Originally Posted By DAR I think my disappointment in The Dark Knight and let's not forget Christopher Nolan, not getting a best picture or best director nod is how rare it is that Hollywood produces a piece of popular entertainment(Pixar notwithstanding) that gets critics and audiences on board. The Lord of the Rings was the last I can remember to acheive that. And when something like TDK comes along it's a real treat for everyone.
Originally Posted By alexbook But the Oscar voters aren't critics, either. They're industry insiders. So, the real complaint is that his fellow directors didn't appreciate Nolan, isn't it?
Originally Posted By DAR Now of the five best pictures. I've never heard of The Reader until yesterday. I do want to see Frost/Nixon, Milk and Slumdog Millionare. And I just saw Benjamin Button on monday. I like it a lot, though the 20 minutes with Tilda Swinton kinda of dragged.
Originally Posted By Ursula <But the Oscar voters aren't critics, either. They're industry insiders. So, the real complaint is that his fellow directors didn't appreciate Nolan, isn't it?> Thank you. "Oscar" isn't one person or entity, either. It is made up of many people in many disciplines. It's not like they all get together in the clubhouse and say, "Hey, let's snub someone this year, ha!"
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It's not like they all get together in the clubhouse and say, "Hey, let's snub someone this year, ha!"<< Animated features that are better than all the "Best Pictures" notwithstanding ...
Originally Posted By Anatole69 The reason the LOTR got the oscar nominations is 1) Peter Jackson decided to film it as a historical epic, and not a Fantasy one (and historical films have long appealed to the oscars) and 2) it was a recognition of his unprecidented work on all three films at the same time. Unfortunately, the Dark Knight is an art film in the guise of a crime film in the guise of a superhero film. Add to that a high level of violence and disturbing psychological content, a flimsy plot, and a postmodern lack of concern with fulfilling genre conventions, and you have a film that is not going to appeal to the typical oscar voter, who tends to be somewhat conservative. In spite of all of that, it found a tremendously large commercial audience, and a very large number of critical accolades. For the type of film that it is, that is an astounding achievement in its own right. - Anatole
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >"Oscar" isn't one person or entity, either. It is made up of many people in many disciplines. It's not like they all get together in the clubhouse and say, "Hey, let's snub someone this year, ha!"< Great analogy. And the way the voting is done, there really is no way to second guess the "system". Basically, members number their choices from #1 to #5, and so the way the accounting goes, if you don't have enough #1 votes, you're not getting a nomination. X number of Academy members could (and probably did) vote for "Dark Knight" as their #1 choice, but there just wasn't enough to get it into the final five. - kch
Originally Posted By ecdc >>"Oscar" isn't one person or entity, either. It is made up of many people in many disciplines. It's not like they all get together in the clubhouse and say, "Hey, let's snub someone this year, ha!"<< I hear ya. I'm not alleging a borg-like conspiracy. But all organizations have unwritten rules, expectations, etc. So while no one is arguing that they got together and said, "Let's snub someone," they do have an established tradition of recognizing certain kinds of films over other kinds of films, regardless of quality. We frequently hear that, "It's the kind of movie Oscar loves!" Well, Oscar isn't a person, but it is a group that tends to favor one thing over another. Then there's the politicking that makes it even less an indicator of what the "best" or stand-out really was. Exhibit A: Shakespeare in Love. Only Harvey Weinstein's legendary campaigning could've gotten such a mediocre movie the award of other, more worthy films, notably Saving Private Ryan. Exhibit B: Although not the Oscars, let's not forget Ellen Burstyn's laughable nomination in 2006 for HBO's Mrs. Harris, when she appeared in the film for all of 15 seconds and spoke exactly 38 words of dialogue. (Those are actual numbers, not my hyperbole.) While there's no conspiracy, there's certainly a multitude of lazy voters who don't bother to watch performances but recognize what they think is probably a great performance, based on the names involved. All this is no skin off my nose. It's how any organization that relies on members to vote for awards will probably end up operating. But then the Academy probably can't be all that surprised with declining ratings, and when film lovers outside of the industry, like myself, don't take them seriously.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Sorry, Shakespeare in Love was a well made movie, with a script co-written by a distinguished playwrite (Tom Stoppard) a great cast of actors, and it was a historical film with a feel good ending. I think it is a more consistent film than Saving Private Ryan, and less gory and violent (which tends to turn off the academy). I do not consider it mediocre one bit, and like it more than Saving Private Ryan, which to me is a flawed movie. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Anatole69 "and it was a historical film with a feel good ending." Pointed this last part out as one the reasons it won the oscar, and not necessarily as a merits of the film. - Anatole
