![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Best Director Award: obsolete? posted by TAFKA Steve on January 22, 2002 at 13:33:16:
were made by committees and had most of their creative control in the hands of producers, actors, advertisers/product placement agencys. Directors may be responsible for the "look" and pacing of the film, but little more.
- contractual agreements about what brand of cigarettes the actor must smoke.
- that a can of coke must be in at least 4 shots (and the actor drinking it must be enjoying it).
- that actor so-and-so won't take the part unless they aren't portrayed as a hooker, eventhough it is a film about prostitution. But since the producers did a deal with the distributors that actor so-and-so had to be in it, the key plot lines must all be re-written to make key plotlines more acceptable for the actors.I'm not a cynic!
It's nearly all about where the money comes from and who gets it back.I think you are right!
Cheers
John K
Follow Ups:
If so, this leaves me even more incredulous than before. This means that it is like voting for Homecoming Queen and has little to do with merit. Mel Gibson's got one. So does Kevin Costner. Makes no sense to me.BTW, I am not saying that "Gladiator" and "A Beautiful Mind" were the best films of the last two years (far from it). But Ron Howard needs to join the Hair Club For Men before he'll win an Oscar.
Academy member peers cast a ballot to determine the 5 nominations, then the whole Academy votes for the winner. It seems to be the same for all "technical" categories.Cheers
John K
So the Director's award should go to the person who contributed to the financial gain of the largest number of Academy voters.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: