Who actually saw the Oscar movies?

Here is a question I always ask myself about the films that actually win an Oscar each year. Who saw them? Honestly, how many people went to see whatever film won?

It's a question you really never see anyone ask. In fact most avoid that completely. Because Oscars are about what the movie industry and critics think, not the public. If people knew how many (or perhaps few) went to see these films they might have a slightly different view of the Oscars. More akin to a thought, 'The snobs are putting up thier noses at what the masses consider worthwhile.' That doesn't mean that the choices by the Oscar members is wrong (all the time), but it does make it interesting when you put it in perspective.

So let's presume that a national price for a movie ticket is $10. A nice easy number to work with, even if it isn't accurate. How many people have seen the top winning films?

Well let's start at the top. Avatar, which I felt is an over-rated hypefest, has made $720 million. So that's 72 million people, almost 25% of the population. Not bad. (Ranked #1 for the year 2009)

Up - 293 mill (Ranked #5) - 29 million people
The Blind Side - 250 mill (Ranked #8) - 25 million people
Inglourious Basterds - 120 mill (Ranked #25) - 12 million people
Precious - 47 mill (Ranked #65) - 4.7 million people
Crazy Heart - 29 mill (Ranked #95) - 2.9 million people
Hurt Locker - 14.7 mill (Did not rank in the top 100, won best picture) - 1.47 million people

Well that all sounds rather respecatble doesn't it? Well lets look at the top ticket sale films of the year.

We know Avatar got #1
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - $402 million - 40 million people - Ranked #2* (won top Razzie Awards)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - $301 million - 30 million people - Ranked #3
The Twilight Saga: New Moon - $296 million - 29 million people - Ranked #4
Up was already covered
The Hangover - $277 million - 27 million people - Ranked #6 - surprise hit
Star Trek - $257 million - 25 million people - Ranked #7
The Blind Side already mentioned
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel - $216 million - 21 million people - Ranked #9
Sherlock Holmes - $206 million - 20 million people - Ranked #10

So the top 7 Oscar movies (including the number 1 in the nation) had a total of 147 million people. Without the number one film, which is usually the case, 75.1 million people.

The top 7 movies, excluding any film with an Oscar, 192 million.

So comparing in every way you would like, Hollywood believes it makes movies that are crap for the masses but puts money in their pockets, and rewards movies that joe average isn't ... smart enough? to crude to understand?

Who knows. But I thought it was interesting to notice that on average Oscar movies are seen half as often by the public.

Michael Jackson can win the Oscar

MJ win and Oscar? But he's dead. That might be one of the first thoughts some might have. Another could be that he doesn't have a film - but he does.

This Is It, is the documentary styled film created from over 100 hours of video during the preparations and practice for the planned world tour by Michael Jackson. The tour as we all know was heralded to be his comeback, and by all estimates it seems it would have been.

So far the film has wowed critics, and fans. Already the film has brought in $20 million in just one day. Considering it's documentary and entertainment stance, plus a running length of almost 2 hours, that's pretty good. But an Oscar?

Yes the buzz is out there. There are 10 choices for the Best Film Oscar now, so other unquestioned worthy films can be included without problem. The expansion was to address the fact that Hollywood has completely no idea what fans find to be Oscar worthy - and there are few fan favorites like Jackson. The quality of the film is high, the story-telling emotive. As many have said, it provides Jackson the comeback that he likely would have done if he lived.

Plus there is precedence. Most recently for Heath Ledger. And while I got lots of grief form my statement that he did not deserve the Oscar, and that it was given to him just because he was dead (which is all true), it did set the stage to give an Oscar to Jackson. There is more than enough genuine emotion and angst over his death to justify his winning just about any and every award an entertainer can get.

Now if this were just talk about an Oscar for Best Documentary, or Editing, or even Best Direction, I'd be all for it. But they are talking about Best Picture. Which I'm less in love with. Because I judge that by a simple standard. If he were alive would the film get the same attention? The answer is no.

Be honest. It might get awards and attention, but not Best Picture. It would never happen. Hollywood is far to snobbish, and while $20 million in a day is great it's not Spiderman. Still you can never account for the death effect. Ledger proved that in droves.

So will the Oscars be yet another tribute to Michael Jackson? Well it would once again demonstrate the hold that everything Jackson had over the globe. It again would prove that this is the undisputed King of Pop of ALL time. And if you ask almost any of his multi-generational fanbase, he deserves it.

If I had to bet, the odds would be maybe 7 gets you 5 in his favor.

The best award at the 81st Academy Awards

On Sunday, the 81st Academy Awards took place. The buzz has been huge about which films won, which actors took what prize, and what all the ladies were wearing. Which meant really nothing to me.

But there was one thing that occurred at this Oscar Awards that did make an impact. It had nothing to do with the movies and actors nominated. And it is something far bigger than any awards show.

Joseph Levitch, a man best known to the world as Jerry Lewis, received the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award for his work to help those with Muscular Dystrophy. He has been an advocate of those suffering with MS and similar diseases since the 1950’s, and has run a MDA Labor Day Telethon since 1966, raising more than $2 billion over the decades.

Jerry Lewis has never received an award form his peers for the lifetime of work he has done. It is his innovation that has led to several advancements in television and movies that we see today. His career is an example of prolific performance on television, stage and movies. A great number of his films are considered classics.



But it is his work with the telethon that is what makes me so interested. No one has ever been able to find out why he had dedicated so much of his life to this cause. And there is no question that he is dedicated. Even if some dispute the manner or apparent reasons he may have. I have even heard in the past that the answer to why he is so obsessed (for lack of a better term) with this cause is sealed in a vault that his attorney is meant to open upon his death, during a telethon – so that it can be used to raise funds, as is the wish of Lewis.

Jerry Lewis is a human being. Born in 1926, I am not surprised by the occasional gaffes and seeming insensitivity he has on various issues that those far younger are appalled about today. Not surprised does not mean I approve. But I do not allow that to take away from what he has done.

This is inspirational I think. Or at least I hope it is. So few actors and entertainers today are truly involved with any cause. Yes many give lip-service to the popular buzz of the day. But few are dedicated, true believers. Which is sad, because their fame can be used to help so many.

Jerry Lewis is an icon. But far more than that he is a driven advocate that will do anything to help the causes that he believes in. So don’t be surprised if you hear in the next Telethon this year that he places his award up for sale to the highest bidder – the proceeds to go to those he most directly wishes to help. I’d expect that it’s something he would do, and I can respect that.

Of all the entertainers alive today, I can barely think of any that deserve such an accolade as much as Jerry Lewis. And it’s more than about time.

Heath Ledger will win an Oscar - who is surprised

Ah the Oscar rumours are starting to pour out. And in yet another year of generally poor movies the majority of films being selected are yet again probably those you have never heard before.

Though there is one exception this year. Batman: The Dark Knight. That film will get an Oscar nod. Everyone is sure of it. And Heath Ledger will win posthumously. Everyone is sure of that too.

Since the moment that Ledger was found dead, there has been nothing but hype about The Dark Knight, and his performance as the Joker. I believe I said at the time that he was sure to win, and that the movie will bring in tons of money. It seems this will happen.

But I continue to believe that the movie was horrible. I thought the Ledger Joker was the worst version I have ever seen. The animated Batman series has a better Joker, and that is a kids version.

But that will not stop the Oscars from handing him an award. He's dead and there was way too much hype. He has to get the award lest Hollywood be called an unsympathetic place for drug addicts. Well maybe Ledger was not an addict, though he did die from a drug overdose. Close enough.

But his personal problems are not what the awards should be about. It's about the acting. And while he was good in a role that was written horribly and directed without the dark manic humor that defines the character, it was hardly Oscar quality. But when you are in a desert and all you have is sand to drink.

Still there is hope. The Wrestler is still getting mostly rave reviews, Seven Pounds has yet to hit theaters and The Soloist has yet to be mentioned. But if there has to be an action film, based on a comic book that must win an Oscar for 2008 (because I believe 2009 will go to the Watchmen) then I would pick Iron Man. That was far superior to The Dark knight in all respects.

But since I'm not a member of the Academy, we will see.

Hollywood legend Paul Newman passes at 83

There is sad news in Hollywood today. Paul Newman has died at the age of 83.



Paul Newman was a great actor, and had been in entertainment since the 1950’s, made 50 films, was on television and performed in the theater. He was of a generation that could act in all the formats, not just one that most today do.

He is known for phenomenal performances in films like Cool Hand Luke, The Sting (a favorite), The Hustler (another favorite), and The Color of Money. He was so good that he was nominated for 10 Oscars over his career, and he won one and received 2 honorary Oscar Awards.

He worked with some of the greatest directors and actors in the entertainment business. The list includes: Alfred Hitchcock, John Huston, Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, the Coen brothers, Lauren Bacall, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Forest Whitaker, Jackie Gleason, George C. Scott, and Robert Redford.

Newman was also an accomplished race car driver. A passion that he pursued for decades. He was able to turn professional in 1977. He took second place in the grueling Le Mans Race in ‘79 and 5th place in Daytona in ’77.

Newman was also a charitable man. One of the most noted celebrity charitable contributors he gave for the causes he believed in most, children, though his Newman’s Own multi-million dollar food company is noted as having given over $175 million to charities. The company took no profits, all the money made was given away – name another celebrity or entertainer that has done something similar.

He also created the Scott Newman Foundation, after the death of his only son due to drugs. The foundation financed the production of anti-drug films for children.

And it must be noted that Paul Newman was married for 50 years, one of the longest Hollywood marriages. He was not seen in the various paparazzi magazines, nor was he known for scandals. He was a quiet man, of good humor and respect.

Like many in his generation, Newman served in the Navy during World War II. After the war he studied at Yale, and was part of the famed Actor’s Studio in New York City.

Newman is survived by his wife, five children, two grandsons and his older brother Arthur.

Movie Preview: The Soloist

Movies are the pictures of stories in our minds brought to life. They can be inspirational, or allow us to escape our daily lives. They can also be boring, and waste our time. Great stories and great actors often can combine with solid direction to provide a film that can withstand the test of time. To those films that achieve the greatest of these accomplishments an award, the Oscar, is presented (though sometimes Hollywood politics interfere with what and who actually wins). I believe that The Soloist may be of that kind of caliber.



In just watching that video clip I feel you have to be moved. If the film is only half as good as the whispers and the trailer infer then this is an Oscar worthy movie.

Some movies inspire our lives, and sometimes life inspires a movie. In this case we have the latter. Real men that have embodied the best parts of the human condition. And to portray that this film has combined 2 of the best actors in this generation.

There is no question that Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor. He has been able to portray drug addicts to comic book super heroes with a sense of honesty and credibility so consistently that you can believe each was not just a character but him in his daily life. He has the almost unseen ability to add to each film he is in and make it better with his presence.

Jamie Foxx has come into his own in the acting world. He has astounded many that could not see his potential back in his days on the television show Livin Color. He has been able to perform along side some of the best (Al Pacino) and most popular (Tom Cruise) and hold his own to say the least. He is only now starting to get the respect and roles a leading man of his caliber deserves.

Both of these men have been able to convey the lives of great people to the world. Downey in Chaplin, Foxx in Ray. They gave a piece of themselves and the results were riveting experiences that you could not take your eyes away from. So when I see that these great talents are working together, again taking true lives and presenting them in a larger than life format while rooting it in the essence of life we all live, I get excited.



I have only one fear about this film at the moment. I believe that if I am correct, and the trailer is what it is supposed to be – a tease – then we are looking at the hands down Oscar winner for the year. The fear then is that both Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx will both be nominated for the Best Actor award, and I cannot imagine choosing between the 2.

If I have to guess, and I am correct in what I have postulated, then I have to say that Robert Downey Jr. wins. Not because he is better, or that either actor is not at the best of their performances, but because of Hollywood politics. Because Jamie Foxx has won an Oscar already, and Downey has not, he gets the nod this time. If I am right, or wrong, I cannot say that I will be disappointed as both are deserving.

I’ve said a lot in favor of this film. I am a harsh critic and can often tell if a film is worthy of watching or not just by the trailer. Not everyone will agree with me, but I’ve noticed that the box office’s tend to match my feelings. So I am not fearful that if you see this film you will not be mislead. But either way I will review the film in November when it comes out and give you my honest opinion, even if it means I need to eat crow.

Morgan Freeman recovering - respect is due

The news is spreading fast so I am sure that most have heard the news, Morgan Freeman was in a car accident. So far the news has been clear to point out that his injuries were not life threatening. The last I heard he suffered a broken arm and shoulder.

Of course I have also heard a good and bad thing along with that news. The good thing is possibly the bigger issue. Before rumors run around, all indications and statements at this time from the police and other sources state that he was not drunk driving. He was driving very late at night, and it is believe he may have fallen asleep at the wheel. While that is still very bad, it is something any driver on a long trip, or after a long hectic day, can attest to having done at least once. Thankfully there have been no fatalities reported.

The other item that I heard is the potential gossip and venom that the major news and entertainment media loves to put out on any entertainer in the news. It’s the shadow of the negative spin that normally occurs in any news about an entertainer, especially if it’s a Black entertainer. In this case it’s the question of the passenger in the car.

It was a woman, that has been confirmed. Who the woman is has also been confirmed but I will not mention it as that is not relevant to me. The state of her injuries is unreported though. I hope that she is relatively well and not in danger of any complications or critical medical state.

Morgan Freeman is a superb actor. He has worked diligently to gain the recognition and acclaim he has today. His ability to display gravitas on the big screen is nearly unmatched by any actor, and certainly unmatched by any current actor now.

He started in his acting career at 8, in a school play. He won a statewide drama competition at 12. He has served in the Air Force. In 1964 he was a dancer in the 1964 World’s Fair. He has worked with Pearl Bailey and Cab Calloway on Broadway. He is famous for his role as Easy Reader on the PBS show Electric Company (which I grew up with) at the age of 34. But he gained prominence after his movie role of Fast Black in Street Smart in 1987 at the age of 50. He has been married for 24 years.

I mention all this because at 71 any injury can potentially be serious. In addition I think he deserves some respect. Morgan Freeman grew up before the Civil Rights Movement in the South, which was no easy task. His achievements in his youth meant that he was not just good but stellar to be recognized at that time in America. His time in the military reveals a dedication to America and a will that exceeded the segregationist policies of the time. And his ability has stood out enough (1 Academy Award and 3 nominations, 1 Golden Globe and 3 nominations, and 2 Screen Actor's Guild Award nominations) that when many other actors end their careers, or have extreme difficulty in getting work, he is now in demand.

Respect means that the tendency of the media to create rumors about the woman in question should not happen. Respect means that whatever her reason to be in the car is private and not fodder for Entertainment Tonight, The Globe, or the gossip blogs.

I do not presume anything about the woman in the car. I don’t know of her, and really don’t want to. But I shudder to think that the Freeman family may be dragged through the mud because some media outlet will hope to increase ratings and circulation. No one deserves that kind of treatment, especially after an accident, especially at 71.

So I hope Mr. Freeman and the lady in the accident are well. I wish them swift recoveries. And I have my fingers crossed that Paris Hilton or Britney Spears will do yet another stupid thing to keep the dogs of journalism away.

Teen pregnancy: the Hollywood connection

I recently noticed a couple of things about various celebrities and entertainers that are either giving birth, pregnant, or otherwise in an issue with their children. It’s been hard to not notice this of course, just scanning cable channels will give you all the facts you could care less about (or at least I do) in 15 seconds or less.

But there is a bit of other news that factors directly with that. Far less covered or mentioned is the fact that teen births are up. Not a lot but up all the same.

In the past year we got to hear about Jamie Lynn Spears. Very young, unwed, and now a parent. The fact that she is currently engaged to the father of her child does not change the fact that she was unwed when she got pregnant at 16. The fact she is looking to live in Louissianna to give her child a “normal life” belies the fact that it’s really not possible since she is so young, no matter what money she has made or her celebrity status. In fact, if we look at most young Hollywood entertainers, the money and celebrity status make them even less normal than their peers. Adding a baby just ups the ante on this.

Yet she is being placed on magazine covers like she won an Oscar Award.

Of course there is always the older Britney Spears. Hollywood fame, money, and celebrity status has done wonders for her. I’m sure her children won’t be the least bit screwed up, nor have any affect on their cousins.

Then there are the older celebrities. Matthew McConaughey just received a healthy 7 lb 4 oz son. He is unwedded to the mother. Nicole Kidman just had her 6 lb 8 oz daughter. She is unwedded to the father Keith Urban. Jessica Alba had her daughter recently and is unwedded. Nicole Ritchie and Halle Berry can say the same. And Clay Aiken can’t even say that he has a girlfriend he got pregnant. His friend/producer Jaymes Foster was artificially inseminated and though they are not a couple will share parenting.

Can Hollywood get any more screwed up?

Now I know there are feminists and others that will say this is all positive. That it shows women can raise their kids without help. That each of these couples love each other (with the exception of Aiken I suppose) and that is all that matters.

Bullshit.

I know women can be great mothers and raise children by themselves. I know because my mother is a strong Black woman that raised me and my siblings. Her 4 children have all gone to college, 2 own houses, all are well-employed and successful. And she did this on an income most would be shocked to know of. Suffice to say there were days mom did not eat.

But that is a great success story. And my mother had her first child (me) in a world that was far different than today [and my mother is still 30, don’t you dare question her age]. Then the world was kinder, people cared and helped to a degree. Kids playing on the block had every parent on the street watching out for them. Today you’d be lucky to have someone notice your kid exists (if they aren’t doing something wrong to that person’s property).

And children today are having kids in numbers that are unprecedented. It’s not just a few girls having kids without any fathers. It’s most of them. And they don’t have skills, unless you consider text messaging a skill. And like most of the youth today they are clueless. [Sorry to my young readers, but on average the youth of today have the common sense and abilities of 6th graders back when I was young.]
And their numbers are increasing.

“In 2007, 57 percent of children were white, non-Hispanic, 21 percent were Hispanic, 15 percent were black, 4 percent were Asian, and 4 percent were of all other groups. …

The report describes a long-term increase in the unmarried birth rate between 1960 and 1994, followed by a "relatively stable" unmarried birth rate between the mid-1990s and 2002 and a rapid rise since 2002. A related measure, the proportion of births to unmarried women, also saw an increase; 38 percent of all births were to unmarried women in 2006, up from 37 percent of births in 2005….

The adolescent birth rate (among married and unmarried adolescents) increased from 21 births per 1,000 teenage girls ages 15–17 in 2005 to 22 births per 1,000 girls in 2006. The 2006 increase was the first seen in this measure since the increase between 1990 and 1991…”

Do the numbers sound huge? Well look at in a different way. There are roughly 22,500,000 teenagers in the nation right now (my quick math). If we just look at girls we get about 11,475,000. That means about 546,000 are pregnant right now. That is larger than virtually every city that I have a reader in, across the globe.

Is this all the fault of Hollywood? Of course not. But when children are making pacts because they want attention and think being pregnant is cool, and Jamie Lynn Spears is on the cover of magazines I see a correlation.

50 years ago there was a shame to being an unwed mother. That was wrong. But Hollywood supported that image. Today Hollywood supports the thought that being a teenager and pregnant is the new James Dean. That is equally wrong.

Maybe it won’t sell as many magazines, or get people to watch the latest celebrity news show, but how about we admonish this reckless action in Hollywood. Just a little. Or do we have to wait for the unwed daughters of the Hollywood moguls and Congress to get pregnant (or god forbid infected with an STD like AIDS – another factor that is connected) before anything is said??

Who the Oscar Awards didn't honor - 2.26.2008.1

So the Oscar Awards are over, and most of America neither cared nor knew the films that won. I was going to mention how irrelevant the Oscars were this year. That there is often no connection between what is nominated or wins and what the world actually thinks is a good film. But something far more important has come up.

Yes there was Daniel Day Lewis winning best actor in a film you didn’t see, Javier Bardem (a guy you don’t know) won best supporting actor in a film you didn’t see. Marion Cotillard (don’t know her either) won in a film you probably didn’t know existed, and Tilda Swinton won in Michael Clayton – which you probably know because George Clooney was in it, but few actually saw. And No Country For Old Men won best picture.

Now it’s important to realize that between these films that have no commercial importance and the fact that the Writer’s Guild strike lowered expectations, that there were things that slipped through the fingers of the Awards show. A major mistake, that I feel was a deliberate and obvious slap in the face. And this has been completely glossed over by the major media.

Whoopi Goldberg was slapped by the Oscar Awards. And Hollywood counted on the fact no one was watching to do it.

In a montage highlighting the Oscar Award hosts every host was shown, except Whoopi Goldberg and Steve Martin. What makes it so much worse, in regard to Whoopi Goldberg, is the fact that besides being the second Black woman to win an Oscar since Haddie McDaniels (back in 1939), she is one of 10 people to have ever won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony Award. Whoopi Goldberg has been in 150 films, was the highest paid actress in the 1990’s, is a founding member of Comic Relief that raised money for the homeless, and was host of the Oscar Awards 4 times.

Now you might wonder how I learned this. Well it’s not from YouTube. You won’t find anything on it there. It wasn’t the major cable news media, they were busy discussing how Gary Busey gave a hug that surprised an actress who last starred in a film as Elektra – a box office bomb. Luckily it showed up on yahoo, and after a good deal of searching I found 2 sites that have the news of this slap in the face. One is an Asian site, the other in English. Here is the video clip.



So why did Hollywood make an obvious and intentional affront of one of the most famous, talented, successful, and respected Black female actress and comedienne? I don’t know why exactly, but I am sure they thought no one would notice because no one was watching.

But now that you know, what do you think?

Will Smith vindicated - 2.22.2008.1

Well here is something else that you probably won’t see in the news in the U.S. today. Not long ago I wrote a post in regard to the well publicized article of one reporter claiming that Will Smith thought Hitler was a ‘good guy’ in essence. The major news media focused on this like vultures, in another example of what I believe is their deep seated need to promote negative images of successful African Americans.

At the time I stated

“This applies to the Will Smith lead character Neville in I am Legend. For those that are not familiar with the original book, or the prior 3 movies, Neville is the bad guy. He is the monster in the night that kills people in their sleep. He is the Dracula, or Frankenstein’s monster. He is the thing under the bed. Net result, he is the bad guy that the people of the world fear, and speak of in legends and ghost stories late at night…

There is no reason to slap the image and personal character of Will Smith. It’s an affront I have never seen made of any other actor. I have heard dozens of actors of note that have made similar statements when portraying questionable or reviled characters. None have ever been accused of promoting the base nature of the character they portray.

You have never heard say Kevin Kline advocating animal cruelty or violence (Fish Called Wanda), or Al Pacino advocating devil worship (The Devil’s Advocate). How about Al Pacino being a role model for cocaine use (Scarface), Sir Anthony Hopkins being Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs), or Henry Fonda as an assassin for hire (Once Upon a Time in the West). Of course not. To claim such a thing is ridiculous. But if you look at each character you can see where they have a motivation that is positive (from the bad guys perspective) and that makes the character engaging and deeper.”

But the major media never once made a similar connection or observation. I never noted this commentary in cable or television news and celebritiy telezine shows. They left the commentary, in general, that the comment made by Will Smith was odd and that he was upset. Thankfully they at least mentioned his statement about the article.

But a casual glance will show you that NOONE is covering the fact that a court has awarded Will Smith damages, vindicating his point that this article was misleading, damaging, and an embarrassment. He will also be receiving a public apology, not that the U.S. media is going to cover a second of this.

How do I know this? Because I found this news on Haaretz.com. Not on yahoo or via a cable news channel. The major U.S. media is too busy discussing how unfair and inaccurate the NY Times article against Senator McCain was (and I agree).

Is this different in any way the media covered ther Wesley Snipes trial, who was similarly vindicated? No. Was it different in the way the media ignored the Jena 6? Or the brutal and vile toture, rape, sexual abuse, and kidnapping of Megan Williams of West Virginia – or the fact that 3 of the 6 White men and women arrested for these crimes that covered an entire week have already plead guilty as charged.

I hate that examples like this exist. That discussion of the Oscar Awards, for movies the average American has not seen and an event that is not cared about this year, takes precidence. That the media wasted no time nor money in each of these events to glorify the negative view of African Americans, even if that view failed to convey the true facts and full scope of events.

Well I will simply say this. Congratulations Will Smith. I hope that the public apology will be able to be found here in the U.S. (if any of my readers in Britian see it, please forward me the link) and I will happily republish it. The major news media may not be able to cover the positive news related to African Americans (entertainers, celebrities or otherwise) – as they are too busy covering the birthday of Ashton Kuchner and obviously don’t employ enough people – but I will!

Why current Oscar Award choices lack interest

I was watching The O’Reily Factor, which I watch most every day, and Dennis Miller was doing his weekly spot on the show. The discussion encompassed the Oscar Awards, and Dennis Miller mentioned the fact that several nominated and winning films of the past could never be made today. I agree with that.

So I decided to go through a list of all the movies I have seen that have been nominated or won an Oscar Award. To that end I only selected films that I have seen, and range from the start of Oscar nominations up to 1984. Where there are movies that have been remade (some several times) I have gone with the original movie.

To simplify this list a bit, I’m grouping the movies into groups based on the reason it can be made today. I will add that several of the movies, if remade now, would have their theme and emphasis massively re-written. Wining movies are identified with a w.

[By the way, I recommend seeing all these movies, and M – a German film starring Peter Lorie.]

Movies that can’t be made because they promote America – A common theme now is that America is evil and our military is cruel. At least many in Hollywood would like you to think that.

Sergeant York
Yankee Doodle Dandy
The Best Years of Our Lives - w
It's a Wonderful Life
Miracle on 34th Street
Mister Roberts
The Alamo
M*A*S*H

Movies that are anti-Feminist

Captain Blood
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
Gone with the Wind
The Wizard of Oz
Casablanca
The Best Years of Our Lives - w
It's a Wonderful Life
The Quiet Man
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
12 Angry Men - if only for the title if not the casting
The Alamo
The Guns of Navarone
West Side Story – w
How the West Was Won
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
In the Heat of the Night – w
M*A*S*H
A Clockwork Orange
Sounder

Movies that offend various special interest groups

Sergeant York – Germans
Cleopatra (1934) – Africans/ Blacks/Arabs (none of which are White)
The Gay Divorcee – Title insults Gays
The Thin Man – not sensitive to overweight people
Gone with the Wind – w – African Americans
Of Mice and Men (1939) – Tthe mentally challenged
The Wizard of Oz – Height challenged
The Best Years of Our Lives – w – Disabled Vets
It's a Wonderful Life – lack of minorities
Miracle on 34th Street – insensitive to non-Christian religions
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre - Mexicans
The Quiet Man - Irish
Shane – Native American Indians
Mister Roberts - Japanese
The King and I - Asians
The Ten Commandments – Non-Christians
The Bridge on the River Kwai – w - Japanese
12 Angry Men – Puerto Ricans/Hispanics/Latinos
The Defiant Ones - Southerners
The Alamo – Mexicans
West Side Story – w- Puerto Ricans
Lawrence of Arabia – w- Arabs
To Kill a Mockingbird - Southerners
How the West Was Won – Mexicans/Native American Indians
In the Heat of the Night – w
Sounder – African Americans
Gandhi – w – Hindus
A Soldier's Story – African Americans

Movies that have African American leads, not involving them as drug addicts/dealers, not involving a holiday, family gathering or wedding, without a comedic plotline

The Defiant Ones
To Kill a Mockingbird
In the Heat of the Night – w
M*A*S*H (yes it’s comedic, and the only Black guy is called Spear Chucker; But he is a top class surgeon and respected by the leads)
Sounder
A Soldier's Story

Movies that would offend some religious or religious group

The Gay Divorcee
The Wizard of Oz
Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941)
The Bells of St. Mary's
It's a Wonderful Life
Miracle on 34th Street
The Quiet Man
The King and I
The Ten Commandments
M*A*S*H
Gandhi

Movies about wars that would be rewritten to change historical fact or make the enemy seem nicer

Gone with the Wind - w
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Casablanca - w
The Best Years of Our Lives - w
It's a Wonderful Life
Mister Roberts
The Bridge on the River Kwai – w
The Alamo
The Guns of Navarone
Lawrence of Arabia – w
The Longest Day
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
The Sand Pebbles

I could go on, but you get the point. A host of movies that are classics would never be done any more. Of the ones that would, the entire storyline would be redone to facilitate various groups, and ruin the story.

The recent remake of Robin Hood with Kevin Costner is a great example. Did they really need Morgan Freeman in the film? Did the fact of the Crusades occurring in that time help the story at all? And there was the re-write of Disney’s version of the attack at Pearl Harbor. I believe the remake of the Alamo was historically wrong too.

Protests from various orthodox (more like fanatical) religious groups assuredly would surround The Wizard of Oz, due to witches that many movies recently have seen. It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street, and The Ten Commandments would all be attacked in a similar manner as was The Passion of the Christ.

And not a single movie that shows America being a positive force in the world could get past the extreme left wing groups that have continued to fund and promote the miserable flops like Sicko, Redacted and Lions for Lambs.

Oh, I would support the blocking of a film like The Ten Commandments and Cleopatra on the basis that Egyptians are African, not White. No matter how many times these films are remade or colorized, Blacks are Black even if they are from North Africa. It’s insulting to portray them as otherwise. I mean if there was an all Black version of The Guns of Navarone it wouldn’t make a hell of a lot of sense now would it?

When you think about it, the reasons why movies like all the above, and others like Sergeant Rutledge, don’t get made anymore are stupid. No wonder we are left with endless remakes (The Invasion, The Honeymooners, Who’s Your Caddy, and occasionally a decent but ultimately disappointing plot changed I Am Legend), prequels (Hannibal Rising, AVP:Requiem), and miserable original films based on everything but a good idea (Bratz, Hulk, AVP, I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Transformers, Sex in the City, Codename: The Cleaner, and the list goes on).

Which do you prefer: Razzie or Oscar Awards?

On lighter news, the Oscar nominations are out. Yet again there is a list of movies that no one has seen, nor interested in going to see. Yet again better movies and actors are being ignored completely. Yet again Hollywood disconnects from the average American.

Not that any of this is a new thing. And some of the actions are not surprising. I mean Denzel Washington will not receive another Oscar probably for some time, if ever again. Why? Because he has already won an Oscar, and once you win you often get place in the back of the list for a while. Exceptions exist for that rule, notably Tom Hanks, but it is a general rule that once you win you won’t win again for a long time, no matter how good you are or the films you are in.

So don’t expect to see Jaime Foxx, Eddie Murphy, Jennifer Hudson, Denzel, Halle Berry, or a host of others any time soon. The fact that everyone I just mentioned is Black is secondary to my prior point. The abovementioned are prominent in that the Oscar Academy is almost a half-century behind the American movie-goers in recognizing the ability of African American, Hispanic/Latino, and other minority entertainers. That goes for directors, movies, genres, actors/actresses, and virtually ever individual behind the camera lens that helps to create the films we love.

[Special interest should have been noted for Don Cheadle and his movie Darfur Now. He is one of the few Americans, and even fewer celebrities/entertainers that are out there trying to improve the lives of millions that deserve and need it.]

So rather than discuss the constant myopia that the Oscar Academy views films via, I will instead speak about the Razzies. They are the recognition of the absolute worst films that are churned out each year. In general these awards are more in line with what the average person feels, and is unbiased in terms of race.

The nominees this year include the following:

Worst Picture
Bratz – ** anorexic dolls with attitudes on film- Joy!
Daddy Day Camp
I Know Who Killed Me
I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Norbit

Worst Actor
Nicolas Cage, in Ghost Rider, National Treasure and Next
Jim Carrey, The Number 23
Cuba Gooding, Jr., Daddy Day Camp and Norbit
Eddie Murphy, Norbit
Adam Sandler, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry – ** Did he really think this would work, or did they pay him a lot of money?

Worst Actress
Jessica Alba, Awake, Fantastic Four, and Good Luck Chuck - ** sort of cute, but no ability and the movies she’s in prove it
Logan Browning, Janel Parrish, Nathalia Ramos AND Skyler Shaye, Bratz (real close with Alba)
Elisha Cuthbert, Captivity
Diane Keaton, Because I Said So
Lindsay Lohan, I Know Who Killed Me

Worst Supporting Actor
Orlando Bloom, Pirates of the Caribbean
Kevin James, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Eddie Murphy, Norbit
Rob Schneider, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Jon Voight, Bratz, National Treasure September Dawn and Transformers - ** Because of Bratz, but Transformers was a waste as well

Worst Supporting Actress
Jessica Biel, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Carmen Electra, Epic Movie
Eddie Murphy (as Rasputia), Norbit
Julia Ormond, I Know Who Killed Me
Nicolette Sheridan, Code Name: The Cleaner - ** An obvious winner! Please no more films starring Cedric

Worst Screen Couple
Jessica Alba & either Hayden Christensen in Awake; Dane Cook in Good Luck Chuck; or Ioan Gruffudd in Fantastic Four - ** winner for Fantasic Four, no chemistry or even talent there
Any Combination of Two Totally Air-Headed Characters in Bratz
Lindsay Lohan and Lindsay Lohan in I Know Who Killed Me
Eddie Murphy (as Norbit) & either Eddie Murphy (as Mr. Wong) or Eddie Murphy (as Rasputia) in Norbit
Adam Sandler & either Kevin James or Jessica Biel in I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry

Worst Remake or Ripoff
Are We Done Yet? (remake of Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House)
Bratz (A rip-off if there ever was one)
Epic Movie (Rip-off of every movie it rips off)
I Know Who Killed Me (Rip-off of Hostel, Saw and The Patty Duke Show)
Who's Your Caddy (Rip-off of Caddy Shack) - ** while the host of films that are horrible or blatant rip-offs and remakes of far better films, this had to be the most poorly done concept yet

Worst Prequel or Sequel
Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
Daddy Day Camp
Evan Almighty
Hannibal Rising - ** they were drunk when they gave this a greenlight right? Drunker still when they didn’t go straight to DVD I bet
Hostel: Part II

Worst Director
Dennis Dugan, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Roland Joffe, Captivity
Brian Robbins, Norbit
Fred Savage, Daddy Day Camp - **Funny is not in your vision
Chris Siverston, I Know Who Killed Me

Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie
Aliens vs Predator: Requiem - **Hey why follow any of the established rules or concepts behind the actual success and interest in the original movies. Screw it up in ever more boring ways and be original
Captivity
Hannibal Rising
Hostel: Part II
I Know Who Killed Me

Now that is a group of horrendous films. I could add a few easily to that list, and in fact I did with my review of 2007 movies. How Codename: The Cleaner, Underdog, and The Invasion missed all these lists amazes me.

But Bratz, a film dedicated to anorexia, poor attitudes and the dolls that promote it, easily belongs here. Did anyone even see the film? My winners were noted in the lists above.

I want to bring up another list I mentioned last year.

“I equally reveled in the failure of equally America hating films Rendition, Lions For Lambs, and Redacted. The abject failure of these films to garner any interest is a testament to the good taste of everyone except the people who greenlighted them. I can only hope that the actors in these films were doing them for the paychecks and not their political views. I would also say that if the producers and writers of these films feel that strongly (especially Mark Cuban) give up your citizenship and move to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or any other nation that will take you. I will not mourn your loss or the money you have.”

Every movie in that quote should get a special Razzie for America hating, Bin Laden loving, MoveOn.org loving, loserfest!

Well those are my thoughts. I hope this year will be better, but if Hollywood is anything it’s consistent.

Is TMZ right about Robin Thicke and the BET Awards? - 6.14.2007.1

TMZ.com has just reported on the chance of Mr. Robin Thicke winning the BET Award for either Viewer’s Choice or Best Male categories. While TMZ was a bit smarmy in their comments it is an interesting question.

There is no question that the Oscar Awards made a point of not selecting African Americans for nomination or a win for decades. I spoke about the snubs the Oscars recently made against Dreamgirls and Mr. Eddie Murphy.

“I’m speaking about the omission of Dreamgirls from the Best Picture category. I’d love to hear the justification for this. In 79 years, the total time Oscar Awards have been around, there has never been a leading nominee not also being in Best Picture.”

And

“The difference in what the public feels was a great performance and what the Academy deems award-winning is a vast ocean apart. I’m referring to the loss of Mr. Eddie Murphy. Widely held as the best performance in his acting career, winning several awards leading to this ceremony and then snubbed.”

Similar snubs have happened in music, but that barrier was broken years ago. I recall hearing about advertisments made on behalf of Mr. Elvis Presley, stating that people should buy his version of certain songs and not the ‘colored’ version (I think Hound Dog was one of them). Thankfully those days are long past. Or are they?


Is there a difference in the BET Awards not nominating more White entertainers and that of the Oscars apparent prejudice to Black entertainers? I realize that the BET Awards have nominated White performers before, 2 to be exact, and they did not win. I realize that Mr. Thicke may not win, the competition is strong. Mr. Thicke is up against Akon, Mr. John Legend, Ms. Beyonce Knowles, Ciara and several others. But is this the discrimination that seems to be implied by TMZ?

I can’t say, I don’t watch award shows. In addition I don’t listen to most hip-hop or R&B music these days (as can be guessed by my other posts I’m not a fan of gansta rap). I tend to enjoy classical (love Beethoven) and rock&roll more. [Sadly there are few African American entertainers in rock, which is a shame as I have to believe Living Color, Fishbone, and Mr. Lenny Kravitz are not the full range of what could be offered.] Still this is a question I am wondering about.

Since I don’t know enough to make a comment on one side or the other, I ask what you think. Has the BET Awards acted like the Oscars in restricting who gets nominated? IF they have is that wrong?

This is what I think, what do you think?

The surprise about broadcast television - 3.14.2007.2

The key is the quality of the program. For that matter it is the quality of the medium, whether movies or plays or television, that determines viewability. The FX Network program Thief may not have lead the ratings, but I bet it’s ratings would be on par with or better than half the broadcast television shows on today. Yet broadcast television won’t touch such a show. Even with the fact that the top shows of today get fewer viewers that the middle of the road shows of the 70’s (due to DVD’s, VOD, cable and so forth) and a dirth of programs highlighting this untapped market, executives are holding on to what is a staple of the ‘I wish it was 1950 again’ mentality.

It was that mentality that prevented any African American actor or actress from getting recognition at the Oscar Awards for decades. [Directors as well, notably Mr. Spike Lee for Malcolm X] Thankfully part of that hurdle has been broken, partially, though the slap in the face to Dreamgirls (first movie in 79 years to have the most award nominations and not get nominated for Best picture) and the subsequent snub of Mr. Eddie Murphy highlight the fact that the 98% majority of Oscar voters have not completely seen the light.

It was mentioned in the Yahoo article that Roots is still the most watched mini-series ever. The reasoning given is that it was a special event and thus free of the guiding forces that pertain to broadcast television. Right, how about another heaping spoonful of that stuff. More likely is the fact that Roots was a well acted, well-funded, intelligently written program, based in fact, that had appealled to every African American in the nation as well as non-minorities. Perhaps if there were other well written, produced, and directed programming the same would happen. Instead we see money thrown at sitcoms [mostly ill-conceived, poorly acted, yet virtually the only option, akin to drinking sand because there is no water in my opinion] and starved from dramas where the lead is non-White.

I see it as a barrier that no one likes to talk about. It’s like reparations, or an apology for slavery. Mention it and red flags pop up everywhere and no one wants to listen. The fact that a logical and sound argument for change can be made has no bearing on the reaction. Because the entire reasoning made implies that if non-minorities cannot connect with a lead that is not EXACTLY like them, Mr. Denzel Washington, Mr. Samuel Jackson, Mr. Wesley Snipes, Mr. Will Smith and others could not have leading roles in movies and command $20 million per film. According to the logic presented, maybe they could have one film, out of the group of them, but not a couple of dozen that exists in the real world.

I am angered by the supposition that African Americans can only excel at comedies and as non-lead characters. Black Americans can present more depth than a character that is being, “…laughed with them and at them,” as Mr. Brooks stated. Such a shallow view is undeserved, and if any apology need be made it should be to the actors and the nation for inferring such impotence.

Finished in Part 3...

And the winners are - 2.25.2007.1

So the Oscars Awards have been handed out. As always there were a few surprises a few let downs and a couple of sure things. I was glad to hear of Ms. Jennifer Hudson’s win. I’m very glad to know that Mr. Forest Whitaker received recognition for his performance in The Last King of Scotland. As my choices go those were right on the mark.

Of course there was the win by Mr. Martin Scorsese for his movie The Departed. Considering how many times he has been nominated there is no shock in his win. The Academy definitely lives up to it’s history of rewarding today for actions in the past. While there are stand-out moments, and big wins for deserving newcomers, like Ms. Hudson, generally winners in the top categories are those with long histories.

Of course the recent wins by Mr. Jamie Foxx and Mr. Whitaker do seem to fly in the face of that. Not to mention the Oscar Academy’s penchant for ignoring any non-white performers. Yet there is still the fact that Dreamgirls was historically not nominated for best picture. Historical in that it was the first time that the film with the most nominations was not also nominated for best picture. Perhaps the fact that only 1.9% of the Academy is African American (out of 5830 members) has had something to do with that.

And yet the Oscar Academy was very consistent in nominating films that the general public never saw, and most likely never will. The difference in what the public feels was a great performance and what the Academy deems award-winning is a vast ocean apart. I’m referring to the loss of Mr. Eddie Murphy. Widely held as the best performance in his acting career, winning several awards leading to this ceremony and then snubbed. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that his next film, Norbit, was a comedy and low-brow. Of course it was made well in advance of the release of Dreamgirls or the Oscar nominations. Comedy is what he has built his career upon. Not that that is a positive in the eyes of the Academy. Some have noted that his joking manner at the Screen Actors Guild Award cost him. Let me say it again, comedian.

Well given the snub of Dreamgirls, and Mr. Murphy I am left with a single thought. I hope that directors will not ignore Mr. Murphy and his abilities.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Screen Actor's Guild Award winners - 1.29.2007.2

Excuse me for a moment as I take a second to give myself a bow. Yes I got 5 out of 7 right – 71% - which I call pretty respectable. If you are wondering why I’m so pleased with myself, of the guesses I made on January 9th for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards [Bad films and Screen Actors Guild Awards hopefuls - 1.9.2007.1] I came pretty close to a clean sweep.

Not too bad for a regular guy. Perhaps the Oscar Award voters are paying attention. They should be. Considering how they have completely disconnected with the public, again, in not nominating Dreamgirls for Best Picture. I would love to hear the reasoning on why it was not nominated. I will give the SAG Awards the benefit of doubt on Little Miss Sunshine, at least they recognized the talent in Dreamgirls by giving them a nomination for best ensemble (basically best picture).

The snub really irritates me. 8 Oscar nominations, but not best picture. Never in 79 years has the leading nominated film not been a best picture. If it is so highly regarded how can it not also be best picture? This reminds me of the fear in 1993, when Malcolm X was not nominated for best picture, nor Mr. Spike Lee for best director. Yet there was large critical acclaim for the film, it won several awards (lesser ones but still won all the same), and Mr. Denzel Washington was easily recognized for his portrayal. In that case though I think the political commentary of Mr. Malcolm X was too much for the predominantly liberal white Oscar committee. [By the way I think this was the reason Mr. Washington won the Oscar. Often the Oscars will give a deserving actor/actress an award in a later good movie for a phenomenal role they were passed over on previously.]

The excuse for Dreamgirls escapes me. It’s popular, making money, still in movie theaters, well done and critically acclaimed – even before the Oscar nod. The only reason I can see for it to get snubbed as it has is a horrible and deplorable reason. I can only hope that isn’t the reason.

But to get back to the point of this post, I am sure that my winning choices will win the Oscar Awards as well. The choices that apply anyway. My congratulations to the winners, Mr. Hugh Laurie (you really should see him play the title character House. Biting wit and sarcasm matched with intense ability. Well written and balanced by an excellent cast), Mr. Forest Whitaker (a long time favorite of mine. His work in Ghost Dog is especially good, though his role as Idi Amin is even better), Mr. Eddie Murphy (I spoke about him in What does Eddie Murphy make you think of? - 12.22.2006.1), Ms. Jennifer Hudson and all the other winners.

Now let’s see how I do for the Oscars.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Historically bad Oscar omission, great Razzie choices - 1.23.2007.1

Ok, I’m shocked. This took me completely by surprise. Whoever is on the nominating committee for the Oscar’s should be checked for drug use, in my opinion they are acting like they are on crack. Perhaps that’s too harsh but I still think the dramatic move away from tradition is severely unwarranted. Of the few historic moments in Oscar history, this is not the one most might have hoped for.

I’m speaking about the omission of Dreamgirls from the Best Picture category. I’d love to hear the justification for this. In 79 years, the total time Oscar Awards have been around, there has never been a leading nominee not also being in Best Picture. It’s more than an a snub its an insult. Perhaps those that chose felt a Golden Globe win was enough, or that Mr. Martin Scorsese has earned a win. I would hate to think it was a remnant of the ‘old boys club’ mentality.

With 8 nominations I think Dreamgirls deserves the nomination. I am not shocked with the nominations of Mr. Eddie Murphy and Ms. Jennifer Hudson. I had picked them earlier in the month to win the Screen Actors Awards and the Globes. I feel Mr. Murphy will get the win, as he has had many films over the years and most have been well liked. In addition it’s time that recognition be given to his ability, as I mentioned in December he has played more characters in a single film more times than any other actor to my knowledge. Mr. Murphy’s current portrayal is just the feather in a cap of a career filled with memorable roles.

Sadly, I don’t think Ms. Hudson will win for the same reason that Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Forest Whitaker will win. They all have a body of work with many powerful performances behind them. Mr. Jamie Foxx has already won, deservedly for Ray, and Mr. Will Smith has been nominated before.

I will say that it is interesting to note how many deserving African American actors are getting noticed for the roles they should be noticed for, since the win by Mr. Denzel Washington. After decades of being ignored, en masse, it’s refreshing to see the change. Still I think Dreamgirls is being affected by the same thing that hit Mr. Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, it’s a subject the Academy doesn’t want to look at.

On the other side of the movie industry, there are the Razzie Awards. How they were able to whittle down the numerous losers from last year it’s hard to say. One pick I had thankfully forgotten was Little Man. Mr. Keenen Ivory Wayans is a great director, and his comedic instinct is usually on the mark. Still there is only so much that can be done with material like the stuff of that movie. Then again it was a far better film than the forgettable Basic Instinct 2.

But it was a bad year for big names overall. Many of the normally steady actors made choices I have to imagine were just for the money being offered. Mr. Robin Williams, Mr. Tim Allen, Mr. Nicolas Cage all had films that just didn’t match up to the films they usually work in. Well anyone can make a mistake from time to time. Of course the people greenlighting films like Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, The Shaggy Dog (remake), and the multitude of needless sub-par remakes [mentioned in my recap of the worst films of 2006] get it wrong far too often. There should be Razzie’s for worst greenlight, most remakes okayed without any idea what the original was, and most likely to buy an ice cube in Alaska during a snowstorm in winter (executives and movie companies only).

This is what I think, what do you think?

Award shows

So I am just getting ready to go to bed when I recalled something that I though was worthy of note. Yes I get ideas at odd times, I'm a nite owl. I can't take credit for this, David Spade on his show The Showbiz Show had spoken about the plethora of Black/African American themed Award shows.

He did hit a cord on that one as he is right. With the Oscars, finally, acceptance of the fact that there are a number of Black actors worthy of recognition, such as Denzel Washington (though not for that role in my opinion) and Jamie Foxx (definiately for that role), is this the time to splinter off and have exclusive Awards?

Yes, 30 or more years ago, even 10ish years ago I could see the need. But now after making strides and getting the confirmation of peers long overdue, what's the point. Do movies like the remakes of the Honeymooners, Who's Coming Home to Dinner or original movies such as whatever Friday is the latest or Soul Plane really deserve to be given awards? Yes, the oversights (or slap in the face if you preffer) to movies like Spike Lee's Malcolm X are hard to forget, but where have the serious films worth consideration gone.

I doubt if any of the rappers-can-act-too-I-think movies are anywhere above a bad rating, and far from an Oscar caliber performance. The actors who deserve the opportunity to shine, like Morgan Freeman, Queen Latifah (a rare exception to the rapper rule) and others shouldn't be bogged down by the drive of major studios to cash in on the "If it stars Black actors we have to see it and support" attitude prevalent today.

Increasing the number of Award shows (which now includes Black Movie Awards, BET Awards, Source Hip Hop Awards and Vibe Awards - yes not all movies but the point still stands) does not help increase the quality of movies made, nor the ability of good actors getting the roles they deserve. I think it hinders them by reinforcing the notion in the public eye that Black actors can't pull off leading roles in non-Black oriented movies. If the public fails to see these movies the actors, directors and everyone else involved just had their chances drop precipitously[sp? not sure if its a word].

I mean to say that there aren't alot of movies for these Award show to present, of truely high caliber just as there aren't many for the Oscars. I mean a show where the Honeymooners lead is compared to Don Cheadle in Crash or Terence Howard in Hustle and Flow is sad.

And what does it say to the masses? That the best that can be offered is the occasional stand out actor - (I'm not forgetting the women, the list would be too long) like Mr. Howard, Foxx, Washington, Cheadle, Jasckson (Samuel) and Freeman - in the occassionaly stand out movie... but the meat and potatoes of black acting is Get Rich or Die Trying, Beauty Shop, or Guess Who?

I think we should expect more. I think that putting out Award shows, or movies for that matter, with the only goal of making quick cash from a cheap production because it's known that the culture wants to support and nurture and grow its talented people is sad.

What do you think?