toddly6666

CRASH (released in May 2005) is proof that Oscar-winning movies don't need to be released later in the year in order to get awards, nominations, money, etc. It's so lame that CINDERELLA MAN used that excuse that it didn't get noticed due to early release. CRASH was released a month earlier than CINDERELLA MAN. When are movie studios going to start spreading out good movies. You don't need a marketer or an industrial psychologist to tell a movie studio that people like to see "good" movies around Christmas. That's B.S. - people want to see a good movie any time of the year...

SMB-IL

The Academy was bombarded with 130,000 DVDs of Crash in November and December. Crash's win isn't proof of anything.

William Fuld

The early dvd release certainly seems to have had an effect. Lions Gate flooded the Academy membership with screeners, without fear of piracy, which might cause the major studios to rethink the late-December/January "award season" glut. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out next year.

DVD King

yeah it is, proof that the academy awards don't matter.

DRG

Well, regardless of Crash it appears the traditional "late-December limited release with a January wider rollout" plan kinda hurt a few movies this year. I think something like Munich might have actually done more business (and had a chance to build more buzz) if it was released on an average weekend away from the glut of "serious" Oscar-type movies. Also, the Weinsteins hedged their bets with The Matador, trying to get some noms with the slower rollout and instead missed out on major awards AND box office money.

PopcornTreeCt

Gladiator was released early in the year as well. This is nothing new. Please close thread before the 999th Crash bash gets rolling.

Giles

or even 'Match Point' for that matter.

Mr. Cinema

Lions Gate had 2 choices about their film that was released way back in May.

#1. Send out a shitload of screeners to the Academy members.

#2. Write notes saying "Don't forget about Crash!" and sending it to everyone.

Rather than rely on the memory of Academy members on a film released 7 months prior to December, I think #1 was the correct choice.

Giles

but 'Crash' was a LA film, the majority of the Academy members live and work in LA, they voted on what was essentially a home town product.

Jackskeleton

^ Maybe it was a representation of L.A. in the early 90's, but if anything I'm insulted that it would be considered a reflection of L.A.

So is that why Oscar type of films perform so poorly during summer? cinderella man was released in june and came in third for its opening weekend take in being beaten by "summer movies"

There is justification as to why they save Oscar type of films to the end of the year. Crash proves nothing other than undeserving films can win when the vote is seperated.

Doughboy

In defense of Munich, Spielberg had to rush to get the film completed in time for a late December release. I suppose he could've held it back til Fall 2006, but considering how pathetically weak the 2005 slate of Oscar hopefuls was(c'mon, Crash vs. Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture?!), he probably made the right call releasing it last year.

Cygnet74

nearly all of them are "hometown products". setting it in LA didnt give it any real advantage. and like jack said, it wasn't a realistic representation of race issues in the Los Angeles that I know.

also, if one is looking for proof that a movie doesn't need to be released late in the year to win best picture, take a look at silence of the lambs which was released in february 1991, over a year before it won best picture.

Giles

no, the win just made everyone in Tinseltown want to work with Paul Haggis - they gave him praise for 'Million Dollar Baby' - here's the ink that sealed the deal for future films.

Given the number of national and internatinal awards Brokeback won, it's quite revealing how or specifically why this film won the Academy's hearts. Ebert and the Chicago film reviewers awarded Crash as best picture of last year, yet nearly everyone else sided with Brokeback.

ShallowHal

Hey, if I were voting, I'd be grateful for the $8 I made on eBay.

HN

And Braveheart.

CRASH SUX@#$@#.

I kid. I loved Crash. Most movies i like have 1 or 2 really cool moments. Crash had like 3 or 4 edge-of-my-seat scenes.

DVDho78DTS

I think that is already evident with the endless amount of discussion over them.

Rogue588

Yes, because like everyone (the big O, the idiot who reviews with Ebert, other critics) said - Crash is one of the most important films in the history of modern cinema.

And, Cygnet's right about "Silence", but them were different times back then..

Dr. DVD

I saw Crash its opening weekend, one of the few who did. While I liked Brokeback, I liked Crash better, but I wanted Brokeback to win. I always had the feeling that if Hollywood had the opportunity to put fear of ticking off the American public and say "this is what we think is best for movies", this was it. But, in the end, I think that Brokeback losing was more of a business decision than anything else from all involved. Think about it, this is a year where they are trying to get people back to theaters, even going so far as to address it at the ceremony. Would it look good to (most of ) the people they want back to give the Best Picture award, the only one most people pay heed to (though Best Actress got a lot of attention in my area), to a film a lot of people would consider taboo on principle alone?
I am not claiming to be correct, but merely placing a theory based on the evidence available.

NatrlBornThrllr

I have an idea guys, let's have this conversation in as many separate threads as we can.

Dr. DVD

Internet Message Board post of the year!

Jackskeleton

Well, considering how many studios passed on CRASH and how it had to settle at lions gate, it's not a film that the studios felt that was something for the masses. If anything, it was just as big of a risk as Brokeback to say "this is what we say is the best of the year"

Oscar winners aren't suppose to be huge blockbusters. They aren't expected to do the big numbers. It's nice when it happens, but you have to seperate the blockbusters to the award contenders.

Terrell

No truer words have been spoken. Film criticism and opinion is an entirely subjective endeavor. That makes it impossible to pick a best of anything. So in my opinion that makes the Oscars pointless. An Oscar is a great honor for whomever receives it. But it is proof of nothing.

Dr. DVD

I risk getting off topic with this, but I must ask a question of somebody who can probably enlighten men. You say "they aren't expected to do the big numbers" of the Oscar winners. I interpret this as an explanation as to why so many smaller movies can pick up nominations, as they have a lower budget and can make it back with limited releases and smaller audiences. I guess what I'm asking is, can a film that everyone sees as great but costs considerably more than the average Best Picture nominee and doesn't perform up to standards have its award chances hurt more than one that is priced at a lower budget? I seem to get a vibe that the mindset is: "A good film is a good film, but if it spends upwards of $100 million to get made in order to get its nominations and only makes $70 million, we won't reward that kind of playing." (Gangs of New York, Cold Mountain, and King Kong come to mind.)
If Brokeback Mountain had cost about $100 million and wound up looking the same way it does now, would it still have gotten the accolades it did, or would it have been seen as a totally different film?

Palaver

Crash is proof that having Oprah on your side makes all the difference in the world. Never doubt the boundless power of the big O.

PopcornTreeCt

No, actually it's because everyone and their mother who posts on this forum bashes Crash.