I've seen the Kings Speech and I have a lot of trouble imagining this movie being made out of artistic interest Almost every Hollywood movie was a book first, the fact that it was based on a true story just makes it worsePlinglebob said:But as I mentioned above, there's no distinction between a film that sets itself up using lots of Oscar Bait (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) and a film that just happens to have a lot in. The Kings Speech was based on a book which was based on a true story that the film maker want to do because he also struggled with a stamma. The fact it includes Oscar Bait (Royals, British Actors, stuggle with a disability) is really beside the point. Compare this with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close which seems to have been adapted and released with the sole purpose of getting Oscars (9/11, little kid, dead parent, Tom Hanks).
There is nothing wrong with liking Oscar Bait, some movies just work and in the end you can not argue about taste. At the very least the winner is usually very competently made. But the Kings Speech was Oscar bait, which was what you were denying. I think the point that is argued by Bob regarding Oscar Bait is that the movie probably would've been much better without the Oscars and many oscar bait movies wouldn't be made because they are so forgettably similar. The Oscar's Ideally should have no influence at all or at the very least shouldn't have a clear cut way of appeasing them.
The positive side of an Oscar is completely negated by the fact that movies winning the oscar are usually very similar. It does not open the public to anything new that is good and it is not simply awarding the best picture. It is not even awarding the most popular one (I would be heavily opposed to that, but at least here would be a point, what is the point now really?)