- IdahoStatesman.com
- Blogs
- Idaho Newsreader
- Commentary: Kevin Richert
- Your Local Government
- Letters from the West
- Into the Outdoors
- Words & Deeds
- The Cinemaniac
- The Beer Nut: Patrick Orr
- What's Online
- Bronco Beat
- Murph's Turf
- Nonprofits
- TechIdaho
- Idaho Politics: LiCalzi
- Idaho Legislature: Labrador
- Idaho Legislature: Langhorst
- Forums
- Recent Posts
- Content
Blockbuster films deserve Oscar consideration
Submitted by David Parker on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 11:55am.
Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch blog has a good idea for the folks that select the Academy Awards: pay attention to blockbusters when selecting the Oscars.
The notoriously snobby Academy historically ignores the will of the people during the selection process.
Case in point: 2007's "Bourne Ultimatum" was the best action film of the year. Why can't an action film be nominated for Best Picture? Yeah, it won several awards (Best Editing, Best Sound and Best Sound Editing), but those aren't exactly A-list Oscars.
PopWatch makes the argument in light of "Iron Man," which scored big at the box office and has been lauded for solid performances by its lead actors. Could this be the year that a summer blockbuster gets a nod?
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo»
- David Parker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
It's sucking any spare change that didn't go in the tank and...
you are woried about Oscars?
Popular films don't win Oscars if they aren't really freaky...as in domestic pardner...significant pilgrim ;-p
He's dead too.
Box office returns don't make a movie great
The Academy is right not to pay attention to how much money a movie makes (i.e. "the will of the people"). "Epic Movie" made more at the box office than a few of the Best Picture nominees, does that make it more deserving? History is filled with inarguably great movies that did poor at the box office, only to be recognized later: Citizen Kane, Night of the Hunter, Vertigo, 2001, Blue Velvet, etc.