Award shows...a reality,fixed,or money maker?

[Rex]

I personally think the Oscars are a sham.
Usually, the more money spent promoting a film, the worse it is. The studios seem to pour money into advertising and buy the Oscars.
Some examples...Ghandi, has anyone ever sat thru the whole movie without falling asleep? My personal best was 1/2hr and then la.la land. It was politically correct, yet a washout at the box office, first clue...the advertising exceeded the movies cost.

Titanic..yes it was a good movie, but the only reason it made it as far as it did, it was shoved down our throats thru advertising, besides, Speilberg? was a good old boy in the click and why not help him out, he needed the money.

Philadelphia..fair movie at best, but it was politically correct and who was going to argue with giving Tom Hanks an Oscar..well I am folks, he may deserve one, but not for Philadelphia. Shawshank redemption was the best flick that year, Morgan Freeman and Tim robbins deserved the Oscars for best actor and supporting Actor.

It's gotten out of control now, Award shows are no longer to reckognize fine actors or musicians, it's all about money now. The advertising revenues alone make them worth a TV spot.

Whats you opinion?
Rex

[goldmedalawards]

Sir,
I am in no position to debate whether or not the Awards shows are a sham. But I will debate whether or not your facts are stated correctly. You stated that you felt Shawshank Redemption should have beat out Philadelphia as being the best movie of that same year. That would be hard since Shawshank Redemption was put out the following year(1994) and didnt even compete against Philadelphia in the Academy Awards voting. Philadelphia wasn't even nominated for best picture in 1993. The Movies nominated were "SCHINDLER'S LIST", "The Fugitive", "In the Name of the Father", "The Piano", and "The Remains of the Day" with of course SCHINDLERS LIST winning. Tom Hanks did however win the award for best actor for his betrayal of the HIV stricken attorney in Philadelphia. Now for the reason Shawshank Redemption did not win many awards in the following year 1994. It went up against another Tom Hanks starred movie that won him his 2nd consecutive oscar and it was called FORREST GUMP. If you have questions about the Academy Awards and need to make sure your facts are correct you can go to www.filmsite.org/oscars.html . It has the winners of the awards as well as who they competed against.

[Rex]

I stand corrected (on one foot with other in mouth)
LOL, guess I should have checked my facts better, thanx for the heads up but my convictions stand on the award shows being a sham

Rex

[goldmedalawards]

Rex,

I must say I was happy to see your reply because since I responded to your forum I started thinking about what you said and did a personal survey of the movies I had watched last year and rated them and I went to see what the nominations were for this years Awards and I didn't see hardly any movies I liked from last year. And to my astoundment most the movies I liked were considered low budget. So what I am saying is there may be a whole lot of truth to your theory that if you want to win some awards just pumps millions into advertising no matter how good the film and increase your chances for winning.

Mike Lab