MovieMusic.com Message Boards: Oscars a popularity contest? I think not!

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

Oscars a popularity contest? I think not!

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

Author	Topic: Oscars a popularity contest? I think not!

Aaron Collins Oscar® Winner	In every post I see referring to the OSCARS, I see the phrase, "It's only a popuarity contest." I believe the Academy does a pretty good job. Although, some of their choices I don't agree with. Now a lot of you have been quoted on saying Phantom Menace will probably win because of the popularity. First off, John Williams wrote a damn good score and he deserves credit! The past couple of years we have seen scores that win, that have composers I have never heard of before. Aaron NP: Prince Valiant
posted 10-25-1999 01:27 PM PT (US)

Jonathan unregistered	TITANIC . . . need I say more?
posted 10-25-1999 02:08 PM PT (US)

sakman Oscar® Winner	I think the "popularity" idea may derive from the observation that films that did well generally get nominated along with their scores. Sometimes a score wil slip in where a film dissapears. One recent example going into the Academy Awards was the buzz around "L.A. Confidential" a good film that just did not do well. Goldsmith got a nomination on the strength of his score (I hope), but the film seemed to have peaked to soon. I wonder if this will happen to "American Beauty" this year. "Phantom Menace" may be snubbed by Oscar time. Neither of the sequels won an Oscar, so the odds are stacked against this one, especially if a more "serious" film appears with Williams as the composer. With only one category this year, there may not be room at the top for this excellent score.
posted 10-25-1999 08:47 PM PT (US)

SFT Oscar® Winner	Aaron, I´m a bit confused. By the comment you made, you make it sound like only "big-time Hollywood composers" should win the Oscars. Just because someone who you´ve never heard of before wins, it does´nt mean their score is inferior. And I do not think The Phantom Meance will win at all. First off, as sakman pointed out, they did´nt give anything to any of the sequels after "A New Hope". The Acadamy probably thinks: "Oh well, we gave him an award for the first one, why should we give him anything for the others?" Second, and lets face it guys, The Phantom Menace just does´nt deserve an Oscar. It deserves to get nominated, sure, but it will not, nor should it, win. Regarding the part about a popularity contest: ELFMAN and GOLDSMITH anyone? And YEAH...TITANIC...there where so many other scores that year, witch where far superior to that one. SFT
posted 10-26-1999 12:54 AM PT (US)

Sean Bires Oscar® Winner	Nah, it is a popularity contest. If not, box-office contest. The academy's opinions are heavily, heavily biased by popularity, and that's horrible. The Academy's objective is to nominate/award films that people can agree with, or to nominate/award the films that will offend the least amount of people if it is nominated/awarded. So, instead of actually awarding the best films of the year (cough cough Gattaca cough Dark City cough), it has to award those that made money or/and is popular (cough titanic cough duh cough duh). I take the Oscars as seriously as I take the MTV awards.
posted 10-26-1999 07:40 AM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	First off, PM is a masterpiece by all standarts. If it doesn't get nominated it'll be outragous. If it wins, it will be deserving. Elfman...Goldsmith? Goldsmith hands down. Sorry SFT The academy does do strange things. I mean Sheakspere in Love and Life is Beatuiful? Come on , give me a break. Scott
posted 10-26-1999 08:29 AM PT (US)

Mary Oscar® Winner	If it is a box-office contest in any sense, then what about Saving Private Ryan? That made way more money than Shakespeare in Love. Following the Box-Office logic, it should have won Best Picture AND Best Dramatic Score. But I do believe you are right that it is a popularity contest. I think that whatever is hip to like at the time is nominated and wins the big ones. Maybe the Oscars weren't always this way, but there were too many ommisions and puzzling victories this year to blindly accept that the Oscars are the final word on the best of the year. Some of this year's ommisions: Mask of Zorro was not even nominated for Best Dramatic Score Other than Tom Hanks, no actor from SPR was nominated for the acting awards That's just a couple that I thought of off-hand. There's even more that some people could suggest. Sorry to ruffle any feathers, I'm just stating my own personal opinion. Mary
posted 10-26-1999 08:46 AM PT (US)

Hector J. Guzman Oscar® Winner	One thing I don´t understand. Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner have the same number of Oscars? Can anyone clear me up on this? NP. Night and Day. Celebrate Sinatra!(John Williams/The Boston Pops Orchestra)**** www.dominiqueswain.org http://www.voy.com/2647/ PS. Is everything that Norm MacDonald said in his SNL monologue last saturday true?
posted 10-26-1999 09:36 AM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	Yes Hector, both Goldsmith and Horner have the same amount of Oscars. They both won only one time thus far, which is okay with Horner but that Goldsmith has only gotten the one for The Omen is an outrage and evidence that too many composers have gotten the awards due to politics and not because of the work they have done. Scott
posted 10-26-1999 11:11 AM PT (US)

SFT Oscar® Winner	Scott, I really don´t get you. "A New Hope" is a masterpiece..."Schindlers List" is a masterpiece..."Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is a masterpiece..."E.T." is a masterpiece..."Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a masterpiece... But The Phantom Meance is not!!! I don´t see how you can even compare them to the others. Sure, it is a good score...but not GREAT...and certainly not a MASTERPIECE by all standarts. SFT
posted 10-26-1999 11:54 AM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	SFT,buddy (may I call you buddy?), it all depends what you consider a masterpiece. The Phantom is composed in a more modernistic style than all the other star wars pictures. It is not as melodic and structuraly much more complicated than the first three. If I were to compare it to the first ones, and the styles they were composed in than no, Phantom is not a masterpiece if I lean towards more traditional, melodic scores. But I like both. The score complements the picture to an incredible degree (as do most of Williams' scores)and Anakin's Theme is masterly done. The idea of incorporating Darth Vader's Theme into the melody is pure genius and such a classical oriented composeing style is rarly seen in Hollywood these days. Yes, I believe most of Williams' work are masterpieces as I do believe most of Goldsmith's work are masterpieces.I find all of Herrmann work masterpieces. These guys are good both in popularity as well as in their craft. You might find many critics complaining about styles, selections and so on but you won't find one who wouldn't admit that these guys are genuine crafts men who have together (with many others who I won't mention here)elevated the art of filmscoring and giving it a respect in so richly deserves. Hope you get me a little better now Scotty
posted 10-26-1999 01:08 PM PT (US)

James Oscar® Winner	Am I the only person left on the planet who loved Titanic (both movie and score)? Now before I "raise" that issue again, I will admit there were (cough) a few awards which it did not deserve to win; among them, best score (I loved it but it didn't deserve the Oscar) and best special effects (which Spielberg's dinosaurian actors deserved). I DO think the Oscars are primarily a popularity contest, however. For example, how can Shakespeare in Love (which I ADORE) win best picture and one year earlier Dangerous Beauty (which I adore EVEN MORE) not even get nominated for ANYTHING? But there are exceptions. Remember who won Best Supporting Actress two years ago while Titanic was swimming circles around everything else? Kim Basinger, for LA Confidential, even though she was up against Whats-her-name (present-day Rose) from Titanic. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it is mostly a popularity contest now, but there are still some crevices where what deserves to win actually wins. Sadly, I don't think Best Score is among them. James NP - Ever After: A Cinderella Story (*****)
posted 10-26-1999 08:38 PM PT (US)

S Smith unregistered	I don't know if anybody will buy this, but out here in L.A. we get the scoop on everything, and when there was all the Oscar hubbub about "Titanic," an alleged Academy member called a local radio talk-show, and said a lot of members just give the ballots to their significant others and let them pick. I'm sure that happens in some cases. I think more often than not, people just don't take the time to actually research what they're voting for, and just vote for whatever happens to be popular at the time.
posted 10-26-1999 09:19 PM PT (US)

Norman McCay Oscar® Winner	Put it this way, it is a popularity contest to this level: put the honorable mentions in the section of the nominated. What do I mean? Example: Titanic, Good Will Hunting, and L.A. Confidential. The latter two were put in for good measures to ensure nobody notices the Academy's bias toward Titanic. The number of NOMINATIONS was impressive for both GWH and LAC. But the number of Oscars they won weren't. And winning the Oscar is what makes headlines, not nominated. As to Saving Private Ryan....that was the third worst mistake made by the Academy behind the Forrest Gump and Bravheart fiascos. CURSE THE ACADEMY!!!!
posted 10-26-1999 10:08 PM PT (US)

Sean Bires Oscar® Winner	Saving Private Ryan was not awarded as the best film of the year, despite betting more box-office money than Shakespear in Love. This is because of it's mind-blowing violence. The Academy awards movies that most people can look at and say "Yeah, that's a good film", or "I can see why it won..." It nominates the least offensive films. SPR didn't get the Best Picture because of the violence level. I still say Starship Troopers should have won Best Special Effects of 1998, despite how not-that-good the film was.
posted 10-27-1999 07:47 AM PT (US)

Norman McCay Oscar® Winner	Oops, when I was referring to Saving Private Ryan, I was talking about the Oscar's Best Original Score category, and the same goes with Braveheart and Forrest Gump. Sorry for any confusion.
posted 10-27-1999 07:55 AM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	Sean, your right about the Academy not awarding a lot of pictures because of the violence. Kind of dumb. I mean, not giving SPR an Oscar because of the violence when the film is about WAR. Very disturbing. Scott
posted 10-27-1999 08:26 AM PT (US)

J. Peter Wolk-Laniewski Oscar® Winner	Norman: Huh? Braveheart and SPR didn't win score Oscars. Forrest Gump did. What connection were you trying to make?
posted 10-28-1999 04:48 PM PT (US)

Matt Oscar® Winner	First of all, Titanic deserved all the oscars it won, including, nay ESPECIALLY THE **ING SCORE. So you all right now. As for being a popularity contest..at times yes, but for score: no way. Lets look at 2 recent examples, the wins of Il Postino and Life is Beautiful. Was Il Postino more popular than Braveheart? No. Was the score better...well, no. It won because it is a damn good movie that wasnt gonna get anything else. the same thing for Life Is Beautiful. Good score, but SPR and TRL were both better. Now, LIB won more awards, but it got score because of this fact. Both Il and LIB had good, nomination worthy scores, but niether should have won. And yet they beat out popular movies. This tells me that the score category is a joke, not a poplarity contest. Oh, and TPM aint gonna win. BTW, the first person who comes up to me and seriously tells me that Good Will Hunting should have gotten best score over Titanic is gonna get bitch slapped. Im looking in SFT's direction. Oh, and james: you dont think it derserved effects? You obviously dont know jack(no offense intended here) about special effects and who gets awards for them. I know quite a bit about them, and let me tell you why Titanic should have, and did win. Lost World did nothing new. Titanic created new effects. it made new technology(im reffering to the programs that go into making CGI). And it had **ing good effects. no one wins for using effects that are several years old. you have to reapply the old and make new to deserve an Oscar. And Sean: SPR lost because it wasnt as good as Shakespeare in Love. If you want i can tell you why, but not in this post. I respect all your opinions in other topics, but ive seen some downright foolish comments here. Of course, i frequently see foolish stuff when people bitch about the Oscars cause they are pissed that their darling didnt win, so what else is new? -Matt, the king of oscar office pools, is a little pissed he has to take a test tomorrow.
posted 10-28-1999 05:46 PM PT (US)

James Oscar® Winner	My goodness Matt, watch your language. For your information, I do know more than jack about special effects, I'm just VERY partial to dinosaurs. A personal preference. I know Titanic had better special effects than the Lost World. Its obvious. I just LOVE dinosaurs. I was cheering for the mad scientist when I saw Carnosaur. Give the world back to the dinosaurs! And if that's not possible, then give the world to the dolphins!!! They will rule the universe one day!!!!! Long live the DINOSAURS!! LONG LIVE THE DOLPHINS!!!!!! James P.S. Matt- Worms in your marrow! you dandiprat, grobian alcatote!!!
posted 10-28-1999 07:28 PM PT (US)

Matt Oscar® Winner	I WILL NOT WATCH MY **ING LANGUAGE BITCH!!!! ** THE DINOSAURS! MUHAHAHAHAHA. dude, you do know that white mice are more intelligent than dolphins dont you? damn yer stupid. oh, and Carnosaur sucked...book was way better
posted 10-28-1999 09:34 PM PT (US)

Jeron Oscar® Winner	I'm trying to decide whether I should even comment on the last two posts. I fear I might get my head bitten off. Ah well... I will comment that I was disappointed when Mulan didn't get an Oscar. That definitely deserved one - and Matt, yes, I'm partial to Goldsmith - but the score was incredible and Oscar-worthy regardless.
posted 10-28-1999 10:15 PM PT (US)

Norman McCay Oscar® Winner	JPW, If I can recall correctly, Silvestri did NOT win the Original Score Oscar for 1994. Forrest Gump was robbed that year--I am positive!!--, which is why I was extremely upset that year. Or am I getting mixed up again? ARRGGHHH!!! Okay, I just looked it up. It WAS robbed (even though by my second favorite composer) by Zimmer's Lion King. Funny thing, the scores that Zimmer wins or gets nominated for I usually don't like (The Preacher's Wife, Lion King, The Thin Red Line, The Prince of Egypt). [This message has been edited by Norman McCay (edited 10-28-99).]
posted 10-28-1999 11:05 PM PT (US)

SFT Oscar® Winner	Matt, It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can seriously suggest, that TITANIC deserved the Oscar for best score. Sure, it is a good score...but you really should consider what you are saying: Look at special effects. Here a film wins, if it does something new and orginal (and I do agree that TITANIC was the rigtfull winner there)...it is the same thing with scores. Was Horners score NEW and ORIGINAL? NOOOOO!!!! And I don´t care what kind of idiotic comments you come up with in response! It was´nt! Sure, Good Will Hunting may not have been the most original score ever, but it is a hell of alot more innovative than Horners modernistic "irish tech/orchestral" rubbish. Both in the orchestration and in the manner it served it´s purpose(?) in the film. So there! The fact is, that TITANIC is good score witch has alot going for it in the thematical department and all that. BUT IT IS NOT AN OSCAR-SCORE!! Further more, anyone who tells me TITANIC deserved ALL the Oscars it got, is a friggin jerk, who does´nt know what the hell he´s talking about. Plain and simple. I mean, it is a good, exciting hollywood movie with a good story and reasonable acting. But you CAN NOT even beging to compare it to BEN HUR. As simple as that. In my opinion TITANIC should have won for best special effects, best costume design (or whatever you call it) and best art-direction. NOTHING MORE! Oh, and just so you know this is all in good spirit: SFT NP: Cape Fear, Bernard Herrmann
posted 10-29-1999 02:58 AM PT (US)

Jeron Oscar® Winner	Here, here! Good spirit! ~Jeron [This message has been edited by Jeron (edited 10-29-99).]
posted 10-29-1999 05:28 AM PT (US)

Sean Bires Oscar® Winner	Titanic deserved all the awards it got? Hah! I'm going with SFT on this one. First of all, why Titanic won best special effects: Movie popular, mmmm effects expensive ("he card read good!"). Now, here's my arguement on why "Starship Troopers" should have won that Best Special Effects award. Yes, it was filmed in a campy, unserious style. Yes, the special effects were very comic-book-ish, but that doesn't reduce the quality of the special effects. First of all in the special effects department of this film... spaceships. This has been done before, and it's really nothing new. Starship Troopers executed the space scenes nicely like you should expect any hollywood film to. The scenes where the special effects really shine are the ones where the humans interact with the bugs. The bugs are (duh) entirely computer models, and we've seen non-existant animated charactors interact with real, filmed people before (Space Jam, etc.), but never to this extent. Massive armeis of bugs charge at massive armies of troopers. Some scenes show the (filmed) human run or shoot at a (computer-generated) bug, only to be stabbed & picked up by the (comp-generated) bug, shaken around, and ripped apart by it, without any camera cuts. The special effects in shots like that are flawless... absolutely flawless. In, say, Space Jam, animated charactors would run circles around or play basketball with Michael Jordan. It's not that impressive, unless Michael somehow was stabbed & lifted off the ground by a loony-toons charactor, shaken around, and ripped apart all in the same closeup, detailed, flawless shot. Titanic had flawless effects too, and I'm not saying that Titanic's special effects are bad or anything (it's actually very professional)... but it's just people sliding down a huge tilted set, and suddenly replaced with computer models as they fall off into computer-rendered water. Nothing too complex there. And the boat sinks. Nothing too complex there. The water effects were nice. Nothing too complex there, considering Antz did it too. It's standard hollywood graphics and model work, despite being insanely expensive. If "The Matrix" or "Bringing Out the Dead" do not win Best Cinematography this year, people are going to die. Oh, and everybody see "Fight Club" (a movie that turns out to be a "deep", odd, social satire-comedy, even though it doesn't really look like one). It's better than The Matrix... no really... Roger Ebert didn't like it because he didn't "get it"... that bastard (!)... [This message has been edited by Sean Bires (edited 10-29-99).]
posted 10-29-1999 07:33 AM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	As usual, I gotta give my two cents... About Titanic: I can handle the score award. I can accept the special effects award. But, best picture and director? Comon guys... Just think: Titanic shares the most awarded movie with Ben Hur.BEN HUR!!!!!!!!!!! THAT IS B-E-N H-U-R!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT MY FRIENDS IS ABSOLUTELY A JOKE. Matt, man, I like you man. I think your intelligent,funny and very articulate. I mean, MY nephew never got me to even consider watching South Park, you got me to actually watch an episode and to soon watch the movie. Quite an accomplishment. Plus you're in martial arts. But,buddy, the language gotta go. Yes, it's a free country (thus far)and you can do whatever you please and you can take my opinion and do whatever with it, but it just doesn't fit you at times (my opinion only). A great man once said:The use of profanity is the evidence of a lazy mind. I know you ain't got a lazy mind, that is obvious. Anyway, gotta go and give a test to my students. BTW: If you're so mad about a test...if you study, you shall pass. Scott
posted 10-29-1999 08:27 AM PT (US)

Matt Oscar® Winner	Actually i aced the test, but that doesnt mean i have to like taking it. Im sorry about the language, but how was i supposed to know bitch wasnt gonna get censored? SFT: comparing the criteria for best score and best effects is just stupid, the 2 are unrelated. Scores are based on how well they work in the movie, not how original they are(funny how an elfman fan bitches about originality). Effects are completely different, and i was addressing a different topic when i addressed them. Let me put it this way: All the people here who work with digital effects please raise your (virtual)hands. raise Glad we settled that one, i officially know what i am talkign about. Sean: would have gone with Starship Troopers next. Fantastic computer modeling and matting, but that isnt as hard as you think. However, i know about certain things that went into making the effects for Titanic(and Starship Troopers). Read cinefex magazine and you'll get an idea of what im talking about. As for director, picture, and all teh rest: lets just say for the sake of arguement that Titanic deserved all the tech awards and set design. That gives it 7 people. 4 more. Best song: hated them all, just teh one from Titanic the least, so who cares. Best score-well, we all seem to be divided on that one, but since it won, eat that. Director: All of you who wrote a 16 page paper on James Cameron, please raise your hands. No one? wow, i guess i know what i am talkign about when i analyze the direction in a movie. And despite teh shortcomings of the movie(bad dialogue) the direction was superb. Want to argue? ill email you my paper(just as soon as i recover it from my dead imac). Picture: toss up, would have been happy with either Titanic or LA Confidential, a ****ing excellent movie(the real travesty that year was teh snubbing of Russel Crow for best actor). Jeron: Mulan was an incredible score, but SIL was better Oh, and from now on the is spelled teh. I decree it. And for the record, i am not a Titaniac, those people are freaks. I have not seen Titanic more times than any other movie i like(rough idea, saw Matrix 10, Jurassic Park 12, and The Rock 11. Titanic is a couple less than that). Cameron rules, later all.
posted 10-29-1999 01:00 PM PT (US)

SFT Oscar® Winner	"SFT: comparing the criteria for best score and best effects is just stupid, the 2 are unrelated. Scores are based on how well they work in the movie, not how original they are(funny how an elfman fan bitches about originality)." --- You know what Matt? That´s just it. I tried to be polite in my last post (something you obviously can´t be) but this is just too much. Normally, you are a very pleasant person to talk with and I respect your opinions an all, but frankly man, you are behaving like a complete jerk right now. And I am sorry, but there is no other way to put. First of all: Scores are not judged by how original they are? What part of Venus do you live on dude? Of course they are! Sure they are judged by how well they work in the movie (as they should) but being original is also a big part of it. If you don´t know that then you are an idiot. Second: Come on! I can take a hint! Elfman is´nt original? And I should hear that comming from a Horner fan!?! You suck man! ...but hey...I won´t get further in to that. I just won´t dignify it with a response. In fact, this will be my last post under this subject. Because frankly, you´re not worth the effort on this one(!) SFT (An Elfman fan, and damn proud of it!) [This message has been edited by SFT (edited 10-29-99).]
posted 10-29-1999 01:17 PM PT (US)

J. Peter Wolk-Laniewski Oscar® Winner	Matt: About the best director: I'm going to have to go with Curtis Hanson. Please don't kill me. I realize you're a Cameron fan, and I haven't written any 16 page papers, but maybe that just shows your bias towards Cameron. He did do a good job with a mediocre script, but the end result really wasn't anything I hadn't seen before. As a director, he followed the rules. Hanson, his designers, and his actors created an entire world and atmosphere of a postwar LA that we didn't know existed. The look, the feel, the way people talked, moved, thought all was given an authentic feel. I think he should be given credit for immersing himself into a strange culture like that and making an excellent movie without fancy effects or loads of money. Titanic was bigger, but far less artistic and thoughtful as L.A. Confidential. And I agree with SFT, you seem to be in a really bad mood. Try some Kool-Aid. That always cheers me up. Norman: My Bad. [This message has been edited by J. Peter Wolk-Laniewski (edited 10-29-99).]
posted 10-29-1999 02:15 PM PT (US)

Sean Bires Oscar® Winner	James Cameron is a great director. He's made films far better than "Titanic", so I'm happy to see him win a Best Director award. I'm still pissed that "Dark City", my favorite film, the film everybody loooves to hate, was nominated for nothing. "Gattaca", another great 1998 film (10 times the movie Titanic is), was nominated for... set design? Art direction? Won nothing too. uhuhguhughh. F-ing popularity-based Academy Awards (see how science fiction rarely wins anything?)
posted 10-29-1999 05:20 PM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	Cameran is a great director. Good. Camron is a great action- director. Better. Cameron didn't deserve that award that year. Excellent! Again. There are better movies deserving being in the same league with Ben Hur. But hey, it's only a movie after all. The earth still goes round and round... You guys back off on Matt. He might be in a bad mood but he has always been quite sarcastic. I don't mind the sarcasm, think it's great...it's just the language I was a little concerned about. To call each other idiots,etc...goes too far for my taste. I may widely disagree with many of you and might make some sarcastic/funny remarks but I would never degrate anyone. I respect all of you way too much for that. Heck, if I would call one person an idiot, it would be Bill Clinton. Matt, sorry I kinda started this all. Didn't know it would lead into this direction. I respect your point of view (as always) and can't wait to finish my computer so I can get The Matrix and study those moves. Scott Hell, I feel like crapp right now... [This message has been edited by Scott (edited 10-29-99).]
posted 10-29-1999 08:18 PM PT (US)

Matt Oscar® Winner	SFT, you were anything but polite, i just simply took the hostility from your post and responded in kind. "It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can seriously suggest, that TITANIC deserved the Oscar for best score." yeah, that wasnt hostile. "Was Horners score NEW and ORIGINAL? NOOOOO!!!! And I don´t care what kind of idiotic comments you come up with in response! It was´nt!" Tell me, was that polite? because if i took it the wrong way ill apologize. Polite my ass. As for comments on originality: you brought that up as being a necessety, not me..the only hypocrite here is you. Sean: Dark City rules. Alex Proyas kicks all sci-fi ass. Gattaca was good, but i wouldnt have nominated it for picture. Great screenplay tho. J Peter: cant go with Hanson, he did an incredible job and will do so again. Its just a choice on my part, and i wont kill you for that. I just jumped on SFT for being an ass. Anyway, the topic is dead, so who the **** cares anyway?
posted 10-29-1999 09:00 PM PT (US)

SFT Oscar® Winner	Excuse me for breaking my promise, but what the hell is wronge with you Matt? Did you just have brain surgery or something? I really don´t regocnize you anymore. Has your evil twin brother gotten a hold on your password? PLEASE! Snap out of it! SFT PS: I brought up the part about originality because it is a FACT. I don´t see anyone here being a hypocrite other than you.
posted 10-30-1999 12:31 AM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB