Sunday is Oscar night,as [it semms] one fo tehf ew who has seen most of the nomianted films here's my predcitons on what will win and what i think should win:

Picture:Brokeback Mountan will win,good Night and Good Luck should win.

Actor: Phillip Seymoure Hoffman will win for Capote,in a prefect world I's like to see a tie for Hoffman and Joaquin Pehonix for Walk The Line.

Actress:It will and should be Reese Witherspoon for Walk The Line.

Supporting Actor:Should be George Clooney for Syriana,conventional wisdom says it will be Paul Giamatti for Cinderella Man,I'm predicting an upset by saying matt Dillion will win it for Crash.


Supporting Actress: Shold be Kathrine Keener for Capote ,will be rachel Weisz for The Constant Gardner.

Director: Will and should be Ang Lee for Brokeback Mountain.

Song:Will and should be "Travelin' Thru" [by Dolly Parton] from Transamerica.

Original Screenplay ; Should will be Good Night and Good Luck,will be Crash.


Adapted Screenplay: Will and should be Brokeback Mountian.

www.oscar.com

I'm not so excited bout any of the nominees this year as I have in previous years... what i am excited bout is that Jon Stewart is hosting this year! To all those involved in selecting Jon Stewart, they all deserve a pat on the back :nice:

oh and those that say he'd do a bad job.. they deserve five consecutive slaps in the face with a knight's gauntlet :| :not:

Why does there need to be winners? Wouldn't it be honorable for the Oscars to just admit there hasn't been a good movie in fifteen years and that they should only hand out awards when good movies are actually made? :)

i'm guessing hoffman and witherspoon take it in a walk. the other performances have been fantastic... and definitely deserve more recognition in awards than they have been getting but i would be shocked to see any of them win.

i think the supporting category is much more up in the air...

Why does there need to be winners? Wouldn't it be honorable for the Oscars to just admit there hasn't been a good movie in fifteen years and that they should only hand out awards when good movies are actually made? :)
:p

I don't know why anyone cares about the oscars, they're pretty much just an industry circle jerk. Although I do disagree, I think great films have been made recently.

what i am excited bout is that Jon Stewart is hosting this year! To all those involved in selecting Jon Stewart, they all deserve a pat on the back :nice:



I do think he's a great chocie [though Chris Rock wasn't bad last year either]


Why does there need to be winners? Wouldn't it be honorable for the Oscars to just admit there hasn't been a good movie in fifteen years and that they should only hand out awards when good movies are actually made? :)

I actually think the last two years have been pretty great one in cinema [especaily if you go outside of Hollywood and go to indie films].

:p

I don't know why anyone cares about the oscars, they're pretty much just an industry circle jerk. Although I do disagree, I think great films have been made recently.

The Oscars aren't nearly as bad as the Grammys in that regard.

Prediction: fewer people will watch the Oscars that did in 2005.

I can't understand anyone actually finding the oscars entertaining. They're fixed for starters, and the popular and successful movies typically don't win.

The Passion of the Christ was had earned over a billion dollars worldwide so far, and I think it received an award for make up or something. It exceeded all expectations, and turned out to be the highest grossing R rated movie in history, yet was virtually ignored, because it wasn't in line with the Hollywood mindset or political agenda.

Brokeback Mountain is all you hear about it lately, yet it was number 29 at the box office. Apparently, the majority of Americans just aren't that interested in seeing it. I believe that Capote fell somewhere around number 129, yet it's supposed to be some great film. How greatcan it possibly be if no one likes it, and won't spend ten cents to watch it?

It seems that the Oscars aren't about giving awards to great films, and all about making political statements. I'm sure there will be lots of Bush bashing going on. It's just become a predictable, boring excercise, and Hollywood is so far from main stream thought, the whole thing is meaningless to anyone outside of the Hollywood loop.

I can't understand anyone actually finding the oscars entertaining. They're fixed for starters, and the popular and successful movies typically don't win.

The Passion of the Christ was had earned over a billion dollars worldwide so far, and I think it received an award for make up or something. It exceeded all expectations, and turned out to be the highest grossing R rated movie in history, yet was virtually ignored, because it wasn't in line with the Hollywood mindset or political agenda.

Brokeback Mountain is all you hear about it lately, yet it was number 29 at the box office. Apparently, the majority of Americans just aren't that interested in seeing it. I believe that Capote fell somewhere around number 129, yet it's supposed to be some great film. How greatcan it possibly be if no one likes it, and won't spend ten cents to watch it?

It seems that the Oscars aren't about giving awards to great films, and all about making political statements. I'm sure there will be lots of Bush bashing going on. It's just become a predictable, boring excercise, and Hollywood is so far from main stream thought, the whole thing is meaningless to anyone outside of the Hollywood loop.Brokekeback Mountain made $75 million in 12 weeks Capote made 45 million and TransAmerica Made $5 million. Chronicles of Narnia made 220 million. In two weeks the sled dog 8 Below has made $45 million.
conclusion: people in large numbers are not going to see flicks that Hollywood thinks are good.:nice:

I just hope that paradise now will win best foreign oscar.
the director is a palestine/dutch.

A large audience is not a pre-requisite of a good film.

I just hope that paradise now will win best foreign oscar.
the director is a palestine/dutch.

I want to see this - it looks interesting.

Mark

The Passion of the Christ was had earned over a billion dollars worldwide so far, and I think it received an award for make up or something. It exceeded all expectations, and turned out to be the highest grossing R rated movie in history, yet was virtually ignored, because it wasn't in line with the Hollywood mindset or political agenda.


Does making a billion dollars worldwide make it good film?

If you say "yes" then I feel sorry for you.


Brokeback Mountain is all you hear about it lately, yet it was number 29 at the box office. Apparently, the majority of Americans just aren't that interested in seeing it. I believe that Capote fell somewhere around number 129, yet it's supposed to be some great film. How greatcan it possibly be if no one likes it, and won't spend ten cents to watch it?


How can one know if it's great or not if one doesn't see it?:scratch:



Brokekeback Mountain made $75 million in 12 weeks Capote made 45 million and TransAmerica Made $5 million. Chronicles of Narnia made 220 million. In two weeks the sled dog 8 Below has made $45 million.
conclusion: people in large numbers are not going to see flicks that Hollywood thinks are good.:nice:

Again,does high box office take make them better movies?

I feel sorry for you if you say "yes".

Once again,the Oscars are artisitc awards.

Box office take does not mean artistic quailty [in fact,it often means the opposite]