Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:You don't watch a lot of tv H., do you? Or listen to the radio?

What's that got to do with anything?

H.B.M.C. wrote:And sometimes something is popular because it's actually good.

I was refering to the quote above. In Germany, there is so much on TV, like our version of American Idol or all those talk/reality shows who just stay on the air because they have so high quotes. The most bought "Newspaper" in Germany isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. What I'm saying is, sometimes something is unbelievable popular and still just plain bad.

That still hasn't got anything to do with what he was saying.

Deadshane1 wrote:....or am I completely wrong?

Yes, yes you are. There aren't that many stories and most have already been told. The criteria has never been whether the story has never ever been told before but in how it is told. Owning a lot of movies means nothing as far as a basis for authority in understanding cinema. Movies are not that expensive or that restricted so anyone can own a lot of movies; it doesn't mean one understands with any great depth film theory, aesthetic, or history.

As for Comedies winning:

It Happened One Night
You Can't Take it With You
Going My Way
The Apartment
Tom Jones
Annie Hall
No Country for Old Men (just kidding)

After Annie Hall it's pretty tough to be a comedy.

.

Ahtman wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:....or am I completely wrong?

Yes, yes you are. There aren't that many stories and most have already been told. The criteria has never been whether the story has never ever been told before but in how it is told. Owning a lot of movies means nothing as far as a basis for authority in understanding cinema. Movies are not that expensive or that restricted so anyone can own a lot of movies; it doesn't mean one understands with any great depth film theory, aesthetic, or history.

...but it doenst hurt either.

So tell me how I'm wrong about not wanting to go see another "forest gump" rehash with a silly gimmick in the middle. That is essentially what the movie is right?

So no comedy has won in nearly 3 decades? Thats pretty damning evidence that they don't look at comedies.

I like Wall E.

Frazzled wrote:So no comedy has won in nearly 3 decades? Thats pretty damning evidence that they don't look at comedies.

Damning of your math skills to. 2009-1977 > 30

And no funny comedy has won for even longer ago than that. Although I can't think of any Oscar-worth comedy this past year (maybe In Bruges, if I was slowed and grew up on a farm)

Oh I thought 1974.

Deadshane1 wrote:...but it doenst hurt either.

So tell me how I'm wrong about not wanting to go see another "forest gump" rehash with a silly gimmick in the middle. That is essentially what the movie is right?

It isn’t the same movie as Forrest Gump. I gave a summary on the last page and pointed that out. It’s one thing to see a preview and decide you know what a movie is all about, it’s quite another to keep repeating your assumption after people have told you you're wrong.

Anung Un Rama wrote:But that just should not be a criteria. It's like "the reader" gets nominated because it's about Nazi warcrimes. Pure Oscar bait.

Well, yeah, it’d be nice if everything were objectively considered and every film and performance were stripped back to its core. But it isn’t, we all have our biases and at least the Academy’s are well known.