Re: Oscar snubbs
 

No, I like film in general. I just think these particular films were not worthy of being listed among the 10 best films of the year, which the Academy basically says when they nominate a film for Best Picture.

I simply do not care how much the film makes. I just go by my thoughts on how the film was done. Could have been made for thousands or millions or hundreds of millions. I like small films, but I also like a few big budget films too. I just do not care what the box office is on a film.

If you can make a good/great film while spending a fairly small amount such as what was done with 'A Serious Man', then that is great. If it makes money, thats perfect! Happy for them.

But, if you spend the GNI of Yemen to make a film and it turns out like Avatar...well then, I think someone should be shot. If you can spend that much and turn out something great, great!

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

That's all well and good. I totally get your point. I don't believe that box office success equals quality either. Some of my favorite movies made very little at the box office. You just have to realize that you're in the minority in regards to some of the movies you slammed. MOST people liked Avatar and Up. It's just the way it's always been, the majority rules.

And by the way...off topic a bit, but Avatar really didn't cost THAT much. Some sources claimed it cost $500 million, but more accurately it cost closer to $300 million, which is similar to the third Pirates movie. Wikipedia actually lists Avatar as the 4th most expensive movie ever made behind Pirates, Spiderman 3 and Half Blood Prince. I'm sure it did approach $500 million including marketing, but most likely those other movies did too.

And this is just my opinion, but I don't feel that the Academy should award Best Picture to a film that "nobody" saw. A Serious Man, An Education and The Hurt Locker made $9 million, $8 million and $12 million respectively. Granted none of those movies were widely released, but no matter how good they might be, I just don't agree with awarding Best Picture to a movie that a very small percentage of the population has even heard of, let alone actually saw.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

I was browsing the Oscar archives and found the 1974 Best Actor category. This has to be one of the worst choices in history. Look at the competition.

Art Carney -- Harry and Tonto {"Harry"}
Albert Finney -- Murder on the Orient Express {"Hercule Poirot"}
Dustin Hoffman -- Lenny {"Lenny Bruce"}
Jack Nicholson -- Chinatown {"J. J. Gittes"}
Al Pacino -- The Godfather Part II {"Michael Corleone"}

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Yeah no shit...two of the best performances in history there outdone by something I've never even heard of.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Yeah it was a 'lifetime achievement' award for Carney. Similar to 1981 and Henry Fonda for 'On Golden Pond' (although arguably Fonda deserved the statue).

1974: As much as I like Nicholson in Chinatown I would have awarded Hoffman the oscar for his brilliant portrayal of Lenny Bruce. Carney aside you couldn't go wrong with any of those nominees In my book. :shrug:

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

My guess: the younger voters at the time split their votes between Nicholson and Pacino, both of whom were relative newcomers to movie stardom at the time (despite the fact that it was Nicholson's 15th year in the business), so the old farts in the Academy, many of whom had been in the industry since the 1920s, and who dominated the voting membership, voted for Carney, a relative veteran (who was only 56 at the time).

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Its kind of humorous that the majority of the time, no one actually really wins when they deserve to. All the big names pretty much just have "make up" Oscars for lesser performances to remedy when the Academy screwed them over at some point. It kind of defies the whole point...Although exceptions do obviously exist.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

If UP is getting so much praise, then so should WATCHMEN.

If UP is getting so much praise only due to the opening 10 minutes, then the same should be for Watchmen's opening credits.

THE SECRET OF KELLS is the best animated film of the year, ten times better than UP.

On a serious note, THE ROAD got totally dissed.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Up had emotional pull in its first 10 minutes and then again sporadically throughout, the first half is actually a very solid movie. Watchmen had a cool intro that had no emotional pull and the rest of the movie still suffered horribly by comparison.

I haven't seen Kells, but I would prefer Fox win over Up. However, considering only one of the Best Animated is also up for Best Picture, that tells you what will win.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we addressed the changing times for these guys by setting the opening sequence to Dylan's 'The Times They Are A-Changin'?"

**OSCAR NOMINATION**

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

:lol:

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

The only obvious ones I can think of are Sharlto Copley (Leading Actor) for District 9, Watchmen for Visual Effects & Editing and Drag Me to Hell for Sound Design.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

totally agree on Copley. That was some damn fine acting.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Probably a case of the Pacino and Nicholson canceling each other out.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

If that's how it worked, then hopefully Avatar & The Hurt Locker wash each other out for Inglourious Basterds this year.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

No, it wasn't a masterpiece.

The sex scene stopped the movie dead, and was totally gratuitous and unnecessary. A better title would have been Attack of the 50-Foot Penis.

I agree with an earlier poster in calling Watchmen 'pretentious horseshit'.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Well to be honest...that sex scene was in the graphic novel/comic. So....it seemed to be necessary overall to the character of Dan anyway.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

The problem wasn't the sex scene so much as the direction in those scenes, and the movie in general. Snyder did a pretty lousy job turning the pages into cinema.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

See...I've heard this same opinion a bunch of times and I don't agree.

I never read the graphic novel but I saw the movie and liked it. Not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but I liked it well enough. I'm now reading the graphic novel and SO FAR I like the movie way better. I'm only a little more than halfway through the graphic novel and I from what I've heard the ending is different and there are other differences too, but so far from what I've read, I like the movie better. There are things in the graphic novel that seem totally unnecessary and I think that the cool parts of the novel that the movie more or less emulated are fine in the movie and some of the things that were changed are better in the movie than in the novel.

Maybe I'll change my mind once I'm actually done reading it...if I ever get done as it's kind of a chore to get through. Every time anything about "Tales of the Black Freighter" show up I completely zone out. So far I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything. Again, I'm only halfway through so I might change my mind.

I guess my main point is that from what I've read in the novel (halfway though) I truly think the movie did a fine job and in some instances improved on the novel.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Won't happen due to the new "ranking" system.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Only two glaring omissions in my book and both are for the actor category:

Sharlto Copely - District 9
Sam Rockwell - Moon

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

I wasn't the biggest fan of the GN but it wasn't bad, the movie told the key story points decently but it didn't succeed as an actual cohesive movie, imo, and was never particularly involving. It felt like a re-enactment of the GN panels, despite the differences, instead of an actual movie adaptation, and it ultimately came off as a somewhat fragmented, failed experiment.

Imo, Snyder didn't really know how to adapt it for the screen, comics and movies are two substantially different mediums. The movie gets a few points for attempting to break the mold of traditional cinematic storytelling, but it didn't succeed and he was more successful with 300 (which I also wasn't a big fan of). In comics the reader can compensate for the breaks between panels and ensure there is a good flow between them. Movies need a little more finesse and structure while moving from scene to scene - more to keep things involving than anything. Plus the characters were flatout bland in the movie, save for Rorschach.

It isn't a bad movie, I just think a certain group of people overpraise it to compensate for its average critical response and disappointing box office. Trying to make it into an overlooked classic that it isn't while ignoring the more obvious of its flaws. Of course, this is just like, my opinion, man.

Re: Oscar snubbs
 

Wait ... are we saying that nominations and wins are about quality and not pure Hollywood masturbatory sentiment? I'm confused.