I disagree...the Academy should loosen up and consider great comedies for nominations as well. I don't know if we need a ton of new categories, or even one more new category, but if they could manage to consider comedy actors along with dramatic actors for their existing categories, then that would be very good.

Most comedies are anything but great movies, and rarely have award-worthy performances. I don't watch the Oscars, though, so I can't comment on how often the few good comedic perfromances get nominated.

No, he's right. But the statement could be better worded as "Most movies are anything but great".

The Oscars reward good movies, not the slapstick shit Ferrell does.

No need for seperate categories.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Ah hell, just add the comedy category and then give the first "Best comedic performance" award to Jethro Tull.

Err. Stranger Than Fiction?

Also, can you really take anything Will Ferrell says seriously? When was the last time you saw him say anything in an interview that gave you the impression he actually meant what he said. He's almost always in character -- that character may be the public Will-Ferrell persona, but it's still a character.

And even if he were being serious in the moment from which this line were ripped, do you actually think he was referring to himself in something like Talladega Nights or Old School? Stranger Than Fiction maybe.

But -- with regard to this debate -- I don't think there should be a comedy Academy Award. But they do definitely need to do a better job of considering comedies. Sacha Baron Cohen and Steve Carrell... Debbie Reynolds in Mother, Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine or Truman Show as a few examples. The only types of comedies they reward are comedies that someone could also consider a drama: American Beauty, Little Miss Sunshine, Life is Beautiful, etc. Also, the Marisa Tomei argument applies but they'll give anyone a Supporting Actor/Actress Award. The rules don't apply here, however, because it's not Best Actor or Best Actress. These categories are reserved for serious performances and anything comedic seems to be viewed as less than art. This isn't fair, but it's the way the system works. And as witnessed by the Eddie Murphy denial this year and Jim Carrey in years past, their collective mentality even prevents comedic actors from receiving awards and nominations because of other work (past or current). No matter how many times you criticize Jim Carrey for talking out of his ass, it doesn't make him any less talented.

You might as well throw Bill Murray in there, although Jamie Foxx sort of breaks the theory apart. Maybe it helped that the Academy was less familiar with Foxx's comedic work so it was easier to ignore.

I think the problem is always going to be that even Oscar-nominated comedies will lean on the dramatic side a bit. Things like Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, and Lost in Translation are generally classified as comedies even though they have strong dramatic elements. But none of these films is a laugh riot, so to speak.

The question becomes, what makes a great comedy? Is it just a great movie that just happens to have a few laughs? Or is it a movie that has you laughing so hard it leaves you in tears, regardless of 'quality'?

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point. None of the quotes attributed to Ferrell in that article mention anything about a separate category for comedic performances. In fact, he says that there shouldn't be separate categories and that the Academy should just recognize comedic performances more often. And I, for one, agree.

The only types of "comedies" the Academy recognizes are of the Sideways or Little Miss Sunshine variety. While those films have comedic moments, I wouldn't classify them as comedies. Maybe I'm alone on that. But they don't fit my definition of being first and foremost a comedy.

The only Oscars actual comedies ever receive are in the supporting categories (Kevin Kline, Jack Palance, Marisa Tomei). And those are few and far between.

There shouldn't have to be a separate category to recognize comedy, just as there shouldn't have to be a separate category to recognize animation. The Academy just needs to be more open-minded. Just by looking at the vast majority of films they nominate, you'd think in order to be a quality picture it has to be a heavy drama. And that's just not true.

As a fan of comedy, I think it deserves more respect. And that's all I think Ferrell was saying, too.

Will Ferrell is just drumming up some controversy to get people to go see "Blades of Glory", otherwise the timing of his comments would remain suspect.

The academy is trying to award films for artistry and achievement. Most comedies, particularly the kind that Ferrell generally stars in, have the same plot. They just change the main characters occupation and make him or her obsessive about something different (the weather, christmas, stock car racing, etc). They are always almost exactly 90 minutes because they all follow the same basic structure. The acting is generally nothing more than exaggerated voices and faces. Most of the time these movies are what some refer to as "star vehicles". They are just made to cash in on a popular comedian (usually popularized by a variety show like Saturday Night Live). Although I'm not really a fan of these kinds of movies I'm not bashing those who are. You just need to understand that as far as judging film as an art form most Will Ferrell movies hold no merit. It's the same reason why popcorn flicks that we all love to go see every summer will never win best picture. They may win for sound or effects but thats about it. I see and enjoy these movies every summer and am not bothered in any way that the academy never recognizes them. Will Ferrell and fans of his work should also feel this way.

Will Ferrell is God-damn hysterical. He and his friends have saved comedy, and he's the new Bill Murray.

Frankly, there's a whole little movement that's come in, with Ferrell and Vince Vaughn and the Wilson brothers, and Steve Carrell, along with directors like Adam McKay and Judd Apatow, who are driving what can only be called a renaissance in American comedy. (Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David have to be credited as well, and before he was doing "The Office" Greg Daniels was turning out very funny stuff on "King of the Hill" for most of the 90's).

You may disparage goofy comedies, but, like all things, they can be done well and they can be done badly. "Ace Ventura," for example, is really bad. The stuff the Farrelly brothers do is really bad. "American Pie" is really bad.

"Anchorman," by contrast is incredibly good. "Talledega Nights" is not as good, but it is light years ahead of the ten minute shit scene in "Dumb and Dumber."

"The 40 Year Old Virgin" elevates both the romantic comedy and the sex comedy to something that's really unlike most genre entries, and is better than almost everything I've seen in the last couple of years.

Who says Ferrell was talking about himself or his comedies? I'm seldom a fan of Ferrell's comedies, so I'm surely not suggesting Anchorman is deserving of recognition. In fact, I hate that movie so much I don't think it's worthy of an MTV award. In general, I'm not a fan of the type of comedies you're referring to. An unoriginal comedy is as undeserving of praise as an unoriginal drama.

What you are suggesting with your argument is that comedies can never reach the level of achievement of more serious fare. And I think that's a ridiculous assumption, especially considering how hard it is to make people laugh.

I'm not saying it should be a requirement that the Academy recognize comedies. I'm not suggesting a quota. Just more of an acknowledgment that comedy is every bit as difficult to pull off as drama, if not more so.

There is always a sense that voters in the AMPAS are out of touch with contemporary trends in many categories even though the voting pool for each (except best pic) is limited (i.e. only actors vote in the acting category, directors in the directoring category, writers in the writing category, etc). So when one says "the academy" doesn't recognize enough comedic performances, the truth is probably that a large portion of the actors who do the voting must not hold to that old cliche about dying being easy and comedy being hard.

Mr. Ferrell, I am an admirer of many of your pictures, but, dude, get over it.

But this thread has already pointed out oscar-winning movies that are more serious but could still be considered comedies. Forrest Gump, American Beauty, Little Miss Sunshine, My Cousin Vinny and Life is Beautiful have all been mentioned. You may not feel they are as funny as Dodgeball but that doesn't stop them from being a form of comedy. I laughed throughout the Departed. I laughed more watching that movie than I did watching Elf, Dodgeball, Tommy Boy, Bruce Almighty, and countless others. Does that make it a comedy?

I meant it more as "Didn't Wahlberg already get nominated for a comedy performance?"

I just saw The Departed last night again and have to say that Wahlberg has almost no "unfunny" lines in there. Almost all of them have the effect of comedic relief. Damon also has a few "comedic" lines although that's not really his role.

With the trend in the last 10 years or so of actors being awarded for Best Impression, I think they should start giving out more specific awards anyway, so why not start including comedy?

You've gotta lay off the assumptions. I didn't think Dodgeball was a very good comedy, either. Aside from My Cousin Vinny, I wouldn't consider any of those films to be, first and foremost, a comedy. Again, they had comedic moments, but that doesn't make them comedies. Little Miss Sunshine was marketed as a comedy in order to piggyback off the success of Carell.

The comedy that has been mentioned in this thread numerous times that I would agree deserved more recognition is The 40-Year-Old Virgin. That is the funniest movie in probably the last decade. You may say that's just my opinion, but I know there are many who would agree with that opinion. I can even recall an EW article last year, in which each of their three anonymous Academy voters praised it, some going so far as to suggest it should have been nominated for best picture. But they knew it wouldn't, because of the way the majority of the Academy votes.

Those are the type of comedies I would like to see recognized; ones with actual stories, ones that make you laugh consistently throughout (and not by going for the cheap laugh), ones where actors create relatable characters and don't ham it up (a la Ben Stiller in everything). I hope that makes it clear that I'm not talking about Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell comedies here.

That is true of the voting once the nominee pool has been set. But all of the members vote to produce the pool. So it's kind of difficult to award them if they're not nominated.

Mijorico, I didn't mean that you personally liked Dodgeball. I was just referring to the general movie goer.

Yes, the 40 Year Old Version is more respectable than crappy Ben Siller movies but is it that different than the age-old formulaic romantic comedy? The male lead is likeable and you feel sorry for him/hope he gets a nice woman, the right woman seems to come along, things go great for a while, they hit a bump and break apart for a bit but they get back together in the end. The only difference here is that it's rated R and the "goal" is getting laid instead of just getting the girl.

As far as Carrell's acting performance, was it really that amazing of an acting job where it should be placed among the best of that year? He played the nice, likeable guy. This role is in every romantic comedy and Carrell did what he needed to do. I'm sure Woody Allen has played this role at least 20 times. Did Carrell do anything amazing or create a gripping or powerful portayal in any way? Obviously, it's a matter of opinion and in my opinion he certainly didn't. You may argue that his acting was competent AND he also makes you laugh. But any great dramatic actor can do the same. It's just that the movies they are in might have different intentions in the broader view of things.

Is that so? One would think that if all members would get to vote for each category it should come only after the field has been narrowed (presumably by the people with the respective expertise in the categories). The other way seems bass-ackwards if you ask me.

If you can't distinguish between "40 Year Old Virgin" and "Failure to Launch" or whatver the standard rom/com is, then I don't even know what to say to you. Part of the movie's concept is that it takes a bunch of characters who are walking punchlines and then fleshes them out instead of taking the easy jokes.

His performance was every bit as good as the lead performances in the predictable, mundane Oscar-bait dramas that come out every November. How is this undeserving, while a series of musician biographies, heavy with and redolent of their own bullshit, are lauded for their importance.

They're all the same. The guy does drugs, sings some songs, fucks, does some more drugs, loses control, makes a comeback.

It's different because it's good.

Most of the dramas that are recognized are not groundbreaking. They're simply well-executed.