What does Oscar really want?

I was reading an article about Oscar travesties on a website and it listed Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock as being innovative and creative directors not winning ever a Best Director award. These awards instead goes to someone lesser known and basically more amateur.

Here is the website and don't worry it has no virus or malware.
http://listverse.com/2010/06/29/top-...of-the-oscars/

It makes me wonder, is Oscar an easily bribable institution?

Maybe............. The Hurt Locker wasnt that good IMHO. Better then Avatar but cmon
There r other examples too

Originally Posted by Shin

Maybe............. The Hurt Locker wasnt that good IMHO. Better then Avatar but cmon
There r other examples too

I would have rather Tarantino won, but I thought that the Hurt Locker was a pretty good film. It was a story that needed to be told, and it marks the first great war film about modern conflicts.

Originally Posted by LegionnaireX

I would have rather Tarantino won, but I thought that the Hurt Locker was a pretty good film. It was a story that needed to be told, and it marks the first great war film about modern conflicts.

Hurt Locker was meh and it wasn't really an Oscar worthy story about a modern conflict. Take for instance Blackhawk Down, which is vastly superior when it comes to a film about a modern conflict. It got an Oscar for best sound or best editing or some crap. Meanwhile Hurt Locker wins best picture? Best Picture? No way. But then who are you going to give it to? Tarantino or James Cameron's wife Katherine Bigalow?

I've always thought Russell Crowe got his Oscar for Gladiator because of this, they snubbed him for his performance in The Insider, so they gave him an Oscar the next year to make up for it.

Ya, they had some examples like this in the article. Let me see if I can find it.

Edit: I found the article. Granted it's from a comedy website, but it makes some extremely valid points about the Oscars. Here.

Cracked.com had a good article about how the Oscars is such a sham and a lot of times it's just about giving the person an award cause it's owed rather than deserved. Like someone will do something awesome and get nothing, instead an award will go to some stupid ass, then later on they'll realize that person needs an Oscar for their work but they put out something stupid that year, but the academy gives them one anyways cause they 'owe' them one and some other worthy work gets snubbed.

It is a sham, for example The Hurt Locker winning Best Picture over Basterds and District 9...I mean how did they come to that decision...

Originally Posted by Captain Jin

Cracked.com had a good article about how the Oscars is such a sham and a lot of times it's just about giving the person an award cause it's owed rather than deserved. Like someone will do something awesome and get nothing, instead an award will go to some stupid ass, then later on they'll realize that person needs an Oscar for their work but they put out something stupid that year, but the academy gives them one anyways cause they 'owe' them one and some other worthy work gets snubbed.

I've always thought Russell Crowe got his Oscar for Gladiator because of this, they snubbed him for his performance in The Insider, so they gave him an Oscar the next year to make up for it.

Here's the video of Francis Ford Coppola introducing Patton, which I forgot to add won 7 Academy Awards.

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

It is a sham, for example The Hurt Locker winning Best Picture over Basterds and District 9...I mean how did they come to that decision...

Uhh...I wouldn't consider District 9 Oscar-worthy, at least outside of screenplay or graphics. It was highly entertaining but not something I'd say is close to winning Best Picture.

I've always thought Russell Crowe got his Oscar for Gladiator because of this, they snubbed him for his performance in The Insider, so they gave him an Oscar the next year to make up for it.

I didn't like Crowe getting that Oscar, although I was 14 years old in 2000 and didn't know much about good movies. But when you see his performance, although very good, it's too harsh for me to consider it a winner of Best Actor.

Originally Posted by Captain Jin

Hurt Locker was meh and it wasn't really an Oscar worthy story about a modern conflict. Take for instance Blackhawk Down, which is vastly superior when it comes to a film about a modern conflict. It got an Oscar for best sound or best editing or some crap. Meanwhile Hurt Locker wins best picture? Best Picture? No way. But then who are you going to give it to? Tarantino or James Cameron's wife Katherine Bigalow?

While Black Hawk Down is a very good movie, it wasn't nearly as complex in its emotion, psychology, and politics as The Hurt Locker. Black Hawk Down was much more focused on the battlefield rather than the psychological aspect that the characters in The Hurt Locker embody. I really like both movies, but since The Hurt Locker is more contemporary (Black Hawk Down portrayed a conflict over 6 years old) and more "intelligent", it's considered more Oscar material.

EDIT: HOLY CHINATOWN IN THE ARTICLE! NICHOLSON GOT ED!

Like Francis For Coppola says in an introduction to 1970's Patton, often times work that directors, screenwriters, etc. do that is initially first frowned upon earlier in their career is often what comes to define them as an artist later in their career. Coppola wrote the screenplay for Patton but the studio didn't like it at all. Years later, he was helping some people with a camera and saw that it was a war movie. He asked a guy what movie it was and it turned out to be Patton. Coppola smirked and said that he wrote the film. Weird!

As for Kubrick, with 2001: A Space Odyssey, when it premiered it was considered a confusing mess and entirely unwatchable. As we know now, the movie is pretty much the definitive sci-fi movie of all time. One that inspired many other directors to make their own sci-fi movies, actually inspired NASA in their spacecraft designs, and used innovative camera work that is still impressive today.

I don't much like the Oscars. There are usually a few awards that I feel are genuine but in general the awards seems to be the film industry jerking each other off. As Eastwood said, "Deserved's got nothin' to do with it." I agree. The Oscars aren't about deserving. They're about patting each other on the back to feel good.

Originally Posted by Lord Rahl

I don't much like the Oscars. There are usually a few awards that I feel are genuine but in general the awards seems to be the film industry jerking each other off. As Eastwood said, "Deserved's got nothin' to do with it." I agree. The Oscars aren't about deserving. They're about patting each other on the back to feel good.

Now that you mentioned it, perhaps they thought Kubrick and Hitchcock were odd people. A lot of people claim Hitchcock is somewhat odd while Kubrick, he seems odd in every way to me not that I'm discriminating him or anything.