ADMIN EDITED NON-LINE BY LINE VERSION
If Lucas "throws money at every little problem", why did King Kong cost almost a hundred million dollars more than Revenge of the Sith? King Kong cost $207,000,000 compared to $115,000,000, according to IMDB.
I would imagine Russell Crowe makes more than Ben Burtt. What's more, an actor has to bring himself to the job. A sound man or special eefects artist or cinematographer has to have special equipment. So the budget for the crew doesn't have as much leeway as an actor's salary unless you're going to cut certain things out entirely. It's going to cost a certain amount to shoot a movie no matter who does it.
It's implied when you claim the best shouldn't be rewarded if they had bigger budgets, compared with those make the most out of smaller ones.
Then why aren't the Dodgers perennial contenders? Deep pockets can help, but what really makes a team a contender is a commitment to win. Steinbrenner and Turner are constant winners because they will not tolerate losing. You're putting the cart ahead of the horse.
Huizenga could have afforded it, but he just didn't want to fork over the cash. Just like the Oakland A's in the mid 1970s when they purged the team rather than pay them.
Considering Lucas has publicly spurned SAG, WGA and DGA, his chances of ever getting an award from them are about the same as Trotsky's chances of getting an award from the Supreme Soviet in 1939.
While a number of movies have quoted The Godfather and parodied the movie as well, lines from Star Wars, let alone the later films are quoted far more often in movies, TV shows, books -even political speeches than any other movie. And that was before Kevin Smith came along.
I don't care who wins Oscars, since they are and always have been a joke. It's almost as much of a joke as the Grammys where a prog act like Jethro Tull wins for Best Heavy Metal Album, or the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, many of whose inductees never played Rock & Roll; but not quite. I'm making the point that if we take a HUGE leap in logic and assume for the sake of argument that the Oscars (or some other hypothetical awards show) bases its choices on artistic merit, the Prequels should have at least been nominated in some of the technical fields, when in fact they weren't.
No kidding. It's the reason behind those choices that's of interest. While there most certainly are people who honestly thought the prequels didn't really have good production design, costumes, sound, etc., there is another reason at work as well. It was become fashionable to bash George Lucas and it has fuckall to do with the quality of his work. Christopher Lee said (paraphrasing -I don't have the actual quote handy) Lucas is resented by many in the movie business because he did things his way and succeeded -and they'll never forgive him for it.
It really came to a head in 1997 when Lucas released Star Wars in theatres. In spite of the fact that the movie had been on VHS, laserdisc, cable and network TV for more than 15 years, it was the most successful film that year until Titanic came out. Then the whole "Lucas ruined the movie business with his blockbusters!" bullshit started in earnest. It became fashionable in the media to attack George Lucas as a detriment to film. Add envy and other forms of petty resentment against the man and it's no wonder he's not very popular in the movie business. The fact that the public votes with their feet and their ticket dollars only causes more resentment.
Box office has more to do with relevance and quality than a Most Popular poll among Academy members since it's an objective standard.
No, I'm arguing that the Oscars have nothing to do with film quality and everything to do with a popularity contest among a select few.
Quite a lot, actually. I remember all the right-wing hacks getting bent out of shape over the movie's political implications. On that score, the movie certainly struck a nerve. It might have been a factor in the downward slide in Bush's poll numbers starting in late spring of 2005 -before Cindy Sheehan, before the hurricaines, before the Libby indictment...
My arguments are as follows:
1) Oscars do not reflect quality of work. They are a joke.
2) If, in the unlikely event that the Academy did decide to hand out Oscars and nominations for same based on merit rather than politicking, George Lucas is unlikely to get one, no matter how good his work may be. He is actively disliked by a large number of people in the movie business.
Did I claim I couldn't enjoy a movie without the approval of others? Or the Academy? No and no. So why don't you take your strawman, light it with a match, then shove it WAY up your ass?