Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Oscars: An interesting point
Posted by: McQ on Monday, March 06, 2006

I don't know if you bothered with the Academy Awards last night ... I watched a Poirot rerun. But the media was certainly full of the left coast backpatting event.

Apparently ratings were low. Apparently, even recruiting Jon Stewart couldn't save them.

Peter Byrnes at "Liberty Files" notes the following:
Anyone recall what the biggest movies of the last year were? Star Wars III—Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and The Chronicles of Narnia—The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Interestingly, Narnia grossed $284,792,443, Revenge of the Sith grossed $380,262,555 and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire grossed $288,870,728. Blockbuster movies to be certain. Each one-on its own—grossed more than the $235,568,359 that the Best Picture nominees made combined. So why did the box office losers get such acclaim from the American Academy?
Look at the best picture category:
"Brokeback Mountain" had been the strongest performer in theaters, but had made a paltry $79 million through Sunday. ... "Crash" was next best in big-screen revenue, bringing in $55.4 million during its run last summer. ... The other best-picture nominees, "Good Night, And Good Luck" "Capote" and "Munich" have made $30.3 million, $23.4 million and $46.1 million, respectively, at the domestic box office.
Star Wars, $380 million. Harry Potter, $280 million. Narnia, $284 million. While the strongest showing for those nominated for best picture is $79 million?

Now I want to be careful here. I'm not going to pretend I understand all the ramifications these numbers portend. But do study the numbers for heaven sake. One thing seems fairly obvious to me ... Americans prefer good entertainment to which you can take the family. And they obviously prefer that overwhelmingly to what the Houston Chronicle characterized thusly:
Dark themes and shock prevailed over the glamour of the Oscars Sunday as the 78th Academy Awards recognized films with stark social content and tragic, stymied love.
So while Hollywood might feel good about itself and, as George Clooney said, feel righteous about being so "out of touch", it appears his facetious quip was more on target than they might want to believe. If you don't believe it, try a couple of the non-censored stanzas of "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" at the next town hall meeting. And when they're hauling you off for public obscenity charges, remind them that wonderful "song" won an Oscar, for heaven sake.

America is voting with it's dollars. That should be obvious to even the most self-righetous, out-of-touch celeb, not to mention those who actually finance this stuff. I'm still at a loss as to why they haven't yet figured out that while they can make whatever they wish (see the US automotive industry for cripes sake), it doesn't mean America will buy it.

Americans, it seems, are a lot more sophisticated than the Hollywood crowd gives them credit (although I wouldn't be surprised to learn they believe exactly the opposite to be true, if last night was any indication).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Now I want to be careful here. I’m not going to pretend I understand all the ramifications these numbers portend. But do study the numbers for heaven sake. One thing seems fairly obvious to me ... Americans prefer good entertainment to which you can take the family.
Well at least you’re careful.
First thing first, I don’t like the Oscars, I won’t go into the details as to why… but let’s say they’re the obvious, … egotistical, pompous, pretentious, puffed-up, self-aggrandizing people patting themselves on the back. What’s not to like, right?
But my wife likes to watch them and she insists that I should be included, you know the rest of the story. But let’s be honest.
The films are nominated for Best Picture, not Most Successful Picture. So any crunching of the numbers are meaningless. However, if you take into account the cost of production for some of these films and then the returns, the profit margins are respectable.

So nyaa.

Also, just because a product is commercially successful doesn’t translate to it’s quality. McDonald’s “Restaurants” sell more hamburgers than anyone else, so are you going to tell me that McDonald’s has the best hamburgers… of course you won’t.
America is voting with it’s dollars.
And?
I guess you could have an awards ceremony where the most successful films are honored. The winners could be presented with a big cardboard check like lottery winners are. How fun.
So while Hollywood might feel good about itself and, as George Cloony said, feel righteous about being so "out of touch", it appears his facetious quip was more on target than they might want to believe.
Come on, McQ. Write the post you really want to. For Clooney beckons.
I so enjoy reading them.

It makes me laugh when I hear right-wingers (not, necessarily you McQ) rail about Hollywood Elitist’s and their, as Bill Sammon puts it, “Lefty pictures”. Despite lower than previous ratings, millions worldwide watch the Oscars. And I also wonder just how many more consumers will pick up a copy of Brokeback Mountain when seeing “Nominated for Best Picture” written in bold across the jacket.

Seems like a good marketing plug to me.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
The films are nominated for Best Picture, not Most Successful Picture.
Exactly. Consumers have generally gone to Big Movies, while awards don’t necessarily do so. The Big Movies this past year haven’t been the Oscar-bait of some previous years. (e.g., Titanic, Tiger/Dragon, etc)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The films are nominated for Best Picture, not Most Successful Picture.
Whiz ... right over your head, Pogue.

It’s not what the consumer is demanding. And thus it is indeed a back-patting enterprise that doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. See the ratings.

Oh, and "best picture" according to what standard?

Success, i.e. ticket sales, seems a terrific indicator of what Hollywood’s customers deem "best".

But apparently, it only matters what the academy thinks, which again is reflected in the ratings (not only for the Oscars but for the movies).
Come on, McQ. Write the post you really want to. For Clooney beckons. I so enjoy reading them.
I know you do Pogue, I know you do ... but Clooney’s statement last night was just as conspicuous for what it left out.

Question: When did Clooney’s crowd finally cough up an Oscar for Best Actress to a black woman?

Oh, yeah, 2002.

Hattie McDaniel indeed.
It makes me laugh when I hear right-wingers (not, necessarily you McQ) rail about Hollywood Elitist’s and their, as Bill Sammon puts it, “Lefty pictures”. Despite lower than previous ratings, millions worldwide watch the Oscars. And I also wonder just how many more consumers will pick up a copy of Brokeback Mountain when seeing “Nominated for Best Picture” written in bold across the jacket.

Seems like a good marketing plug to me.
Except "Brokeback Mountain" had a declining box office every week right up to the Oscars. Seems a movie about gay sheepherders didn’t rank up there very high on the movie going public’s list of "must see". Go figure.

The question here is what are Hollywood’s priorities. Make great entertainment that people want and pay to see on the big screen (an apparent lament last night from some of the speakers who wanted ticket sales, not DVD sales) or "best pictures" that, relatively speaking, no one goes to see?

Seem like good marketing in that sense?

It’s about butts in the seats, Pogue, just like any other entertaiment enterprise. When Hollywood finally figures that out they’ll find life to be far less stressful than they do now.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Oh and one other point:
Also, just because a product is commercially successful doesn’t translate to it’s quality. McDonald’s "Restaurants" sell more hamburgers than anyone else, so are you going to tell me that McDonald’s has the best hamburgers. of course you won’t.
You may have not noticed, but theaters don’t have dollar menus. When taking the family out to the movies can cost you $100, you’re probably going to ensure that everyone will most likely enjoy the movie selected.

The rest, well, Blockbuster is ready when you are.

So no, the comparison isn’t between hamburgers Pogue. It’s between steak and hamburger, between Ruth’s Chris and Mickey D’s. And you’re right, I wouldn’t pay $100 bucks for a Mickey D hamburger, but I have paid that much for steaks at Ruth’s Chris.

Theater: Ruth’s Chris

Blockbuster: Mickey D’s.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Geez ... I missed this too:
America is voting with it’s dollars.

And?
I guess you could have an awards ceremony where the most successful films are honored. The winners could be presented with a big cardboard check like lottery winners are. How fun.
Well at least someone would have a check, huh?

You don’t think that box office has any roll in this sort of selection? I’m not saying it should be an exclusive criteria, but my goodness, how do you ignore films in the "best picture" category that grossed in the 250 million plus area in favor of one that earned 55 million?

Aren’t you the one that laughs about those who rail against "Hollywood elitists"? Yet here you have an elite (the "Academy") which selected 5 realtively poor box office performers as candidate for ’best picture’. What happened to the era when best picture and best box office performance coincided more often than not?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Y’know, on a completely unrelated note... there’s no way of knowing when you get to this website what "QandO" actually stands for. There’s no "Questions and Observations" term anywhere on the front page anymore, or in the tag.

Just letting you guys know.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Even when I used to watch movies regularly, I tended to avoid the movies that won or were nominated for "Best Movie".

And viewers for this year were down, by a not-insignificant 10%!

So: an awards ceremony celebrating movies that most people don’t want to see. Hmmm....it’s like the Sundance Awards, only with more fashion.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Actually, rather than McDonald’s/Ruth’s Cris, or Sundance, it seems that Hollywood is sounding a lot like GM, back in the bad old days.

"Don’t tell us what kind of cars to make, we know what kinds of cars to make!"

Hollywood today churns out fewer films than Bollywood.

Am I suggesting that Hollywood is about to be eclipsed by foreign imports? Nah. Because when it comes to "Lord of the Rings," or "Titanic," or even "Ray," few do it better.

But if Hollywood insists on focusing its efforts on "Brokeback Mountain" or "Crash," how will it make the ends meet? Action movies can make it up in foreign markets; so can romances (but comedies don’t travel as well). Westerns had a clear global audience.

But does Hollywood really think gay cowboys (or American race problems) will sell abroad? I’d venture that much of the Arab world, and probably much of the Third World, will nix "Brokeback," and there’ll be darn little interest in "Crash" either.
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
Hollywood is sounding a lot like GM, back in the bad old days.
Bingo!
I’m still at a loss as to why they haven’t yet figured out that while they can make whatever they wish (see the US automotive industry for cripes sake), it doesn’t mean America will buy it.
This, to me, seems a bit like the American car manufacturers getting together and handing each other awards for the Edsel, Corvair and Pacer.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It’s about butts in the seats, Pogue, just like any other entertaiment enterprise. When Hollywood finally figures that out they’ll find life to be far less stressful than they do now.
Considering the list of movies you provided that did blockbuster business, I think you’ve already proven that Hollywood has figured that out. Not every movie can gross a few hundred million, though, and movies that "only" make 30-80 million can be quite successful as well.

Hollywood has always rewarded Art movies rather than Big movies at award time. (though the two sometimes intersect) Why is that unusual? Many of the books we regard as classic — the Best — weren’t best-sellers. Awards are about the "art", not about the box office.

Note: For what it’s worth, I didn’t see a single nominated movie this year — but then, I think I only saw a couple movies this year at all. I just don’t really care about movies in general, regardless of what Hollywood is putting out.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Y’know, on a completely unrelated note... there’s no way of knowing when you get to this website what "QandO" actually stands for. There’s no "Questions and Observations" term anywhere on the front page anymore, or in the tag.
I’m ok with that. In fact, I may covertly change what Q and O stand for. Henceforth, perhaps they stand for "Quotable and Opulent". Or "Queen and Owner". Or "Quick and Opinionated".

Or something dirty. If I can think of it. Really, you’ll never know.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Considering the list of movies you provided that did blockbuster business, I think you’ve already proven that Hollywood has figured that out. Not every movie can gross a few hundred million, though, and movies that "only" make 30-80 million can be quite successful as well.
I’m not making the case that every one can, but I find it interesting that those that do are so roundly ignored when it comes to ’best picture’ honors.
Hollywood has always rewarded Art movies rather than Big movies at award time. (though the two sometimes intersect)
You mean art movies like Patton, The Godfather, Godfather Part II, From Here to Eternity, Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind, Gladiator, The Sting, Gigi, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Silence of the Lambs, My Fair Lady, Shakespere in Love, Braveheart, Around the World in 80 Days, Grand Hotel, Chicago, Broadway Melody, Mutiny on the Bounty, Star Wars, The King and I, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan and a host of others?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Personally I like Querulous & Oblivious ...
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
A couple of feet of posts before someone mentions the ’A’ word.

I’m no fan, nor expert, of the Oscars but its fairly obvious that its an [opulent] celebration of the artistic craft of making movies. A subjective exercise, no?

Its not high art by any means, and a certain amount of success is recognised in the main categories, but I don’t think that you should leave the decision of what constitutes cinematic art in the hands, or pockets, of American families.

 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
I’m with Jon on this one. I don’t see why the box office numbers should be a criterion for determining the quality of a movie. Some truly execrable movies (like Independence Day) have been box-office smashes over the years. You’re going to tell me that a movie like that, or Revenge of the Sith, should be considered alongside Crash for Best Picture? That’s funny.

Remember that the blockbusters are what make the more award-worthy (and less profitable) films possible. If the blockbusters also happen to represent quality film-making, then that’s a plus. Apparently you’ve already forgotten that the Lord of the Rings trilogy grossed over a trillion dollars and collected a bunch of Oscar hardware to boot.

Let me ask you something: if Hollywood wasn’t the mouthpiece of the liberal elite, would this bother you nearly as much?
 
Written By: Brian Martinez
URL: http://cluebyfour.livejournal.com
...but I don’t think that you should leave the decision of what constitutes cinematic art in the hands, or pockets, of American families.
I’ve not suggested you should, but it certainly shouldn’t be ignored either. Look at that list of best picture winners I included in my one comment ... show me how many of them were "high cinematic art" and weren’t also box office giants in that crowd.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Heh. I said LOTR grossed over a trillion dollars. Obviously I meant a billion. I never was very good at math.
 
Written By: Brian Martinez
URL: http://cluebyfour.livejournal.com
’m with Jon on this one. I don’t see why the box office numbers should be a criterion for determining the quality of a movie.
Good lord, I’m not saying it should be the criteria either. But it shouldn’t be ignored either.

Are you saying that "Narnia" had nothing to offer the "best picture" category?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Let me ask you something: if Hollywood wasn’t the mouthpiece of the liberal elite, would this bother you nearly as much?
Bother me?

I’m more interested than bothered. This is fascinating stuff. I’m always interested in a group which seems to ignore a successful formula for some other.

What interests me in this case is the apparent "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" mentality. These folks seem inclined to ignore those works which were good and successful in favor of those which, in relative terms, weren’t necessarily that good nor successful. The only difference I can see is those selected had some sort of acceptable (or fashionable?) cultural messages (I say accepted because, for instance, Narnia had a cultural message that I’m not sure was particularly acceptable) that the group thought needed to be highligted for whatever reason.

Then when I review the list of best picture winners of the past it becomes obvious that this is a fairly recent phenomenon and I simply wonder why?

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
You mean art movies like Patton, The Godfather, Godfather Part II, From Here to Eternity, Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind, Gladiator, The Sting, Gigi, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Silence of the Lambs, My Fair Lady, Shakespere in Love, Braveheart, Around the World in 80 Days, Grand Hotel, Chicago, Broadway Melody, Mutiny on the Bounty, Star Wars, The King and I, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan and a host of others?
Some of those were somewhat "art-y" movies, some were not. Obviously, Hollywood does not exclusively go for the off-the-beaten-path art movie. But awards tend to go to the Best Move, rather than the Most Money-making movie.

All of entertainment works that way. Quality and popularity are entirely different things. Remember, Ice Ice Baby (Vanilla Ice) was a #1 hit single. The audience ate that song up. You still hear it today...when people are making fun of it. Why should movies be any different?

If denizens of Hollywood evaluate movies differently, maybe that’s because they’re far more interested in the art than are regular movie-goers.

Anyway, America is buying the movies that were nominated. Brokeback Mountain has made, what, $70 million? That’s not a blockbuster, but it’s quite a successful movie. And this is a false distinction...
Americans prefer good entertainment to which you can take the family.
No, "Americans" prefer quite a lot of things. McDonalds makes a lot more money than Taco Bell, but that doesn’t mean American doesn’t want tacos. Hollywoood isn’t choosing not to do blockbusters so they can do niche movies. The two can coexist, because there is a market for both of them. And for every "family-friendly blockbuster" you can name, I can name a non-family-friendly blockbuster...or a family friendly bomb. Hollywoods problem is not a lack of family movies, or of "heartland" movies. Their problem is that the market for entertainment is growing and their niche is being invaded by other options. No number of "family movies" will stop that.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
These folks seem inclined to ignore those works which were good and successful in favor of those which, in relative terms, weren’t necessarily that good nor successful.
You make this statement and it seems to be implied that it holds annually from what you said in your post. Yet the list of films you mentioned earlier would suggest that it is not always the case; the obvious example of Lord of the Rings has also been mentioned. Perhaps you are right that this year they ignored the successful films (good is too subjective - I thought Narnia was good, I know others who did not) but you have demonstrated that it does not hold for all years and so I cannot accept your view that they are inclined to ignore successful films. They just ignored successful films this year.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
A variant in Aussie slang

1. qando - a person who uses profanity alot and doesn’t type properly



 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Some of those were somewhat "art-y" movies, some were not.
Art-y? Yeah, that horse’s head in The Godfather had art written all over it.
No, "Americans" prefer quite a lot of things.
Yeah, except we’re talking about movies, and given the numbers in the post, it’s clear what was preferred by Americans in this case.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Oh, and "best picture" according to what standard?
Why, the standard set by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, of course. Didn’t you know what the “Oscars” were? ;)
Whatsamatter, your favorite picture wasn’t nominated? What was your favorite picture this year, anyway? The Dukes of Hazzard? ;)
Question: When did Clooney’s crowd finally cough up an Oscar for Best Actress to a black woman?

Oh, yeah, 2002.

Hattie McDaniel indeed.
OOOH. Put on the front page buddy. Say it loud, say it proud.
It’s about butts in the seats, Pogue, just like any other entertaiment enterprise.
Yes, but putting “butts in seats” is not what the Oscars are.
Aren’t you the one that laughs about those who rail against "Hollywood elitists"? Yet here you have an elite (the "Academy") which selected 5 realtively poor box office performers as candidate for ’best picture’. What happened to the era when best picture and best box office performance coincided more often than not?
And there it is.
You and I both dislike the Oscars. But for different reasons.
You dislike the Oscars as an institution. I dislike them because they are boring and MEANINGLESS. If you dislike the Oscars for other reasons, then why in the world try to argue numbers and art? They don’t mix, and never have. I mean who cares what standard the AMPAS sets for “Best Picture”? The only standard that REALLY matters is money, and I’m sure the movie industry needs little help from the likes of Bill Sammon, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and a host of others that seem to make a living by tearing down paper flowers.
Brian:
Let me ask you something: if Hollywood wasn’t the mouthpiece of the liberal elite, would this bother you nearly as much?
If the Hollywood liberal Elite wasn’t such an easy target, would people hit it as often as they do?

Hollywood doesn’t need any advice the ticket and DVD sales aren’t telling them already. But never-the-less, we are all movie critics, aren’t we?
I think Lurking Observer hit it as well when he answered his own question before he asked it,
But if Hollywood insists on focusing its efforts on "Brokeback Mountain" or "Crash," how will it make the ends meet? Action movies can make it up in foreign markets; so can romances (but comedies don’t travel as well). Westerns had a clear global audience.
Preceded with,
Am I suggesting that Hollywood is about to be eclipsed by foreign imports? Nah. Because when it comes to "Lord of the Rings," or "Titanic," or even "Ray," few do it better.
Go on, McQ. Write the Clooney Post you really want to. You’ll feel better.
And so will I.
;)

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
They just ignored successful films this year.
Heh ... well Kav, what year did you think I was talking about?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Queer and Ornery?

Jus kiddin.

You know, Hollywoood has always had its pretentions and made some movies on a political soapbox. But I can’t really get over this guy Cloony, because he is such a clueless a-hole. He really is arrogant and smarmy in a way that other lefties are not. Furthermore, it is as though his political and social views stopped dead in their tracks at about 1970. It is as though tha last 35 years never happened.

When you make a film in todays climate, where Islamic terrorists are the pure and noble fellows, and American government, and (OMG!) Big OIL, are naturally the bad guys, it goes way beyond stupid immature fantasies, into the realm of self flagellation.
 
Written By: Kyle N
URL: http://
Whatsamatter, your favorite picture wasn’t nominated? What was your favorite picture this year, anyway? The Dukes of Hazzard?
Actually I didn’t see a single film this past year, so I had no favorite. Hard to believe, huh?

Spent to much time trying to keep you amused through the blog.

Anyway, that’s the joy of Tivo ... find something you actually like and Tivo it. That and the DVD player. Mostly TV I’m afraid. I’m into the 5th season of Red Dwarf right now. Oh and Poirot.
Yes, but putting “butts in seats” is not what the Oscars are.
Review previous years and it’s clear that’s just not true.
You dislike the Oscars as an institution. I dislike them because they are boring and MEANINGLESS.


Actually, I don’t care for them for both of those reasons. And you should have picked up on that when I called it "the left coast backpatting event."

A sharper Pogue would have spotted that.
Go on, McQ. Write the Clooney Post you really want to. You’ll feel better.
Pogue, Pogue, Pogue ... I’m done with Clooney for this post ... he’s served his purpose.

Let it go, buddy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Queer and Ornery?
Brokeback Blog, eh?

I like the Ornery part. Let’s see Quaint and Ornery? Nah, nothin’ quaint here.

Quixotic and Ornery? Hmmm ...

Maybe Queer and Ornery isn’t so bad after all.

Uh, that’d be "queer" in the classical non-sexual sense. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
A variant in Aussie slang

1. qando - a person who uses profanity alot and doesn’t type properly
Dang, Angus ... you may have nailed this place.

But I do need a claryfication ... Oh Pogue?! Pogue?!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
"This, to me, seems a bit like the American car manufacturers getting together and handing each other awards for the Edsel, Corvair and Pacer."

Hey, the corvair was a great car, in spite of what Ralph Nader said.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
McQ, You’re wondering why Hollywood doesn’t understand that Americans don’t want what it’s selling.

I can recall when films like Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump and Schindler’s List were thought to herald a return to values.

What’s changed might be that the Liberals are out of power — blessed, glittering power. They’re so spitting mad about that they can’t see straight, so they buck each other up with rhetoric and lash out however they can. For moviemakers, that means throwing the political agenda up on the screen.

If they had power they would be in a blissful mood, and we would get When Harry Met Sally.
 
Written By: Lastango
URL: http://
Art-y? Yeah, that horse’s head in The Godfather had art written all over it.
Well, make up your mind. Does Hollywood recognize Big Movies or Art movies? In any event, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and there’s nothing about a horses head that’s inartful. Some movies deftly combine the two, some tend towards the populist, some tend towards the art niche.
Yeah, except we’re talking about movies, and given the numbers in the post, it’s clear what was preferred by Americans in this case.
By sales numbers, Americans also prefer the Ford Taurus to the Chevrolet Corvette. Both are still made, because there’s a market for each. Because individuals have different preferences.

In any event, the Oscars are not about honoring the most successful movies at the box office. Sometimes the most successful movies are the "best". Sometimes the best movies are only moderately successful. The Oscars are not the People’s Choice awards, though.

And come to think of it, if you want to compare success, look at the difference between the Oscars and the People’s Choice awards. The general public does get to decide who wins the People’s Choice awards, whereas "Hollywood" gets to decide who wins the Oscars.

Which of those two ceremonies gets bigger ratings?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
What are these Oscars everyone keeps talking about?

Seriously, most movies these days suck. I could watch the first 15 minutes, stop the film, and tell you exactly how it’s going to end, who dies, who falls in love, etc. But I don’t grudge HollowWood for making movies, regardless of the content. It’s their money, let ’em film all the crap they want.

Yeah, I’d like to be entertained here and there a little better than I’ve been lately, but hey, not going to the movies as much gives me more time with my family, and that’s much better than $20 for a movie and stale popcorn.
 
Written By: Robb Allen (Sharp as a Marble)
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
Well, make up your mind. Does Hollywood recognize Big Movies or Art movies?
You and others introduced "art" into this, not me.
By sales numbers, Americans also prefer the Ford Taurus to the Chevrolet Corvette. Both are still made, because there’s a market for each. Because individuals have different preferences.
Uh, yeah, but again, we’re talking about movies and the numbers are pretty overwhelming as to what is preferred. Unlike owning 50 cars, you can go to 50 movies if you’re so inclined. The fact that many who had the opportunity and means chose to go to some over others is indicative of some sort of a preference, isn’t it? It’s a preference which shouldn’t be ignored when categorizing movies as ’best’ in my estimation.
In any event, the Oscars are not about honoring the most successful movies at the box office.
Given the movies of the past, that’s not at all clear, except this year, is it?

My point remains that strong box office sales are at least one indicator of "best". And while not the only criteria for consideration, it certainly shouldn’t be ignored.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Uh, yeah, but again, we’re talking about movies and the numbers are pretty overwhelming as to what is preferred. Unlike owning 50 cars, you can go to 50 movies if you’re so inclined. The fact that many who had the opportunity and means chose to go to some over others is indicative of some sort of a preference, isn’t it? It’s a preference which shouldn’t be ignored when categorizing movies as ’best’ in my estimation.
Why should voters take box office takes into account when deciding on the "best" movie? As mentioned, there’s already an awards show for populism. It’s rare that artistic quality and popular appeal intersect.
Given the movies of the past, that’s not at all clear, except this year, is it?
How is it not clear? Sometimes awards go to big movies, sometimes they go to small movies, sometimes they go to in-between movies. Brokeback Mountain, Crash, et al, are solidly in-between movies. What, exactly, is your argument? That Hollywood should make more artistic Big Movies? That they should replace some of the middling movies with Big Movies at awards time?
My point remains that strong box office sales are at least one indicator of "best". And while not the only criteria for consideration, it certainly shouldn’t be ignored.
Ok. And, as you’ve pointed out, Hollywood has often honored movies that had strong box office sales. So, what’s your beef?

Do you think Star Wars 3 was Best Movie quality? Harry Potter? Narnia? They got decent reviews, but none were particularly wonderful cinema from what I’ve heard. War of the Worlds? King Kong?

Besides, Narnia was nominated for 3 awards. Harry Potter had a nomination. King Kong - 4. Star Wars - 1. War of the Worlds - 3.

So, what, exactly, is the beef? You disagree with the artistic judgement of moviemakers? That’s hardly a surprise. I’d bet that you also disagree with the subjective judgements of professional food critics, professional literature critics and professional artists.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I believe the idea is that the common people’s judgment about what is "good" should be taken into account when handing out awards for "good." That judgment, when it comes to movies, can most easily be seen through box office numbers. I don’t think this means that voters in the Academy should take box office numbers into account when they vote; they should vote for whatever movie they think was the best movie. But I too find it interesting when the movies that Hollywood voters like best are obviously not the movies that the common people like best. Some years they are, this year they weren’t. I personally thought Serenity was the best movie I saw last year but I’m not offended that it didn’t get nominated. But then, I also didn’t watch the Oscars, seeing as how they’d be all about a bunch of movies I didn’t see, and had no interest in seeing.

And the point is, the more people that feel like me, no particular animosity towards the Oscars, but I just don’t care, the more trouble Hollywood is in, don’t you think? From the recaps I’ve read, there were a couple of references by presenters to going TO the movies, rather than watching them on DVD. Is that correct? Sounds like they recognize the trouble as well.
 
Written By: jinnmabe
URL: http://
I’m with Jon on this one. I don’t see why the box office numbers should be a criterion for determining the quality of a movie. Some truly execrable movies (like Independence Day) have been box-office smashes over the years. You’re going to tell me that a movie like that, or Revenge of the Sith, should be considered alongside Crash for Best Picture? That’s funny.
I would rather be chained up and forced to watch Independence Day 300 times than rather watch Crash again.

That film was quite possibly the most over rated, self pretentious, absorbed, ’trying too hard’ piece of crap I’ve ever seen.

You want to see a good movie on racism? Rent American History X. Now there’s a movie that tackles the subject. Not some candy coated ’daddy has a bullet proof cape’ piece of garbage.

/endrant
 
Written By: derek
URL: http://
In any event, the Oscars are not about honoring the most successful movies at the box office.
Given the movies of the past, that’s not at all clear, except this year, is it?
You’re limiting your arguement to the ’Best Movie’ category only.

The Oscars are more than that. There’s dozens of awards from ’Best Animation’, ’Best Make-Up’ to ’Best Assassination of Ethical Values’ (according to some).

A purely box-office scale of ’quality’ wouldn’t help with even ’Best Actor’ category, nevermind some of the more obscure awards.

There are many formulas to follow if you want to make money in Hollywood. Take one hero, disrupt his happy situation, send him to rescue the princess and defeat his nemesis; sing a pop song on the way home. And relax.

The drive for huge box-office returns doesn’t do encourage the type of risk taking necessary for real quality.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
So, what, exactly, is the beef? You disagree with the artistic judgement of moviemakers? That’s hardly a surprise.
Uh, what?
 
Written By: derek
URL: http://
I can see both sides of this argument, however, the McDonalds and Ford Taurus analogies are problematic becuase they cost less than their "better" competition. Movies all cost the same. If Corvettes and Tauruses cost the same, Corvettes would be more popular than they are now.
 
Written By: Jimmy
URL: http://
The films are nominated for Best Picture, not Most Successful Picture. So any crunching of the numbers are meaningless.
Yes, Best Picture according to a small group of left wing elitists.
McDonald’s “Restaurants” sell more hamburgers than anyone else, so are you going to tell me that McDonald’s has the best hamburgers… of course you won’t.
I’d rather have Tommy’s or In-N-Out (and I’m much more up on Mexican fast food), but McDonald’s clearly combines a lot of features, including quality and low cost. McDonald’s probably is the best fast food joint all things considered, because of the combination of features they offer as well as the fact that you can find them just about anywhere.

The movies are mostly a different deal, since you pay the same for gay sheephearders as you do for Christ on the cross, and so on. Aside from the movie itself, the only other discriminator is avalability and press. Brokeback Mountain got lots of play by the press, and has absolutly no excuses at the boxoffice. Same goes for most of the other overhyped Hollywood favs.
What’s changed might be that the Liberals are out of power — blessed, glittering power. They’re so spitting mad about that they can’t see straight, so they buck each other up with rhetoric and lash out however they can. For moviemakers, that means throwing the political agenda up on the screen.

If they had power they would be in a blissful mood, and we would get When Harry Met Sally.
Sounds about right. Titanic had some commie crap in it, but it was a minor part of the film. I guess they are saying: "vote in a moonbat and we will quit making awful political films".
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
As far as the most popular movie deserving the oscar: I don’t agree. When I was a kid, I was heartbroken when "E.T." lost for best picture to "Ghandi," which I had never heard of. Weeks later, when my parents took us to see Ghandi, I had to admit, even as a youngster, that Ghandi was a more important film than E.T. Now, years later, I would seriously suspect the judgment of any adult that chose "E.T." as a better movie than Ghandi. Which do you think grossed more money?

Films that do well appeal to families. There is no question. But films that appeal to families do not always exhibit the best command of the art of storytelling, photography, art design, acting, or any of the other numerous areas in which a film can excel.

I do happen to agree that movies like "The Chronicles of Narnia" are more deserving of praise than movies like "Brokeback Mountain," but I would never claim that the acting in Narnia was really good, or even that the plot was any good (I love the books, but there was simply NO dramatic tension in the movie). There is simply no meat to the argument that box office is the best indicator of quality in filmmaking. It is the best indicator of appeal to families, and that is good. But it is not everything.

I would have been disappointed had "Brokeback" won the oscar. But I also would have been disappointed had "Narnia" won best picture. It was a deeply flawed movie. However, my Best Oscar for Disappointment goes to Hollywood itself for the crappy movies they are putting out lately. Judging by the amount of self-promotion (verging on desperation) with which they were hyping the "big screen experience" during the awards, and the drop in movie attendance that must have prompted it, that’s an Oscar on which we all can agree.
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
Here’s a thought.
George Clooney starred in "From Dusk till Dawn" -
If we’d had oppressed vampires trying to get married that year I bet that might suddenly qualify as art...it even had a conflicted ’good’ soon to be vampire, I think.

Should win an oscar under -
Movies that you see while sitting around late at night and can’t sleep
or Movies that you see because you can’t find the remote and are too lazy
to get up and save yourself.

Meanwhile if they want they can call movies that are the antithesis of cultural
icons art. Hey, they get to set the slate, they get to vote
on it and they get to make a hoopla over the winners.
They could do it privately, but it’s more fun to do it publicly. In the process if need be, they can remind the ’little people’ that they’re "little" and culturally ignorant.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The drive for huge box-office returns doesn’t do encourage the type of risk taking necessary for real quality.
.

Heh ... so your premise is "real quality" won’t translate into "huge box-office"?

Interesting. I suggest that to be completely wrong.

It’s about subject matter, isnt’ it? A subject no one really cares about or find difficulty relating too usually means few watch it, regardless of production value or "real quality". The trick is to find those subject to which people relate and then add "real quality" isn’t it?

In terms of ’best’, that makes much more sense to me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
There is simply no meat to the argument that box office is the best indicator of quality in filmmaking. It is the best indicator of appeal to families, and that is good. But it is not everything.
Good grief, how freakin’ many times do I have to point out that it has never once been argued that box office is "the best indicator of quality?"

How many?

What I’ve said, repeatedly, is it shouldn’t be ignored.

Got that? Is it clear yet?

And what should be obvious by now in this discussion is whatever criteria the ’Academy’ uses are purely arbitrary and obviously change year by year. How anyone can give credence to awards based on what’s culturally fashionable that year to a certain group is beyond me.

But there are apparently no objective criteria to measuring "best" in Hollywood.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The drive for huge box-office returns doesn’t do encourage the type of risk taking necessary for real quality.
.

Heh ... so your premise is "real quality" won’t translate into "huge box-office"?
Well, no. You’ve reversed what I said and added you’re own 3rd meaning that wasn’t there. Not a very fair tactic is it?

’Real quality’ can be a popular success but its not dependent on it, and it certainly shouldn’t be the measure of success.

And its not just about subject matter. Its about application and delivery. I agree that if you spend the most money on famous actors you’re more likely to get good performances or the most on special effects you get the best technicians, but there’s a lot of professions involved in movie making and getting the balance right is just as important. (I guess that’s why they give awards to producers).

Is mental illness good subject matter for entertainment? One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is one of only three movies to win Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay, in 1975.

You seem to be missing the point of the Oscars. Its up to the Academy members to decide who gets Oscars from within the business, not the general public. If you’re not happy about that, or don’t agree then don’t let it bother you so much who wins.

Or are you’re political implications too strong and bubbling under the surface on this issue? Fine, there’s politics involved, but you can’t seriously hope for people to take you seriously when you haven’t even seen any of the movies nominated because you don’t like their subject matter.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Is mental illness good subject matter for entertainment?

Yes, if engagingly done. And that would, if you think about it, put it in a "best" category to most with a modicum of common sense. Thus:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is one of only three movies to win Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay, in 1975.
And not only that, it was a box-office hit as well. In fact, it’s considered a classic. Do you figure "Crash" will ever be considered as such?

Those that made OFOTCN found a way of presenting a subject that normally wouldn’t put butts in theater seats such that it did, thank you very much.

"Best?" Sure and the box office validates that.

Now, consider the preformance of the movies this year concerning other controversial subjects. Best? Not by a long shot if you look at attendence. They didn’t do terribly, but they certainly didn’t pull a "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest" did they?
Its up to the Academy members to decide who gets Oscars from within the business, not the general public. If you’re not happy about that, or don’t agree then don’t let it bother you so much who wins.
I’m not ’bothered’ by who wins. As you say, it is up to them. But "best" of anything, when no objective criteria exists by which to judge such is simply silly.

"Best" this year is arbitrarily different than "best" of last year depending on the whim of the Academy. I’m only pointing to at least one objective criteria which should be considered in my opinion.
Or are you’re political implications too strong and bubbling under the surface on this issue?


Not really. I’m simply mystified by a group who goes out of its way to recognize a bunch of films as "best" which hardly seem to be in the same league as many which clearly were the "best" in years past, while ignoring films which were at least as good and did much better at the box office.

If politics enters this at all, the Academy’s picks this year remind me of the Nobel Committee naming Jimmy Carter as the Peace Prize winner. It was done as a political statement. He was a mediocre candidate, but politically picking him made a statement for the Committee (as they admitted). I wouldn’t rule that out at all in the selection of the "best" picture candidates this year. It is the only rational reason I can come up with for most of the selections. They certainly weren’t in the category of "high art" that’s for sure.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And what should be obvious by now in this discussion is whatever criteria the ’Academy’ uses are purely arbitrary and obviously change year by year. . How anyone can give credence (sic) to awards based on what’s culturally fashionable that year to a certain group is beyond me.
Thanks for the claryfication.
And anyone that gives “credence” to awards based what’s culturally fashionable deserves every painful moment of Crash.

One shouldn’t give, … ahem …, credence …to Oscar winning films. I can still remember Saving Private Ryan losing out to Shakespeare In Love. For shame.

I also remember the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It finally won with Return of the King. I thought all three movies were great, but then again I loved the books and spent at least two years of my adolescence rolling around polyhedral dice. So I could be biased.
But Return of the King was my least favorite of them all!? What gives?
Anyhoo.

Conservatives should be grateful for films like Brokeback Mountain. For it may have preformed poorly at the box office, but I’m sure that the film provided a few more dollars to some conservative PAC’s.

Don’t you?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Is mental illness good subject matter for entertainment? One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is one of only three movies to win Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay, in 1975.i
I’m not convinced that One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was about mental illness. I thought it was more a critique of the mental health profession. That era was renown for it’s attempts-ultimately successful-to empty the mental institutions. It was the emptying of the mental institutions that exacerbated the homeless problem. It was a movie I enjoyed immensely due to Jack Nicholson’s character and not the preachy social activism of bashing the mental health profession.
About the artiste Ken Kesey. In 1959, when he volunteered to be a subject in experiments with hallucinogenic drugs, his life underwent a dramatic change. Near the end of the experiments, he began working the night shift in a mental ward. He started to feel that the patients were not really crazy after all, just more individualized than society was willing to accept. Parts of this novel were written while he was under the influence of LSD and peyote.
According to another online bio Kesey "While working as an orderly at the psychiatric ward of the local VA hospital, Kesey began to have hallucinations about an Indian sweeping the floors. This formed the basis for ’Chief Broom’ in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, his writing project at Stanford."
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
I wouldn’t rule [politics] out at all in the selection of the "best" picture candidates this year. It is the only rational reason I can come up with for most of the selections.
Well, face it. You haven’t seen any of the movies so that’s all you can base your opinion on.

And you’d rather go with the herd and let the opinions of others dictate what you regard as quality than make a subjective judgement yourself based on the your own experiences.

Go and see a gay cowboy movie, man. What’s the worst thing that can happen?
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Well, face it. You haven’t seen any of the movies so that’s all you can base your opinion on.
Reading exhaustively gives wonderful insight as I’m sure you’re aware.

I haven’t been to Iraq either, but I think I have a pretty fair idea of what is going on there.
Go and see a gay cowboy movie, man.
I may if they every make one (I mean a cowboy flick is a cowboy flick ... they don’t call ’em cowpokes for nothin’), but I’m afraid gay sheepherders just don’t quite fill the bill.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Reading exhaustively gives wonderful insight as I’m sure you’re aware.

I haven’t been to Iraq either, but I think I have a pretty fair idea of what is going on there.
Respectully, you’re wrong.

The only source of knowledge is experience - Albert Einstein.



 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Respectully, you’re wrong.

The only source of knowledge is experience - Albert Einstein.
Respectfully, I disagree .... that’s been a philosophical debate for centuries and it ain’t settled yet.

Most now agree it’s a combination of input, experience being one of them.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I could try describe the colour green to a blind person without a hope that they would ever percieve it the same as having seen it.

Similarly, I could read every book there was about love, or music, but none would prepare me for the experience.

I haven’t been to Iraq either, but after my first live football game, having read the Sunday paper, wondered whether the journalist had been at the same game.

And as for criticising the Oscar nominations for being unworthy I would possibly go watch one or two before condemning them.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
"The only source of knowledge is experience - Albert Einstein."

Can anyone tell me exactly how many FTL journeys Einstein made?
Do you suppose he experienced his mass increasing as he approached the
speed of light? Or was that theory/knowledge based on no real ’experience’ at all since, to my knowledge (gained without any FTL travel myself) no one
has actually traveled close enough to the speed of light to see if he was correct. Yet, there he was, spouting off about things he couldn’t
possibly have ’knowledge’ of eh? and yet pretty damn sure of himself to boot!

Gee...... not so smart after all I guess if he could turn around and claim
that knowledge is only gained by experience.

Art is subjective. I don’t need to view a woman smearing herself with
chocolate to know it isn’t ’art’. It might be interesting....but let’s
not pretend it is in the same ball park as Michealangelo’s "David".

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And as for criticising the Oscar nominations for being unworthy I would possibly go watch one or two before condemning them.
I’m not condemning them. I’m asking if anyone can explain why they were the one’s picked. To this point you’ve been as unsuccessful as anyone else.

As for experience being the only factor, I can learn of someone else burning their hand on a stove and, believe it or not, and without having to see it or experience it, learn from that and never do it myself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Yet, there he was, spouting off about things he couldn’t
possibly have ’knowledge’ of eh? and yet pretty damn sure of himself to boot!
That’s why its called the ’Theory’ of Relativity.
Art is subjective. I don’t need to view a woman smearing herself with
chocolate to know it isn’t ’art’. It might be interesting....but let’s
not pretend it is in the same ball park as Michealangelo’s "David".
Art is art once you put it in a gallery.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
McQ,

Well, you’re criticising the reasons for their inclusion. All I’m saying is, go see them. I’m not telling you why they were chosen because I haven’t seen them either.

As for experience being the only factor, I can learn of someone else burning their hand on a stove and, believe it or not, and without having to see it or experience it, learn from that and never do it myself.You know what pain is?
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
You know what pain is?
Certainly. And, as you might guess, avoiding pain requires knowledge without experience.
Well, you’re criticising the reasons for their inclusion.
Heh ... hell, I don’t even know what the reasons for inclusion were. Neither do you. That’s been the question for heaven sake.
All I’m saying is, go see them.
I have no desire to see them. They don’t interest me. They aren’t something which I feel compelled to see. That too is a part of why I’m interested in understanding why they were selected.
I’m not telling you why they were chosen because I haven’t seen them either.
Well interestingly, even those who have seen them can’t tell me why they were chosen.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Hey!!!
You edited your typo. Not fair.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
...avoiding pain requires knowledge without experience.
Well, pain is nature’s way of teaching ’through’ experience. You were taught by your experiences very early on.
Well interestingly, even those who have seen them can’t tell me why they were chosen.
Who are ’those’. A consensus, I suppose? You’re not really advocating your ’read around’ policy very well. If you really wanted to know it wouldn’t be difficult to find a site to tell you.

And you wouldn’t copy someone if they put their hand on the stove, but you would trust them if they said a movie was good or bad rather than go see it yourself.

Makes me wonder which you’d actually find more painful.

 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
I’m asking if anyone can explain why they were the one’s picked. To this point you’ve been as unsuccessful as anyone else.
Oh, that’s easy: a plurality of the eligible voters thought they were the best movies this year.

Why did they think that? Probably for hundreds of different reasons.

Are they wrong? No.

Specifically: the eligible voters are the only one’s whose opinions matter vis a vis the Academy Awards. Regardless of their reason for voting Crash the best picture, the vote of their subjective judgements was the only metric. If an outsider — or even a voter in the minority — disagrees, their own subjective opinion is completely valid. But that does not invalidate the dispositive judgements of the academy voters.

If you think they made a big mistake and there’s a huge market for a right-thinking Awards Show of the People, then you should try to start just such an award show. If you’re correct, the accolades, money and network attention will come rolling in. If you’re wrong, they won’t.

Since the People’s Choice Awards does substantially worse than the Oscars, that would seem to be one decisive bit of evidence. (as you say, "it’s about butts in the seats")
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Hey!!!
You edited your typo. Not fair.
What typo?!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
And you wouldn’t copy someone if they put their hand on the stove, but you would trust them if they said a movie was good or bad rather than go see it yourself.
I never said I "wouldn’t copy" someone ... I said I’d learn from their experience. IOW I’d take into consideration and account what they experienced with the stove to make my own informed decision.

I see nothing different with the movies. Synopsis, reviews, first-hand viewer accounts. It doesn’t take much, in that regard, to understand that particular movies probably don’t rise to the level of something I’d deem "best".


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Art is art once you put it in a gallery.
Let me guess, you’re one of those critics who like to ponder Yoko’s half eaten apple for 30 minutes straight?

It’s soooo deep...man.
 
Written By: derek
URL: http://
I once had an opportunity to view ’art’ in the home of a former part owner of the Texas Rangers. It was an ’interesting’ little piece of marble, sort of shaped like a Monopoly house that had little piles of stuff arrayed around it.
The ’stuff’ was grain, rice, various spices. That, along with some Tennis Ball fuzz under a spotlight, a fake fly stuck on a large wall, and "Empty Pockets" which looked like a giant mouse had done his dirty work all over a stairway, and many other pieces of the like were ’art’.
Well, I was assured these were ’art’ by the woman who had been hired specifically to answer any questions I might have had about it all (clearly, out of my element, proving I will never become rich, or win the lottery, as I obviously do not know how to properly spend my ill booten capitilistic gotty).

Interesting thing was their dog kept piddling on the marble monopoly house. They couldn’t figure out why and the ’artist’ had to keep coming back to fix it.

Me...I suspect the dog had accurate opinions about what was and was not ’art’.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What typo?!

Nice.

Another privilege of ownership?

Hey, McQ. I think the Bush administration has a job for you.
(of course, they already owe you back pay.)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Another privilege of ownership?
You’re just jealous.
Hey, McQ. I think the Bush administration has a job for you. (of course, they already owe you back pay.)
Well I wish to hell they’d send it ... perhaps you can put in a good word.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Well I wish to hell they’d send it ... perhaps you can put in a good word.
Damnit. I wish I would’ve thought of it.
I talked to Tom DeLay on Tuesday just after I voted against him in the Republican primary here in Sugar Land, Tx.

I politely expressed my concerns about government corruption. He just smiled and shook my hand while telling me that this is all a Democratic ploy to oust him.

I didn’t believe it for a minute.

What a total wanker.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Don’t let these wankers get you down.
And
What a total wanker.
Pogue’s new word ... or, watching a lot of BBC America.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Actually,
I picked up that word when living in Australia back in the early nineties.
But since words like Assh*le, f*ckface, motherf*ckin’ wh*re, d*ckhead, c*nt, and my personal favorite… brown ooze leaking out of an anus punk-ass b*tch, … is now forbidden on QandO,

I’ll have to settle for calling Tom DeLay a “Wanker”.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider