B&TB should've won the award for Best Picture ?

[ichabod]

In my mind its fair Beauty and the Beast didn't win. You can't compare apples to oranges.

I'd agree to a certain extent. Whilst Beauty and the Beast is amongst the finest of Disney's pantheon of animation, doing it's job and fulfilling its intentions perfectly, creating a truely wonderful animated film.

However when put aside a film such as Silence of the Lambs, despite it's charm, brilliant score and songs, it does almost seemed dwarfed and indequate.

As Netty was saying whilst BatB is all well and good, it's simplicity and lack of intention and depth of character stands out more, and even though I have admired the film since a child, I do not think it is "good enough" considering it's pretty much A to B nature, there's no grit, no confilct everything is essentially paint by numbers. Granted, Beauty and the Beast is paint by numbers of the highest order. It's paint by number as would have been done by Michaelangelo, with great flair and embellishments, but it is alas, not innovative enough in my eyes be considered a better film than Silence of the Lambs.

[Disney Duster]

Netty, I think that it should be more about the ideas represented than how it was executed when it comes to Best Picture, and perhaps even some other categories.

For one example, costumes. When making costumes, or anything really, it's about two seperate things: The idea, what you're going to make, and how you make it. So let's take Cruella DeVil's costume. Lisa Davis said it's a great costume because Cruella is so tall and skinny, like a super-model, and the big fur coat swinging around her gives her more to take up the scene with and put in people's faces and even add a little menace like something opening itself to you to gobble you up (Lisa didn't say that, but I think so). And it's made of fur and shows she likes fur, as well as big flashy garments. And of course, it has to be drawn well, so when it comes to how it was made, it was also made well. But the idea, what they chose to make, I think matters more than how they made it. So I think if a film's ideas are so great, they can be awarded over other, perhaps well-made things but with less brilliant concepts.

In fact, thinking on it now, I think the idea is way more important. I mean, does anyone get rewarded for how they sewed something? And what if someone made an animated movie of Titanic, and they drew the most detailed silverware to make it the same silverware on the ship?

Everyone thinks Belle's costume is so beautiful, and I'm sure gold must represent something. I know that the blue represented that Belle and the Beast were meant for each other because they were both outcasts who only wore blue. Blue is also a color of sadness. As outcasts, the two have right to be sad.

Also, since some films you don't think were deserving have been picked over ones you thought were, maybe what you think makes Best Picture isn't what the Academy and many others think. Maybe what you thought was the right criteria was in the beginning, but perhaps it's changed. And I don't mean just for the worse, but maybe because the Academy has started to consider other things, like animation. Or it did until it came up with the Best Animated Film category.

I don't think comparing animated films to live-action ones should be apples to oranges. Perhaps when talking about look and design, yes, but as far as messages in the film, dialogue, and yes, even acting, because if an animator could create a character's movement in such a way it greatly effects an audience, maybe we should consider awarding the animator, or if the voice performance was really what gave the audience it's emotion, award the voice talent. Admittedly, this would be hard and possibly cause and uproar from actors and actresses, but if an animated man's performance effects and audience greater than some live-action man that year, should we ignore it?

NOTE: As I was writing that, I did think maybe it is too apples to oranges because of what it takes to act. But Best Picture is about how it all effects you, not how it was all made.

[2099net]

I still think that there is a difference between animated designs and practical designs. For a start when it comes to sets, there's the law of physics! As for costumes, people don't get awards for sewing, but if a designer designs something impractical that just doesn't work in reality when it is made-up, they won't get an award.

I've long been perplexed by the fact that historical films often get awards for designs. After all, most of the all the design work was done hundreds of years ago, literally. Did Elizabeth: The Golden Age really require that much costume design work? Surely it was more research than creative inspiration.

But that's how the Academy works. You're unlikely to see a Sci-Fi or fantasy film win any awards for design, despite it all being either original or simply expanded from current/historical trends.

Don't blame me. Blame the people who actually cast votes at the Academy.

And I know this is going to make people hate me, and perhaps even Disney Duster himself (after apparently hitting on me in another thread ) but are you really saying Beauty and the Beast has more emotion, better dialogue and more rounded characters than any of the other nominated films that year - even Bugsy with is probably a perfectly good film (I just don't have much time for Beatty).

The story is telegraphed (true, we all know the story, but even if we didn't we could easily predict how it would end), the characters are stereotypes and take away the well-deserved Oscar winning music and songs, and you'll be left with nothing of great artistic value.

Yes, the animation is top notch and is probably only behind Tarzan and Treasure Planet in my eyes for it's techincal and artistic achievements. And it goes without saying the music is suberb and expertly marry story, character and melody. But the overall film both excellent examples are in is creatively "constrained" (for want of a better word) by its need to appeal to young audiences.

I repeat: I am not degrading or badmouthing Beauty and the Beast. It is what it is. It is what it was intended to be and always intended to be. it is throughly entertaining and one of Disney's best.

Just as (no matter how much some may want it) a Star Wars was never Best Picture contender, neither will a film like Beauty and the Beast.

I don't actually have much time for the Oscars these days. I think that they have lost their way. But if they awarded Beauty and the Beast an Oscar in 1991, I would say the decline started earlier than I currently think it did.

[Disney Duster]

Well Netty, I'm not saying Beauty and the Beast should have won, I'm saying an animated film should be able to win.

You had good points about what can work in real life, but the castle sets could have been made in real life, and the costumes, and the fur. And the enchanted objects by CGI or puppets. Maybe only the movements couldn't have been doen in real life.

I suppose since it was all done easier in animation, you may think it doesn't deserve to win an award for the designs. But once again is it more about how it was made than what was made? And it just might be.

As for historical costumes, you have a good point there, but there's always things they can do like have the wig accentuated to make the queen look mad or make a red outfit a bloodier red to represent evil or thirst for blood or life and vitality. Maybe it's just not enough to you, but I think it should be enough since movies often depict realistic events and need costumes based on real clothing.

Yes, creating costumes for people that were imagined set in a real time and place should be more worthy of the award because it took more thought and decision. But they still have to have clothes that looked enough like what other people in that time and place were wearing.

[Escapay]

I haven't had a chance to read the posts in this thread (just skimmed), but noticed this one particular sentence that caught my attention:

Critics claimed it was because 1991 wasn't a good year for movies. I guess none of the critics saw The Rocketeer. There's a movie that should have got a nomination or two.

Actually, I also came in here to offer an abridgement of something that sci-fi writer David Gerrold said in his blog...

Awards processes aren't fair. They only pretend to be fair.

We've made it up that awards have meaning -- that an Oscar affirms that one movie is better than all the others, that a Hugo affirms that one writer is better than all the others, that a trophy confers glory.

No.

In the real world, awards are popularity contests. They're not about the best as much as they're a cross-section of how the voters are thinking at the time they fill out their ballots. Awards are a reflection of the world-view of the judges. The process is colored by all the same human biases and prejudices that taint everything in life.

If we strip out all that extra stuff that we attach to awards, then awards are simply acknowledgments. A pat on the back. A "nice job" or a "thank you" or an "attaboy." But the good news is that acknowledgment is all we really want in exchange for our contributions.

Woody Allen asked the question thirty years ago, when he declined to attend the Oscar awards. "What makes Annie Hall a better picture than Star Wars? Or vice versa?" How do you compare one movie against another? You don't. It's like comparing apples and orangutans.

Oh -- and by the way -- after you do win an award, mixed in with the congratulations, the will also be some low-key muttering by the disenchanted who think you didn't deserve it, your story/song/movie wasn't really that good, someone else should have won. These folks will express their bitter convictions in fanzines and online forums and weblogs. (Apparently some people are incapable of simply saying "Congratulations.")

Okay, yeah, I admit that I do watch the Oscar ceremonies every year. Not because I care about who wins -- I don't need someone else to tell me if I enjoyed a movie or not -- no, I like seeing which of those poor damn fools is going to embarrass himself/herself the worst. Nobody gives classes in how to be famous, how to be a celebrity, how to conduct oneself when the cameras are turned on and a hundred million people worldwide are watching.

Who's going to climb over the furniture? Who's going to sweep Halle Berry off her feet and plant a big wet kiss on her lips? Who's going to take way too long to say thank you? Who's going to forget to thank his co-star? Who's going to make an offensive political speech? Who's not going to show up, but send Sacheen Little-Feather instead? Who's going to get all weepy? Who actually rehearsed an acceptance speech? Who's going to demand that we free Tibet? And of course, I love watching the host of the show deliver a monologue where half the jokes are D.O.A. I mean, it's like watching the Titanic sink all over again. Who wouldn't tune in for that?! And now that it's broadcast in HDTV, you can see them all sweating a lot clearer.

But ultimately, after all is said and done, awards are merely cross-sections of a moment in history. Moby Dick languished for 80 years before it was rediscovered as a classic. The real success of a book or a movie or anything else lies not in whatever trophies or awards or prizes it wins, but in the effects it produces in its audience.

Anyway, I voted "No" because as much as I love Beauty and the Beast, I feel that The Silence of the Lambs was the superior film out of the five nominated.

Also, I don't want to open a can of worms or anything, but I think the main reason many people voted "Yes" that BATB should have won best picture was because of the fact that it's a Disney movie, and that since this is a Disney-focused forum, there will already be a bias that favors anything Disney anyway. For example, if in 1995 Pocahontas and Toy Story were Best Picture Nominees, how many of us would say one or the other should have won over Braveheart? Or any of the other nominees: Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino, and Sense and Sensibility?

Albert

[UncleEd]

I think that if it was an animated film made well enough to be nominated then it muist have been well enough made to win. Even the film critics hate that animated films dominate the best song category.

The Academy Awards is only around to validate making movies no one wants to see. When they produce a film like Humpback Mountain that barely registers in the eyes of the general public, because let's face it, society doesn't want to see faggot cowboys, the film makers have to give a valid point to why they "need" to make films like this. The public has voted with their wallets so the industry votes with these phony awards. The year Humpback Mountain won was the year Passion of the Christ was up and no one went to the screenings and many booed the film and Mel Gibson at the various parts of the process. Yet that film has been one of the most successful films world wide in history. Ignorant people like 2099net think it's just a film about a guy getting beaten for 90 minutes but that just goes to show what little they know. I suppose a film glorifying a guy who EATS people is better in your eyes?

[Flanger-Hanger]

I think that if it was an animated film made well enough to be nominated then it muist have been well enough made to win. Even the film critics hate that animated films dominate the best song category.

The Academy Awards is only around to validate making movies no one wants to see. When they produce a film like Humpback Mountain that barely registers in the eyes of the general public, because let's face it, society doesn't want to see faggot cowboys, the film makers have to give a valid point to why they "need" to make films like this. The public has voted with their wallets so the industry votes with these phony awards. The year Humpback Mountain won was the year Passion of the Christ was up and no one went to the screenings and many booed the film and Mel Gibson at the various parts of the process. Yet that film has been one of the most successful films world wide in history. Ignorant people like 2099net think it's just a film about a guy getting beaten for 90 minutes but that just goes to show what little they know. I suppose a film glorifying a guy who EATS people is better in your eyes?

There are so many things wrong with this post it hurts to think about it.

[SpringHeelJack]

Oh, UncleEd. You so crazy.

[2099net]

Firstly UncleEd, PLEASE refrain from using offensive words in your posts. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. You're obviously not stupid, yet repeated simple requests about posting etiquette just don't register.

Ignorant people like 2099net think it's just a film about a guy getting beaten for 90 minutes but that just goes to show what little they know. I suppose a film glorifying a guy who EATS people is better in your eyes?

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 893#379893
Yet I wrote

Also, while I am no fan of Silence of the Lambs - at all

in one of my earlier posts on this thread. But I think it can be successfully argued that SotL is a much better picture then Beauty and the Beast for reasons I have already stated. You can't argue only "nice" films should win Best Picture... Is Schindler's List a "nice" film or a harrowing film? Is Saving Private Ryan brutal or heartwarming? or going further back other films of dubious ethical content have won, like Midnight Cowboy and The Godfather[s]?

And for the record, I think Passion of the Christ could have been a Best Picture winner. I wouldn't have complained as much as I did when something like Titanic won.

It presented some innovative cinema - especially its use of non-English spoken language with subtitles which was a creative risk. Also for the record I have not seen Passion of the Christ or Brokeback Mountain. That's what's good about being an individual - you can ignore films you don't want to see, even if they do win best picture Oscars.

[Super Aurora]

I think that if it was an animated film made well enough to be nominated then it muist have been well enough made to win. Even the film critics hate that animated films dominate the best song category.

The Academy Awards is only around to validate making movies no one wants to see. When they produce a film like Humpback Mountain that barely registers in the eyes of the general public, because let's face it, society doesn't want to see faggot cowboys, the film makers have to give a valid point to why they "need" to make films like this. The public has voted with their wallets so the industry votes with these phony awards. The year Humpback Mountain won was the year Passion of the Christ was up and no one went to the screenings and many booed the film and Mel Gibson at the various parts of the process. Yet that film has been one of the most successful films world wide in history. Ignorant people like 2099net think it's just a film about a guy getting beaten for 90 minutes but that just goes to show what little they know. I suppose a film glorifying a guy who EATS people is better in your eyes?

LMFAO!!!!

[Disney's Divinity]

The year Humpback Mountain won was the year Passion of the Christ was up and no one went to the screenings and many booed the film and Mel Gibson at the various parts of the process. Yet that film has been one of the most successful films world wide in history

Well, to be fair, one would guess that anything with "Christ" in the title would sell that well; Christian people like Christian movies (even if they do show little artistic merit when expressing their point). Just like gay people like to see gay movies.

And, to be honest, I didn't particularly care about either movie. Brokeback Mountain was, to me, a dull movie about two adulterors; I don't care who you are, infidelity's never acceptable in my eyes. Passion of the Christ, on the other hand, seemed only to focus on the idea that "humanity's evil--SO EVILLLLL!!!!" without expanding on anything much beyond or before Christ's death. If you'd never read a Biblical story in your life, this film would just scare you off. So, if I had to pick one, Brokeback would've won with me, too.

...

Didn't this used to be about Beauty and the Beast?

[Flanger-Hanger]

Didn't this used to be about Beauty and the Beast?

Once upon a time....

[stitcharielbeast]

Just as (no matter how much some may want it) a Star Wars was never Best Picture contender, neither will a film like Beauty and the Beast.

you do realize, Star Wars was indeed nominated for Best Picture. Besides, winning Best Picture isn't really all that important, it's the getting nominated part that is. So stop arguing against something that didn't even happen. you say you're not badmouthing Beauty and the Beast when clearly you are.

I think it's severely biased on your part to automatically denounce these movies as inferior just because their stories aren't exactly complex or thought-provoking. You can have the most daring, most complex and most innovative movie ever made but if it doesn't actually communicate with an audience it would still end up as something stupid.

I for one am proud to understand that movies don't have to be complicated to be considered good. Which is why movies like Beauty and the Beast and Star Wars get nominated for such high honors. A movie shouldn't be judged by how much it makes you think but by how much it makes you feel. Sometimes, a good movie can just be what it is, a good movie, and it's definitely not a bad thing to recognize it as such.

[Widdi]

Just for the record, The Passion of the Christ was not released in the same year as Brokeback Mountain, so they would have never competed against each other even if The Passion was deemed good enough to be nominated.

The Academy Awards exist to showcase and bring attention to films that are works of art rather than brainless garbage spewed out to appease the masses. That's what the People's Choice and MTV awards are for. Brokeback Mountain is a tragic love-story that was presented using breathtaking visuals, a score that sends chills down my back and fearless actors worthy of utmost praise. The Passion of the Christ is nothing more than a glorified portrayal of Jesus' death using excessive gore and a foreign language to provoke shock. It's no more artistic than the "Saw" movies.

This thought comes not from my own sexuality or distaste for the Abrahamic religions. I believe there have been many wonderful films made about the life (and death) of Jesus Christ, and many terrible movies made about gay people. I just think that Brokeback Mountain (that if you actually took the time to see it, you would realize is not about sex, and not worthy of the name "Humpback Mountain". My devote Christian Grandmother saw the movie and it changed her views of homosexuality) is a far superior film than The Passion of the Christ.

Should Beauty and the Beast have won Best Picture? It's a question that can't really be brought to a definitive answer. Every one and their uncle will have an opinion about it. Clearly the academy said "no" and I would agree with them. The Silence of the Lambs deserved its win in my eyes. Beauty deserved the nomination it got though.

[slave2moonlight]

In a dog show, they judge the dogs against their breeds, not each other, even for Best in Show. The winner is the dog that has been bred into the best dog of its kind; the one closest to perfect. I really feel an award called "Best Picture" should be judged the same way. The winner should be the film that is closest to perfect for what it is trying to be, whether it is complex or simple, innovative or a tale as old as time. It still requires opinion, but it's the closest way to judging films fairly in a competition and makes differences like animated vs. live-action meaningless. It could only be a lack of respect that keeps any genre out of Best Picture.

As for Passion of the Christ, when I saw it I was surprised about all the talk of it being just a torture/snuff film. There were some beautiful scenes intertwined with that stuff and it told a story of Christ in a very different way that is very much a representation of one type of Christianity. Not my type, but it still was fascinating to see that point of view. I think it's sad that so many folks can't see past the gore. It was actually a very good movie.

[UncleEd]

"Oh, UncleEd. You so crazy."

Personal Attack! Personal Attack! Ban him! Ban Him!


Flanger-Hanger, Super Aurora, and SpringHeelJack


"Firstly UncleEd, PLEASE refrain from using offensive words in your posts. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. You're obviously not stupid, yet repeated simple requests about posting etiquette just don't register."

You mean words like Passion of the Christ? I do not write ANY offensive words, period!

" You can't argue only "nice" films should win Best Picture... Is Schindler's List a "nice" film or a harrowing film? Is Saving Private Ryan brutal or heartwarming? or going further back other films of dubious ethical content have won, like Midnight Cowboy and The Godfather[s]? "

Apparently you can since Passion of the Christ was dubbed anti semitic and snubbed even though it is NOT anti semitic...

Titanic only won because it was riding a popularity wave (no pn intended)

"Also for the record I have not seen Passion of the Christ or Brokeback Mountain. That's what's good about being an individual - you can ignore films you don't want to see, even if they do win best picture Oscars."

Then how can you praise one andbash the other as being solely about watching a guy being brutally beaten for 90 minutes?

"Well, to be fair, one would guess that anything with "Christ" in the title would sell that well; Christian people like Christian movies (even if they do show little artistic merit when expressing their point). Just like gay people like to see gay movies. "

The Passion of the Christ is the first Biblical Epic to beat the Ten Commandments in success. It made more money (even adjusted with inflation) and was seen by more people in the theaters.

Now, you said just what I've been saying. If we can take the success of family films and Christian films (which make up the majority of ticket sales every year) Then why are more of these films no one cares to see made over the films that seem to do the best in the marketplace? Super Aurora can "laugh My F***ing Ass Off" (their exact quote) all they want, I'm still right. The Academy Awards only exists tody to validate why films no one wants to see and are rejected by the public get made.

"Just for the record, The Passion of the Christ was not released in the same year as Brokeback Mountain, so they would have never competed against each other even if The Passion was deemed good enough to be nominated."

They were released in the same niomination cycle. Passion of the Christ was release after the deadline for the previous year so both were included in that year's awards. The only reason The Passion of the Christ was ignored was because it was a film about Jesus.

"The Academy Awards exist to showcase and bring attention to films that are works of art rather than brainless garbage spewed out to appease the masses."

Yet at one time both were one and the same. It wasn't the audience that shifted. It wasfilm makers who started shoving their "artistic" brainless garbage down the throats of the so called masses. It only took 3 years from the closing down of the last censorship board to the first mainstream X rated film. But I suppose that was artistic. Atleast when there were censors film makers HAD to make intellegent films. I truly believe that is why today's films are so dumbed down. Now that you can do anything you want it's now done when before every line was detailed and carefully crafted. Would North By Northwest have been as great without that train trunnel shot? I don't think so! Yet today you'd never see that done and would get minutes of graphic sexual content.

"Brokeback Mountain is a tragic love-story that was presented using breathtaking visuals, a score that sends chills down my back and fearless actors worthy of utmost praise"


It's liberal extremist Faggot propaganda! Let's all feel sorry for the queer cowboys and legalize gay marriage...boo hoo hoo...

"The Passion of the Christ is nothing more than a glorified portrayal of Jesus' death using excessive gore and a foreign language to provoke shock."

You don't find it innovative that it's the FIRST film that has tried to depict this as it could have been? I bet if it were a film about any other historical figure it would have been sung praises. If it were about Nazis tortuting Jews or Mobsters torturing victims or Christians torturing queer cowboys it would have been a film praised in the media and a sweeping award winner. It's a double standard. I'm no Ned Flanders Christian but when I see other films just as violent or with worse subject matter praised and this one being bashed for violence or being a Jesus film and no one went to the Academy screenings I can see a double standard clearly in play.

"It's no more artistic than the "Saw" movies. "

And you say the masses are ignorant...

"I just think that Brokeback Mountain (that if you actually took the time to see it, you would realize is not about sex, and not worthy of the name "Humpback Mountain". My devote Christian Grandmother saw the movie and it changed her views of homosexuality)"

That's my point. It's propaganda. It's the same as the film about that film with the woman who gave the back alley abortions a few years ago. The media and Hollywood are always presenting stories like this to gain sympathy opinion when they're losing ground in factual debatesand opinion. The pro abortion side has been losin ground in America as science has delved deeper and deeper into the issue. A few years ago they developed a #-D ultra sound and the newscaster on one of the morning shows freaked out when she saw the footage of a first trimester baby because she had had abortions. Soon after stories were trucked out about back alley abortions and the like trying to sway opinion in the losing debate and some pro abortion groups filed lawsuits to prevent the use of these 3-D ultra sounds in hospitals because it puts a humanity on the unborn they feel is unfair. But I suppose I'm just crazy about this too...


" It could only be a lack of respect that keeps any genre out of Best Picture."

I agree. That's what has been done to animation.

"As for Passion of the Christ, when I saw it I was surprised about all the talk of it being just a torture/snuff film. There were some beautiful scenes intertwined with that stuff and it told a story of Christ in a very different way that is very much a representation of one type of Christianity. Not my type, but it still was fascinating to see that point of view. I think it's sad that so many folks can't see past the gore. It was actually a very good movie."

I guess you might as well have been watching the Saw films...I think the reason this film gets bashed as having no merit is because it's a film about Christ. Had it been about any other person and was just as violent I can guarentee you it would have been praised by the same folks who bash it.

[ichabod]

I do not write ANY offensive words, period!

And "faggot propoganda" and "queer cowboys" are what then? Friendly little greetings?

[SpringHeelJack]

You mean words like Passion of the Christ? I do not write ANY offensive words, period!

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he meant "faggot". Again, this is just wild and crazy speculation.

[2099net]

Ed, you know very well the type of words which I was referring to, words which I see are still numerous in your posts.

That's my point. It's propaganda. It's the same as the film about that film with the woman who gave the back alley abortions a few years ago. The media and Hollywood are always presenting stories like this to gain sympathy opinion when they're losing ground in factual debatesand opinion. The pro abortion side has been losin ground in America as science has delved deeper and deeper into the issue. A few years ago they developed a #-D ultra sound and the newscaster on one of the morning shows freaked out when she saw the footage of a first trimester baby because she had had abortions. Soon after stories were trucked out about back alley abortions and the like trying to sway opinion in the losing debate and some pro abortion groups filed lawsuits to prevent the use of these 3-D ultra sounds in hospitals because it puts a humanity on the unborn they feel is unfair. But I suppose I'm just crazy about this too...

See this is what I don't understand. If it is propoganda, what exactly does Hollywood have to gain from it?

Hollywood is a business - Murdoch's News International owns Fox. Murdoch is of course well known for being politically on the right. Sony owns Columbia. Sony are not in the habbit of making or pricing their products for the good of the people. Ultimately, GE owns Universal. GE also make weapons of war. Disney, Warners and Viacom are vast global multi-media organisations who didn't become as big as they by being "nice" to their friends or their competitors.

I'll admit, the vast majority of creative people seem to lean to the left, but that tends to be how its always been. Creative people have frequently used their artistic voice to draw attention to "wrongs" in the world, or to campaign against what they consider to be injustices. Look at Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, Jane Austin and Charles Dickens' works and biographies for example. It's also how drama (and satire) tends to work best - by "Challenging" the pre-concieved notions of its audience.

The content of films now (as regards "propoganda") is no different to literature in the 18th, 19th and 20th century.

[Widdi]

I'm going to address the following points (though I don't know why I bother), because they were responses to my post.

They were released in the same niomination cycle. Passion of the Christ was release after the deadline for the previous year so both were included in that year's awards. The only reason The Passion of the Christ was ignored was because it was a film about Jesus.

The Passion was released in the 2004 cycle. Brokeback Mountain was released in the 2005 cycle.

The Passion of the Christ was nominated for three Academy Awards in 2005 (So no, it was not ignored by the Academy). Brokeback Mountain was nominated for eight awards in 2006. They would have never competed.

And don't spew that BS about it being ignored because it was about Jesus, because one: it wasn't ignored (Just because it wasn't nominated in the categories you wanted it to be does not mean it was ignored) and two: there have been movies about Jesus nominated (and that have won) for awards in the past.

And that's all I have to say on that subject.

Yet at one time both were one and the same. It wasn't the audience that shifted. It wasfilm makers who started shoving their "artistic" brainless garbage down the throats of the so called masses. It only took 3 years from the closing down of the last censorship board to the first mainstream X rated film. But I suppose that was artistic. Atleast when there were censors film makers HAD to make intellegent films. I truly believe that is why today's films are so dumbed down. Now that you can do anything you want it's now done when before every line was detailed and carefully crafted. Would North By Northwest have been as great without that train trunnel shot? I don't think so! Yet today you'd never see that done and would get minutes of graphic sexual content.

Actually it was advances in technology and a growth in audience that caused the change. People had to see artistic movies back in the day because that's what was being made. There were not ten movies coming out each weekend for you to choose from.

Graphic sexual content is far less offensive that gratuitous and unnecessary violence. Sex is natural. Watching someone be tortured is not.

It's liberal extremist Faggot propaganda! Let's all feel sorry for the queer cowboys and legalize gay marriage...boo hoo hoo...

Have you even seen Brokeback Mountain to make this judgment? I'm guessing not (based on the attitude you have displayed thus far).

The movie has absolutley nothing to do with gay marriage.

Is it a propaganda film? Maybe a little, but the Passion of the Christ is a propaganda film as well so what's your point?

You don't find it innovative that it's the FIRST film that has tried to depict this as it could have been? I bet if it were a film about any other historical figure it would have been sung praises. If it were about Nazis tortuting Jews or Mobsters torturing victims or Christians torturing queer cowboys it would have been a film praised in the media and a sweeping award winner. It's a double standard. I'm no Ned Flanders Christian but when I see other films just as violent or with worse subject matter praised and this one being bashed for violence or being a Jesus film and no one went to the Academy screenings I can see a double standard clearly in play.

It's not that it shows Jesus' death in that way that I hate. It's that the movie focuses everything on the way he died, rather than his message. Do you really think the way he died is more important that his message of peace and love? I think even Jesus would hate "The Passion" because of this. It's not a Christian movie, it's a torture-porn flick staring Jesus.

And you say the masses are ignorant...

I sure do.

That's my point. It's propaganda. It's the same as the film about that film with the woman who gave the back alley abortions a few years ago. The media and Hollywood are always presenting stories like this to gain sympathy opinion when they're losing ground in factual debates and opinion. The pro abortion side has been losing ground in America as science has delved deeper and deeper into the issue. A few years ago they developed a 4-D ultra sound and the newscaster on one of the morning shows freaked out when she saw the footage of a first trimester baby because she had had abortions. Soon after stories were trucked out about back alley abortions and the like trying to sway opinion in the losing debate and some pro abortion groups filed lawsuits to prevent the use of these 3-D ultra sounds in hospitals because it puts a humanity on the unborn they feel is unfair. But I suppose I'm just crazy about this too...

All movies are propaganda. Accept it and move on.

I'm not going to chime in on abortions right now. I'd likely just set you off on another right-wing rant (and for the record, I'm not a liberal, but I'm not a Conservative either).