|
Post by lightdion on Mar 17, 2006 4:07:10 GMT -5
DO YOU THINK IF THE MINISERIES WERE A MOVIE, WOULD IT HOLD A CANDLE TO BEING OSCAR NOMINATED? I SEE MOVIES LIKE "RAY" AND "CRASH" THAT WERE NOMINATED, AND I THINK THE TEMPTS. MOVIE WAS JUST AS GOOD (IF NOT BETTER) THAN THOSE MOVIES... WHAT SO Y'ALL THINK?
|
|
|
Post by D nice on Mar 17, 2006 11:25:22 GMT -5
I don't think so, they'd have a hard time leaving stuff out. I guess you could take out some stuff from the miniseries, but I don't really know what.
|
|
|
Post by soulfulchild on Mar 17, 2006 14:05:56 GMT -5
I don't know...I am a kind of with D nice.....though the miniseries is awesome and brings every emotion you have to the surface along with the great music and acting....it would stir up controversy and that could stand in the way of an oscar nomination. Ray was based off of a biography of his life told by himself to the main character. In the miniseries we have more than one guy and different versions of what really went down. If they could get to one movie where everything goes how it is without all the controversy..it would be okay....but at the same time would that be a movie people would want to see because I have a feeling that there would be more disturbing scenes than not. I think the miniseries should have recieved more awards than it did...this is the temptations....the musical icons that were the essence of R&B.
|
|
|
Post by surfacethrills on Mar 17, 2006 16:59:24 GMT -5
I don’t think so. Most Oscar nominated bio pictures are about a strong personality with whom people have a familiarity. For example, take the movies “Ray” and “Lady Sings The Blues”.
“Ray” was about Ray Charles. Even if you weren’t a fan, you knew who Ray Charles was. You knew how he spoke, how he sang, how he walked as well as his trademark movements when he performed. Also, many people thought of him as an American treasure. Therefore, a picture that displays the dark reality of his life is all the more dramatic and compelling.
In “Lady”, Diana Ross played Billie Holiday. Billie is one of those entertainers everyone knows off, regardless of whether they are a fan. A larger than life figure while alive, and a tragic figure in death, Billie’s story is perfect vehicle for a film. Billie’s story is one of extremes. She was extremely talented, yet extremely troubled. She often presented her self as tough and stoic, but at the same time she was soft and venerable. Billie experienced the “ups” of being a huge respected star as well as the “downs” of racism, abandonment, prostitution, drug abuse and bad relationships.
Some of the issues in these movies are evident in “The Temptations” story as well. But, like Soulchild said, all the dramatic elements in the fore mentioned pictures happened to 1 primary character. In the “Temptations” movie, dramatic elements occur to several different people. This leads me to the point that with bio picture nominations tend to lean more toward “performance” awards than “movie” awards. What I mean is they are usually given “Best Actor” or “Actress” type nominations, not “Best Film” nods. Nominations are usually given for actors who either:
a.) recreates someone we all know almost exactly, like Jamie Foxx’s Ray Charles b.) portrays a character who appears to be very different than the actor playing them such as Diana Ross’ Billie c.) portrays a character, who undergoes huge dramatic arcs, like both Diana and Jamie d.) performs a role which supercedes in depth and scope any other roles they’ve been know for in the past, like both Diana and Jamie again.
The Temptations movie, though entertaining has none of this. Most people aren’t that familiar with The Tempts as individuals, so they wouldn’t know an extremely accurate portrayal from a bad one. The performances, though good, aren’t especially unique or compelling. However, the story as it is doesn’t allow for any character to be delved into deep enough to allow for a great portrayal.
|
|
|
Post by lightdion on Mar 20, 2006 1:07:13 GMT -5
I SEE WHAT YOU ALL ARE SAYING.... BUT SEEING THAT A MOVIE LIKE "HUSTLE AND FLOW" GETTING NOMINATED FOR BEST ACTOR AND WINNING BEST SONG, I THINK THE THAT THE TEMPTS. CHARACTERS PUT MORE INTO THE MOVIE THAN THAT.... CONTROVERSY CAN ALSO BE A GOOD THING, LOOK AT CRASH, IT IS WHAT GRABS THE AUDINECE'S ATTENTION THE MOST. I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT IS ALSO NESSARILY POPULARITY WITH THE ACTORS, BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY "UNKNOWN" ACTORS WHO HAVE BEEN NOMINATED OR WON AN ACADEMY AWARD. I THINK LIKE "THE FIVE HEARTBEATS", THE TEMPTATIONS (IF WERE EVER IN THEATRES) SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED, JUST AS MUCH AS "WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT" WAS.
|
|
|
Post by soulfulchild on Mar 20, 2006 1:34:24 GMT -5
I SEE WHAT YOU ALL ARE SAYING.... BUT SEEING THAT A MOVIE LIKE "HUSTLE AND FLOW" GETTING NOMINATED FOR BEST ACTOR AND WINNING BEST SONG, I THINK THE THAT THE TEMPTS. CHARACTERS PUT MORE INTO THE MOVIE THAN THAT.... CONTROVERSY CAN ALSO BE A GOOD THING, LOOK AT CRASH, IT IS WHAT GRABS THE AUDINECE'S ATTENTION THE MOST. I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT IS ALSO NESSARILY POPULARITY WITH THE ACTORS, BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY "UNKNOWN" ACTORS WHO HAVE BEEN NOMINATED OR WON AN ACADEMY AWARD. I THINK LIKE "THE FIVE HEARTBEATS", THE TEMPTATIONS (IF WERE EVER IN THEATRES) SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED, JUST AS MUCH AS "WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT" WAS. Yes, lightdion there were indeed people who were not in the spotlight of hollywood consistently that received awards for being in great films, and I am with you on wanted to see a temptations movie be in nomination. I mean it is just as a great if not better than "hustle and flow" and I am originally from Memphis myself....so I would know that that was when music was real music real messages not glorifing this nonsense we have. I mean when the temptations formed and gave the world some great hits...it was a time where times where changing and with that it should be enough of a influence to bring to the spotlight. But until then I will be passing down the miniseries and the legacy of the temptations from generation to generation.
|
|
|
Post by janebse on Mar 20, 2006 20:12:44 GMT -5
Some of the best movies, rated so after years of exposure to people, were never nominated for an Oscar. There are so many factors involved in nominating a movie, actors, etc. that excellent movies and excellent actors are often over looked. I've seen many an Oscar movie or winner that I did not like. However, the miniseries' impact on audiences cannot be denied and that in the long run is the test. I agree the actors did a fantastic job because they showed us human beings who became legendary superstars and made us feel the joy of their voices and what the impact of fame can do to people and grieve when problems arose for them.
I think its' longterm impact on people justifies its' Oscar ranking for us. One movie I am thinking about that was regarded as a failure at the time was the Christmas EVENT of the year with Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. How many years now has that been shown and people still love it! What was the Oscar winner that year? I don't know. And "Shemshank Redemption" is probably the movie which continues to be shown on TV, and is now rated high by critics but was not nominated for an Oscar.
I know I've said this before, but it's the comman man, the audience. who determines what is the greatest. I never worry who wins the awards because I know in the long run the best will win the rank of greatness.
|
|
|
Post by All5Voices on Apr 5, 2006 12:25:03 GMT -5
If I'm not offending anyone, may I say Hell naw. First, the acting was much better than the writing. But more than anything, as a fan of not only the group, but individual members, I found so many technical flaws that Otis should've had corrected. He was supposed to be the consultant of the film. It was supposed to be based on his book. Casual fans wouldn't know the simple technical mistakes that were made when they sang 'Papa Was A Rolling Stone' or 'Come On' in the film. If O didn't catch those simple to correct mistakes, it's because he wasn't there or he didn't watch the performance clips. Those mistakes could've been corrected with a simple retake of the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by lightdion on Apr 11, 2006 23:49:27 GMT -5
THAT'S TRUE.... BUT IT WOULD BOTHER ONLY PEOPLE WHO ALREADY FULLY KNEW ABOUT THE TEMPTS. BEFORE THE MOVIE CAME OUT.
|
|
|
Post by Weak4Weeks on Apr 14, 2006 21:51:17 GMT -5
If I'm not offending anyone, may I say Hell naw. First, the acting was much better than the writing. But more than anything, as a fan of not only the group, but individual members, I found so many technical flaws that Otis should've had corrected. He was supposed to be the consultant of the film. It was supposed to be based on his book. Casual fans wouldn't know the simple technical mistakes that were made when they sang 'Papa Was A Rolling Stone' or 'Come On' in the film. If O didn't catch those simple to correct mistakes, it's because he wasn't there or he didn't watch the performance clips. Those mistakes could've been corrected with a simple retake of the scenes. You are right about one thing, ALL5, Otis was not there. He was executive producer in name only, not hands on in any way. A lot of movies that are "based on a true story" are just that. BASED on a true story. Take the Dorothy Dandridge movie for example, people don't know that there are PLENTY of incidents in that movie, that didn't take place the way they were shown. It all depends on the viewers mindset, and willingness to take it for what its worth. It was for entertainment purposes.
|
|