Oscar Buzz

©brad · February 20, 2003, 10:29:15 AM

This is from an article on oscar buzz- http://movies.go.com/awards/oscars2002/buzzbin.html

Steven Spielberg and Harvey Weinstein are said to be putting aside past differences (Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespeare in Love, anyone?) to push Scorsese (who's never won) as Best Director.

My question is- how exactly would Harvey Weinstein and Steven Spielberg going to 'push' Scorsese for best director? Take academy members out to dinner? Buy them new cars?

life_boy · February 20, 2003, 12:56:10 PM

Sure, why not? It didn't hurt Shakespeare in Love.

©brad · February 20, 2003, 01:00:16 PM

I can imagine Harvey Weinstein's fatass taking academy members out to dinner with hypnotists. "Yes... keep your eyes on the watch... you will vote for Chicago for best picture...Chicago... say it with me..."

Duck Sauce · February 20, 2003, 01:21:51 PM

If I were Scorsese, I wouldnt want to win an award just because I havent won it before. Id want to deserve it.

Derek · February 20, 2003, 02:05:22 PM

Scorsese deserves it.

Jeremy Blackman · February 20, 2003, 02:18:57 PM

It's like Denzel Washington... He deserved it for Malcolm X, so they give it to him for Training Day.

phil marlowe · February 20, 2003, 02:33:20 PM

I thought it was because he was black? I've heard that the reason why Washington, Berry and Poitier got the prizes was because of complaints that waaay to few oscars ever were to be in the hands of black people. Not saying that was the real reason, just something i've heard.

Jeremy Blackman · February 20, 2003, 02:39:18 PM

Quote from: Phil MarloweI thought it was because he was black?

That may have been the reason for the timing, but certainly not the reason for him deserving an Oscar.

Pwaybloe · February 20, 2003, 02:56:36 PM

Quote from: Phil MarloweI thought it was because he was black?

Phil, that's so totally wrong...

...It's because he's African-American.

polkablues · February 20, 2003, 03:35:22 PM

Quote from: DerekScorsese deserves it.

No, Scorcese DESERVED it. For "Goodfellas". Maybe even for "The Age of Innocence". Not for "Gangs of New York", though.

Derek · February 20, 2003, 06:33:56 PM

Quote from: polkablues
Quote from: DerekScorsese deserves it.

No, Scorcese DESERVED it. For "Goodfellas". Maybe even for "The Age of Innocence". Not for "Gangs of New York", though.

We will be watching GONY 10 years from now. I don't think there's many others I can truly say that about from this year.

Gold Trumpet · February 20, 2003, 10:15:01 PM

In what way will we be watching GONY in ten years? Compared to Scorsese's better works, it tackles its subject with a half heart to it. You never fully get into a world or environment that ever becomes really shocking to you. And something that frowns upon movies and being recognized or liked in years come, is the ability to watch it. Sorry, but I'm not sure if I could watch this movie again for how long it is and how it takes such a quasi approach to its subject that is reminding of old hollywood epics. There is nothing, besides the great performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, that is distinguishable from any other work that has shown better examples. This movie didn't get rave reviews everywhere and plays into the oscar buzzz because of the importance of the story for our time period now and the feeling scorsese needs to be honored. I think that is what speaks most about the movie, not the feeling back in 1990 that people were easily watching the best movie of the year with Goodfellas.

What people will be watching in 10 years? I have yet to see the film, but with the buzz of it being the best film playing in the world now, City of God may rise past the foreign language jump and become a classic within the US in line with other gangster films. Hayao Miyazaki pushed animation to a brink and made a masterpiece in the meantime that is the greatest animation film since 1988's Grave of the Fireflies. Also, Speilberg made his smartest and most inventive adventure film ever and though ignored by award season for the most part, it will likely gain a following of high respect and be put up as a classic Speilberg film. Then there is Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love, which is now famous for how it failed, and with Adam Sandler maybe doing more dramatic roles in the future, this could be a cult level hit as maybe being his best work in the change and a great movie for some of his old fans as being his weirdest work. Those are some options to what will be liked in 10 years for the year 2002. Though, when I see City of God, I am putting it as 2003 but same difference.

~rougerum

RegularKarate · February 20, 2003, 10:44:31 PM

Box office success rarely has anything to do with what films we'll be watching in ten years.

And we WILL be watching GONY in ten years because it's Scorceze... it'll be people renting it, going "I watched Gangs of New York last night, it's one of the later Scorceze flicks, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great... I think I'll buy it though... you know, just to complete my collection"

Cecil · February 20, 2003, 10:49:16 PM

Quote from: RegularKarateit'll be people renting it, going "I watched Gangs of New York last night, it's one of the later Scorceze flicks, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great... I think I'll buy it though... you know, just to complete my collection"

rk, stop time travelling just to get future peoples actual quotes. its very dangerous.

©brad · February 21, 2003, 11:24:01 AM

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIn what way will we be watching GONY in ten years? Compared to Scorsese's better works, it tackles its subject with a half heart to it. You never fully get into a world or environment that ever becomes really shocking to you. And something that frowns upon movies and being recognized or liked in years come, is the ability to watch it. Sorry, but I'm not sure if I could watch this movie again for how long it is and how it takes such a quasi approach to its subject that is reminding of old hollywood epics. There is nothing, besides the great performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, that is distinguishable from any other work that has shown better examples. This movie didn't get rave reviews everywhere and plays into the oscar buzzz because of the importance of the story for our time period now and the feeling scorsese needs to be honored. I think that is what speaks most about the movie, not the feeling back in 1990 that people were easily watching the best movie of the year with Goodfellas.

What people will be watching in 10 years? I have yet to see the film, but with the buzz of it being the best film playing in the world now, City of God may rise past the foreign language jump and become a classic within the US in line with other gangster films. Hayao Miyazaki pushed animation to a brink and made a masterpiece in the meantime that is the greatest animation film since 1988's Grave of the Fireflies. Also, Speilberg made his smartest and most inventive adventure film ever and though ignored by award season for the most part, it will likely gain a following of high respect and be put up as a classic Speilberg film. Then there is Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love, which is now famous for how it failed, and with Adam Sandler maybe doing more dramatic roles in the future, this could be a cult level hit as maybe being his best work in the change and a great movie for some of his old fans as being his weirdest work. Those are some options to what will be liked in 10 years for the year 2002. Though, when I see City of God, I am putting it as 2003 but same difference.

~rougerum

I need GT cliffnotes. Sometimes I just don't feel like reading all that shit.

You a moron if you don't think GONY will be watched and appreciated 10 years from now. Okay, whatever flaws the film has, it's still a fucking amazing piece of work. The last 20 mins. alone comment more on what's going on right now in the world that any other film released this year.

Oscar Buzz

Cecil