|
Post by svsg on Nov 17, 2008 3:04:25 GMT
Kramer vs Kramer
Robert Benton
English 1979 A divorced man deals with parenthood and child custody.Fine performances from Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and the kid. I had for long time thought that this was a court room drama. That is just a small part of the movie. They could have spoiled the movie by ending it with the couple reuniting, as they would have done in today's time in a romantic comedy. But they didn't and that makes you not feel stupid at the end. But definitely not deserving to win the Best Picture Oscar over Apocalypse Now.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 17, 2008 3:20:11 GMT
Kramer vs Kramer
Robert Benton
English 1979 A divorced man deals with parenthood and child custody.Fine performances from Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and the kid. I had for long time thought that this was a court room drama. That is just a small part of the movie. They could have spoiled the movie by ending it with the couple reuniting, as they would have done in today's time in a romantic comedy. But they didn't and that makes you not feel stupid at the end. But definitely not deserving to win the Best Picture Oscar over Apocalypse Now. Only reason KVK beat APOCALYPSE NOW at the Oscars was because THE DEER HUNTER, inferior to NOW, had won the year before
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 17, 2008 16:05:45 GMT
...THE DEER HUNTER, inferior to NOW... Whoa, there.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 17, 2008 22:36:50 GMT
...THE DEER HUNTER, inferior to NOW... Whoa, there. THE DEER HUNTER is a pretty good, bordering on great, melodrama. But APOCALYPSE NOW doesn't slack. A masterpiece, pure and simple.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Nov 25, 2008 23:05:10 GMT
Every good movie that gets overrated at the Oscar ceremonies is irrationally bashed for all eternity. Great job Academy.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Nov 26, 2008 1:01:23 GMT
Again, Joe, we're on the same boat. KVK won based on the DH win a year before.
Kramer is really fine family drama; there performances and script are solid, but it's forgettable.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 26, 2008 2:01:02 GMT
Surely there are as many reasons as there were Academy voters... no?
How many people would snub a film just because they'd liked a similar film the previous year?
You're suggesting that the voters saw both Apocalypse Now and Kramer vs Kramer, and preferred the former but voted for the latter for the sake of switching it up.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 26, 2008 2:19:46 GMT
You're suggesting that the voters saw both Apocalypse Now and Kramer vs Kramer, and preferred the former but voted for the latter for the sake of switching it up. I won't be as surprised as you are if that were the case indeed.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 26, 2008 2:40:41 GMT
But Apocalypse Now is a difficult and innovative film, and the immediate critical reception was very polarised, so I think it's more likely a lot of Academy voters didn't like it.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 26, 2008 4:14:54 GMT
But Apocalypse Now is a difficult and innovative film, and the immediate critical reception was very polarised, so I think it's more likely a lot of Academy voters didn't like it. People forget though that THE DEER HUNTER had some polarizing reviews as well...but the positive write-ups prevailed, or the momentum behind it was enough to win. Hell, some folks even argue that if the Oscars had been awarded later or TDH was released earlier (it was unveiled at the last second practically of 1978), then DEER HUNTER wouldn't have won simply because of the backlash that was being accumulated and snowballing by the time that it did win.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 26, 2008 15:01:29 GMT
Maybe so, but don't you think it's more likely that a lot of Academy voters simply did not like Apocalypse Now rather than voted against it just for the sake of diversity?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 26, 2008 17:04:07 GMT
Maybe so, but don't you think it's more likely that a lot of Academy voters simply did not like Apocalypse Now rather than voted against it just for the sake of diversity? Yeah, I agree. This is my father's favorite film, and he told me that when it was released, he immediately liked it, but found it hard to find others who appreciated it, or who didn't get bored at the end. He said the theater was extremely still and silent for minutes after the film closed out with, "The horror....the horror..." For myself, I imagine the initial reaction of "Apocalypse Now" similar to that of "There Will Be Blood". I felt like there was a certain amount of people who were expecting it to be a big American masterpiece, but instead they got something...different.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 26, 2008 17:22:50 GMT
Maybe so, but don't you think it's more likely that a lot of Academy voters simply did not like Apocalypse Now rather than voted against it just for the sake of diversity? Yeah, I agree. This is my father's favorite film, and he told me that when it was released, he immediately liked it, but found it hard to find others who appreciated it, or who didn't get bored at the end. He said the theater was extremely still and silent for minutes after the film closed out with, "The horror....the horror..." For myself, I imagine the initial reaction of "Apocalypse Now" similar to that of "There Will Be Blood". I felt like there was a certain amount of people who were expecting it to be a big American masterpiece, but instead they got something...different. A good point indeed, but the TWBB analogy is different in that if KRAMER VS KRAMER was the safe popular pick to make compared to the polarizing APOCALYPSE NOW, voters casted their ballots not for a similar polarizing THERE WILL BE BLOOD, but instead for a similar "arty" downbeat grim picture in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Which incidentally is the Coens' biggest theatrical hit in America.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 26, 2008 17:40:00 GMT
So you do think the Academy voters voting en masse against Apocalypse Now just for the sake of diversity is a more likely scenario than a lot of them simply not liking it.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 26, 2008 17:45:18 GMT
So you do think the Academy voters voting en masse against Apocalypse Now just for the sake of diversity is a more likely scenario than a lot of them simply not liking it. No, more like KRAMER was the easier, more widely liked (if nothing compared to the intensity of NOW's supporters), and I still argue that NOW was hindered by the fact that a Vietnam drama had won the year before. When is the last time that a genre won BP two years in a row?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 26, 2008 18:00:41 GMT
I'm not denying it might've been a contributing factor for some voters. But the "only reason"? No. I doubt even the primary reason.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 26, 2008 18:08:21 GMT
I'm not denying it might've been a contributing factor for some voters. But the "only reason"? No. I doubt even the primary reason. To re-ask the same question, with different circumstances.....did most voters in 2005 simply prefered CRASH over BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, or was the alleged homophobia the sole reason? I mean there has to be a reason why a total worthless shit flick like CRASH won.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 26, 2008 18:52:27 GMT
There's never been a sole reason because there are 6000+ Academy voters.
A lot of people do like Crash. It was a big hit and mostly a critical success. So I think the majority of the people who voted for Crash probably genuinely liked it.
Also, we don't know by how much it won. Maybe it was a marginal win, with the vote split widely over two or more of the other nominees. It's just a majority rule process, as far as I know.
So again, regarding Kramer vs Kramer's win over Apocalypse Now, I'm not denying the latter's similarity to The Deer Hunter might've been a contributing factor for some voters. But the "only reason"? No. I doubt even the primary reason. Because it seems so ridiculously arbitrary a consideration that I doubt more than a few people would base their vote on it.
But this is 100% speculation, so...
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Nov 26, 2008 19:41:41 GMT
Mheh, I think sometimes Hollywood gets a little too big headed and acts like the Oscars are doing the Lords work. I dont see the possibility of a majority of people thinking so highly of Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas. That seems like it was a "lets push the liberal agenda" year
Momentum and hype play a huge factor. I thought ROTK was the worst LOTR movie of the 3, yet its won as many awards as anything. How this is worth Best Picture yet the other two arent even worth nominations (in years where A Beautiful Mind and Chicago won nonetheless) is beyond me.
The Academy is also fairly notorious for make up called (I mean, Departed was ok, but really?)
So yeah, it wouldnt suprise me if people were voting for movies they liked less.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 26, 2008 20:03:00 GMT
I'm sure people vote for all sorts of reasons and have all sorts of criteria.
I'm sure some do vote for movies for reasons other than what they see as their intrinsic merits.
But just for the sake of variety? Surely only a small minority of people would be so glib.
|
|