Don’t apologize, I’m the one who usually does that 
TDIT: I totally see what you mean, and of course it is a good message to be giving children. I give them credit for trying because making a message movie without it being preachy must be nigh on impossible.
I did, however, personally find the dance numbers a tad annoying; it was as if it didn’t know whether it was a musical comedy or a enviromental animated drama. Nothing against the singing and dancing and that, but I tend to find it sort-of brings films to an abrupt halt with a huge WTH!? moment. Like, Slumdog Millionaire, for example, and the Shrek films.
For me it’s not Pixar elitism or being uncomfortable with the moral. I just honestly wasn’t impressed and thought it was overrated. The first time I saw it I fell asleep. The second time I wanted to watch the whole thing, I had to fight to keep watching it, I was incredibly bored. To each their own though.
^ Same here.
I completely agree with TDIT. I don’t love HF, but I liked it some. And I won’t call it great, I just personally feel that it was better than Cars. At the Oscars, it’s not about which movie we liked. It was the drama and politics. There’s no way Cars would have won either way.
Well, Monsters, Inc. had much more drama than Shrek. That’s not the only thing they look at.
^That’s true. Shrek is rarely serious. Or, for me, tolerable(please forgive me.) But, that makes sense in that case, because Shrek was sort of about interracial marriage and ignoring looks(both Oscar friendly material.) While MI was more serious, and I liked it better, it didn’t have much Oscar bait. It was(and is) just a great, fun, touching movie. To me, it sounds like a winner. But again, there’s a difference between Oscar preference and Virginia preference.
What’s all this about the Oscars going to only specific films? If they’re dramatic enough? Honestly, there are going to be some bribes and politics, but remember there are 6,000 academy voters from people withen the industry, from all areas of said industry. 6,000 members, not every single one is out against a certain studio or a certain type of film.
No. When I said “politics”, I meant a film’s message, moral path, etc. Not money or friends. Sorry, i should have been more clear. 
Oh. Well there is still a fair amount of politics with the vote, and as for the message I’m sure some people vote based on that, but there’s 6,000 voters, honestly they’re most likely to vote for which movie they like best, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Oh, I agree. I personally think that with a huge majority comes a near factual quality, so the winner usually deserves, even if we disagree with the choice. I just meant that Republicans may prefer films like Wall-E, TS3, and Passion of the Christ, while Democrats might prefer Happy Feet, Avatar, etc. I’m not talking about anyone here, it’s just a generalization. I personally like evry movie I mentioned. 
In general, they go for period dramas, serious dramas, anything by the Coen brothers, anything by Sam Mendes, serious romances, biopics, and so on, and they usually dismiss comedies, comic book adaptations, horror films, romcoms, Leonardo DiCaprio, and, the big one, animation 
It isn’t really fair. The Oscars shouldn’t be “lets pick the most political, serious film”. It should be about picking the Best Films. Best Picture should define as “Best Film of said year”, but quite often, it doesn’t mean that. I agree with The Kings Speech winning this year, but, for example, in 1998, the dross that was Titanic won over the brilliant LA Confidential. Why? Because it was a serious period drama, everything the Acadamy like. And, of course, 2009, when WALL-E and The Dark Knight got snubbed for Best Picture, despite having 6 and 8 other nominations, because the former was animated and the latter was a comic book film. Dude, they were the best films of that year! And they were snubbed for the God awful The Reader! What I found even more amusing is that Slumdog Millionaire managed to beat both films in the sound catagory!
definedancing: I agree on your opinions! I think it’s because the Academy thinks of themselves as the purveyors of ‘fine art’ and have to set the standard for ‘good taste’. Of course, ‘good taste’ is subjective. Anything involving CGI, hand-drawn animation, or non-English is ‘ghettosized’. Populist movies are given less chance than indy arthouse movies by well-established directors (instead of, say, uknown, struggling, impoverished fist-timers). There have been exceptions, like Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars, or Titanic. But most of the time, it’s the kind of films you’ve never heard of (unless you’re an avid movie goer). Or films with controversial themes, which they seem to equate with making a statement. Sometimes, films which are beautiful and have good storylines but no political statements are wonderful, like Spirited Away, Baraka, Fantasia, etc.
IV, I understand your views. I agree that you meant that films with political or controversial messages stand a higher chance of being recognised by the Academy. I think the reason why Shrek won was because it was a parody of Disney movies. The Academy likes movies which make a biting commentary, whether it be on life, politics, a person, or simply films itself. Monsters Inc was more heartwarming and less condescending, but apparently the Academy didn’t think it was ‘zingy’ enough.
…
Here’s a great spoof I saw from a satirical Australian current-affairs show called ‘The Chasers’. If anyone is offended, bear in mind that they did not set out to make fun of mentally-challenged people, Holocaust survivors, etc. They are making fun of the fact that film producers frequently exploit these themes to make films which are specifically released at the end of the year around ‘Oscars season’ to stand a higher chance of being spotted by the Academy.
The best kind of parodies are those which tell a simple truth, but taken to extremes. 
Haha. That parody was very funny
But I think the “Oscar bait” thing is more of a legend than anything else. Anyone who creates a film of certain quality has hopes of winning awards, that’s life. But I doubt that they’re “shameless designed to win Oscars” (maybe the closest attempt is the release date).
And The Pianist, really? Roman Polanski may be all that you want, but his election of that film (truly based on a real story) is completely honest and has its roots on his own life in Poland. Besides, the final product has outstanding quality.
A more adequate candidate to the parody would be Crash, a film that wouldn’t stand the test of time.
PS: By the way, I found the “dying to win the Oscar” part kind of pointless and potentially disrespectful. Only TWO actors won an Oscar posthumously. Hardly an Oscar trend.
Yeah, nobody ‘chooses’ to die before a major awards season. Perhaps they were making a comment on how films with posthumous actors tend to garner more pre-publicity fame.
I think they also spoofed ‘My Left Foot’, a film I remembered seeing my parents watching as a kid.
If you observe recent release dates, WWII films like Valkyrie, Defiance, Inglorious Basterds… Westerns like 3:10 to Yuma, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and True Grit… films set in foreign countries like Syriana, The Kingdom, Hotel Rwanda… films with homosexual characters like Brokeback Mountain, Little Miss Sunshine, The Kids Are All RIght, Black Swan…
All are released in the fall/winter season. Months from the usual February/March Academy Awards event. And all are ‘Oscar-friendly’ films.
This is obvious ‘market timing’. As to whether directors purposely set out to make these kinds of films is debatable, as SoA has said. That’s not a bad thing, but the Academy has to give mainstream and animated films a chance too.
TDIT: That’s why I hate Shrek. I agree that that’s why it won, but being a spoof doesn’t make a movie great, IMO. Everyone except me probably thinks Shrek deserved to win, but I’ll never let go of that. Thanks for the responding, man. It’s always good to discuss things without the big argument that seems to follow me everywhere. I’m like Tigger when the storm cloud follows him everywhere.
definedancing: I agree entirely!! Those are the movies that have the best chances. I mean, occasionally they surprise us, but that’s rare.
And I’m sorry if I upset anyone. I’m not being general about the political message or the “usual suspect” winners. I was just making a general observation.
And me
Really? high-five I seriously thought I was alone on that.
By the powers, no!
Most people agree on that (I don’t know in the forums. Tendencies here are usually very different to those of the majority)
Well, I prefer people here because they tend to think more clearly. But there’s still a lot of nonsense. But that’s unavoidable anywhere.