based on independent films, made on a shoestring budget by people who cared about them is, to be blunt, idiotic.

Yup, that there Universal Studios - er, Focus Features - they're sure on a shoestring budget. Poor penniless Universal/Vivendi - there must be no more African villages they can cut off the water supplies to.

EDIT - oh, yah, who the heck is Ang Lee anyways? I'm sure he's never directed anything big-budget before...

And Brokeback probably got more publicity from fundy Christian denouncements and ravings from lunatics like Coulter than they could ever afford to buy.

Most of the conservatives I read snickered, or at most sneered, at BM. If that's raving, please keep your reality in your own pipe and don't pass it around.

[jmervyn]

Hollywoods *** agenda has been discussed on this forum before. I could of course have you mixed up with someone but I'm fairly certain we've had words over that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong, I suspect - you probably confused me with whoever because I commented in the previous *** thread. I'm the tolerant homophobe, remember?

Then you misunderstand me. What I'm getting at is that you're letting yourself get fooled by the likes of coulter into thinking there's some form of conspiracy in hollywood to bring down Jesus and the American Family, or something. There's no such thing. They want to make money. Period. That's the reason so much crappy film is being made.

We have no disagreement regarding the mercenary tendency. What we disagree on is, just as with the press, their self-obsession bleeds over into their work in a unpalatable manner. That's why Gibson had to fund Passion himself, and why Bruce Willis' movie will probably not be picked up by the major studios. These are are a bunch of narcissistic leftists, many of whom are Scientologists, who have nothing but disgust for what used to be American societal mores. It doesn't mean they won't make a movie about them.

It surprises me that Coulters kindergarten level argumentation actually convinces you. Even if you choose to see Brokeback Mountain as propaganda for gaydom, that does not mean the people who get behind the movie wants to turn people into homosexuals. The likely explanation would be that the people who get behind the movie are trying to get a piece of a good new market. The people with an artistic role in the creation of the movie might have an agenda, but those who finance and advertise it are out to make some money. Those who promote it (reviewers and such) know that it's bound to become a hit in a certain camp, and they may or may not choose to jump that train.

I included the Coulter post for amusement - but I find her overall point valid. Also, I think you're missing her point if you think that she's claiming the movie is homo propaganda intended to evangelize. The Crying Game wasn't a movie that was built exclusively upon sexual orientation, and I doubt you'd consider it an evangelical film. Her point is more that <anything> that is anti-conservative-values is at the minimum given a free pass. Just looking over the list of movies nominated, I can't find any that seem to promote anything remotely resembling 'Mom & Apple Pie'. Munich seems like it is the closest, since it supposedly isn't just about 'evil Jooz' attacking without provocation.

Why aren't even slightly nuanced movies, say like Tigerland or Full Metal Jacket (both anti-war war films), more common? It isn't because there's no market... and declining box office attendance is the result.

[Draconis]

What does the fact that Ang Lee directed have anything to do with? He made Brokeback for $13 million. Crash was made for $6.5-7.5, Good Night and Good Luck for $7.5, and Capote for $7 million.

By contrast, the one remaining Best Picture nominee that did come from a major studio cost $70 million, more than double the combined total of the other four nominees.

You might find this article about the funding for the various Oscar nominees interesting.

<edit>

Just looking over the list of movies nominated, I can't find any that seem to promote anything remotely resembling 'Mom & Apple Pie'.

What would you classify as a good film that does resemble 'Mom & Apple Pie'? I'm honestly curious here.

[Pitboss_2000]

Don't forget that Passion was entirely in Latin and Aramaic (and I've even read that Gibson originally intended it to be without subtitles), which made it into a far more risky film than the 'regular' films in English, so I cab understand that the studios weren't all lining up to produce it, irrelevant of the context.

Finally, about the Award Show: I have only seen pictures so far (Euro-trash timezones ftw!), but what the hell was Ben Stiller doing clad in green spandex? o_O

[Untitled]

I watched some of the opening to see if John Stewart was goign to be good. The little I saw, he was. I especially liked how he went after the Hollyweird establishment. Even better was the hate he received on the blogs later that night. It's always good to see the other side attack itself.

Other than that, I couldn't care less. They keep awarding movies that aren't what a movie is supposed to be about - escapism. For a couple of hours I want to be entertained. I don't want to be preached to.

I watched Independance Day on Saturday and go to thinking, why don't they make movies like this anymore? An absolute blockbuster without any political message. It didn't make you think, it didn't preach at you. Great special effects, lots of humor, good story, etc. Simple a movie that you get engrossed in for a couple of hours and then go back to your life.

Why not that instead of a movie like Brokeback Mountain? Why make a movie meant to divide us further? Oh yeah, they're out of touch. And they're proud of it. Just ask George Clowny I mean Cooney.

I nominated kung fu hustle for best picture, and Steven chow for best director. That movie was damn entertaining.

[Ace_wanderer]

I agree, what I consider a good movie is one that I enjoy, not what political aspects it has.

Choice of watching Brokeback Mountain or Kung Fu Hustle, Id choose Kung Fu Hustle any day.