I have not seen the movie yet, but it is obvious that Hollywood is pushing this movie. Before this movie was being hyped by Hollywood as an "Epic Romance", it made a total of $25 million and was not much of a success. Movies like King Kong and Narnia were making $200+ plus during the same timeframe and King Kong was called a “flop” even though it made a ton of money.

Is it an epic love story for two men to cheat on their wives with each other? From what I have read, these two cowboys are both married and cheat on their wives to have an "epic love story." I will see the movie when it comes to rental.

Do Hollywood box office receipts mean anything? If movies like Titanic or King Kong make $500 million, obviously people are seeing the movies in large numbers. Shouldn't this count towards a "best picture" nomination? It seems to me that in order to get a best picture nod, you have to either make a political statement or promote Hollywood's narrow agenda. How can a movie be called "best picture" if only a few people go to see it? This is the major divergence between Hollywood and the average Joe. Hollywood is far from normal, but they are the ones that vote for best pictures.

In my opinion, the MTV movie awards may eventually replace the Academy Awards. People like to feel their opinion counts. This is evident in the success of American Idol. The MTV movie awards allow people to vote for their favorite movie or actor. The Academy Awards is basically people in L.A. and New York City voting for each other. The Academy Awards and Oscars better start reflecting the vote of the people or they will only be found in our history books 20 years from now.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

I think this will be one of those movies where it succeeds in movie rentals like that movie Showgirls. It's one of those movies where people are afraid of what others will think of them if they watch it (Like if you watch Showgirls, you're a pervert; if you watch Brokeback Mountain, you are gay.). So I doubt there'll be lines to get tickets for this movie in theatres. And there are a lot of homophobic people out there who are probably afraid they'll end up liking it. Anyhow, if it fails both way, it'll probably become a ride at Universal Studios.

I don't know how they decide what "best picture" is, but from what I have observed, as long as a movie has a lot of beautiful shots of nature (with pretty colors and stuff) in the background or a near-perfect replica set, you get to win the prize!

But you're right, mike. Movie/actor/actress awards should be based on the people's votes! That is the "American way", is it not?

King Kong made more money, but returned a lot less money per dollar invested. Here are the production costs per movie; this doesn't count advertising cost.

King Kong: $207 million
Narnia: $150 million
Brokeback: $14-15 million

If you judge by percentage of profit, King Kong certainly rank last. This doesn't mean it will be a flop worldwide, but certainly in the US it didn't attract as many viewers as expected.

I also find the word "pushing" a little strange. What do you mean that Hollywood has pushed Brokeback. I didn't hear about the film until the critics started talking about it. I heard about Spiderman, X-men, Titanic and many other movies months if not years in advance. It might surprise you, but Hollywood is a business. They are part of the free market economy in the US. It's their job to sell movies. Disney has been said to have spent $50 million on advertising for Narnia, but that's not pushing?

I'm glad you'll see the movie when it comes to rental. Maybe then you'll be in a position to actually talk about the film. I have to ask though, what is a real "epic love story?"

If you want Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith to win best picture, or best actor and actress, yes. If you want to determine it by movie quality, then no.

This doesn't make any sense at all. A film can only be good if many people see it? Below are the top 10 grossing films (worlwide). Please honestly tell me how many of these films should be considered in the top 10 films of all time, let alone for the last 5 years.

1. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
3. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,600,000
4. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $922,379,000
5. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $921,600,000
6. Jurassic Park (1993) $919,700,000
7. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $884,660,759
8. Shrek 2 (2004) $880,871,036
9. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $866,300,000
10. Finding Nemo (2003) $865,000,000

Can't you even read a simple sentence? (Yes, I am using your quote.)

By Hollywood, I don't mean the producers of Brokeback Mountain pushing the film. Obviously, they are going to promote the film as much as their budget permits. King Kong had to pay for all their advertising. Brokeback Mountain got much more FREE publicity as Hollywood promotes their agenda. Giving a picture a "best picture" nomination and printing story after story is FREE press and promoting the movie. This movie was making $500,000 a day before all the buzz from Hollywood took over.

Would you rather make $100 million or $10 million? I could care less about percentages compared to cost. I view success by making more money and more people going to see the movie. Brokeback Mountain made $25 million before they started getting all the "Best Picture" hype. Have fun telling an investor, "Well, we made more if you consider our production cost."

You answered you own question. The critics only talked about it because Hollywood started giving it all the "best picture" nominations and "epic love story" calls. The critics would have not even been talking about a movie that made $25 million total unless it had a lot of people in Hollywood hyping it.

Ok, so you watch TV and commercials that these movie producers PAID for. Do I have to explain the difference between paid advertising and free publicity to you?

Thanks for you insight! Without you I would have never figured this out!

No, that is called promoting. Disney spent their money promoting, not pushing.

So, I can't talk about how much a movie made or is being promoted without actually seeing the film? Hey Doutes, you can't talk about the war in Iraq until you have actually been there ok? Also, don't talk about the Cheney incident because you were not there to see the event. We better tell the media to stop covering stories unless they have actually viewed the event. Great feedback! Another funny thing is you probably did not see the movie and you are discussing it right now!

Then you confirm my point. I am talking about "best picture" not "best quality". Also, don't we spend more on quality? So, by your own posts, King Kong must be a "higher quality" movie since the King Kong producers spent over 10 times the money. Maybe it is not "artsy" or promoting the gay agenda, but it probably has the highest quality special effects personnel in the world working on it.

Can't you read a simple sentence? I said this:

I said how it can get BEST PICTURE, not be a good movie. You are spinning! Best picture means the best picture of thousands of movies produced for that year, in this case 2006. We are talking about the best picture of 2006, not weather Brokeback Mountain is a good movie. I never said a movie could not be good if no one sees it. Read my sentences again and maybe it will become clear.

Let's do a survey of Star Wars and Harry Potter fans! Again, now you are talking about the best movies of all time. I NEVER mentioned that. I said "best picture" of 2006. There is a huge difference. Many "best picture" nominations don't even fall into the best movies of all time top 1,000. I am surprised you don't see the difference between best picture for 2006 and best picture of all-time.

Again, a small fraction of the country decides best picture for the Oscars and Academy Awards. They are insiders promoting their own goods. This is the opposite of the MTV Movie awards. If you produce a movie like Syriana that depicts terrorists as humans and the CIA as evil you will get a "best picture" nomination. Produce a story about two gay cowboys cheating on their wives and you will get a nomination. Make the most money for 2006 and you don't even get a look.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

No way, folks.

"Brokeback Mountain" is a contraversial film. It's been widely covered in the newspapers, much like "The Passion." I guess that was just Hollywood pushing a film too. In fact, you too must be part of "Hollywood" pushing the "Brokeback Mountain."

Many small independant films get boosts from the Oscars. "Shakespeare in Love," "Lost in Translation," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "TransAmerica," and many, many others. However, the hype over a film about gay men is being unfairly pushed by Hollywood? I hope "The Passion" raised your ire just as much for all the hype in the news it got.

So, if I was selling you bonds, you would buy $50,000 worth at 6% return rate before you'd buy $10,000 worth at 10% return, because of the overall return on the $50,000 investment is higher? Do you understand why I'm confused now?

The Oscar nominations were announced on January 31st. Critics have been talking about "Bareback Mountain" since its release, not just since the Oscars. I hadn't even heard of "TransAmerica" or "Hustle & Flow" until their Oscar nominations. "Bareback Mountain" has been in the press a lot longer than a month, especially due to the generous free advertising from homo-phobic groups complaining about it, just like "The Passion" did for beliefs that it was anti-semetic.

I think you need to explain your definition to me. Free publicity, is good publicity. It seems to me that you believe it morally better to pay for publicity than to use the press or word of mouth. I don't understand that.

You're right, I haven't seen the movie. However, I responded to you're paragraph about the content of the movie, not the advertising of it. Here is your quote I responded to:

Mike, be honest. How is your paragraph about about "how much a movie made or is being promoted?" It's about the content of the film, which you haven't seen.

This doesn't even make sense, Mike. If not quality, then what are your criteria of judgement for the "best picture" award?

This doesn't make sense either. George Lucas spent millions on Star Wars, but the dialogue still sucked. The "Blair Witch Project" spent $25,000, but was a good movie. Money can certainly affect the quality of a film, but it doesn't guarantee a higher quality movie, neither does special effects.

It doesn't become any clearer. You are stating that quality of the movie is the product of being viewed, rather than intrinsic to the film. If a film can be a good film without being viewed by many people, why can't it be the best film?

I am surprised you don't notice the vast difference between movie ticket sales and quality of the movies. I also don't understand why your logic works in 2006, but not in any other year, or years.

Then you are saying that "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" should receive a nomination for "Best Picture," because it made the most money?

I am saying the movies that make the most money should at least be considered and have been in the past. It seems lately the Oscars and Academy Awards nominate their best pictures based on the movies that make political statements and are artsy. If more people are going to see the movie, then shouldn't it be considered for best picture? Obviously more people thought Star wars was better than Brokeback Mountain by the viewership. Also, Brokeback Mountain is a complete joke in most offices! No one takes this fil seriously except the Academy.

Again, Hollywood has their own definition of Best Pictures and insiders are the voters. They are far from independent thinkers. I have no problem with people within the industry picking the best picture because they are the experts in their field. In the past Hollywood has nominated the movie that made the most money as Best Picture.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith made $380 million. You can make fun of the quality of writing and plots of movies like this, but I can promise you people walked out of that movie excited, while a ton of people walked out of Brokeback Mountain feeling dooped (ok, maybe gays were excited). I think the average American decides which is the best flick. After they watch the movie they talk about it with their co-workers and their family and recommended it. the studio is rewarded. Also, I can promise you Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have more repeat viewers than movies like Brokeback.

2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252

You really put your foot in your mouth on this one! Titanic won Best Picture and holds the record for most nominations (14) and tied for most Oscars with 11. So, to answer your question yes Titanic can be considered the best movie of all time. The world decided that by spending $1.8 billion to see the film.

The Lord of the Rings was nominated for 11 Oscars and won all 11 of them in 2003 and is tied with Titanic and Ben Hur for the most Oscars. So, yes I would consider it one of the best movies of all time.

You are not helping your cause and are confirming my point!

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Once again, you provide hypotheses, and I actually look at the evidence. I'll go back around 20 years or so, so we can be safe from the growing homosexual control over Hollywood in the last few years. I will list the top 5 domestic earners for the year and the winner and nominees of the Oscar for "Best Picture." I bolded those on both lists for easy reference.

Just for fun, we'll do 2005 too. However, I'll include money made for each film nominated too.

As you can see, there is nothing strange about having no blockbuster films nominated. It happened in 1980, 83', 84' and 89'. Money made seems no more a motivating factor in nomination tha