Hulk 2 Movie is TOAST

[Scheradon]

not touchy feely or artsy

 

Titanic (1997)

Forrest Gump (1994)

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Rain Man (1988)

Sound of Music, The (1965)

My Fair Lady (1964)

West Side Story (1961)

 

Your definition of touchy feely must differ from most people's.

 

That's kind of what I thought too. After reading Tim's post, I figured he must have a different view of what that means.

[october]

not touchy feely or artsy

 

Titanic (1997)

Forrest Gump (1994)

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Rain Man (1988)

Sound of Music, The (1965)

My Fair Lady (1964)

West Side Story (1961)

 

Your definition of touchy feely must differ from most people's.

 

That's kind of what I thought too. After reading Tim's post, I figured he must have a different view of what that means.

 

I can maybe understand Dances with Wolves or Rain Man....maybe. But Forrest Gump? It's the definition of mawkish.

[tth2]

not touchy feely or artsy

 

Titanic (1997)

Forrest Gump (1994)

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Rain Man (1988)

Sound of Music, The (1965)

My Fair Lady (1964)

West Side Story (1961)

 

Your definition of touchy feely must differ from most people's.

 

That's kind of what I thought too. After reading Tim's post, I figured he must have a different view of what that means.

 

I can maybe understand Dances with Wolves or Rain Man....maybe. But Forrest Gump? It's the definition of mawkish.

Just because it's a movie tthat girls like, like Titanic, or a musical (which was a completely mainstream form of movie before the 1970s), doesn't necessarily mean it's touchy feely. Boil it down, and Titanic is basically an epic disaster pic like Poseidon Adventure with a little more focus on the human interest side of things.

 

You'll notice how I didn't include Terms of Endearment, Kramer vs. Kramer or Ordinary People, all of which are excellent films, because those clearly ARE touchy feely movies (as probably is Brokeback Mountain, which I haven't seen yet). THOSE are the epitomes of touchy feely.

 

Or are you and Scheradon saying that to NOT be a touchy feely movie, it must be an adventure flick directed by a hack like Michael Bay or Joel Schumacher that is aimed at a 12-25 year old male demographic? Then okay, I concede that one of those movies will not be nominated for or win an Oscar.

[tth2]

Many directors and actors are perfectly fine with being the biggest box office draws to the fans in spite of what the critics think and the academy votes for.

I'll definitely disagree with you here. There may be directors and actors that have ACCEPTED the fact that they do not have the talent to be successful at a critical level, and therefore focus on purely commercial, mediocre pictures, but I do not think they are "perfectly fine" with it.

 

Look at Spielberg. Who's been more commercially successful as a director than him? And yet, the lack of an Oscar that would put him in the artistic company of the many directors that he worships was clearly something he desperately wanted, no matter what he may have said publicly. As evidenced by his joy when he finally won it for Schindler's List.

 

Does Clint Eastwood prefer being just Clint Eastwood, legendary star of numerous westerns and action pics, or does he much prefer being Clint Eastwood, legendary star of numerous westerns and action pics and Oscar-winning film director? You think he wouldn't trade a couple hundred million in box office from his movies for a best actor Oscar?

[Scheradon]

Many directors and actors are perfectly fine with being the biggest box office draws to the fans in spite of what the critics think and the academy votes for.

I'll definitely disagree with you here. There may be directors and actors that have ACCEPTED the fact that they do not have the talent to be successful at a critical level, and therefore focus on purely commercial, mediocre pictures, but I do not think they are "perfectly fine" with it.

 

Look at Spielberg. Who's been more commercially successful as a director than him? And yet, the lack of an Oscar that would put him in the artistic company of the many directors that he worships was clearly something he desperately wanted, no matter what he may have said publicly. As evidenced by his joy when he finally won it for Schindler's List.

 

Does Clint Eastwood prefer being just Clint Eastwood, legendary star of numerous westerns and action pics, or does he much prefer being Clint Eastwood, legendary star of numerous westerns and action pics and Oscar-winning film director? You think he wouldn't trade a couple hundred million in box office from his movies for a best actor Oscar?

 

I don't agree with that. Sure, anybody is happy winning and award, but I think they are also fine with being successful to the millions rather than the fewer than 6,000 academy voters. I'm sure Rob Zombie is just heart broken not to have an oscar.

 

Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Dr. Dianne Durante that I found very pertinent to our discussion:

 

Academy standards and predispositions

But on what grounds do Academy members vote? Do they consider content, artistry, financial success, or a combination of these? The short and surprising answer is: we don't know. There is not and never has been an official set of standards or guidelines for choosing Best Picture. Few Academy members publicly discuss even their own standards.

Well, then: does the Academy count on sheer numbers to neutralize factors such as personal prejudice, political bias and massive ad campaigns by Hollywood studios? Contacts in the film industry tell me that a typical Hollywood filmmaker would be shocked at the very idea that standards could be established. In the view of the Academy's leaders, said screenwriter/director Greg Bowyer, "whatever gets the most votes, that's the best! There is no further thought or analysis or judgment required. … Not only do they evade analysis, but they are outright hostile to it."

Despite the fact that no standards have been established, past choices for Best Picture show recognizable trends in content and outlook. According to www.Filmsite.org, since 1927 most Best Picture Oscars have gone to dramas (39%), trailed distantly by historical epics (16%), comedies (14%), musicals (11%), war movies (8%), and (at 5% or less each) action-adventure, western and suspense movies.

 

You can read the rest of the article here, which I thought was very informative:

 

http://www.cordair.com/studio/bestpicture_body.htm

[tth2]

Many directors and actors are perfectly fine with being the biggest box office draws to the fans in spite of what the critics think and the academy votes for.

I'll definitely disagree with you here. There may be directors and actors that have ACCEPTED the fact that they do not have the talent to be successful at a critical level, and therefore focus on purely commercial, mediocre pictures, but I do not think they are "perfectly fine" with it.

 

Look at Spielberg. Who's been more commercially successful as a director than him? And yet, the lack of an Oscar that would put him in the artistic company of the many directors that he worships was clearly something he desperately wanted, no matter what he may have said publicly. As evidenced by his joy when he finally won it for Schindler's List.

 

Does Clint Eastwood prefer being just Clint Eastwood, legendary star of numerous westerns and action pics, or does he much prefer being Clint Eastwood, legendary star of numerous westerns and action pics and Oscar-winning film director? You think he wouldn't trade a couple hundred million in box office from his movies for a best actor Oscar?

 

I don't agree with that. Sure, anybody is happy winning and award, but I think they are also fine with being successful to the millions rather than the fewer than 6,000 academy voters. I'm sure Rob Zombie is just heart broken not to have an oscar.

Well, if Rob Zombie is your cup of tea, then we're on completely different planets when it comes to talking movies, and what I'm saying here is probably just white noise to you.

 

But to pursue the point just a bit further, I don't think it's a case of commercially successful directors or actors being happy if they happen to win an Oscar in addition to everything else. Spielberg purposely started making more "serious" films like "Schindler's List" because he knew his chances of being nominated and winning would be better than with a pure entertainment flick like "Jurassic Park". On the actor's side, look at Jim Carey. Biggest box office star in the world for a few years, but do you think it's coincidence he started taking on roles in movies like "Truman Show", "Majestic" and "Man on the Moon" for any reason other than to get the critical acclaim he so badly wants?

 

Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Dr. Dianne Durante that I found very pertinent to our discussion:

 

Academy standards and predispositions

But on what grounds do Academy members vote? Do they consider content, artistry, financial success, or a combination of these? The short and surprising answer is: we don't know. There is not and never has been an official set of standards or guidelines for choosing Best Picture. Few Academy members publicly discuss even their own standards.

Well, then: does the Academy count on sheer numbers to neutralize factors such as personal prejudice, political bias and massive ad campaigns by Hollywood studios? Contacts in the film industry tell me that a typical Hollywood filmmaker would be shocked at the very idea that standards could be established. In the view of the Academy's leaders, said screenwriter/director Greg Bowyer, "whatever gets the most votes, that's the best! There is no further thought or analysis or judgment required. … Not only do they evade analysis, but they are outright hostile to it."

Despite the fact that no standards have been established, past choices for Best Picture show recognizable trends in content and outlook. According to www.Filmsite.org, since 1927 most Best Picture Oscars have gone to dramas (39%), trailed distantly by historical epics (16%), comedies (14%), musicals (11%), war movies (8%), and (at 5% or less each) action-adventure, western and suspense movies.

 

You can read the rest of the article here, which I thought was very informative:

 

http://www.cordair.com/studio/bestpicture_body.htm

Sure, none of this is news. There are clearly genres of movies that the Academy likes. It's very obvious that the Academy doesn't like comedies or comedy actors. And of course politics are at play, and they definitely don't always get it right. As long as the Academy is made up of people, then it will have the flaws of people.

[Scheradon]

Well, if Rob Zombie is your cup of tea, then we're on completely different planets when it comes to talking movies, and what I'm saying here is probably just white noise to you.

 

The point was bringing up a Director that's not worried about getting an Oscar. Believe me, your assumption that they all yearn for this award rather than comercial success is way off. I'm not saying some do not want that recognition or that other's are not happy to get it, just that many Directors will make what the mainstream moviegoers want without trying to appease the critics and academy.

 

But to pursue the point just a bit further, I don't think it's a case of commercially successful directors or actors being happy if they happen to win an Oscar in addition to everything else. Spielberg purposely started making more "serious" films like "Schindler's List" because he knew his chances of being nominated and winning would be better than with a pure entertainment flick like "Jurassic Park". On the actor's side, look at Jim Carey. Biggest box office star in the world for a few years, but do you think it's coincidence he started taking on roles in movies like "Truman Show", "Majestic" and "Man on the Moon" for any reason other than to get the critical acclaim he so badly wants?

 

Am I hearing you correctly here? It sounds like you think Spielberg's only drive and purpose to make 'Schindler's List" was solely to go after an Oscar. That's hilarious. Couldn't have been that it was a deep personal passion to put that story to film. I guess "Saving Private Ryan" was a disappointment to him because it didn't win the Best Picture, thus defeating his whole purpose in making the film.

 

Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Dr. Dianne Durante that I found very pertinent to our discussion:

 

Academy standards and predispositions

But on what grounds do Academy members vote? Do they consider content, artistry, financial success, or a combination of these? The short and surprising answer is: we don't know. There is not and never has been an official set of standards or guidelines for choosing Best Picture. Few Academy members publicly discuss even their own standards.

Well, then: does the Academy count on sheer numbers to neutralize factors such as personal prejudice, political bias and massive ad campaigns by Hollywood studios? Contacts in the film industry tell me that a typical Hollywood filmmaker would be shocked at the very idea that standards could be established. In the view of the Academy's leaders, said screenwriter/director Greg Bowyer, "whatever gets the most votes, that's the best! There is no further thought or analysis or judgment required. … Not only do they evade analysis, but they are outright hostile to it."

Despite the fact that no standards have been established, past choices for Best Picture show recognizable trends in content and outlook. According to www.Filmsite.org, since 1927 most Best Picture Oscars have gone to dramas (39%), trailed distantly by historical epics (16%), comedies (14%), musicals (11%), war movies (8%), and (at 5% or less each) action-adventure, western and suspense movies.

 

You can read the rest of the article here, which I thought was very informative:

 

http://www.cordair.com/studio/bestpicture_body.htm

Sure, none of this is news. There are clearly genres of movies that the Academy likes. It's very obvious that the Academy doesn't like comedies or comedy actors. And of course politics are at play, and they definitely don't always get it right. As long as the Academy is made up of people, then it will have the flaws of people.

 

So, now we've come full circle in the discussion, and you are finally recognizing that certain genres are favorites for the award. Bingo! Give Tim a cigar! That's what I was saying all along and if you look at the top choice (Dramas 39%) , you will see that the "touchy feely" movies are the ones the academy likes. Notice what was dead last? Action-Adventure, western & Suspense at less than 5% combined I guess all those movies have bad directors and horrible stories.

[tth2]

But to pursue the point just a bit further, I don't think it's a case of commercially successful directors or actors being happy if they happen to win an Oscar in addition to everything else. Spielberg purposely started making more "serious" films like "Schindler's List" because he knew his chances of being nominated and winning would be better than with a pure entertainment flick like "Jurassic Park". On the actor's side, look at Jim Carey. Biggest box office star in the world for a few years, but do you think it's coincidence he started taking on roles in movies like "Truman Show", "Majestic" and "Man on the Moon" for any reason other than to get the critical acclaim he so badly wants?

 

Am I hearing you correctly here? It sounds like you think Spielberg's only drive and purpose to make 'Schindler's List" was solely to go after an Oscar. That's hilarious. Couldn't have been that it was a deep personal passion to put that story to film. I guess "Saving Private Ryan" was a disappointment to him because it didn't win the Best Picture, thus defeating his whole purpose in making the film.

Of course it wasn't the ONLY reason, but if you believe that he suddenly made a "serious" movie like Schindler's List without an eye on the Oscar, then you're being very naive. He had tried with "pure" entertainment films like ET and Close Encounters, but couldn't get past the Academy's bias against lighter fare.

 

So, now we've come full circle in the discussion, and you are finally recognizing that certain genres are favorites for the award. Bingo! Give Tim a cigar! That's what I was saying all along and if you look at the top choice (Dramas 39%) , you will see that the "touchy feely" movies are the ones the academy likes. Notice what was dead last? Action-Adventure, western & Suspense at less than 5% combined I guess all those movies have bad directors and horrible stories.

You're completely missing my original point, which was that "Oscar winner" does not automatically equal "touchy feely", and now I seem to need to point out that "drama" does not automatically equal "touchy feely". If we go through the list of Best Movies that I identified as not being touchy feely or artsy, you'll find that many are still dramas.

 

But to address your point, in fact I would say that the vast majority of comedies, action-adventure, western and suspense movies are NOT critically noteworthy or artistically superior. So it's not surprising that not many have won Best Movie. Most were made purely for entertainment purposes without any artistic aspirations. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

But feel free to refute this by listing some action-adventure, western or suspense film from each year that you felt were superior to the Best Movie winners and nominees that you feel were dramas AND touchy feely pics.

[Scheradon]

Of course it wasn't the ONLY reason, but if you believe that he suddenly made a "serious" movie like Schindler's List without an eye on the Oscar, then you're being very naive. He had tried with "pure" entertainment films like ET and Close Encounters, but couldn't get past the Academy's bias against lighter fare.

 

You obviously haven't followed much of Spielberg's work beyond his entertaining blockbusters as he didn't "suddenly" make a serious movie in 1993 with "Schindler's List". Are you forgetting "The Color Purple" in 1985 or how about "Empire of the Sun" in 1987?

 

You're completely missing my original point, which was that "Oscar winner" does not automatically equal "touchy feely", and now I seem to need to point out that "drama" does not automatically equal "touchy feely". If we go through the list of Best Movies that I identified as not being touchy feely or artsy, you'll find that many are still dramas.

 

I wasn't ever meaning the "touchy feely" label as an absolute, just an obvious edge. I think we've already determined your idea of "touchy feely" and "artsy" are quite different than mine and others.

 

But to address your point, in fact I would say that the vast majority of comedies, action-adventure, western and suspense movies are NOT critically noteworthy or artistically superior. So it's not surprising that not many have won Best Movie. Most were made purely for entertainment purposes without any artistic aspirations. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

This is the crux of the problem with the Academy. There are no guidelines that say anything about what makes a film critically noteworthy or that it has to be artistically superior or even what that is. It's all subjective. It's the BEST picture. Is not the most entertaining film the best picture? The Academy clearly leans towards what I determine to be "touchy feely" movies.

 

But feel free to refute this by listing some action-adventure, western or suspense film from each year that you felt were superior to the Best Movie winners and nominees that you feel were dramas AND touchy feely pics.

 

Notice how SCI-FI didn't even get any percentage points on the breakdown chart? I'll give you won that I thought was awesome: Empire Strikes Back. You wouldn't dare get the Academy voting on that one though. Guess who they voted for that year? "Ordinary People".

[chrisco37]

I agree. This isn't the kind of touchy feely movie that's going to garner all the Oscars nods

This misconception that touchy feely or artsy movies are the only ones that win or get nominated for Oscars just makes me laugh. Which two films have won the most Oscars ever? The answer is "Return of the King" and "Ben Hur". Not exactly art house fare.

 

Here you go Tim. I think you are picking out diamonds in the rough for your examples.

 

Best Film Oscars go to:

 

Million Dollar Baby (2004) great

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) great

Chicago (2002) ok

Beautiful Mind, A (2001) good

Gladiator (2000) good

American Beauty (1999) good

Shakespeare in Love (1998) sucked

Titanic (1997) b]sucked[/b] except for the boat

English Patient, The (1996) ok

Braveheart (1995) great

Forrest Gump (1994) good

Schindler's List (1993) great

Unforgiven (1992) great

Silence of the Lambs, The (1991) great

Dances with Wolves (1990) great on big screen, sucks on TV

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) good

Rain Man (1988) good

Last Emperor, The (1987) good

Platoon (1986) great

Out of Africa (1985) ok

Amadeus (1984) ok

Terms of Endearment (1983) ok

Gandhi (1982) great

Chariots of Fire (1981) great

Ordinary People (1980) ok

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Deer Hunter, The (1978) great

Annie Hall (1977)

Rocky (1976) great

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) great

Godfather: Part II, The (1974) great

Sting, The (1973)

Godfather, The (1972) great

French Connection, The (1971) great

Patton (1970) great

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Oliver! (1968)

In the Heat of the Night (1967) great

Man for All Seasons, A (1966) great

Sound of Music, The (1965)

My Fair Lady (1964)

Tom Jones (1963)

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) great

West Side Story (1961)

Apartment, The (1960)

Ben-Hur (1959) great

Gigi (1958)

Bridge on the River Kwai, The (1957) great

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

Marty (1955) great

On the Waterfront (1954) great

From Here to Eternity (1953) great

Greatest Show on Earth, The (1952)

American in Paris, An (1951)

All About Eve (1950)

All the King's Men (1949) great

Hamlet (1948)

Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

Best Years of Our Lives, The (1946)

Lost Weekend, The (1945)

Going My Way (1944)

Casablanca (1942) great

Mrs. Miniver (1942)

How Green Was My Valley (1941) great

Rebecca (1940)

Gone with the Wind (1939) great

You Can't Take It with You (1938)

Life of Émile Zola, The (1937)

Great Ziegfeld, The (1936)

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) great

It Happened One Night (1934)

Cavalcade (1933)

Grand Hotel (1932)

Cimarron (1931)

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) great

Broadway Melody, The (1929)

Wings (1927)

Just adding my 2cents

 

Amadeus just OK? It's one of the best movies of all-time, IMO. I'd put in the Top 5 on that list (of the ones I've seen).

 

I realize it's personal preference, but that was a fantastic film. Why do you give it just "OK"?

[october]

 

Amadeus just OK? It's one of the best movies of all-time, IMO. I'd put in the Top 5 on that list (of the ones I've seen).

 

I realize it's personal preference, but that was a fantastic film. Why do you give it just "OK"?

 

I was wondering about that too. F. Murray Abraham was fantastic in that film.

[Scheradon]

 

Amadeus just OK? It's one of the best movies of all-time, IMO. I'd put in the Top 5 on that list (of the ones I've seen).

 

I realize it's personal preference, but that was a fantastic film. Why do you give it just "OK"?

 

I was wondering about that too. F. Murray Abraham was fantastic in that film.

 

I have to admit, that "OK" is better than I would've given it, but then again, it's not my kind of movie. I'm more of a horror buff at heart. So if I had to be trapped in a room with the option of watching Amadeus or Friday the 13th over and over again, I'd pick Friday the 13th in a second. I could name 500 movies I'd rather watch.

 

I think if nothing else has come from this thread, it's shown that different people have a wide array of what they like and don't like.

 

He thought it was OK, you guys thought it was great and i thought it was

 

I guess we're all right from our own viewpoints.

[chrisco37]

 

Amadeus just OK? It's one of the best movies of all-time, IMO. I'd put in the Top 5 on that list (of the ones I've seen).

 

I realize it's personal preference, but that was a fantastic film. Why do you give it just "OK"?

 

I was wondering about that too. F. Murray Abraham was fantastic in that film.

 

It was as close to perfect as one of Mozart's compositions. I cannot think of a single flaw in the film.

 

Yes, Abraham's Best Actor Oscar was well-deserved. You could feel the pain his jealousy yet total admiration of Mozart's genius caused him. A very sympathetic character, despite the treachery.

[UnrulyAppendage]

Getting back to Singer and Raimi, I think it is safe to say if they wanted an Oscar, they wouldn't be making superhero movies. So far, they have proven themselves better at making superhero movies over Ang Lee.

 

I have no doubt Lee could make a great superhero movie. Crouching Tiger shows he has a flair for fantasy elements. However, the direction he chose to take Hulk was poor. I do not think Singer and Raimi are staying up at night because Ang Lee is more critically praised.

[tth2]

I think we've already determined your idea of "touchy feely" and "artsy" are quite different than mine and others.

That's for sure. Apparently any movie that focuses on character development over explosions is "touchy feely" or "artsy" in your opinion.

 

This is the crux of the problem with the Academy. There are no guidelines that say anything about what makes a film critically noteworthy or that it has to be artistically superior or even what that is. It's all subjective. It's the BEST picture. Is not the most entertaining film the best picture? The Academy clearly leans towards what I determine to be "touchy feely" movies.

Uh, no, most entertaining (in the way I think you mean, i.e., good popcorn fare) does not necessarily mean best. Being entertaining can mean that you provided someone with amusement for a couple of hours. Being the best means it should be entertaining but should elevate too, by containing artistic merit. It just so happens that serious dramas tend to have those qualities more often than the latest Jerry Bruckheimer action flick, although I'm in no way endorsing all (or even many) of the Academy's selections.

 

Anyways, this whole conversation is bizarre. My hardcore film buff friends would think this whole conversation is nonsense because they think the Oscars are already way too commercial and plebian.

 

But feel free to refute this by listing some action-adventure, western or suspense film from each year that you felt were superior to the Best Movie winners and nominees that you feel were dramas AND touchy feely pics.

 

Notice how SCI-FI didn't even get any percentage points on the breakdown chart? I'll give you won that I thought was awesome: Empire Strikes Back. You wouldn't dare get the Academy voting on that one though. Guess who they voted for that year? "Ordinary People".

I liked "Ordinary People". But I like Empire Strikes Back too, and thought it was better than Star Wars (which DID get a Best Film nomination). So I'll grant you that one, but how many other sci-fi fantasy films in the past 50 years have been worthy of a Best Film nomination? "Star Wars", "Close Encounters", "ET" and the 3 LOTR movies, which are among the most notable sci-fi/fantasy films in the last 50 years, all received nominations. Off the top of my head, the only sci-fi/fantasy films during that period that were worthy of being nominated but were not would be "2001" (which you probably think is "artsy" anyways), "Empire" and "Alien". Maybe "Terminator", which I happen to think is a great movie and much more than just an action flick.

[tth2]

Amadeus just OK? It's one of the best movies of all-time, IMO. I'd put in the Top 5 on that list (of the ones I've seen).

Totally agree. Also in my Top 5 of all time. Perfect -script, perfect acting and perfect direction. One of those years where clearly the Academy made the right choices.

[Ze-man]

It had too many notes.

 

 

Well, there it is.

 

 

 

Ze-

[tth2]

It had too many notes.

 

 

Well, there it is.

 

 

 

Ze-

Yup, even Jeffrey Jones was brilliant in the movie.

[Ze-man]

Bueller!!!!

[Scheradon]

Amadeus just OK? It's one of the best movies of all-time, IMO. I'd put in the Top 5 on that list (of the ones I've seen).

Totally agree. Also in my Top 5 of all time. Perfect -script, perfect acting and perfect direction. One of those years where clearly the Academy made the right choices.

 

Looking at the other Best Picture nominees, I really wouldn't have cared who won.

 

Without going into a lot of research to see what films would have qualified for the Oscar that year, I know I liked "The Natural" better. Of coarse, I liked "The Karate Kid" and "Beverly Hills Cop" better too that year.