Do the Oscars hold any merit to you?

[Axolotl]

Not really, I can't think of many times where they've picked a bad film butfar too afraid of controversy and thus in hindsight they're almost always wrong. For example in Streetcar Named Desire (Marlon Brando's first role) everyone except Marlon Brando won an Oscar for acting. Similarly for director's Kubrick never won, Welles never Won, Lynch has never won, Bergman never won, Hitchkock never won, Kurosawa never won and Tarentino hasn't won.

Even when major directors do win it's rarely for their best work, often it's something they do when they're older and their past work is viewed more favourably (or at least with less controversy) so often they win it for films that are clearly inferior to their earlier work, sometimes this doesn't go so badly like with Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven which is easily his best film.

 

[Yureina]

Not really. It makes no difference to me. If a film I like happens to win alot of oscars, then I think that is kind of cool that other people thought as I did. Beyond that... I could not care less.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Many that have won it deserve it to me. but like with social network winning best drama ....NUH UH THAT WAS BLACK SWAN'S AWARD!

 

[Dango]

Sort of. They definitely matter to me more than most other award ceremonies these days.

 

[theComposer]

I like the movies that I like, and whether or not they receive an award doesn't matter to me. I do like to see movies that I like win awards though, because it gives the film more recognition.

 

[Dags90]

Not really, there are clear genre biases in the Academy Awards and categories like "Best Animated Film" tend to lead to ghettoization. I mean, I like a good drama but there are so many movies that don't even get considered for best picture because they aren't the right "kind" of movie.

 

[Treblaine]

Nope, it's a bullshit system not only for WHO votes but HOW they vote.

I mean it took them over 20 years to recognise Jeff Bridges, what the hell?

The problem is you can have a GOOD actor, but they're never going to get anything unless they play a "stand out" role, the rant in Tropic Thunder of "Half Retarded" is just a bit too close to the bone. I mean Tom Hanks was always a good actor, but he had to play an Idiot Savant for the Academy to recognise that.

I think it doesn't reflect the actor's genuine skill.

My metric of a good actor is one who is able to hold a film up ALL BY THEMSELVES. I mean they can have a shit script, terrible director(s) and useless supporting cast but just with ones own sheer charisma and artistic licence make the film an entertaining production.

Nic Cage in that case is in for a lifetime achievement award 10x over as the number of films he has been in that would be nothing if it weren't for him.

The Academy does sometimes bend their own rules, Sean Connery was amazing in The Untouchables but it's clear his award was for a lifetime achievement in in just being THE REASON to see the films he was in. I mean The Untouchables was pretty boring and predictable till he strode into the movie and metaphorically showed that bore Kevin Costner who was the real man.

I mean the contrast between those two actors: Connery who can make eating breakfast as entertaining as a high speed car chase, and Costner who just seems to suck the life out of the most dramatic scenarios. I think that's why the Academy voted that way.

I'm not saying Costner is a bad actor, I'm just saying he has the charisma that sucks the life out of things... which probably makes him really well cast as a stuck up Federal Agent but it only became an interesting film cast opposite Sean Connery!

 

[PeePantz]

I find the Oscars meaningless because the kinds of movies I like don't win Oscars. If I'm watching a movie, it's probably because I want to laugh at something lowbrow for 90 minutes (Spaceballs, Bill&Ted's Excellent Adventure, Marx Brothers movies...)

I'd agree with the winners mainly being out of whack, however, I do put a lot of stock into the nominations. Winners are usually about life-time achievement or who brown nosed Hollywood. The nominations are usually pretty accurate, though.

 

[tthor]

the Oscars were created in the 1920's (or was it 1930's...) by the film industry. during the time, directors producers and film companies paid all the actors and workers peanuts to make the films. it was at this point that the actors and other people started unionizing(i think?) in order to demand better treatment and wages. the film companies were getting a lot of bad publicity because of their poor treatment of actors, so in order to give the film companies some good publicity and destract from the forming unions, they invented the Oscars, in which they basically just publicly give each other awards. Throughout it's existence, the Oscars have been primarily of political nature, and not so much about actual accomplishment as they might lead you to believe.

(I <3 Film&TV class)

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The Oscars lost all credibility when Titanic and Gladiator won Best Film in their respective years.

 

[campofapproval]

academy's been irrelevant ever since they gave chaplin a special award for the circus, rather than letting him beat the competition at the time by a score of 108-3.

 

[campofapproval]

Nope, it's a bullshit system not only for WHO votes but HOW they vote.

I mean it took them over 20 years to recognise Jeff Bridges, what the hell?

The problem is you can have a GOOD actor, but they're never going to get anything unless they play a "stand out" role, the rant in Tropic Thunder of "Half Retarded" is just a bit too close to the bone. I mean Tom Hanks was always a good actor, but he had to play an Idiot Savant for the Academy to recognise that.

I think it doesn't reflect the actor's genuine skill.

My metric of a good actor is one who is able to hold a film up ALL BY THEMSELVES. I mean they can have a shit script, terrible director(s) and useless supporting cast but just with ones own sheer charisma and artistic licence make the film an entertaining production.

Nic Cage in that case is in for a lifetime achievement award 10x over as the number of films he has been in that would be nothing if it weren't for him.

The Academy does sometimes bend their own rules, Sean Connery was amazing in The Untouchables but it's clear his award was for a lifetime achievement in in just being THE REASON to see the films he was in. I mean The Untouchables was pretty boring and predictable till he strode into the movie and metaphorically showed that bore Kevin Costner who was the real man.

I mean the contrast between those two actors: Connery who can make eating breakfast as entertaining as a high speed car chase, and Costner who just seems to suck the life out of the most dramatic scenarios. I think that's why the Academy voted that way.

I'm not saying Costner is a bad actor, I'm just saying he has the charisma that sucks the life out of things... which probably makes him really well cast as a stuck up Federal Agent but it only became an interesting film cast opposite Sean Connery!

the academy gave hanks his first oscar for playing aids guy. and you do know cage already has an oscar, right?

 

[campofapproval]

I find the Oscars meaningless because the kinds of movies I like don't win Oscars. If I'm watching a movie, it's probably because I want to laugh at something lowbrow for 90 minutes (Spaceballs, Bill&Ted's Excellent Adventure, Marx Brothers movies...)

that's fine. that's kind of sidestepping the issue, that the academy awards don't really tend to acknowledge and award those advancing the grammar of cinema, unless they make a lot of money at the box office of course. personally i believe the academy is fine as it is, snubbing this and that so they can suck butts with james cameron's ex-wife

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Well they gave Slumdog Millionaire and The Hurt Locker Oscars. So no they do not hold any merit. I think the best movie should always be the one that was the most entertaining, and not some shitty indie film noone has heard of until they release Oscar noms.

 

[darth.pixie]

Nope. I don't even know when they are or who are the nominees. I watch a lot of movies a year, some B rated (since I'm a sucker for bad yet amusing movies) and some that are worthy of an Oscar. However I don't much care either way.

Not to mention that they lost credibility in some years. Sometimes bad movies or actors won, sometimes great ones did (Who would give Cage an Oscar? Really? Maybe he was good in that movie but generally ..urgh)

 

[the rye]

Given The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's receipt of eleven Academy Awards, this being a film which I thought was presentable but highly overrated, and Titanic's earlier receipt of the same number of awards, the Oscars don't mean all that much to me.

Still, in some circumstances, it's a decent metric for working out certain movies worth watching - the movies you outline, which I would agree with you on enjoying (particularly The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, which is my overall favourite movie ever made) are considered to be genre films, one a Western and the other two science fiction, and these movies commonly get snubbed by the Oscar committee.

Oh god yes the Oscars are always snubbing sci-fi and western no matter how well they are written or directed.

 

[xdom125x]

All of the movie award shows are just mixed together in my mind because I don't care about them in the slightest(sic). However, I do pay attention to the VGA's, that one on spiketv which I think is called the Scream awards, and the one for games on G4. As you can guess from my knowledge on the names, I care only a little about them.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Nope, not at al, I got my criteria and they got theirs.
All the movies that win oscars have been ranged from awesome to absolute dog poop so I give it no consideration.