New topic
Printableabierman said: VinnyM27 said: I'm sorry but that's where it ends! Hilary hasn't been in a movie that people have actually seen. "Million Dollar Baby" hasn't made "Silence Of the Lambs" money (keep in mind, adjusted for inflation, "Lambs" would have made much more than $130 it made in 1991...and it was released in Februrary so it didn't benefit from Oscar buzz like "Baby" will). I'd say give her time....but how much? I guess I'm just really into Jodie Foster so I don't see how they can compare aha, so it's about the money a movie makes.....that clears up a lot.....so you think Clint only won this year because the movie was released at a convenient time and the Academy thought that maybe he's too old to live until next year? 
'Passion' was overlooked as well this year, and the theme of that movie is at least as controversial for prude americans as MDB..... They were screaming Oscar when it was released. I believe if Gibson would have released the movie more strategically he would have had a shot, but 'Passion' is about the passing of Christ, hence the release around Spring last year (Eastern).....Gibson is a Jesus-freak and wanted to make a statement more than winning an Oscar. MDB is just a fine movie and won for the right reasons, and so did Swank. Remember, she won her first Oscar for a small movie.....there must be something she's doing right.....can't think of Foster doing things right lately, we all know she has the skills! I'm not knocking "Million Dollar Baby" but it's a very well known fact that mostof the movies that tend to get released in Decemeber (more accuratley, Christmas day and even the cut off date of 12/31) tend to get the nods. No, it isn't about money, but one thing that Jodie has for her is that she can get asses in the seats...."Million Dollar Baby" might be great but it needed Oscar buzz to get people to see it. Foster, BTW, only does movies when she wants to . She pretty much said that she was giving it up for producing and writing instead. Say what you want about Jodie Foster...she's a movie star and Hilary Swank isn't! She just wins Oscars because people hate Anette Bening (kidding...sort of...). | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
VinnyM27 said: abierman said: aha, so it's about the money a movie makes.....that clears up a lot.....so you think Clint only won this year because the movie was released at a convenient time and the Academy thought that maybe he's too old to live until next year?
'Passion' was overlooked as well this year, and the theme of that movie is at least as controversial for prude americans as MDB..... They were screaming Oscar when it was released. I believe if Gibson would have released the movie more strategically he would have had a shot, but 'Passion' is about the passing of Christ, hence the release around Spring last year (Eastern).....Gibson is a Jesus-freak and wanted to make a statement more than winning an Oscar. MDB is just a fine movie and won for the right reasons, and so did Swank. Remember, she won her first Oscar for a small movie.....there must be something she's doing right.....can't think of Foster doing things right lately, we all know she has the skills! I'm not knocking "Million Dollar Baby" but it's a very well known fact that mostof the movies that tend to get released in Decemeber (more accuratley, Christmas day and even the cut off date of 12/31) tend to get the nods. No, it isn't about money, but one thing that Jodie has for her is that she can get asses in the seats...."Million Dollar Baby" might be great but it needed Oscar buzz to get people to see it. Foster, BTW, only does movies when she wants to . She pretty much said that she was giving it up for producing and writing instead. Say what you want about Jodie Foster...she's a movie star and Hilary Swank isn't! She just wins Oscars because people hate Anette Bening (kidding...sort of...). I'm going to disagree with you on the Oscar buzz thing. Contrary to the awards season norm, Million Dollar Baby was not screened by Warner Brothers like Oscar contenders traditionally are. There was no pre-awards hype for it. Warner chose a lower profile release schedule, opened it small, and it built up its audience pretty much based on good word of mouth. They didn't funnel a lot of money into promoting it. With the exception of Mystic River, Clint Eastwood's movies have never been heavily promoted. I think you're being a little harsh on Hilary Swank. She won the Oscar because her performance bested Annette's. I finally saw Being Julia this weekend, and it wasn't that good a movie. Bening was the best thing about it, but her accent was off in the movie and her performance was too all over the place. It was geared to show her range; silly, because we already know she's got range. That - taken into consideration with the fact that the Academy doesn't like to award good performances in bad movies - is why she lost to swank. Bening is a good actress, but she just got beat twice by the same actress. And why is there not room for more than one good actress? Jodie Foster is one of the best in the business and one of the smartest women in Hollywood. That makes her bad decision in films lately all the more baffling. I'm not saying Swank hasn't made her share of bad films, because she certainly has. I truly think she's one of the best actresses of her generation, but she's got her faults. Jodie Foster is a seasoned actress who knows how to work and doesn't always need guidance. Swank, as good as she is, really needs a good director to point her in the right direction. I don't think her two Oscars are a fluke. She's likely to make more bad films (as is Jodie Foster), but I don't think this is her last great performance. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VinnyM27 said: ...she's a movie star and Hilary Swank isn't!
I think, as of last Sunday, this is not true.....just my two cents..... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RipHer2Shreds said: VinnyM27 said: I'm not knocking "Million Dollar Baby" but it's a very well known fact that mostof the movies that tend to get released in Decemeber (more accuratley, Christmas day and even the cut off date of 12/31) tend to get the nods. No, it isn't about money, but one thing that Jodie has for her is that she can get asses in the seats...."Million Dollar Baby" might be great but it needed Oscar buzz to get people to see it. Foster, BTW, only does movies when she wants to . She pretty much said that she was giving it up for producing and writing instead. Say what you want about Jodie Foster...she's a movie star and Hilary Swank isn't! She just wins Oscars because people hate Anette Bening (kidding...sort of...). I'm going to disagree with you on the Oscar buzz thing. Contrary to the awards season norm, Million Dollar Baby was not screened by Warner Brothers like Oscar contenders traditionally are. There was no pre-awards hype for it. Warner chose a lower profile release schedule, opened it small, and it built up its audience pretty much based on good word of mouth. They didn't funnel a lot of money into promoting it. With the exception of Mystic River, Clint Eastwood's movies have never been heavily promoted. I think you're being a little harsh on Hilary Swank. She won the Oscar because her performance bested Annette's. I finally saw Being Julia this weekend, and it wasn't that good a movie. Bening was the best thing about it, but her accent was off in the movie and her performance was too all over the place. It was geared to show her range; silly, because we already know she's got range. That - taken into consideration with the fact that the Academy doesn't like to award good performances in bad movies - is why she lost to swank. Bening is a good actress, but she just got beat twice by the same actress. And why is there not room for more than one good actress? Jodie Foster is one of the best in the business and one of the smartest women in Hollywood. That makes her bad decision in films lately all the more baffling. I'm not saying Swank hasn't made her share of bad films, because she certainly has. I truly think she's one of the best actresses of her generation, but she's got her faults. Jodie Foster is a seasoned actress who knows how to work and doesn't always need guidance. Swank, as good as she is, really needs a good director to point her in the right direction. I don't think her two Oscars are a fluke. She's likely to make more bad films (as is Jodie Foster), but I don't think this is her last great performance. I think there is room for Swank but even after two Oscars, she hasn't proved she is a movie star like Foster. I'm sorry, but she isn't close. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
abierman said: VinnyM27 said: ...she's a movie star and Hilary Swank isn't!
I think, as of last Sunday, this is not true.....just my two cents..... Well see....my two cents... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VinnyM27 said: RipHer2Shreds said: I'm going to disagree with you on the Oscar buzz thing. Contrary to the awards season norm, Million Dollar Baby was not screened by Warner Brothers like Oscar contenders traditionally are. There was no pre-awards hype for it. Warner chose a lower profile release schedule, opened it small, and it built up its audience pretty much based on good word of mouth. They didn't funnel a lot of money into promoting it. With the exception of Mystic River, Clint Eastwood's movies have never been heavily promoted. I think you're being a little harsh on Hilary Swank. She won the Oscar because her performance bested Annette's. I finally saw Being Julia this weekend, and it wasn't that good a movie. Bening was the best thing about it, but her accent was off in the movie and her performance was too all over the place. It was geared to show her range; silly, because we already know she's got range. That - taken into consideration with the fact that the Academy doesn't like to award good performances in bad movies - is why she lost to swank. Bening is a good actress, but she just got beat twice by the same actress. And why is there not room for more than one good actress? Jodie Foster is one of the best in the business and one of the smartest women in Hollywood. That makes her bad decision in films lately all the more baffling. I'm not saying Swank hasn't made her share of bad films, because she certainly has. I truly think she's one of the best actresses of her generation, but she's got her faults. Jodie Foster is a seasoned actress who knows how to work and doesn't always need guidance. Swank, as good as she is, really needs a good director to point her in the right direction. I don't think her two Oscars are a fluke. She's likely to make more bad films (as is Jodie Foster), but I don't think this is her last great performance. I think there is room for Swank but even after two Oscars, she hasn't proved she is a movie star like Foster. I'm sorry, but she isn't close. I agree that she's not a big star, but neither is Jodie these days. Either way, I've always been more impressed with good actors than I have with big stars. For me the days of big movie stars have long since passed. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |