# Do Oscar results influence your decision?



## tangaloomababe (Feb 23, 2008)

I was just thinking that tomorrow is Academy Awards night, I seldom watch this rather long, somewhat boring event.

However I thought are other influenced by the results generated from this.  The obvious being Best Picture Winner. If you hadn't already seen it would you go to watch a movie because it had won in the Best Picture Catagory?

I have seen a couple of the nominated movies already:

No Country for Old Men (which I think is favoured to take out the Best Picture)

There will be Blood (for which Daniel Day Lewis is favoured to win Best Actor)

Of the other nominations I would probably still like to see Juno.

On a personal note I don't think it would influence me terribly.


----------



## PTeppic (Feb 23, 2008)

Gonna say sometimes though rarely. This year I did make an effort and went to see "No country for old men", on the basis of both the nomination and the reviews. However, won't be seeing "There will be blood", despite similar favour. I also saw Juno (which I thought was better than "Old men"), though that was as much because of the cast as the reviews and nominations...


----------



## tangaloomababe (Feb 24, 2008)

PTtepic
Just personal choice but I enjoyed There will be blood far more than No country for old men, it had a better story and although both have an element of violence (expecially No Country for old men) There will be Blood was a far more enjoyable movie for me.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Feb 24, 2008)

I's love to see the Coen Brother's thing,Tanga,but
...

I a have teenie weenie feeling it might be to violent for my taste.


----------



## ScottSF (Feb 25, 2008)

Ever since Gladiator one best picture (fun but didn't belong on the list) and Dancer in the Dark wasn't even nominated (deserved to win) I haven't thought of the Oscars as any measure of quality.  It seemed to be the industry patting itself on the back.  Perhaps the Academy has more sophisticated members now and I should do a film fest of the winners of the past few years to see if their judgement has improved. Anyone else agreed with any of their judgments recently?


----------



## Pyan (Feb 25, 2008)

The most recent Best Film that I've seen is _The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, _(2003) and before that, _Gladiator_ (2000).
I really can't take an award seriously that considers, among others, _Braveheart, Titanic_, and _Crash_ to be the best film of that year....


----------



## Lady of Winterfell (Feb 26, 2008)

It doesn't influence me. If the premise of the movie doesn't interest me, the Academy thinking its the Best Picture won't make me anymore interested in it. 

Just curious, what movie should have won instead of Gladiator, Braveheart, Titanic, and Crash? I didn't agree with them all either, but I also can't remember what was up against them.


----------



## ShrubChucker (Feb 26, 2008)

I usually look up what the people have to say (user reviews) on IMDB and Fandango to see what the majority of moviegoers think. I never listen to critics or awards.


----------



## Pyan (Feb 26, 2008)

Lady of Winterfell said:


> Just curious, what movie should have won instead of Gladiator, Braveheart, Titanic, and Crash? I didn't agree with them all either, but I also can't remember what was up against them.


* Gladiator *


_[*]Chocolat 
[*]Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 
[*]Erin Brockovich *
[*]Traffic_
* Braveheart *


_[*]Apollo 13 *
[*]Babe 
[*]Il Postino (The Postman) 
[*]Sense and Sensibility_
 *Titanic *


_[*]As Good as It Gets 
[*]The Full Monty *
[*]Good Will Hunting 
[*]L.A. Confidential_
 *Crash *


_[*]Brokeback Mountain *
[*]Capote
[*]Good Night, and Good Luck 
[*]Munich_

* - my preference for that year......


----------



## Lucien21 (Feb 26, 2008)

The year Titanic won everything the best film was LA Confidential by a mile.

The Oscars are never really a reliable indication of quality. _Citizen Kane_ widely held as the greatest film ever by some critics didn't win the year it was nominated (In fact it was Boo'd ever time it was mentioned)_How Green Was My Valley won that year._

Some other Faux Pas were..

Forrest Gump winning best picture the same year Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption

Edward Norton missing out on best actor for American History X

Overall though I usually find the ceremony funny (Depending on the host) and I have usually seen most of the movies nominated so the winners don't influence what I go see. It is basically just a popularity contest as the votes go the the academy members i.e Actors/writers/directors etc it's not judged by a panel of critics.


----------



## Coolhand (Feb 26, 2008)

I've long ago stopped viewing the Oscars as a judge of quality. The Titanic, Forest Gump and Braveheart examples have already been brought up (Cry-Tanic better than LA Confidential? I almost threw a chair at the screen when that got announced) but there's so many other choices that I just do not understand on any level. 

Even the minor awards are sometimes bizzare. I mean take this years Visual Effects winner, the Golden Compass. Whatever its other merits as a film, there's NO WAY that its VFX were a greater achievement than its two rivals: Pirates 3 and Transformers. In fact, I'd argue that GC's CGI did little to distinguish itself from any other fantasy films of the last few years, let alone go head to head with this years FX showcase films. Yet it walked away with the award.

I think the Oscars have a lot more to do with insider industry politics, trends, bandwagons and backslapping than any honest appraisal of quality. Which isn't to say that they never get things right of course. Just that I don't think of them as the "Gold Standard" for film.


----------



## Connavar (Feb 26, 2008)

Lucien21 said:


> The year Titanic won everything the best film was LA Confidential by a mile.
> 
> The Oscars are never really a reliable indication of quality. _Citizen Kane_ widely held as the greatest film ever by some critics didn't win the year it was nominated (In fact it was Boo'd ever time it was mentioned)_How Green Was My Valley won that year._
> 
> ...



Hear  hear !

La Confidential was so much better.

I also couldnt believe how cheesy story like Gump could beat Shawshank Redemption.  Only movie i have ever seen that was atleast as good its book.  Which is high praise compared to any other movie version of a book in hollywood.

Hehe also agree about Norton.  Funny you thought exactly as me in this.


----------



## Quokka (Feb 26, 2008)

Oscar 'buzz' rather than who actually won it probably affects me to an extent, I'm not huge on watching movies and will as often as not see them a year or more after their released, so the advertising works in as far as I'll have in the back of my mind that I want to watch No Country For Old Men, Juno and There Will Be Blood at some point.


----------



## ShrubChucker (Feb 26, 2008)

Erin Brokovich better than Gladiator???


----------



## Pyan (Feb 26, 2008)

Gladiator.....I complain about them changing details from books to film...I don't like them altering the plots too much....but when they completely re-write history, and kill out a character who historically had another twenty-odd years of very important existence...meh...


----------



## Sire Of Dragons (Feb 26, 2008)

Ode to the joys of filmography. I didn't realize Gladiator was from a book or that was suppose to be meant as the realistic story. Almost none of them are anyway.

But I don't even watch the award shows nor do I listen to the critics. You miss out on alot of good stuff if you take their words for it. Most of them wouldn't know a good movie if they starred in it.


----------



## Quokka (Feb 27, 2008)

As for decisions I'd have disgreed with was Shakespeare in Love really that good? I mean I didn't mind it but not sure I'd have gone best movie and best actress.

There's also a tendancy to take previous roles into account, Pacino should have several oscars but that year I would have gone Denzel Washington for Malcom X over Scent of a Woman and then later Sean Penn for I am Sam over Denzel's Training Day.


----------



## clovis-man (Feb 27, 2008)

pyan said:


> Gladiator.....I complain about them changing details from books to film...I don't like them altering the plots too much....but when they completely re-write history, and kill out a character who historically had another twenty-odd years of very important existence...meh...


 
Actually, *Gladiator* was a "remake" (very broadly speaking) of *The Fall of the Roman Empire* (1964)which, in turn, was a shameless attempt to make hay with a not so subtle reprise of Stephen Boyd racing a chariot, ala *Ben-Hur*. Even so, a stellar cast: In addition to Boyd, there was Alec Guinness, James Mason, Sophia Loren, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quayle, Omar Sharif, John Ireland and Mel Ferrer. Great production values, but the story ran a little over the top.

Jim


----------



## Pyan (Feb 27, 2008)

Sire Of Dragons said:


> Ode to the joys of filmography. I didn't realize Gladiator was from a book or that was suppose to be meant as the realistic story. Almost none of them are anyway.


it was the killing off of Commodus at the end of the film that annoyed me, tantamount to oohh, lets say, making a non-fantasy film about the USA in the sixties, and _not_ having Kennedy assassinated.
 Plus the whole thing is riddled with other historical inaccuracies - _printed_ flyers advertising the contest in the second century? _Stirrups_? Claudius being an ancestor of Commodus?
I know you can regard these sort of things as being nit-picking, but IMHO, it kind of spoils it if you have any interest in the era.


----------

