TOM JONES

[B-Independent.com]

I finally got around to watching TOM JONES, a movie I've often heard refered to as "the worst movie to ever win best picture."

What startled me the post was how "rudimentary" the film was. A ribald comedy, much fo the movie is handhelp and sloppy, which adds and odd flavor to what transpires on screen. Scenes feel more gruesome then what they should, like the hunt sequence, or more screwball then they should, such as many scenes that play out like an episode of Benny Hill.

Based around a series of misunderstandings, the movie plays out like a Roman comedy, similar to A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM. If people actually spoke to one another, much of the story could have been resolved in 10 minutes....but then you wouldn't have had a movie.

Despite it's problems, the movie is completely full of life. The camera movies continuously, teh characters race from scene to scene, Tom himself is a force of nature who thrives on consumption.

The transfer is garbage, pure garbage. The early scenes of the movie are muddy, faded, and scratched to hell. I find it hard to believe that the negative to such a respected picture has been lost and that the only transfer could be made from such a mangled print.

[B-Independent.com]

Very well, sir. You have the floor. Produce your evidence.

"Shakespeare in Love" beats "Saving Private Ryan" for the top Oscar...

A short look at the marketing aspects of it all

A discussion on Harvey's tactics

Only the first half applies, but only slightly

[Pihk]

More than once the Oscar has gone to the wrong recipient.

I do agree with you that SPR is a pile of crap but I think SIL's Best Picture win was very deserved for entirely different reasons. Its budget was 1/3 that of SPR and so it represented much less of a financial commitment (not too mention the production logistics (esp. time for filming and post-production, etc) were infinitely simpler than SPR).

Do the BO math (figures from boxofficemojo.com):

SIL world gross: $289 mil
SPR world gross: $482 mil

$289mil x 3 = $867mil

$867mil >> $482mil

The Oscars, don't forget, are an INDUSTRY award show. You, me, freaking Roger Ebert DON'T GET TO VOTE. Industries award nominees that send the right future message to its workers. In 1998, the message was that making many SILs is more profitable than making a few SPRs.

[The Professor]

I dug Tom Jones.....

and the worst movie to even win best picture is The Greatest Show on Earth. I can't recall ever hearing anyone say different?!?

[B-Independent.com]

really? i can't recall anyone naming that picture.

[The Professor]

Yikes Alan, that's pretty much all anyone ever talks about on TGSoE. Check out reviews and discussions on the IMDB page, many of them center on that issue.

[B-Independent.com]

I'll tell you what, just do a quick search on the internet for "worst best picture winner." you won't even find TGSOE mentioned amoung the established critics.

for that matter, TOM JONES is listed just as often (never) from when I did the search 45 minutes ago. i'll have to dig out the texts i was referencing...or maybe i won't because I could care less. perhaps you should just watch the features on the Tom Jones disc where they shit on their own movie.

[Sevorin]

The Greatest Show on Earth is the first one that comes to my mind as well.

But I've heard some serious bad-mouthing -- (I don't always agree with it) -- about such so-called "respectable" choices as The Life of Emile Zola, The Sound of Music, Titanic, Crash, Around the World in Eighty Days, American Beauty, and Broadway Melody.

I know guys who wanna burn soap operas like Kramer vs. Kramer, Ordinary People, and Terms of Endearment at the stake. (They wanna toss in Mrs. Miniver for good measure.)

And leave us not forget Forrest Gump -- a picture I Ioathe, regardless of anything the "established critics" may say in its defense.

I don't think I've ever read any critic who named Tom Jones as the worst film ever to win the best picture Oscar. Its style has not worn well, I admit, but some of its sequences are still just as watchable now as they were on its release.

[B-Independent.com]

The Life of Emile Zola, The Sound of Music, Titanic, Crash, Around the World in Eighty Days, American Beauty, and Broadway Melody.

I've never read anyone bash the TEH SOUND OF MUSIC, but you can usually guess the age of the critic by their choice of "worst oscar winner," especially based on the lists I came across last night. While I find AMERICAN BEAUTY overrated, I was surrprised to find Lisa Swartzbaum from EW listing that as her choice for "everybody knows it's the worst picture." She just always seemed older....

Just doing a quick scan of sites last night, sure enough, ORDINARY PEOPLE and ANNIE were getting flammed, but I never saw anyone trashing anything before the 1970's. The closest was Filmsite which listed TOM JONES as a dud, but made sure to mention is was all-around bad year for choices.

I've never read or seen anything where KRAMER VS. KRAMER gets trashed, but then again, I don't think I've ever even stumbled across anyone bothering to write about it.

[The Professor]

I did your search, and came up with a ton of lists that almost all include TGSoE, and very few that mention Tom Jones. I think you are way off base on this one, even your main man Roger Ebert agrees with me.

[B-Independent.com]

I didn't know Ebert was my main man, but even he makes mistakes.

As for your search, you obviously cared more about this discussion than I did to go beyond 6 pages of results because 6 pages and 10 minutes was far too much time.

[The Professor]

OK Alan, this is starting to get a bit aggravating.

I didn't know Ebert was my main man, but even he makes mistakes.

Really? You have a track record here of being Ebert's biggest champion. Folk's in other threads have even joked about it. Don't run out on the guy now. (BTW, I like him as well)

As for your search, you obviously cared more about this discussion than I did to go beyond 6 pages of results because 6 pages and 10 minutes was far too much time.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about: the Ebert result comes up on the very first page of my search results. It was the third or fourth link down the first page.

you obviously cared more about this discussion than I did

That's funny, I thought this was your group, and your discussion? I regret participating in it. I didn't know folks weren't allowed to disagree with your opinion here without getting a defensive response from you.

You made a statement about Tom Jones, I differed with it. You then challenged me to do a web search so I could see how right you were. I did it, and hey, guess what -- I was right after all! And you respond by trying to make me look pathetic for doing the search in the first place. Brother, you sure must like to be right.

[B-Independent.com]

Brother, you sure must like to be right.

I have no interest in being right, as any boardmember should be aware of. I'm perfectly open to anyone presenting new information. At the risk of offending you or others, which was never my intent, it dawned on me that argueing over what's the worst best picture belongs in a catagory that I refer to as the "douche debate," or fanboy-like discussions such as "Han shooting first" or "the merits of netflix rankings." In the end, despite the emotions that go into them, they're really meaningless, and rarely will anyone's view's change.

Was I being dismissive towards you? Probably, subconciously, and I can see how that would be "aggrevating," but fi anything it grew out of what I see as a futile exchange that was degenerating quickly. If you feel that I've made you look pathetic, then my apologies. At no point were your personal feelings a consideration in my dismissive attitude, which was extremely short-sighted on my part.