"Crash" [Archive] - NYYFans.com Forum

ritaylnil

09-27-05, 07:22 AM

I searched this site and didn't find a thread on this incredible film, so I figured I'd start one. The director is Paul Haggis. The film presents racism in a way I've never seen in a movie before. It's so damn well done. Just when you think you "get it", it comes at you from a different angle. I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on it. If you haven't seen it, give it a try. Great ensemble cast including Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Ludacris, Thandie Newton, Brendan Fraser, Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillippe, Larenz Tate and many others.

NYDCYankee

09-27-05, 07:37 AM

Excellent movie, I was gonna start one as well. I watched last week and was stirred myself. Very well done, very well acted (except Brendan Fraser, I can't handle him), it should be one of the leading candidates for movie of the year.

I have been asking people what they actually thought the point of the movie was and everyone seems to be saying something different. What exactly was it saying about racism? Was it saying so much that it ended up not saying anything? Was it saying we are all racist on some level?

I think the great thing about the film was you had to feel sympathy for even the most angry and "evil" characters in the film? Maybe that is a part of what the film was saying how our opinions are shaped by our circumstances and that racism is not inborn. There are so many things to say about the film and so many different takes a person can have on it, but regardless of all of that it makes everyone examine themselves.

YankeeGalSC

09-27-05, 09:27 AM

I've heard a lot about the movie, but haven't seen it yet. Is it out on DVD yet?

IronCaballo4

09-27-05, 09:30 AM

I thought Crash was a fantastic movie that EVERYONE should see. If I get the chance, I'm gonna get it on DVD sometime soon.

As far as the story goes, what I gathered from it is that in some way, everyone has some kind of prejudice, not just racial...and oftentimes it happens without us consciously thinking about it. I think the movie was just an opportunity to view it and say "Whoa", and sit down and think about things. The movie showed how people, no matter how different, are connected because we still bleed the same blood and breathe the same air...therefore, we should treat everyone equally. Actions always speak louder than words and I think overcoming prejudices starts with each and every one of us doing our part and not just talking the talk and pointing the finger

deranged2005

09-27-05, 09:48 AM

Very good movie, all about role reversal.

CoyoteYankee

09-27-05, 09:51 AM

SuperMario66

09-27-05, 10:16 AM

My best friend has been trying to get me to see this movie since it came out. I just haven't had the oppurtunity yet. The next time I am not up to my ears in school work I am going to sit down and watch it.

ritaylnil

09-27-05, 05:26 PM

Is it out on DVD yet?

I saw it on DVD from Netflix.

Evil Empire

09-27-05, 05:26 PM

One of my good friends saw it a while ago, said it was great.

GiambiRocks

09-28-05, 06:11 AM

Crash is an amazing film that addresses the issue of race and relationships in a raw, uncensored way. The film isn't shy. It speaks volumes in an "in your face" sort of way with characters who break the politically correct mold saying out loud everything that everybody thinks about one another but are afraid to say.
After watching it I was just blown away. This is by far one of the best movies about race that I have ever seen. It deals with race and what happens when different races collide... how do they interact? It also clears up how often in times our assumptions about people are way off. But it is human nature to judge and have these pre-conceived notions about people... sometimes we are correct in our assumptions and often we are not. The thing that makes the movie great is that perpetrators are heroes, victims are victimizers (and vice-versa), and the passive are aggressive. Unlike most movies today we're never quite sure who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, which is how life actually works.

GoBernie

09-28-05, 07:55 AM

This movie was one of those that you leave the theatre and just can't stop talking about. I love that nobody is 100% good or 100% bad. It was extremely well done.

mr. baskums

09-28-05, 08:19 AM

Great movie! I think the movie captures the dangers of judging people based on how they look, and more specifically their race. And every race is guilty of this. I was mesmerized by this movie. I would definitely recommend it.

My thoughts as well. Also reminded me that no matter how well you might know someone, you probably have no idea what is really going on in their life.

chanman7483

10-05-05, 09:42 PM

The locksmith never really had a moment where he was "bad"... sorry for the bump, but this was a GREAT movie... very powerful and very thought provoking and inspiring.

SPOILER BELOW

my mouth hung open for about 2 minutes after the scene where the locksmith's daughter gets "shot"...

NYDCYankee

10-05-05, 09:53 PM

The locksmith never really had a moment where he was "bad"... sorry for the bump, but this was a GREAT movie... very powerful and very thought provoking and inspiring.

Yeah your right about that. Did anyone notice the prevelance of locks and keys and doors in the film? It definitely was saying something about what racism does.

chanman7483

10-05-05, 11:45 PM

Yeah your right about that. Did anyone notice the prevelance of locks and keys and doors in the film? It definitely was saying something about what racism does.

This film held nothing back. I felt horrible for the locksmith when Sandra Bullock was talking about him being a gangbanger who would come back and rob them... then he comes into the kitchen and puts the keys down and walks away awkwardly..

in MO I trust 42

10-06-05, 12:14 AM

this movie sounds pretty good

CoyoteYankee

10-06-05, 12:21 AM

The locksmith never really had a moment where he was "bad"... sorry for the bump, but this was a GREAT movie... very powerful and very thought provoking and inspiring.

I never really thought that the movie was meant to say anything about the good/bad in people. I think is just meant to say that people should be more careful about judging others based on race because superficial predictions are often wrong.

Bub

10-07-05, 06:58 AM

I saw this last night. Well done movie, but I was depressed afterwards and I don't like to feel that way after watching a movie.

ritaylnil

10-07-05, 07:01 AM

I saw this last night. Well done movie, but I was depressed afterwards and I don't like to feel that way after watching a movie.

I didn't feel depressed. I almost felt exhilarated. Not because the situations in the film made me feel good. Obviously a lot of disturbing things happened in it. It was just refreshing to see something so real on film instead of the usual unrealistic blather.

NYDCYankee

10-07-05, 08:00 AM

I didn't feel depressed. I almost felt exhilarated. Not because the situations in the film made me feel good. Obviously a lot of disturbing things happened in it. It was just refreshing to see something so real on film instead of the usual unrealistic blather.

well said... :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

The majority of movies out there are crap. Some appeal to people with brains, like this one.

thecaptain

10-08-05, 11:09 PM

I just saw it on DVD. I thought it was very good. one were if I paid 9 bucks in a theater I would not be disappointed. most of the ones I rent I would be pissed off if I paid to see it in a theater.

SubwayFanatic

10-08-05, 11:28 PM

Was I the only one who didn't really like this film?

NYYBombshell

10-09-05, 02:09 AM

Was I the only one who didn't really like this film?

I've never even heard of it until now.

JDPNYY

10-29-05, 01:13 AM

I just finished watching this movie.

Very good. Very thought provoking.

I need to think.

Dave Visbeck

10-29-05, 03:01 AM

Was it saying we are all racist on some level?

Exactly.

A very good movie. I watched it twice in a row.

SheffRocks11

10-29-05, 09:15 AM

Crash was a great movie! It kind of made me depressed though...

SuperMario66

10-29-05, 01:28 PM

I saw it last weekend and absolutely loved it. Great movie.

Mark19

10-29-05, 02:23 PM

terrific picture, also a stand-out performance from Mamaroneck's son Matt Dillon.

SuperMario66

10-29-05, 03:44 PM

terrific picture, also a stand-out performance from Mamaroneck's son Matt Dillon.

I don't understand why everybody finds him so attractive. He looks sleezy to me.

rkh5donkey

10-29-05, 04:09 PM

Whenever anyone mentions this movie, I think they're talking about the 1996 movie with the same title. Directed by David Cronenberg (The Fly, Naked Lunch) and based on a novel by J G Ballard (Empire of the Sun), the film revolves around the fetishization of car crashes. With James Spader, Holly Hunter, and Elias Koteas. Rated NC-17 for numerous explicit sex scenes.

An excellent, excellent movie. Highest possible recommendation.

I haven't seen the race movie.

yanksrule69

10-29-05, 04:22 PM

I just finished watching this movie.

That is very weird. I must have watched it at the same exact time as you. I had just finished watching it right then as well.

Anyway, it was a really good movie. Chanman, I was totally in shock about the locksmith's daughter too. Definitely a thought provoking movie. I think I missed a few minutes here and there so I would like to see it again.

yankeebot

10-29-05, 04:32 PM

I just rented this movie to watch tonight. From what I've read here, I think I made a good choice.

Jenn6812

10-29-05, 04:39 PM

We watched it last weekend. I really liked it.

NewAmsterdamYankee

10-30-05, 05:18 AM

I saw it last night at the theater.
Excellent movie.
Personally I think it's not only about racism, but more general about the way we are living together these days. And LA, and this movie, is an extreme form of this, and, at the same time, the direction we are heading at. Not only in the US, but in the Western countries in general.

Funny detail:
Remember the piece were the wife tells the tv director that the only black thing he knows is the Cosby show? I saw on the site that he played in the Cosby show in the beginning of his career.

NelsonMuntz

10-30-05, 12:17 PM

Was I the only one who didn't really like this film?
No, I didn't really like it either. I found a lot of the plot angles to be very forced. It was basically two hours of character inconsistency and extreme examples of bad human behavior to make us realize we're all capable of racism, and racism bad.

yanksrule69

10-30-05, 08:56 PM

That one song they kept playing throughout the movie really annoyed me and creeped me out.

yankeebot

10-31-05, 04:51 AM

So I watched this last night. Very thought provoking and well-written. I felt like I was kind of left dangling at the end although I think that was by intent.

CanoForPresident

10-31-05, 11:53 PM

Was I the only one who didn't really like this film?

yes :P

The monologue about the cloak, from a filmic writing stand point, is jaw dropping.

The movie on the whole is the best i have seen this year, and possibly the best film i have seen in the last 5 years.

SubwayFanatic

11-01-05, 12:32 AM

No, I didn't really like it either. I found a lot of the plot angles to be very forced. It was basically two hours of character inconsistency and extreme examples of bad human behavior to make us realize we're all capable of racism, and racism bad.

Agreed.

This movie is not really as deep and thought-provoking as it thinks it is. Everyone can be a little bit racist. My God, I never knew that!

I also don't think many movies work very well when they try to write stories in which somehow pretty much all the characters are connected. It just seems way too forced.

I think this is the type of movie that many people will claim they like, mainly because they feel like they are 'supposed to.' It covers what they think is a 'deep topic' so they'll pretend to like it to go along with everyone else.

SuperMario66

11-01-05, 12:41 AM

Agreed.

I think this is the type of movie that many people will claim they like, mainly because they feel like they are 'supposed to.' It covers what they think is a 'deep topic' so they'll pretend to like it to go along with everyone else.

Wow, way to tell 35 people they are dumbasses with two sentences.

I Love Wang

11-01-05, 12:42 AM

I think this is the type of movie that many people will claim they like, mainly because they feel like they are 'supposed to.' It covers what they think is a 'deep topic' so they'll pretend to like it to go along with everyone else.

Reminiscent of Fight Club and Requiem for a Dream, I would say.

SubwayFanatic

11-01-05, 12:57 AM

Wow, way to tell 35 people they are dumbasses with two sentences.

Oh, I don't deny that some people genuinely like this film.

However, I do think that there are some people that will claim to like it because they feel like they 'should.'

SuperMario66

11-01-05, 01:02 AM

Oh, I don't deny that some people genuinely like this film.

However, I do think that there are some people that will claim to like it because they feel like they 'should.'

That's better. ;)

NYDCYankee

11-01-05, 01:50 AM

I think this is the type of movie that many people will claim they like, mainly because they feel like they are 'supposed to.' It covers what they think is a 'deep topic' so they'll pretend to like it to go along with everyone else.

The movie was well crafted and well acted (except Brendan Fraser), and tackled an important issue.

Sorry if it wasn't Napolean Dynomite or something so we can have a thread 50 pages long.

I Love Wang

11-01-05, 02:05 AM

The movie was well crafted and well acted (except Brendan Fraser), and tackled an important issue.

Sorry if it wasn't Napolean Dynomite or something so we can have a thread 50 pages long.

There it is. What kind of phrase is "well-crafted" anyway?

SuperMario66

11-01-05, 02:10 AM

There it is. What kind of phrase is "well-crafted" anyway?

Seriously?

NYDCYankee

11-01-05, 02:44 AM

Seriously?

Am I missing something? Did he knock me over a missing hyphen?

Someone is pretending they are a fifth grade teacher with a red pen.

ritaylnil

11-01-05, 03:26 AM

There it is. What kind of phrase is "well-crafted" anyway?

"Well": Skillfully or proficiently

"Crafted", the past participle of craft, has enjoyed a vogue as a participle referring to well-wrought writing

Hope that helps you.

I Love Wang

11-01-05, 09:51 AM

Am I missing something? Did he knock me over a missing hyphen?

Someone is pretending they are a fifth grade teacher with a red pen.

No, I'm just pointing out that you are defending your position on a movie against a person who said that people will like it because its trendy by using a cliche. I'm always amused by things like that. I'm unconcerned with your use of hyphens.

CoyoteYankee

11-01-05, 09:52 AM

Agreed.

This movie is not really as deep and thought-provoking as it thinks it is. Everyone can be a little bit racist. My God, I never knew that!

I also don't think many movies work very well when they try to write stories in which somehow pretty much all the characters are connected. It just seems way too forced.

I think this is the type of movie that many people will claim they like, mainly because they feel like they are 'supposed to.' It covers what they think is a 'deep topic' so they'll pretend to like it to go along with everyone else.

I never thought the movie was meant to say that "we can all be a little bit racist". I thought the movie was saying that we should be careful about pre-conceived notions about people based on the way that they look. And I do not think that having preconceived notions is the same thing as being racist. And I don't think that this message is said enough. I liked how all the characters were connected.

Reminiscent of Fight Club and Requiem for a Dream, I would say.

Hmmm. I didn't like Fight Club but I liked Requiem for a Dream. I don't know what this says about me.

I Love Wang

11-01-05, 09:56 AM

Hmmm. I didn't like Fight Club but I liked Requiem for a Dream. I don't know what this says about me.

It means you're a terrible person.

yankeebot

11-01-05, 09:57 AM

I never thought the movie was meant to say that "we can all be a little bit racist". I thought the movie was saying that we should be careful about pre-conceived notions about people based on the way that they look. And I do not think that having preconceived notions is the same thing as being racist. And I don't think that this message is said enough. I liked how all the characters were connected.But don't you find a lot of preconceived notions about people are rooted in racism? And if you have ideas rooted in racism, on some level aren't you a little bit of a racist?

JDPNYY

11-01-05, 09:58 AM

I kept waiting for the crash and it turned out to be a little fender bender.

yankeebot

11-01-05, 09:59 AM

Hmmm. I didn't like Fight Club but I liked Requiem for a Dream. I don't know what this says about me.I am just the opposite. Liked Fight Club, disliked Requiem for a Dream. What it says about us is that we are terribly fortunate to live in a free society where we have so many movies available to us and are allowed to form and share our own opinions.

CoyoteYankee

11-01-05, 10:07 AM

But don't you find a lot of preconceived notions about people are rooted in racism? And if you have ideas rooted in racism, on some level aren't you a little bit of a racist?

I consider racism to be a belief that a race is inferior to another race. I hear the word racism thrown out so much in such bogus places. I don't necessarily consider stereotypes racism. They may not be accurate but I don't think it is necessarily racism.

I am just the opposite. Liked Fight Club, disliked Requiem for a Dream. What it says about us is that we are terribly fortunate to live in a free society where we have so many movies available to us and are allowed to form and share our own opinions.

Of course. I was just wondering why these movies were being thrown out there as if to say there is something about the people who like these movies.

NYDCYankee

11-01-05, 01:45 PM

No, I'm just pointing out that you are defending your position on a movie against a person who said that people will like it because its trendy by using a cliche. I'm always amused by things like that.

Uhh..."well crafted" or "well-crafted" is not a cliche. I don't know where you got that from. If anything it is an adjective.

Since you have such an interest in cliches here are a few sites on the subject, none of which mention well "well-crafted" as a cliche.

http://www.clichesite.com/index.asp

http://www.westegg.com/cliche/

I don't see what the big deal is anyway.

Evil Empire

11-24-05, 10:00 AM

Just saw this. It was very good.

:lol: @ John's post

RhodeyYankee2638

11-24-05, 10:03 AM

I was looking for this thread last weekend after I saw this movie, but I couldnt find it. This is by far the best movie of the year

Evil Empire

11-24-05, 10:05 AM

It's from last year. I dunno about the best, but it was very good.

RhodeyYankee2638

11-24-05, 10:17 AM

It's from last year. I dunno about the best, but it was very good.

Its elegible for awards this year I believe. I've seen most new movies in the theatres and cant think of one that comes close to it

Evil Empire

11-24-05, 10:29 AM

Its elegible for awards this year I believe. I've seen most new movies in the theatres and cant think of one that comes close to it

Oh okay, that's what you mean.

NYDCYankee

12-14-05, 12:07 AM

Crash got snubbed with some of the Golden Globe nominations.

ritaylnil

02-11-06, 08:54 AM

I'm bumping this up just so we can have two "Crash" threads going at the same time! :p

Evil Empire

02-11-06, 10:14 AM

I'm bumping this up just so we can have two "Crash" threads going at the same time! :p

:lol:

ritaylnil

03-05-06, 10:33 PM

I never imagined when I started this thread last September that this low-budget film had a shot at the Best Picture Oscar. I am thrilled that this picture won. Wow.

NYYRules#1

03-05-06, 10:34 PM

It was a good movie. I was rooting for Brokeback Mountain, but Crash is good. Still disappointed though.

NYYBombshell

03-05-06, 10:38 PM

I was rooting for Good Night and Good Luck to win, but at least my Reese won Best Actress.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-05-06, 10:41 PM

Crash and it wasnt even close baby

Evil Empire

03-05-06, 10:47 PM

Crash and it wasnt even close baby

Good stuff.

NelsonMuntz

03-05-06, 11:00 PM

All I can say is :barf:

yankeesAZ

03-05-06, 11:05 PM

A very worthy picture for the Oscar. It was an upset win, but well-deserved.

wexy

03-05-06, 11:05 PM

To me, Crash was like a jigsaw puzzle thrown up in the air and landed with all the pieces fitting together way to conveniantly for me.

NelsonMuntz

03-05-06, 11:13 PM

To me, Crash was like a jigsaw puzzle thrown up in the air and landed with all the pieces fitting together way to conveniantly for me.
Thank you. It was way too contrived and schmaltzy for me. As I said earlier, it was basically two hours of character inconsistency and extreme examples of bad human behavior to make us realize we're all capable of racism, and racism is bad. I can't believe it won best picture.

LloydBanks

03-05-06, 11:33 PM

Crash was a good movie. I thought Higher Learning was a better racism movie though

BronxByTheBay

03-05-06, 11:49 PM

Wow. Crash was well made and well acted, but I didn't think it was a great film...didn't even think it was a good film. Cliche after cliche after cliche and at the end of it all nothing new or interesting to say about race relations.

But I guess its win symbolizes what an awful year in film we just experienced. Brokeback was very good, much better than Crash, but it also wasn't great. I didn't get to Munich or Good Night and Good Luck, so perhaps one of those were great.

BronxByTheBay

03-05-06, 11:52 PM

On another note, John Stewart hit it out of the ballpark. Awesome job and virtually the only reason to watch tonight.

NYDCYankee

03-05-06, 11:55 PM

On another note, John Stewart hit it out of the ballpark. Awesome job and virtually the only reason to watch tonight.

Very good call on Stewart, though I think the acadamy did a great job of handing out the Oscars.

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 12:04 AM

Very good call on Stewart, though I think the acadamy did a great job of handing out the Oscars.

The show was well produced, but it was handicapped by both the dearth of great films to rally around and star power. I mean...f*cking Queen Latifah and Ludacriss were presenters.

One note on Stewart: like virtually everyone else, I was expecting a barrage of Bush jokes. Instead virtually all of his targets were the industry and the people sitting in that auditorium, and on a night when it seemed they were dead set on patting themselves on the back for being such wonderful human beings. Am I the only one who thought that Stewart's reception got a little cold as the evening went on? I wonder if he'll be invited back next year. I hope so. He rocked.

NYYBombshell

03-06-06, 12:06 AM

On another note, John Stewart hit it out of the ballpark. Awesome job and virtually the only reason to watch tonight.

Jon Stewart was f*cking awesome. He did the right thing by having the Daily Show writers with him, because the show is hilarious and having them writing his material tonight ensured it would be great.

yankeesAZ

03-06-06, 12:11 AM

The show was well produced, but it was handicapped by both the dearth of great films to rally around and star power. I mean...f*cking Queen Latifah and Ludacriss were presenters.

One note on Stewart: like virtually everyone else, I was expecting a barrage of Bush jokes. Instead virtually all of his targets were the industry and the people sitting in that auditorium, and on a night when it seemed they were dead set on patting themselves on the back for being such wonderful human beings. Am I the only one who thought that Stewart's reception got a little cold as the evening went on? I wonder if he'll be invited back next year. I hope so. He rocked.

Stewart came in saying thinking it was "their" night and the last thing he wanted to do was ruin it (knowing Bush jokes would be distracting).

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 12:19 AM

Stewart came in saying thinking it was "their" night and the last thing he wanted to do was ruin it (knowing Bush jokes would be distracting).

Maybe, but for someone who wanted it to be the Academy's night, he sure destroyed virtually all of their sacred cows. Granted that's the host's job, but he took some shots I did not expect. The line after the "message movie" montage "And of course as we know, all of these problems went away" was really funny and cutting. Also, how could jokes at Bush's expense detract from anything when the president is running a mid-high 30's favorable rating?

yankeesAZ

03-06-06, 12:37 AM

Also, how could jokes at Bush's expense detract from anything when the president is running a mid-high 30's favorable rating?

You're right, they couldn't. The last thing he should do is make fun of Bush. It would help Bush if anything.

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 12:47 AM

The show was well produced, but it was handicapped by both the dearth of great films to rally around and star power. I mean...f*cking Queen Latifah and Ludacriss were presenters.

Ludacris was actually in two of the highly touted movies (Crash, Husle & Flow). Queenie is a good call though.

I disagree with you on the fact that these films were not great. I think a lot of these movies were very good to great films.

And I am glad there were no films like Aviator and Titanic floated up there.

One note on Stewart: like virtually everyone else, I was expecting a barrage of Bush jokes. Instead virtually all of his targets were the industry and the people sitting in that auditorium, and on a night when it seemed they were dead set on patting themselves on the back for being such wonderful human beings. Am I the only one who thought that Stewart's reception got a little cold as the evening went on? I wonder if he'll be invited back next year. I hope so. He rocked.

did you read the article in Newsday today about Stewart wanting to play this night right so that he can be in line to take over for Letterman when he retires. it was very interesting.

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 12:50 AM

The line after the "message movie" montage "And of course as we know, all of these problems went away" was really funny and cutting.

The montages were ridiculous. What was the one Lauren Bacall introduced even about?

It is pretty sad they play those crap montages and then cut off Oscar winner 15 minutes of fame.

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 07:01 AM

The show was well produced, but it was handicapped by both the dearth of great films to rally around and star power. I mean...f*cking Queen Latifah and Ludacriss were presenters.

Oh and I think Queen Latifah was nominated for an Oscar for Chicago plus she is/was a musician so that is probably why she gave out the original song category.

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 07:03 AM

It also looks like the Oscars as a whole are getting panned. Several newspapers gave Stewart glowing reviews Newsday, USA Today. Others are saying he was hideous Washington Post, Imus ( :barf: ) and the intolerable Fox and Friends.

SubwayFanatic

03-06-06, 08:18 AM

Thank you. It was way too contrived and schmaltzy for me. As I said earlier, it was basically two hours of character inconsistency and extreme examples of bad human behavior to make us realize we're all capable of racism, and racism is bad. I can't believe it won best picture.

I thought it was really weak. You would have to be labtomized to accept some of the coincidences that happen in "Crash."

Check out part of this review on IMDB.com about "Crash." It's hysterical.

_________________________________________________________

Forced dialogue, TOTALLY unbelievable coincidences. Whoever said these are "real people - not characters" must live in a fictional world created by a three year old, inhabited by actors (bad ones, in Brendan Fraser's case) who are like robots programmed to say nothing, unless they can somehow relate it to race. Like,

"Hey , want a doughnut?" "Okay - I'll take a glazed." "What - you can't have a CHOCOLATE glazed because it's BLACK?" "It's brown, actually - and no, I'm just allergic to chocolate." "YEAH RIGHT! CAN'T FOOL ME, SUCKA - EVERY DECISION IN EVERYONE'S LIFE IS BASED SOLELY ON RACE!" "Oh, wait, on second thought, you're right: my doughnut choice was subconsciously based on race. I learned something about myself - my body's allergic reaction to chocolate is manifested by my inner fear of all things black. I shall have a chocolate doughnut, after all, and suffer the consequences. Thank you for helping me explore my issues, mister Chinaman."

But at least the movie has a point...... oh, wait, I was thinking of some other movie - THIS MOVIE IS POINTLESS!

I felt embarrassed watching it. I am ashamed of this movie.

Kudos to Brendan Fraser for his brilliant recreation of his role in "Encino Man."

ritaylnil

03-06-06, 08:31 AM

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 08:47 AM

On another note, John Stewart hit it out of the ballpark. Awesome job and virtually the only reason to watch tonight.

He was great. However, since all those people are above being made fun of, they didn't laugh at his jokes and I doubt he'll be invited back next year. How dare he make fun of actors on the night we celebrate acting.

His best line: "Scorsese 0 Oscars. Three Six Mafia 1 Oscar."

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 08:51 AM

Crash is a fable, for God's sake. It's not supposed to be viewed in the same way as a typical film. I'm just thrilled that something so low budget won, rather than one of those exploding blockbusters.

No offense, Rita, but this statement doesn't really fit with Oscar's history. What was the last "exploding blockbuster" that took home an Oscar? In fact, for the last 10-15 years the Best Picture catagory has been dominated by independants, most notably Miramax. Also, Crash may have had a lower than average budget, but no film that has the collection of stars it does can be considered a low profile, "small" film.

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 08:53 AM

He was great. However, since all those people are above being made fun of, they didn't laugh at his jokes and I doubt he'll be invited back next year. How dare he make fun of actors on the night we celebrate acting.

His best line: "Scorsese 0 Oscars. Three Six Mafia 1 Oscar."

That's what I was talking about before - I see I wasn't the only one who picked up on it. He probably won't be invited back. The folks in that aud only like the "good natured" kind of ribbing. Anything deeper and there's a chance it might puncture their self-satisfied cocoon.

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 08:53 AM

No offense, Rita, but this statement doesn't really fit with Oscar's history. What was the last "exploding blockbuster" that took home an Oscar?

LOTR: Return of the King

But I understand your point.

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 09:03 AM

LOTR: Return of the King

But I understand your point.

I would hardly call that an "exploding blockbuster".

NelsonMuntz

03-06-06, 09:09 AM

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 09:11 AM

I would hardly call that an "exploding blockbuster".

Do you mean blockbuster in terms of money made or glossy-action-bang movie?

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 09:17 AM

Do you mean blockbuster in terms of money made or glossy-action-bang movie?

I would assume the latter is what Rita means considering she inserted the word "exploding" in that. For myself, first you should know I don't value anything the Academy does. Stewart's line about Scorsese not having any Oscars is one of the best examples of how utterly silly these awards are. Second, I don't differentiate films based on budget or intent. A good movie is a good movie. In my estimation, films aren't rendered either more or less meaningful depending on how much is spent on them.

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 09:27 AM

I would assume the latter is what Rita means considering she inserted the word "exploding" in that. For myself, first you should know I don't value anything the Academy does. Stewart's line about Scorsese not having any Oscars is one of the best examples of how utterly silly these awards are. Second, I don't differentiate films based on budget or intent. A good movie is a good movie. In my estimation, films aren't rendered either more or less meaningful depending on how much is spent on them.

I agree with you. I was wondering if you meant the last time a "popular" movie won because it's usually art house films or movies that nobody hears of (especially before the internet).

DontHateOnNumber2

03-06-06, 09:39 AM

It won best picture. It was almost a given (in my opinion) due mainly to the subject matter and depth. Congrats to the cast and crew of the film.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 09:48 AM

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 09:53 AM

Thats not true. Titanic, Forrest Gump, Return of the King, Chicago, Gladiator, Braveheart, Schindlers list have all made made within the last 15 years, all have won best picture and all have made upwards of $200 million. Its definitly a popularity contest in most respects (especially the first two movies I mentioned)

I've said this before but Forrest Gump was the 4th best movie in that category that year.

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 10:19 AM

Thats not true. Titanic, Forrest Gump, Return of the King, Chicago, Gladiator, Braveheart, Schindlers list have all made made within the last 15 years, all have won best picture and all have made upwards of $200 million. Its definitly a popularity contest in most respects (especially the first two movies I mentioned)

See my previous post - this isn't about cost of a film. Chicago was Miramax, by the way and does Schindler's List fit into the catagory of "exploding blockbuster"?

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 10:25 AM

See my previous post - this isn't about cost of a film. Chicago was Miramax, by the way and does Schindler's List fit into the catagory of "exploding blockbuster"?

schindlers list didnt do well in its theatrical release in america, but it was huge in the international market ($100 mil) and off of rentals ($50 mil first year).

i dont know how you guys define "independent films" but miramax is one of the ten biggest and richest production companies in the world. it makes classy films but its not traditionally independent

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 10:27 AM

schindlers list didnt do well in its theatrical release in america, but it was huge in the international market ($100 mil) and off of rentals ($50 mil first year).

i dont know how you guys define "independent films" but miramax is one of the ten biggest and richest production companies in the world. it makes classy films but its not traditionally independent

Funny you should mention that - it's not how we define independent films, it's how Hollywood does. All kidding aside, are you aware that the the Star Wars films were all independent movies? Lucas bankrolled each and every one by himself, Fox only distributes.

As I said in an earlier post, the cost of a film has nothing to do with quality one way or another. Its why I don't root on big or small films for the sake of their budget.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 10:31 AM

Funny you should mention that - it's not how we define independent films, it's how Hollywood does. All kidding aside, are you aware that the the Star Wars films were all independent movies? Lucas bankrolled each and every one by himself, Fox only distributes.

As I said in an earlier post, the cost of a film has nothing to do with quality one way or another. Its why I don't root on big or small films for the sake of their budget.

yeah, i am kinda confused on independent films as well. i knew star wars was all banked by lucas. on wikipedia, it presents a paradox. it states a independent film is simply "a film not produced by a major film company" and lists mirimax as an independent distributor, then when you click on mirimax, it lists it as on of the major film companies in the world. so im a bit confused.

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 10:36 AM

See my previous post - this isn't about cost of a film. Chicago was Miramax, by the way and does Schindler's List fit into the catagory of "exploding blockbuster"?

I thought you were talking about the gross the movie makes, not it's cost.

i dont know how you guys define "independent films" but miramax is one of the ten biggest and richest production companies in the world. it makes classy films but its not traditionally independent

It also makes Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back ;)

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 10:37 AM

It also makes Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back ;)
they owe a lot to Kevin Smith, well maybe not after Jersey Girl

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 10:38 AM

yeah, i am kinda confused on independent films as well. i knew star wars was all banked by lucas. on wikipedia, it presents a paradox. it states a independent film is simply "a film not produced by a major film company" and lists mirimax as an independent distributor, then when you click on mirimax, it lists it as on of the major film companies in the world. so im a bit confused.

No kidding. The Miramax-as-indy bit got even funnier once they were bought by a little known company called "Disney".

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 10:41 AM

I thought you were talking about the gross the movie makes, not it's cost.

It's all rolled up in the same ball for me. The bottom line is the last thing I use to evaluate the quality of a film is budget or gross. I will always forgive bad FX (to an extent) but I will never forgive an awful script.

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 11:07 AM

It's all rolled up in the same ball for me. The bottom line is the last thing I use to evaluate the quality of a film is budget or gross. I will always forgive bad FX (to an extent) but I will never forgive an awful script.

I agree. It all starts with the script. That's why movies like The Usual Suspects and Clerks are so good.

ritaylnil

03-06-06, 02:42 PM

No offense, Rita, but this statement doesn't really fit with Oscar's history. What was the last "exploding blockbuster" that took home an Oscar? In fact, for the last 10-15 years the Best Picture catagory has been dominated by independants, most notably Miramax. Also, Crash may have had a lower than average budget, but no film that has the collection of stars it does can be considered a low profile, "small" film.

Million Dollar Baby, LOTR, Return of the Rings, Chicago, Gladiator, Titanic, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Dances With Wolves, Rain Man.

You don't consider these exploding blockbusters? That doesn't mean to say they're not good films. I just liked that Crash sort of snuck up on me. I had never heard of it, then in September, I don't even remember why, I decided to give it a try. Maybe I saw a few ads when it went to video. I think no one expected it to have any Oscar chance. I know numerous stars were in it, but this movie was not well advertised. I don't think they used star appeal to sell it. I'm happy that rather than the film that was being shoved down our throats as a lock for best picture taking the honor, something unexpected happened. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet, but, frankly, the acting in all of the trailers I've seen is pathetic. I'll probably push myself to see it, but it appears to be overrated. I know I'll have to make that judgment after I see it, but I can't help but think that gay is in right now and regardless of quality, suddenly everything gay is golden. No, I'm not homophobic, but I hate that bandwagon-type thinking. (BTW, I don't mean you're doing that, but that's the perception I feel from the media.)

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 04:16 PM

Million Dollar Baby

Million Dollar Baby was written by the same guy that wrote Crash. And no one wanted to make that film until Clint Eastwood read the script.

RhodyYanksFan

03-06-06, 04:23 PM

Million Dollar Baby was written by the same guy that wrote Crash. And no one wanted to make that film until Clint Eastwood read the script.

That's because he also created Walker, Texas Ranger.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 04:42 PM

Million Dollar Baby was written by the same guy that wrote Crash. And no one wanted to make that film until Clint Eastwood read the script.

i read that Clint read the short stories and had some dude write it.......

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 04:44 PM

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 04:51 PM

i read that Clint read the short stories and had some dude write it.......

Perhaps.

For those that were saying that Crash wasn't believable, a lot of the stories were actually taken from real events. One of the writers was actually carjacked about ten years ago and that kind of prompted him to write a movie about why that happened. The racist cop storyline was the result of a letter that one of the writers received about a real situation.

Yes it was a little over the top that it all happened in one day and to intertwined people. but this isn't actual real life, it's a movie. How about 24? Lost? LOTR? King Kong? Even movies that are based on real events, Cinderella Man, are embellished.

Also I think this movie is very LAcentric. Now I have only been to LA once and I can't speak to how race relations are but considering what I know about them (LA riots, etc). Maybe it was more poingnant there and it struck a chord with the Acadamy.

IMO Great film, glad it won.

ritaylnil

03-06-06, 06:05 PM

Million Dollar Baby was written by the same guy that wrote Crash. And no one wanted to make that film until Clint Eastwood read the script.

Point taken. I think I used the wrong term when saying "exploding blockbuster". I guess what I really mean is something advertised and marketed and well-known.

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 06:30 PM

Million Dollar Baby, LOTR, Return of the Rings, Chicago, Gladiator, Titanic, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Dances With Wolves, Rain Man.

You don't consider these exploding blockbusters?

Million Dollar Baby was an "exploding blockbuster"? Rain Man? The closest to that description any of the above films mentioned would be Titanic, I guess. But then again I must admit I have no idea how you define an "exploding blockbuster".

That doesn't mean to say they're not good films. I just liked that Crash sort of snuck up on me. I had never heard of it, then in September, I don't even remember why, I decided to give it a try. Maybe I saw a few ads when it went to video. I think no one expected it to have any Oscar chance. I know numerous stars were in it, but this movie was not well advertised. I don't think they used star appeal to sell it. I'm happy that rather than the film that was being shoved down our throats as a lock for best picture taking the honor, something unexpected happened. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet, but, frankly, the acting in all of the trailers I've seen is pathetic. I'll probably push myself to see it, but it appears to be overrated. I know I'll have to make that judgment after I see it, but I can't help but think that gay is in right now and regardless of quality, suddenly everything gay is golden. No, I'm not homophobic, but I hate that bandwagon-type thinking. (BTW, I don't mean you're doing that, but that's the perception I feel from the media.)

Crash received a pretty decent amount of attention upon its release, actually. I was very aware of it and it's Oscar chances were being touted back then. I can understand the gag reflex with Brokeback (holy SH*t I can promise no pun intended), but it is actually a good film (better than Crash, I thought). The only actor out of his depth in it is Gyllanhall, who is mediocre at best. Ledger was fantastic, as was Michelle Williams.

As for Crash, I can appreciate what the filmmaker was going for. One of my favorite films is 29th Street. I just don't think anything discussed or acted out was all that unique or interesting. I also don't think the film will hold up over time, unlike Brokeback.

All in all I would have preferred Batman Begins be nominated and won. It very well may have been the best film made last year.

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 06:33 PM

The sad thing is that America would have been happier if Big Momma's House 2 won the Oscar.

I hate to say it but a sort of agree with what Clooney said in his acceptance speech, even though it was kind of condescending.

It was condescending and I doubt "America" would have been happy if something like Big Momma's House 2 won anything. Only George Clooney is under the impression it takes a huge sack to make a film about Joe McCarthy in 2006. Let him show some real sack and make a film about Theo Van Gogh. Then he can lecture everyone else about how "brave" he is.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 06:37 PM

It was condescending and I doubt "America" would have been happy if something like Big Momma's House 2 won anything. Only George Clooney is under the impression it takes a huge sack to make a film about Joe McCarthy in 2006. Let him show some real sack and make a film about Theo Van Gogh. Then he can lecture everyone else about how "brave" he is.

george clooney has balls, balls enough to take a supporting acting role which he gives nukes to terrorists in a movie that sympathizes with terrorists plight

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 07:04 PM

george clooney has balls, balls enough to take a supporting acting role which he gives nukes to terrorists in a movie that sympathizes with terrorists plight

Did you see the movie? It wasn't as simple as that.

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 07:05 PM

It was condescending and I doubt "America" would have been happy if something like Big Momma's House 2 won anything. Only George Clooney is under the impression it takes a huge sack to make a film about Joe McCarthy in 2006. Let him show some real sack and make a film about Theo Van Gogh. Then he can lecture everyone else about how "brave" he is.

Your right, it doesn't take a big sack. But it is a good topic.

BronxByTheBay

03-06-06, 07:11 PM

Your right, it doesn't take a big sack. But it is a good topic.

Not really. Only in this country can people mount a stage, say whatever they want to into a microphone, which is broadcast to millions of others and still insist there's some kind of "chilling climate" we should all be concerned about.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 07:15 PM

Did you see the movie? It wasn't as simple as that.

i saw the movie, it seemed pretty simple to me. all the american businessmen were all portrayed as evil (matt damon using his sons death to become a millionaire....). the out of work muslims (out of work from the large oil merger no less) are seen as oppressed and almost, almost justified in taking out the tanker

they portrayed clooney as a martyr, he was the moron who failed to track the guided missles when he gave them to the terrorists

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 07:19 PM

Not really. Only in this country can people mount a stage, say whatever they want to into a microphone, which is broadcast to millions of others and still insist there's some kind of "chilling climate" we should all be concerned about.

No I meant it was a good topic for a movie.

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 07:23 PM

i saw the movie, it seemed pretty simple to me. all the american businessmen were all portrayed as evil (matt damon using his sons death to become a millionaire....). the out of work muslims (out of work from the large oil merger no less) are seen as oppressed and almost, almost justified in taking out the tanker

they portrayed clooney as a martyr, he was the moron who failed to track the guided missles when he gave them to the terrorists

See, I guess I didn't view it the same way you did. I actually think Damon setup and had revenge on the family and ended up killing them (switched cars). I thought Damon was portrayed as family man.

And I don't think the muslims were shown as justified, just that they can be easily manipulated by extremists.

Oh, and I don't think Clooney gave them nukes. I don't think that was said in the film.

And I don't think they showed Clooney's character in a glowing light and the end he may have tried to save the day but ulitmately didn't.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 07:28 PM

See, I guess I didn't view it the same way you did. I actually think Damon setup and had revenge on the family and ended up killing them (switched cars). I thought Damon was portrayed as family man.

Oh, and I don't think Clooney gave them nukes. I don't think that was said in the film.
.

hmmm did you see the movie? Amanda Peet was pissed at Matt Damon throughout the entire movie cause he used his sons death to advance his career

Bryan Woodman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000354/): Do you understand what that means, it's like someone put a giant ATM on our front lawn.
Julie Woodman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001605/): Here's a question. How do you think it looks to profit off the death of your six year old?

And within the first 5 minutes of the movie, Clooney was undercover and gave 2 guided missles to the terrorists. The ENTIRE plot of the movie was Clooney having his ties cut to the CIA because he gave up the weapons and didnt properly track them. how can you possible miss that plot line

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 09:47 PM

hmmm did you see the movie? Amanda Peet was pissed at Matt Damon throughout the entire movie cause he used his sons death to advance his career
Yah. I know that happened. But even though that did, I think Damon orchestrated the killing at the end, by switching cars and gettting revenge that way.

And within the first 5 minutes of the movie, Clooney was undercover and gave 2 guided missles to the terrorists. The ENTIRE plot of the movie was Clooney having his ties cut to the CIA because he gave up the weapons and didnt properly track them. how can you possible miss that plot line

Clooney gave one of the missles to Hezbollah (I think, correct me if I am wrong) and then the other one was handed off to another group, right in front of him he didn't anticipate that. He also did not look like a good guy for that having happened.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-06-06, 10:02 PM

Clooney gave one of the missles to Hezbollah (I think, correct me if I am wrong) and then the other one was handed off to another group, right in front of him he didn't anticipate that. He also did not look like a good guy for that having happened.

it made him look like everyone was out to get him, like we had to sympathize with him. the government wants to can his ass, his family life sucks.

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 10:34 PM

it made him look like everyone was out to get him, like we had to sympathize with him. the government wants to can his ass, his family life sucks.

Listen, i sort of see what you are saying. i personally didn't feel sympathy for him, so maybe i didn't get the vibe that the movie was trying to portray (if that was it, and I am not sure).

keg411

03-06-06, 11:17 PM

I thought all of the characters were pretty dark in "Syriana". As for "sympathy with the terroists", I felt it was more of a point to show how easily people in certain situations could be manipulated -- sort of like how cults target people who are in crappy places in their lives and can be easily influenenced. But I also think it was a complicated movie that you could draw all sorts of conclusions from depending on what you're looking for.

As for the topic -- I have to rent Crash now. I'm cautious about the "After School Special"-ness, but my family members (who I have similar taste to) loved it, so I'll see. Brokeback was a beautifully filmed movie, and I loved the idea it portrayed but the plot dragged a bit -- yet I was rooting for it to win anyway. But I've been bad luck with picking and liking the winning movies the past few years (and I downright hated both A Beautiful Mind and Gladiator).

NYDCYankee

03-06-06, 11:36 PM

ritaylnil

03-07-06, 05:55 PM

Million Dollar Baby was an "exploding blockbuster"? Rain Man? The closest to that description any of the above films mentioned would be Titanic, I guess. But then again I must admit I have no idea how you define an "exploding blockbuster".

Crash received a pretty decent amount of attention upon its release, actually. I was very aware of it and it's Oscar chances were being touted back then. I can understand the gag reflex with Brokeback (holy SH*t I can promise no pun intended), but it is actually a good film (better than Crash, I thought). The only actor out of his depth in it is Gyllanhall, who is mediocre at best. Ledger was fantastic, as was Michelle Williams.

As for Crash, I can appreciate what the filmmaker was going for. One of my favorite films is 29th Street. I just don't think anything discussed or acted out was all that unique or interesting. I also don't think the film will hold up over time, unlike Brokeback.

All in all I would have preferred Batman Begins be nominated and won. It very well may have been the best film made last year.

See my post #116 regarding "exploding blockbuster".

I know I can't make any fair statements about Brokeback until I see it, so I'll hold off expressing any more opinions about it.

I absolutely loved 29th Street. I'm not sure why you brought it up here, though. :dunno:

BronxByTheBay

03-07-06, 06:47 PM

I absolutely loved 29th Street. I'm not sure why you brought it up here, though. :dunno:

To show that my problems with Crash aren't related to it being a fable.

ritaylnil

03-08-06, 05:57 AM

To show that my problems with Crash aren't related to it being a fable.

Okay, gotcha.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 08:37 AM

Rain Man? The closest to that description any of the above But then again I must admit I have no idea how you define an "exploding blockbuster".

A movie that makes $500 million world wide sounds like an exploding blockbuster to me

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 09:20 AM

A movie that makes $500 million world wide sounds like an exploding blockbuster to me

What part of the film exploded? Or is box office considered the exploding part? And if that's the case, why would that even be a criteria in evaluating a film's worth?

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 09:23 AM

What part of the film exploded? Or is box office considered the exploding part? And if that's the case, why would that even be a criteria in evaluating a film's worth?

uhhh im pretty sure when they talk about an exploding movie, it has to do with the box office gross. its not valuable in evaluating the films worth, thats given. Someone brought up how only small, indie films like Good Night were being nominated over the past 15 years, when in reality most of the nominees and winners have been blockbusters

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 09:32 AM

Someone brought up how only small, indie films like Good Night were being nominated over the past 15 years, when in reality most of the nominees and winners have been blockbusters

Uh huh. Go here:

http://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html

Start at around 1995 (when Miramax was begining it's dominance) and get back to me. Actually, Pulp Fiction was '94.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 09:36 AM

Uh huh. Go here:

http://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html

Start at around 1995 (when Miramax was begining it's dominance) and get back to me. Actually, Pulp Fiction was '94.

once again is miramax an indie film company? i mean what friggen indie film can produce a film like the aviator, its owned by disney, its not indie anymore.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 09:40 AM

once again is miramax an indie film company? i mean what friggen indie film can produce a film like the aviator, its owned by disney, its not indie anymore.

Well, now wait a second - are we going back to the notion of "indy" vs. "mainstream"? Or was box office the criteria? This is what I mean when I say terms like "exploding blockbuster" dont' mean anything. The point is if you look at the list of nominees from 94 on, they are filled with 'independent', low budget films.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 09:53 AM

they are filled with 'independent', low budget films.

yes i see, then 5 years later, the same company is owned by DISNEY and making films worth $125 mil clearly not low budget). its not independent if its owned by disney.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 11:06 AM

yes i see, then 5 years later, the same company is owned by DISNEY and making films worth $125 mil clearly not low budget). its not independent if its owned by disney.

I'm not arguing that Miramax doesn't fit the classical definition of independent, thus the quotations marks used in my last post around the word. What I've stated is that the argument that only mainstream blockbusters get nominated isn't very solid.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 12:49 PM

What I've stated is that the argument that only mainstream blockbusters get nominated isn't very solid.

It seems to be a trend

2005 Best Pic Nominees
Million Dollar Baby: $101 mil US gross
Aviator: $103 mil US gross
Sideways: $80 mil US gross

2004 Best Pic Nods
Return of the King: $377 mil US gross
Seabiscuit: $122 mil US gross
Mystic River: $91 mil US gross
Master and Commander: $92 mil US gross (awful gross, cost $150mil to make)

2003 Best Pic Nods:
Chicago: $171 mil US gross
Gangs of New York: $103.5 mil US gross
The Two Towers: $340 mil US gross
(and probably the best movie of the year, The Pianist, only made $32 mil)

2002 Best Pic Nods:
A Beautiful Mind :$170 mil US gross
Lord of the Rings: $314 mil US gross
Moulin Rouge: $75 mil US gross
(Same year that critically acclaimed Donnie Darko was released, yet not one nod)

2001 Best Pic Nod:
Gladiator: $187 mil US gross
Erin Brocovich : $125 mil US gross (how was this even nominated?)
Traffic: $124 mil US gross
Crouching Tiger: $130 mil US gross
Chocolat: $72 mil

2000 Best Picture nods:
Sixth Sense: $293 mil US gross (how was this nominated???)
Green Mile: $136 mil
American Beauty: $130 mil US gross

The average gross from the Best Picture winner from 2000-2006 was $189.33 MILLION. Theres been a minimum of 3 $100+ mil grossing movies from 2000 on that have been nominated for best picture, so it looks as if mainstream movies do get the benefit of the doubt (come on, Erin Brocovich, Moulin Rouge???)

Each year from 2000 on, there have been some pretty big low grossing snubs
2005: Eternal Sunshine, Hotel Rawanda (what many critics such as Ebert called the best pic of 2005)

2004: The Station Agent(which is probably one of the better movies), AMERICAN SPLENDOR (a snub in multiple categories...), House of Sand and Fog, 21 grams

2003: Sexy Beast, Monsters Ball, Iris, Mullholand Drive all better than Chicago and didn't gross half of Chicago's gross put together

2002: Probably the biggest year for low budget snubs: Requiem for a Dream, Memento, Snatch. Three great movies, the first two never got any press but were considered the 2 best movies of 2002

2000: Also a big year for low grossing movies: Fight Club, John Malcovich, Magnolia

The Academy loves giving its best picture to blockbusters, it tries to make up for it in othere categories. This is a big reason why the best movie never usually wins best picture. Thoughts? (and you if try to get me on the definition of blockbuster it is "a hugely successful project" so it has nothing to do with special effects etc.)

gdn

03-08-06, 02:12 PM

I think exploding refers to action movies.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 02:15 PM

It seems to be a trend

You're quoting these things out of context. Consider a few points.

1.) $100 million in box office revenue is no longer any kind of benchmark and hasn't been for some time.

2.) You're quoting accumulated gross, when some of those films did/could have received a boost to their box office from their nomination/win. Most studios prestige films are released at the end of the year precisely to be fresh in the Academy's mind and receive a goose at the BO if they hang on long enough.

3.) Sideways was a blockbuster? Shakespear in Love? Million Dollar Baby? If those films are "blockbusters", what do you call stuff like Spider-Man or any of the Star Wars films? "Megasuperduperbusters"?

If your argument is that the Oscars is a glorified popularity contest, then you're talking about a different subject than I was because that's precisely what the Oscars is. I have no respect for their choices and don't really value their judgement. "Crash" is just one more example. However if you're throwing around the label "exploding blockbuster" at films like the three quoted above I'd suggest a re-evaluation on what you think "exploding" or "blockbuster" means. Or at least define what it is you believe them to mean. Of course the academy will always notice successful films more than unsuccessful films, that pretty much goes without saying.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 03:13 PM

You're quoting these things out of context. Consider a few points.

1.) $100 million in box office revenue is no longer any kind of benchmark and hasn't been for some time.

2.) You're quoting accumulated gross, when some of those films did/could have received a boost to their box office from their nomination/win. Most studios prestige films are released at the end of the year precisely to be fresh in the Academy's mind and receive a goose at the BO if they hang on long enough.

3.) Sideways was a blockbuster? Shakespear in Love? Million Dollar Baby? If those films are "blockbusters", what do you call stuff like Spider-Man or any of the Star Wars films? "Megasuperduperbusters"?
.

compared to other movies that were snubbed and barely made $20 mil, then its pretty good. and if yoou go to IMDB, you can see exactly how much each movie made month by month upon release. When a movie like Million Dollar Baby costs $30 mil to make and grosses almost $110, thats a pretty decent return, compared to $100 mil budget and $200 mil return for spider man

and im sure we both agree it is a popularity contest (cough Titanic)

RhodyYanksFan

03-08-06, 03:37 PM

and im sure we both agree it is a popularity contest (cough Titanic)

What a POS movie.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 03:38 PM

compared to other movies that were snubbed and barely made $20 mil, then its pretty good. and if yoou go to IMDB, you can see exactly how much each movie made month by month upon release. When a movie like Million Dollar Baby costs $30 mil to make and grosses almost $110, thats a pretty decent return, compared to $100 mil budget and $200 mil return for spider man

Now you're talking something completely different - profit. Million Dollar Baby (I'd be shocked if it only cost $30 mil, by the way) may make a healthy profit, but that doesn't put it in blockbuster territory.

Also, dovetailing with my point before about accumulative grosses, Crash is being re-released into theaters this weekend to try and take advantage of the Oscar win.

and im sure we both agree it is a popularity contest (cough Titanic)

Depends on the type of popularity. Shakespere in Love beat Saving Private Ryan in 98 because Harvey Weinstein wined, dined, and bullied as many academy members as possible. Miramax also started a whispered smear campaign against Spielberg and Ryan.

In any event the Oscars are usually one of the worst means to judge a film's worth. Just behind box office gross.

RhodyYanksFan

03-08-06, 03:46 PM

Now you're talking something completely different - profit. Million Dollar Baby (I'd be shocked if it only cost $30 mil, by the way) may make a healthy profit, but that doesn't put it in blockbuster territory.

Going by profit margins The Blair Witch Project is the most profitable movie ever. Cost $30,000 to make and made $220 million worldwide.

NYDCYankee

03-08-06, 03:52 PM

Each year from 2000 on, there have been some pretty big low grossing snubs
2005: Eternal Sunshine, Hotel Rawanda (what many critics such as Ebert called the best pic of 2005)

2004: The Station Agent(which is probably one of the better movies), AMERICAN SPLENDOR (a snub in multiple categories...), House of Sand and Fog, 21 grams
2003: Sexy Beast, Monsters Ball, Iris, Mullholand Drive all better than Chicago and didn't gross half of Chicago's gross put together

2002: Probably the biggest year for low budget snubs: Requiem for a Dream, Memento, Snatch. Three great movies, the first two never got any press but were considered the 2 best movies of 2002

2000: Also a big year for low grossing movies: Fight Club, John Malcovich, Magnolia

The Academy loves giving its best picture to blockbusters, it tries to make up for it in othere categories. This is a big reason why the best movie never usually wins best picture. Thoughts? (and you if try to get me on the definition of blockbuster it is "a hugely successful project" so it has nothing to do with special effects etc.)

These are all fabulous movies. And there are more.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 03:55 PM

These are all fabulous movies. And there are more.

this year the academy went more towards smaller films, I was surpirsed JuneBug and The Squid and the Whale got little fanfare

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:07 PM

this year the academy went more towards smaller films, I was surpirsed JuneBug and The Squid and the Whale got little fanfare I was also suprised JuneBug didnt receive as much acknowledgement as I thought it would have. And yes Rhodey, you are 100% spot on that this years Oscars went more towards smaller films. Probably a reason behind that is that Hollywood profits are down on a whole and while Crash and Munich made money, many other films that were released did not. Alot of the big budget blockbusters fell flat on their face (The Island comes to mind). I agree with you 100% on what you have been saying about movies making a profit in respect to how much it cost to produce to the movie.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 04:08 PM

I was also suprised JuneBug didnt receive as much acknowledgement as I thought it would have. And yes Rhodey, you are 100% spot on that this years Oscars went more towards smaller films. Probably a reason behind that is that Hollywood profits are down on a whole and while Crash and Munich made money, many other films that were released did not. Alot of the big budget blockbusters fell flat on their face (The Island comes to mind). I agree with you 100% on what you have been saying about movies making a profit in respect to how much it cost to produce to the movie.

i try my best

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:08 PM

once again is miramax an indie film company? i mean what friggen indie film can produce a film like the aviator, its owned by disney, its not indie anymore. Yea really, the Aviator was had a huge production cost and made very little. Miramax is not indie anymore and has not been indie for awhile.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 04:14 PM

Yea really, the Aviator was had a huge production cost and made very little. Miramax is not indie anymore and has not been indie for awhile.

theres a reason why their movies have been appearing less and less at Cannes, although some of their smaller projects do

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:20 PM

theres a reason why their movies have been appearing less and less at Cannes, although some of their smaller projects do Exactly. If anything who is really taking the reigns at Sundance and Cannes is "Focus Features" with movies like Brokeback Mountain, Crash and a movie I am very excited about; Brick.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 04:21 PM

Exactly. If anything who is really taking the reigns at Sundance and Cannes is "Focus Features" with movies like Brokeback Mountain, Crash and a movie I am very excited about; Brick.

They also did Pride and Prejudice and The Constant Gardener

RhodyYanksFan

03-08-06, 04:23 PM

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:24 PM

They also did Pride and Prejudice and The Constant Gardener Yes they did, I got to get in at Focus, thats the place to be right about now.

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:25 PM

George Lucas agrees with you. I guess this means he's going to retire.
http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-03-07#celeb3 He didnt help the Blockbuster at all with the creation of Jar-Jar Binks. Actually as a whole Hollywood is dieing with the Blockbuster, now Hollywood is mainly a distribution center as more and more stuidos are outside of Hollywood, Lions Gate is one of my favorites and they are located in Canada.

NYDCYankee

03-08-06, 04:26 PM

Junebug was not as good as any of the nominated films.

It was good, just not as good.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 04:27 PM

George Lucas agrees with you. I guess this means he's going to retire.
http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-03-07#celeb3

George Lucas

Movie mogul George Lucas (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000184/) predicts Hollywood will soon start shifting away from mega-budget blockbusters in favor of making more independent films for less money.

This guy knows nothing about independent films, its not about the cost of production that makes it independent, what an idiot

NYDCYankee

03-08-06, 04:28 PM

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:29 PM

They also have done a ton of great films in the past... Eternal Sunshine and 21 Grams, and that is all I can recall from memory, but there are a lot more. I agree, those were fantastic films. Focus also seems to use small budgets as well, and seem to be creating a good product, must be a working formula.

RhodyYanksFan

03-08-06, 04:29 PM

He didnt help the Blockbuster at all with the creation of Jar-Jar Binks. Actually as a whole Hollywood is dieing with the Blockbuster, now Hollywood is mainly a distribution center as more and more stuidos are outside of Hollywood, Lions Gate is one of my favorites and they are located in Canada.

Did you ever see the Clerks cartoon where Randall was defending Dante and he called Lucas as a witness just so he could admit under oath how crappy Episode I was? He then demanded Lucas give him his $8 back. This was well before Stan and Kenny tried to get their Passion money back from Mel Gibson. :lol:

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:30 PM

Junebug was not as good as any of the nominated films.

It was good, just not as good. My argument wasnt that it should have been nominated for best picture but rather I was suprised it did not recieve as much attention.

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:31 PM

Did you ever see the Clerks cartoon where Randall was defending Dante and he called Lucas as a witness just so he could admit under oath how crappy Episode I was? He then demanded Lucas give him his $8 back. This was well before Stan and Kenny tried to get their Passion money back from Mel Gibson. :lol: I love those Clerks Cartoons, they were awesome.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 04:33 PM

focus also did Lost in Translation and one of my favorite British comedies Shaun of the Dead

NYDCYankee

03-08-06, 04:34 PM

focus also did Lost in Translation and one of my favorite British comedies Shaun of the Dead

Your right. I would like to see a complete list of their work.

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 04:35 PM

Your right. I would like to see a complete list of their work. I'm sure IMDB has it.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 04:41 PM

Your right. I would like to see a complete list of their work.

Ask and thou shalt recieve

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0042399/

RhodyYanksFan

03-08-06, 04:41 PM

focus also did Lost in Translation and one of my favorite British comedies Shaun of the Dead

Shaun of the Dead was so good.

NYDCYankee

03-08-06, 04:50 PM

The Pianst and Motorcycle Diaries are two more great films that a major outlet may have passed on in favor of Big Mommas House 2

RhodyYanksFan

03-08-06, 04:52 PM

The Pianst and Motorcycle Diaries are two more great films that a major outlet may have passed on in favor of Big Mommas House 2

Adrian Brody won best actor for The Pianist.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 04:53 PM

George Lucas

This guy knows nothing about independent films, its not about the cost of production that makes it independent, what an idiot

So "independent" in your mind means only a "small" film then?

Probably a reason behind that is that Hollywood profits are down on a whole

This isn't true. David Poland over at www.thehotbutton.com has done some thorough analysis of the numbers and "the slump" was more hype than reality.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 04:57 PM

So "independent" in your mind means only a "small" film then?
.

Well you said it was subjective earlier (in the business), so i'll go by your definition and say for me, an indie film is a small film

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 05:03 PM

Well you said it was subjective earlier (in the business), so i'll go by your definition and say for me, an indie film is a small film

Do you realize that virtually every major studio puts out "small" films now under the banner of boutigue subsections of their own name? "Fox Searchlight", "Warner Classic Films, etc. These studios pick up low budget films and distribute them.

It seems the dicussion has boiled down to an "indie" vs. "studio" argument and I can tell you neither tag has any bearing on the quality of a film. I get to go to alot of press screenings for all kinds and "indie" films are just as crappy as studio films by and large.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 05:06 PM

It seems the dicussion has boiled down to an "indie" vs. "studio" argument and I can tell you neither tag has any bearing on the quality of a film. I get to go to alot of press screenings for all kinds and "indie" films are just as crappy as studio films by and large.

i dont think anyone is saying indie films are better than studio films, they traditionally dont get the same hype or accolades as studio films

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 05:08 PM

i dont think anyone is saying indie films are better than studio films, they traditionally dont get the same hype or accolades as studio films

As I've been saying, it depends on the indie film.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 05:14 PM

As I've been saying, it depends on the indie film.

it also depends how much money the larger film companies want to blow on marketing for their indie film (like Miramax sending out 4,000 Crash DVD's to the academy)

edit: marketing/merchandising is counted in the studio's movie production budget.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 05:18 PM

it also depends how much money the larger film companies want to blow on marketing for their indie film (like Miramax sending out 4,000 Crash DVD's to the academy)

But I thought Crash was a "small" film? ;)

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 05:19 PM

But I thought Crash was a "small" film? ;)

i never said crash was, but smaller than most films nominated in the past 6 years

The budget was a whopping $6.5 mil, i'd say its a small film compared to todays standard, and as you said $50 mil at the box office is awful in todays standards

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 05:27 PM

i never said crash was, but smaller than most films nominated in the past 6 years

The budget was a whopping $6.5 mil, i'd say its a small film compared to todays standard, and as you said $50 mil at the box office is awful in todays standards

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business

Just a head's up - IMDB is perhaps the worst place for info other than who starred in what and when. I can almost promise you Crash cost more than $6.5 million to make. It's marketing budget upon its initial release was probably much more than that figure alone.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 05:29 PM

Just a head's up - IMDB is perhaps the worst place for info other than who starred in what and when. I can almost promise you Crash cost more than $6.5 million to make. It's marketing budget upon its initial release was probably much more than that figure alone.

NY Times says $7 mil

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/movies/redcarpet/02cras.html

(also calls it a very small movie ;) )

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 05:34 PM

But I thought Crash was a "small" film? ;) And I thought you said 100 Million wasnt a lot of money, so by that logic making a film for even 10 million is damn micropscopic.

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 05:36 PM

This isn't true. David Poland over at www.thehotbutton.com (http://www.thehotbutton.com/) has done some thorough analysis of the numbers and "the slump" was more hype than reality. If it isn't true that Hollywood profits are down as a whole than why is it all I hear about on CNN, MSNBC and other news stations is that Hollywood's profits are down. David Poland has it all figured out I guess, he knows why the blockbusters are dieing and why people are staying in more and not paying the 10 bucks for a ticket. Don't tell me that Hollywood profits are down because if they were up we wouldnt be hearing about how Hollywood had it's worst summer since god knows when.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 05:42 PM

NY Times says $7 mil

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/movies/redcarpet/02cras.html

(also calls it a very small movie ;) )

Yes, but they don't list the amount spent on marketing, neither does IMDB.

Okay, here's some numbers for you to chew on:

Rain Man - Budget: $25m
American Beauty - $15m
Chicago - $45m
A Beautiful Mind - $58m
Million Dollar Baby - $30m

These are films you labeled as "blockbusters", yet which would seem to also fit your definition of "small" films (even "Mind" - $58m is not an especially high budget for a Ron Howard direct film starring one of the biggest male stars on the planet).

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 05:44 PM

Yes, but they don't list the amount spent on marketing, neither does IMDB.

Okay, here's some numbers for you to chew on:

Rain Man - Budget: $25m
American Beauty - $15m
Chicago - $45m
A Beautiful Mind - $58m
Million Dollar Baby - $30m

These are films you labeled as "blockbusters", yet which would seem to also fit your definition of "small" films (even "Mind" - $58m is not an especially high budget for a Ron Howard direct film starring one of the biggest male stars on the planet).

How do those fit into my definition of small film??? Thats your definition chief, you are the one who said $100 mil is crap in hollywood terms, not me. And According to wikipedia, Studio Budget and production includes marketing and merchandising.

I said crash is a small film at $7 mil, i never said a Beautiful Mind was a small film, in fact thats one of the ones I used to show you that SMALL FILMS AREN'T BEING NOMINATED as often as you said

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 05:48 PM

If it isn't true that Hollywood profits are down as a whole than why is it all I hear about on CNN, MSNBC and other news stations is that Hollywood's profits are down. David Poland has it all figured out I guess, he knows why the blockbusters are dieing and why people are staying in more and not paying the 10 bucks for a ticket. Don't tell me that Hollywood profits are down because if they were up we wouldnt be hearing about how Hollywood had it's worst summer since god knows when.

What can I tell you. Go read his very detailed analysis and provide counter data that shows he's wrong. CNN, MSNBC and other news stations have been essentailly quoting each other in reporting this story. If you simply want to dismiss his work out of hand without even knowing the arguments he makes(Roger Ebert, who knows more about the film industry than all of us put together agrees with Poland's work, incidentally), that's your call.

And actually, Poland isn't arguing that blockbusters are dying and has shown that people are paying $10 a ticket. He's argued, and shown, just the opposite.

Here's an excerpt from a column he wrote last mid-June, smack dab in the middle of the Summer movie season:

True or False?

The 89 films released by the major studios in 2005 have, to date (June 17), made a lot less money than the 94 films released by the majors in 2004?

If you said "true," you would be wrong.

As of last Sunday, the films released by the studios and their various divisions this year have grossed $3,080,207,993.

As of the analogous Sunday last year (June 20), the films released by the studios and their various divisions this year had grossed $3,112,717,419.

So, using this standard, the studios have so far grossed just $32,509,426 less than they did last year on new movies. And given that there is a four-day difference (last year was a leap year) between the numbers, the reality is that this year is likely ahead of last year by a few million dollars.

Let me repeat… the studio business - Hollywood!!! - that The New York Times and other just can't stop telling us are in a terrible slump… it's actually up for the year.

http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2005_thb/050627_mon.html

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 05:53 PM

How do those fit into my definition of small film??? Thats your definition chief, you are the one who said $100 mil is crap in hollywood terms, not me. And According to wikipedia, Studio Budget and production includes marketing and merchandising.

Really? So you mean that Miramax isn't spending a dime on putting Crash back into theaters this weekend? The advertising and print costs for this re-release were included in that original $7m figure?

The problem with your definition is it keeps shifting depending on the film we're talking about. That's what I'm trying to point out. In example..

I said crash is a small film at $7 mil, i never said a Beautiful Mind was a small film, in fact thats one of the ones I used to show you that SMALL FILMS AREN'T BEING NOMINATED as often as you said

Yes, you also referred to "Rain Man" as an "exploding blockbuster", meanwhile it cost next to nothing to make. So then you stated that your definition was based on bo gross. Okay. So if Crash generates $100m does it then become an "exploding blockbuster"?

And the list of films you complained about not being nominated, some of them were garbage. "Snatch" comes immediately to mind. You're mistaking your personal taste in films for being apart of some catagory that's ignored.

RhodeyYankee2638

03-08-06, 05:59 PM

Really? So you mean that Miramax isn't spending a dime on putting Crash back into theaters this weekend? The advertising and print costs for this re-release were included in that original $7m figure?

The problem with your definition is it keeps shifting depending on the film we're talking about. That's what I'm trying to point out. In example..

Yes, you also referred to "Rain Man" as an "exploding blockbuster", meanwhile it cost next to nothing to make. So then you stated that your definition was based on bo gross. Okay. So if Crash generates $100m does it then become an "exploding blockbuster"?

And the list of films you complained about not being nominated, some of them were garbage. "Snatch" comes immediately to mind. You're mistaking your personal taste in films for being apart of some catagory that's ignored.

This started as a discussion on the Academy Award popularity. Do you think them re-releasing crash this weekend will help Crash win Best Picture? I'd say no, mainly because it already won

If Crash generates $100 mil, id say its a blockbuster

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 06:04 PM

This started as a discussion on the Academy Award popularity. Do you think them re-releasing crash this weekend will help Crash win Best Picture? I'd say no, mainly because it already won

Sure, it started out that way and then branched off into something else, or at least a few different things depending on the given post. I do notice you managed to duck my question, though, so I'll help you out: no, Crash's budget of $7m clearly doesn't include this weekend's re-release. Therefore quoting accumalitive grosses isn't always the best means to determining the how and when of a picture's supposed status of "blockbuster". Also, the number listed as "budget" can be misleading. On boxofficemojo.com, for instance, they provide the production budget and the marketing budget.

If Crash generates $100 mil, id say its a blockbuster

And I'd say you were right...if this were 1989.

JDPNYY

03-08-06, 06:11 PM

And I'd say you were right...if this were 1989.

What the heck year is it?

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 06:12 PM

What the heck year is it?

Considering they keep remaking 70's horror movies, I have no idea.

JDPNYY

03-08-06, 06:17 PM

Considering they keep remaking 70's horror movies, I have no idea.

It must be, at least, the 70's then.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 06:18 PM

It must be, at least, the 70's then.

Except they're REmaking them. Which would put us roughly somewhere in...THE FUTURE!!!

JDPNYY

03-08-06, 06:19 PM

Except they're REmaking them. Which would put us roughly somewhere in...THE FUTURE!!!

It could be the late 70's, no?

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 06:20 PM

It could be the late 70's, no?

Now I'm all f*cked up. When did "Popeye" come out?

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 06:23 PM

More from Poland about "The Slump" in today's column:

http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/index.html

JDPNYY

03-08-06, 06:39 PM

Now I'm all f*cked up. When did "Popeye" come out?

1980.

That actually helps in this query.

NewEraYanks2527

03-08-06, 07:40 PM

What can I tell you. Go read his very detailed analysis and provide counter data that shows he's wrong. CNN, MSNBC and other news stations have been essentailly quoting each other in reporting this story. If you simply want to dismiss his work out of hand without even knowing the arguments he makes(Roger Ebert, who knows more about the film industry than all of us put together agrees with Poland's work, incidentally), that's your call.

If Roger Ebert knows so much about Hollywood and films than why doesnt he make the movies? Why isn't he a studio exec? Why put stock in Poland because Ebert backs him? Seriously are you actually making the argument that Poland is valid because of Roger Ebert? Sorry I just cant put any stock in what Poland has to say, no matter what Roger Ebert says. Maybe Hollywood has made more money because of the fact ticket prices have gone up, that might be something to look into but ya know what I'm kinda done debating this, we see it as two different ways and its a waste of my time to discuss it with you, considering the original debate was over Indie Films and big budget films.

NYDCYankee

03-08-06, 07:59 PM

i dont think anyone is saying indie films are better than studio films, they traditionally dont get the same hype or accolades as studio films

Um I will say it. Indie films are better than studio films.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 08:55 PM

If Roger Ebert knows so much about Hollywood and films than why doesnt he make the movies? Why isn't he a studio exec? Why put stock in Poland because Ebert backs him? Seriously are you actually making the argument that Poland is valid because of Roger Ebert? Sorry I just cant put any stock in what Poland has to say, no matter what Roger Ebert says. Maybe Hollywood has made more money because of the fact ticket prices have gone up, that might be something to look into but ya know what I'm kinda done debating this, we see it as two different ways and its a waste of my time to discuss it with you, considering the original debate was over Indie Films and big budget films.

Wow. Just wow.

BronxByTheBay

03-08-06, 08:56 PM

Um I will say it. Indie films are better than studio films.

Wow. Just wow Part II: Wow's Revenge.

RhodyYanksFan

03-08-06, 10:41 PM