Why this lost the Best Picture Oscar.
-
RoadKillBill1 — 10 years ago(December 30, 2015 07:46 AM)
No, I'm pretty sure he wrote "There's no". However, I'm out of town, and can't check my library. In any case, he did not originate the phrase. IIRC it was coined by some early 20th century economist about free lunches being offered in saloons. His name escapes me at the moment. RAH used it as the official motto of his "Luna" colony. If fact it was even on the flag. Although he populated his worlds with unpretentious folks, I don't think he would have made their officialdom quite so informal.
And, yes I've enjoyed the exchange as well.
TNSTAAFL -
-
RoadKillBill1 — 10 years ago(December 31, 2015 09:49 AM)
I know. I've read it several times. He also used it a few more times in other works when talking about a colony on the Moon. RAH is my favorite writer.
Wikki has a good article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
I was thinking of Milton Friedman. But, it seems I was wrong about that. It apparently does go back to the salons though. I am sick with a bad GI bug right now, so I'll have to leave this for a bit.
TNSTAAFL -
joekinplaya — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 09:30 AM)
I thought it didn't really need dissection. The whole theme of the story is the group of men wouldn't give two craps about Ryan and have to watch their own selves dying and go through suffering to save this one person. Why is this one person deserving of going home and being saved? Why are they even allocating resources to save this man? Who cares about this man? There are plenty of families that die off in war. I mean transition over to the other side of WWII in the Pacific and civilian families were being used as bombs or meat shields as Japanese banzai squads charged at marines at Okinawa.
I understand you're trying to justify the decision of what happened and that this isn't necessarily exactly what you feel about the film. But I felt that SPR had a much deeper meaning which was already implied by the letter. Even logically thinking you can deduce sacrificing men to save one possibly dead man is not worth it especially in times of total war on the planet. Even after the film, for Ryan, the sacrifice these men made is a driving factor for him to live his life to the fullest. And even as he tried to live his life as best as possible, it doesn't really feel worthy when standing in that memorial ground. In the age where we have elusive and abstract artistic films where you're supposed to dissect a scene where they just take a piss in the toilet has really forced us to look at films on a deeper level where it shouldn't be. Sometimes films are meant to simply be watched.
SPR while had deeper meaning wasn't a film meant to have a hidden message. It's to make you understand some of the brutal experiences people went through in war. Most war films or shows follow that model. The Pacific primarily does that VERY well despite being extremely depressing. And for the men who sacrificed themselves, they've certainly turned into "monsters" in comparison to what they used to be. So just like Ryan they do not feel their lives are "worth" returning home to because they have stained their own identity so much. War films however can only do so much with that kind of thing. -
nospar122 — 10 years ago(December 19, 2015 10:36 AM)
Sorry, all wrong. This lost because Harvey Weinstein, "Shakespeare's" producer, lobbied, cajoled, bullied and even threatened voters on numerous occasions. He badmouthed "Private Ryan" and touted the merits of his own film. Apparently, it was enough to persuade voters to vote for his inferior film. He tried the same thing again four years later with "Gangs of New York," but this time the voters weren't having it. There was a big backlash against him, and despite 10 nominations, "Gangs" won absolutely zero Oscars, losing Best Picture to the run-of-the-mill "Chicago." Weinstein learned his lesson and toned it down after that. This was all widely reported at the time.
-
DaveR011 — 10 years ago(January 01, 2016 04:39 AM)
That and
Shakespeare in Love
is a genuinely excellent film - well written, original, and superbly acted. Outside the opening scene, I've always thought SPR was competently done and well acted, but ultimately rather ordinary. I think the identity of some of the big name supporting aactord tend to show this. SiL had Dame Judy Dench whose eight minutes of screen time won her a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. SPR had 51-year old Ted Danson as a Ranger Captain for six minutes. He wasn't nominated. -
archmaker1 — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 01:24 AM)
And Weinstein threw a million TV adds touting the movie as the most joyful and entertaining experience anyone could ever have anywhere! A brilliant way to appeal to both average movie goers and snobs. This allowed all the industry wives who really do the voting to pat themselves on the back for rewarding "art" over commerce. There has never been an ad blitz like that before or since and I think you're right, they realized they'd been had. SiL is a fine movie, but SPR was a landmark film, technically and emotionally, and should have won.
-
joed1667 — 10 years ago(January 01, 2016 04:27 PM)
All I know is that ever since SPR lost to SiL, I have never watched the Oscars again. I felt that this was politics. Hollywood is not fond of war movies even though a few have won over the years for Best Picture, like Platoon and Patton, and they are not fond of Steven Speilberg either who has received many of snubs. He's received several Oscars but no where near what he deserves otherwise it would be even more blatantly obvious.
As for SPR, here you had a movie in which after it ended and people walked out, young people were coming up to the elderly and thanking them for what their generation did. It also got many veterans to finally open up and talk about what was bottled up inside them for decades. Very few movies have had that kind of impact on people.
I personally give those voting on the Oscars as much credibility as the powers to be who decide who gets a star. I read more about that after Martin Milner passed away, that he does not have a star and it was more about politics and money and despite having several highly successful TV shows and a long career in television and movies, he didn't fit the mold. A family man who was happily married to only one women in his life since 1957 I believe. -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(January 08, 2016 06:59 AM)
All I know is that ever since SPR lost to SiL, I have never watched the Oscars again.
For years, I've questioned the intelligence/sanity of people who were not directly involved, or had some actual connection to the entertainment industry. Meaning, if you are working in the industry, or aspire to be an actor/makeup artist/costume designer, or you are close to someone who is in the industry - then it is understandable to be enthused by the award shows.
Otherwise, I don't get being so excited about an industry which fluffs themselves so much and "awards" themselves so much.
Especially when time and time again they award a show which not only did few people ever hear of, but in 5 years won't be watched again. -
joed1667 — 10 years ago(January 12, 2016 04:57 AM)
"For years, I've questioned the intelligence/sanity of people who were not directly involved, or had some actual connection to the entertainment industry. Meaning, if you are working in the industry, or aspire to be an actor/makeup artist/costume designer, or you are close to someone who is in the industry - then it is understandable to be enthused by the award shows. "
So I guess then that you are not a sports fan either and don't get all excited about a certain team(s)? I mean, if you aren't directly involved in that sport and just as fan..going by your analogy! -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(January 12, 2016 11:58 AM)
So I guess then that you are not a sports fan either and don't get all excited about a certain team(s)? I mean, if you aren't directly involved in that sport and just as fan..going by your analogy!
For years, I've questioned the intelligence/sanity of people who were not directly involved,
or had some actual connection
to the entertainment industry.
Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it? -
joed1667 — 10 years ago(January 13, 2016 07:06 AM)
"Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it?"
I comprehend you real well and what I have to say about it would get me kicked off IMDB because that response is just plain idiotic! We are the fans, the ones who pay money that keeps the entertainment industry in business so TS if we can't offer an opinion! -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(January 13, 2016 04:55 PM)
what I have to say about it would get me kicked off IMDB
Please say it then, we could use less ones like you.
I get being fans, I just don't get being all that wrapped up in it. I ESPECIALLY don't get it when you get so wrapped up in the stupidity that is Hollywierd.
Seriously, no other "industry" masturbates itself so much to itself as Hollwierd does - how many frigging awards shows are there? Hell, you can win an Emmy for the Oscar show.
I just am saddened at how pathetic peoples lives are that they have Oscar parties and actually give a sh!t about who wins. It is extra sad when most of the times the movies that are nominated are ones most people haven't heard of, and in five years no one will ever watch again.
I never said you couldn't offer an opinion. It is just laughable that people throw hissy fits over who wins and loses an award when the judging system isn't just subjective, but political as well.