StarDestroyer.Net BBS

One thing I would like to rant on is about how the oscar board never takes SW seriously? What the hell DID win in 1977 anyways? And what about 1980? ESB is one of the best movies ever, if not the best, and I'm pretty sure it didn't win squat. I think we should all assasinate the board and put a bunch of Star Wars fans on it. Too bad that would never happen however. Seriously though, it pisses me off how they never taken Science Fiction seriously, LOTR seems to be the only Fantasy/SCI-FI movie that they've ever taken seriously, and that needs to change.

Because of who votes for the Oscars and what basis there is for it.

Also SW and ilk do not generally have the absolute best acting...it's decent on some levels, others passable...but honestly there is better.

Overally they are enjoyable movies...and honestly the Oscars will never consider them mostly because of the content within them, most people feel is below them(even though they will watch it as well)

SCI-Fi_Freak wrote:One thing I would like to rant on is about how the oscar board never takes SW seriously? What the hell DID win in 1977 anyways? And what about 1980? ESB is one of the best movies ever, if not the best, and I'm pretty sure it didn't win squat. I think we should all assasinate the board and put a bunch of Star Wars fans on it. Too bad that would never happen however. Seriously though, it pisses me off how they never taken Science Fiction seriously, LOTR seems to be the only Fantasy/SCI-FI movie that they've ever taken seriously, and that needs to change.

Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" won in 1977. Nope, I've never seen it either. Remember, "Star Wars" didn't get a lot of glowing reviews back then. The only thing that has come close to breaking the generic "Oscar picture" nominations were "Alens", where Sigourney Weaver won an Oscar for Best Actress, and "Silence Of The Lambs" which won best picture.

Unless your movie has "-ing" in the title, someone dying of a terminal disease, violin-heavy score, and dull and dreary plots, forget Oscar.

Lord Poe wrote:
Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" won in 1977. Nope, I've never seen it either. Remember, "Star Wars" didn't get a lot of glowing reviews back then. The only thing that has come close to breaking the generic "Oscar picture" nominations were "Alens", where Sigourney Weaver won an Oscar for Best Actress, and "Silence Of The Lambs" which won best picture.

Unless your movie has "-ing" in the title, someone dying of a terminal disease, violin-heavy score, and dull and dreary plots, forget Oscar.

Just a minor correction, Sigourny Weaver was nominated but lost to Marlee Matlin for CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD.

Lucas has made no secret of the fact that he's always aimed his movies at the Saturday matinee crowd, or pre-teens, if you prefer. A 10-yr old boy is likely his idea of the ideal SW viewer. I'm sure anyone involved with the Oscars knows this too and they're not going to take a kid movie seriously, although they may reward technological achievements.

Movies suitable for viewing by children can win, but there's a vast difference between a true G movie, one which is multi-layered and which anyone of any age can enjoy and get something out of, and what I think of as C movies, which are really intended for kids ONLY. Right or wrong, I daresay SW movies are perceived as the latter. Kids' films. It's too bad because there's always enough there that could be developed to add those other layers, but frankly, Lucas doesn't really seem all that interested in doing so and that's fine by me. I can always add the adult layer myself, in my head.

I think that Star Wars might not be taken seriously because the fact that George Lucas filmed Star Wars because he couldn't get the rights to film Flash Gordon.

As a side note, I've actually seen someone refer to Star Wars as a corny camp classic.

Didn't Star Wars win a shitload of special effects Oscars...best sound, best effects, etc? ILM basically created the special effects industry as it stands today.

Because the Oscar board is composed of old fogies who can't see greatness if it came up and bit them in the ass.

The Oscars can't decide if they want to reward "art" or good popular films. That's why sometimes popcorn movies like Gladiator win Best Picture and sometimes faux art-house slop like the English Patient wins. It's part of the problem inherent in trying to judge something as subjective as art.

If it's any consolation, A New Hope is on just about every critic's list of essential movies for movie lovers to own. It's a piece of Americana and American film history, for its technical accomplishments, its revival of the space opera, and for how it emebedded itself in the popular culture.

I hate the Oscars now. WHY was Andy Serkis not nominated for Best Supporting Actor? WHY?

I don't think SW is a kids movie per se, there are kiddy elements added to it of course, most glarily of which is Jar-Jar and to a lesser degree Ewoks. But there's plenty of stuff in SW that doesn't really fly for kids, even though they will watch. Example: WAR, its in the damn title. In every episode of SW hundreds (TPM) to billions (ANH) of people die in combat. Is that really kid friendly? No. Secondly, the politics. The OT didn't have a whole bunch of that, but when I first saw I didn't wonder how the Empire came to power, its motives (other than bad guy) and such. They were just the villians. The new trilogy has even more politics, and had I watched them 5 years ago, I'd be saying "WTF!?" to about half of the stuff I saw.

That being said, I do know that Lucas does direct his films toward the younger audience, but that doesnotneccesarily make it a "kiddy film".

From my experience in seeing the Oscars, I don't think that the Academy gives Oscars for Best Movie to Scifi/Fantasy movies.

The Oscars are old fashioned. The only awards that really should matter now are the SAGs. They are actually voted on by people who are currently IN the industry. I think the Oscars should split up drama from action/adventure from comedy. That way more movies that people ACTUALLY see have a chance.

God forbid they do fan voting

Darth Fanboy wrote:God forbid they do fan voting

"And the award for best actress goes to.... Jenna Jameson!""

Darth Fanboy wrote:God forbid they do fan voting

That's the MTV movie awards.

Kelly Antilles wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:God forbid they do fan voting

That's the MTV movie awards.

What about the peoples choice awards.

Well it is my dream to be one day making movies, as a writer\director and honestly, I would rather win a people's choice or an MTV Movie Award than an Oscar. To be appreciated by the people whom you make the films for and not for stuffy uptight old folks is way more satisfying than anything. But that's just my opinion and I may be wrong.

SCI-Fi_Freak wrote:One thing I would like to rant on is about how the oscar board never takes SW seriously? What the hell DID win in 1977 anyways? And what about 1980? ESB is one of the best movies ever, if not the best, and I'm pretty sure it didn't win squat. I think we should all assasinate the board and put a bunch of Star Wars fans on it. Too bad that would never happen however. Seriously though, it pisses me off how they never taken Science Fiction seriously, LOTR seems to be the only Fantasy/SCI-FI movie that they've ever taken seriously, and that needs to change.

Because it's scifi, and scifi is always getting shat on.

IG-88E wrote:

SCI-Fi_Freak wrote:One thing I would like to rant on is about how the oscar board never takes SW seriously? What the hell DID win in 1977 anyways? And what about 1980? ESB is one of the best movies ever, if not the best, and I'm pretty sure it didn't win squat. I think we should all assasinate the board and put a bunch of Star Wars fans on it. Too bad that would never happen however. Seriously though, it pisses me off how they never taken Science Fiction seriously, LOTR seems to be the only Fantasy/SCI-FI movie that they've ever taken seriously, and that needs to change.

Because it's scifi, and scifi is always getting shat on.

Sci-fi usually gets pissed and shat on for an ostensibly good reason. When was the last time you've seen a skiffy movie that had really good acting, well-developed characters, and a plausible, coherent storyline?

Let's look at some quick examples.

Star Trek: Wrought with over-acting and simple plots. And one can generally piece together what's gonna happen at the end of the movie from somewhere around the middle of the movie.

Star Wars: In the first trilogy, we saw some good performances put on by Hamil, Ford, and Fisher. But the storylines were simple, very basic. And, the good guys won though a deus ex-machina the size of an X-Wing in ANH.

And really most sci-fi movies aren't aimed at the art-house types. They're aimed at the matinee crowd, or people who are just looking for some mindless entertainment.

But I say let the artsy types have their weepy and profound movies. The only thing I ask of my sci-fi is that they don't fuck something up so badly that I am merely struck dumb (I'm looking at you B & B!)

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:I don't think SW is a kids movie per se, there are kiddy elements added to it of course, most glarily of which is Jar-Jar and to a lesser degree Ewoks. But there's plenty of stuff in SW that doesn't really fly for kids, even though they will watch. Example: WAR, its in the damn title. In every episode of SW hundreds (TPM) to billions (ANH) of people die in combat. Is that really kid friendly? No. Secondly, the politics. The OT didn't have a whole bunch of that, but when I first saw I didn't wonder how the Empire came to power, its motives (other than bad guy) and such. They were just the villians. The new trilogy has even more politics, and had I watched them 5 years ago, I'd be saying "WTF!?" to about half of the stuff I saw.

That being said, I do know that Lucas does direct his films toward the younger audience, but that doesnotneccesarily make it a "kiddy film".

Well, I don't think ANH and ESB were kid movies at all; sure, they could be enjoyed by kids and were easily suitable as far as content for younger viewing, but certainly there was little or no pandering to the kiddies in the first two films. That changed with the Ewoks, reached horrifying extremes with TPM, and improved a good bit in AoTC.

Well as they say Garbge in Garbage out which is probobly how B+B make the movies

IG-88E wrote: Because it's scifi, and scifi is always getting shat on.

*looks up from pooping on Octopus 2* Wha?? Did somebody say something?

Durran Korr wrote:Well, I don't think ANH and ESB were kid movies at all; sure, they could be enjoyed by kids and were easily suitable as far as content for younger viewing, but certainly there was little or no pandering to the kiddies in the first two films. That changed with the Ewoks, reached horrifying extremes with TPM, and improved a good bit in AoTC.

The Ewoks weren't THAT bad. TPM admittedly skirted on the edge of kiddydom even on my, perhaps, generous scale. AOTC has done away with such distractions though, since Jar-Jar has only 5 minutes of screentime in it.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Star Trek: Wrought with over-acting

Do you expect William Shatner NOT to over-act??

As a side note, I haven't seen B5, but doesn't that also have some good acting??? (well, at least according to its fans!)