Controversial Michael Moore snubbed by the Oscars?

I have a straight forward question..

With Michael Moore's controversial acceptance speech for his documentary film Bowling for Columbine, do you believe this year the Oscars/Hollywood snubbed him completely for not even nominating Fahrenheit 911?

I mean c'mon! 'Super Size Me' received a nomination? By no means am I implying that Fahrenheit 911 should have won, I'm simply proposing the question as to whether or not Michael Moore was deliberately snubbed by Hollywood this time around..

Perhaps based on his anti-Bush, politically driven theme?


[edit on 28-2-2005 by syntaxer]

Originally posted by syntaxer
Perhaps based on his anti-Bush, politically driven theme?
[edit on 28-2-2005 by syntaxer]

No, Moore didn't get nominated, because he submitted his Oscar proposal for Best Picture, rather than Best Documentary. It was his own arrogance and self righteousness that prevented him from winning.

Now, if he had submitted it in the Documentary catagory, he would have won, because the field of candidates were so weak.

Also for the record, Passion wasn't nominated either, because Gibson didn't want it. He didn't lobby the film to the acadamy in the traditional way that Best Pictures candidates always have to. He chose to sit this one out.

So, it's really the case of one guy trying to grab too much, and one guy trying to grab too little.

The only thing overly controversial last night was Robin Williams "gay cartoon" bit, which was initally scratched for fear of Christian complaints, but he went on and did it anyway. Pundits be damned.

Well, that and the faux Conservative outrage over MILLION DOLLAR BABY, when the only thing they're doing is attacking two of the most conservative Republicans in Hollywood (Eastwood and Albert S. Ruddy).

[edit on 28-2-2005 by brimstone735]

It wasn't arrogance that made Moore submit Farenheit 9/11 for best picture instead of Best Documentary. He knew he got away with perpetrating last year with Bowling for Columbine and knew he wouldn't get away with it again.

Farenheit 9/11 was not a documentary just like Bowling for Columbine wasn't.

BTW I missed the Oscars again, going to the last place New Orleans Hornets game was much more enjoyable.

Moore is not a documentarian. His films are entertainment loosely based on fact. "Bowling for Columbine" should have never been entered as a documentary and it is a black eye on the Academy for voting it best in that category. There was a substantial grass-roots letter-writing campaign protesting his Academy Award for that film.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There was a substantial grass-roots letter-writing campaign protesting his Academy Award for that film.

Like him or hate him, Michael Moore still could have submitted the film in the Best Documentary catergory. And, he would have won, despite nationwide protests by the conservative pundits.

He lost because of hubris, and because he didn't have a major studio backing his best picture campaign, rather than anything Conservatives might have done to sabotage the efforts. Although, I did find Bill O'Reilly's little slam on Matt Drudge pretty funny tonight (He made some comment about fake conservative outrage over MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and cruising gay bars in West Hollywood -- Basically, a gut punch to Matt Drudge)

Despite what people think, Michael Moore really isn't that well liked by the left. Sure, he's a lightning rod and attracts attention, but this supposed darling of the Democrats was actually campaigning Green in 2000 with Phil Donahue. He did his penance and galvanized the left in 2004, but now his usefulness is almost at an end.

In conclusion, Lions Gate simply didn't want to spend ten to fifteen million dollars on a PR compaign, glad handing Acadamy voters. Moore assumed that people thought he was more important than he actually was.

Sorry folks, you are all wrong on this. 9/11 was shown on free tv before the end of he year. That alone disqualified it from winning the Best Documentary award or even being nominated. He just submitted it to the Best Picture instead and got whooped by some seriously good pictures...

Originally posted by OXmanK
Sorry folks, you are all wrong on this. 9/11 was shown on free tv before the end of he year. That alone disqualified it from winning the Best Documentary award or even being nominated. He just submitted it to the Best Picture instead and got whooped by some seriously good pictures...

No, you're wrong.

It was pirated in Cuba, and thus wouldn't have effected its over all eligibility for Oscar consideration in the best documentary catagory. The distributors didn't authorize it's release in Cuba.

Michael Moore and the producers opted not to have the film entered in the documentary catagory, instead choosing the Best Picture catagory for very specific political goals. They assumed that it would win. They took a gamble and assumed wrong.

It is great to see the influx of members here with raw knowledge of the inner workings of the machinery of Hollywood and the Academy.

I believe that the "snubbery" affecting Michael Moore was at most one of the minor incidents of "snubbery" in 2005, and for the real "snubbery" you would look to other instances especially where they might have impacted upon Sicilians.

I'm sorry...you are wrong too...or we were both right...sorta...here's a link...

www.alternet.org...

The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

Although I have no assurance from our home video distributor that they would allow a one-time television broadcast – and the chances are they probably won't – I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it's the night before the election.

Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar.

His wasn't some ulterior motive of getting the Best Picture nod...it was to try to get out in front of people on free tv. And guess what...these are his own words.

Edited out

[edit on 2-3-2005 by brimstone735]

I think it is pretty clear why Michael Moore didnt submit Farenheit 9/11 for nomination as a documentary.

It isnt one.

Michael Moore began his career as a humourist. A satirist. Fake News.

He made a few "mockumentary" films, TV shows and a Film Comedy (Canadian Bacon) and then started to take himself seriously.

It would be like Jon Stewart expecting a Pulitzer.

Nope...Roger and Me came out before Canadian Bacon. Roger and Me was a "serious flick".

Roger and Me was great! The Bunny getting smashed and skinned was mean, but the rest was great! Also, what wrong with BFC? He says that people shouldn't have nukes or tanks or bazookas or gatling guns. He never says ban guns, just keep WMDs and heavy armor and guns already illegal illegal. He owns guns, he is a member of the NRA, no conservative seems to have actually watch the movie. Also, the cartoon Trey Parker(South Park) did was great! "I love my guns, I LOOOOOVE my guns!)

Canadian Bacon, wow, forget Bruce Almighty, forget WaterBoy, that is thee comedy!

Edit: See FarenHype 9/11? It basically "Liberals are gonna eat your babies! Jews are gonna eat your babies! Islam is gonna eat your babies! Gays are gonna eat your babies! Blacks are gonna eat your babies! MM is gonna eat your babies! Vote Bush or the liberals will eat your babies!!!!!"

[edit on 10-3-2005 by James the Lesser]