Have to agree with NY Branch. Dreamgirls was not that great of a movie and you don't have to be white to recognize it. The Academy has no problem giving awards to African Americans. How else can you explain Denzel Washington winning in a year when Russell Crowe out acted him by miles? Or Halle Berry winning for a role that didn't come close to Sissy Spacek's? Or Jamie Foxx being nominated for mimicking (not acking in my opinion) Ray Charles and still winning even though there were other better performances. I'm also willing to bet that with the exception of Best Actress which will go to Helen Mirren, the other 3 acting awards go to African Americans including two from Dreamgirls. Could it be the Academy saw what I saw? A movie that was just ok, but had two great actors?

Oh, the race card is pulled out yet again. Aren't people tired of using that as an explanation? Can it be 'Dreamgirls' is just not one of the top five films of the year? Could it be that 'Brokeback' wasn't the better film? Not that it's revelent, I'm a homosexual.. so please keep your "you're a racist homophobe" caution tape to yourselves and pull it out when it actually matters in this society.

I agree. I'm fairly new to LA and one thing that surprised me was the dominant age group at Academy screenings. I don't think it's a stretch to say age is a factor to an extent regarding Dreamgirls. I'm not so sure race is as much an issue, certainly much less so than acceptance of gay people was regarding Brokeback. I just saw a Brokeback/homophobic swipe on Netflix in a comment posted regarding a Sopranos episode, the complaint being directed at a gay story line of one of the characters.

Hopefully, Jennifer Hudson will be recognized.

Respectfully, I disagree. Dreamgirls was not about emotional connection; it was about loudness and songs. Condon's direction was passable, at best, but really the film was just glitz without substance. Murphy and Hudson deserved their noms: they were outstanding, energetic, charismatic, magnetic...but they weren't exactly emotional lightening rods. And that WAS the problem with the film, it did not connect, it did not make me feel anything. Further, it had a huge conflict of focus. The first third of the movie was a musical biopic (a la Walk the Line)where characters only sang on stage, performing their songs as Dreamettes; suddenly the film shifted gears into full-out musical where even OFF the stage, characters sung to each other. Either/or would have been fine, so long as it was consistent; doing both only works if you do it that way from the opening scenes. This is a basic problem of focus that should have been sorted in pre-production. Finally, the movie had very, very minimal connective tissue by the end. Songs were separated by a minute or two of dialogue, and the songs got louder, longer, and faster in its frenetic pace to finish. But the more the movie whizz-flashed around, the less involved the audience gets. You have to connect, on an emotional level, with the characters to get an audience to care about the songs. And Dreamgirls just didn't establish that connection.

What NickCharles said. At least the "Dreamgirls" fans are spared from getting their hopes raised for naught. AMPAS is about AMPAS, period.

Couldn't disagree with you more, Tom. When you consider that it got 8 nominations (3 of which were in one category, no support from directors or writers, and only 3 technicals--far less than projected), and that some pundits were saying it'd reap as many as 12 or 13, you can see that this isn't a case of "old geezers" not "getting" the film or disobeying their responsibility to surrender themselves to it; this is a film that just was not as admired across the many branches of AMPAS as by you, because you've long been very emotionally invested in it. If you hadn't been, you'd have seen this coming.

You got it, Nick Charles! And Tom, remember the Broadway show? It was all downhill after intermission. Condon tried but wasn't able to create a second act for the show.

This has been a lot of fun, but that's all for me, folks! After CRASH winning last year, and the Academy losing all respect, I decided to enjoy the awards season until the nominations, then let the chips fall where they may at the Oscar ceremony. Doesn't make me a bit of difference who wins 'cause there's too much chance for dishonesty, ugliness of heart, and lack of integrity when producers, PR folks, techs, etc. join actors, writers, etc. and vote on subjects they know nothing about. Peer nominations are much more enjoyable: directors, for example, having the sense not to nominate a bad directing job, writers including an off-the-wall burst of creatvity. I've enjoyed many of the "pre-Oscar" honors more than ever before, and it was a joy watching this morning, especially when another "Dr. Doolittle" didn't knock out a deserving best picture contender and some actors who watched at home from their apartments last year (here or in another country!) will be in prime seats on ... whatever night the Oscars are held. Thanks to everybody for your entertaining and especially informative posts, particularly when you answered a question for me. That's all!

Last year Brokeback, this year Dreamgirls. Does ANYONE really care what the Academy thinks anymore? It's a show who's time has passed. It's not worth watching anymore.

Tom, give me a break!!! Dreamgirls was most over hyped piece of crap out there. Unfinished art direction, terrible leads, primitive dialogue and Hudson cannot save the film alone. She wasn't evn that good. I'm a member and I predict Letters ( which took Dreamgirls spot) will win. I'm voting for it. Look for little Abigail to pose a huge threat. But , Dreamgirls finally some justice in a crappy, crappy film year. And I;m telling you, you need to wake up.