Rkolter wrote: McDuffies wrote:
That's deep stuff for a lot of literature.
"A lot of literature" is a vegue term that you might try to twist around if I contradict. I'll just say that if all you ever read is Sci Fi and Fantasy, then Pixar is deep, serious stuff. However, compared to average, say, Paul Auster or Nick Hornby book, Pixar's films are simple-minded.
Harsh. There is a lot of very deep, serious sci-fi and fantasy out there. You're making the same mistake the Oscars did - pigeon-holeing a whole catagory based on a false notion.
It's not that there isn't any. It's that Sci-fi community (to which I'm more knowledgeable than fantasy) is very insular, average fan, even average critic doesn't know much about what's happening in literature outside of sci-fi, so all criteriums are shifted, novels that would universally be judged as mediocre are hailed, and there's a constant bemusement of why they are not as worshiped outside of sci-fi circles. Arthur Clark is hailed for being scientifically correct, while his lack of style, story pacing, characterisation, is never discussed. And there you have it: community makes it's own criteriums and wonders why the rest of the world doesn't accept them.
Look, there are great, deep, sub-textual sci-fi writers. Many of them, like Lemm, Dick or even Ballard, have at one time or the other been rejected by official sci-fi community because, naturally, they tried to expand beyond rigid borders of basic sci-fi, and that was taken as bertayal.
But I digress. The point is simply, a fan can spend his entire life reading Arthur Clarke, thinking that it's top literature while not having read much else, reading secondary literature that keeps convincing him that it's top literature, and talking to people similar to him, who keep assuring him of that.
McDuffies wrote:Raquel Welch was in the jury, for christ's sake, woman who's famous for her saying that woman doesn't need to know how to act if she's pretty!
Isn't this true?[/quote]
To my knowing. The quote is kinda famous, and Welch's career wasn't much more than a pair of boobs anyways, I don't know what makes her apt to evaluate films.
The Oscars are as much about the pageantry as the awarding, and its hard to take them too seriously, but c'mon guys, it's not like they're honouring Paul Blart: Mall Cop or something. If it were merely about promoting big movies, The Dark Knight and Wall-E wouldn't have been overlooked (Dark Knight was better than Slumdog, Ben Button, and The Reader, at least). View with skepticism, but let's not mistake this for the Grammies or the Billboard Awards.
Well that's what annoys me, while being pageantry, they try to maintain facade of seriousness, which is why they are now awarding decent films and not Paul Blart: Mall Cap. That charade manages to keep Oscar's reputation despite the piling evidence of missed choices. To me Oscars are indeed an equivalent of Grammys. Currently they are awarding decent films, but hey, as recently as in mid-90ies, awards were given based on how expensive films were, despite being awful on every account. It's just a bit different fashion nowadays.