Academy Award Nominations

[Relique du Madde]

Well unless the writers work things out the show could be about 3 hours shorter this year. There is still the possibility of another 40 Minute press conference ala the Golden Globes.

It doesn't even NEED to be 40 minute long press confrence. If it wasn't for all the pretentiousness and false grandeur placed within the awards, it could easily be done in about 5 - 10 minutes max.

 

[horacethegrey]

2. Actor: George Clooney, "Michael Clayton"; Daniel Day-Lewis, "There Will Be Blood"; Johnny Depp, "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street"; Tommy Lee Jones, "In the Valley of Elah"; Viggo Mortensen, "Eastern Promises."

Okay, I'm totally up for Depp winning it after being so impressed with him in Sweeney Todd, but I'm quite surprised to see Aragorn himself up there as well. And yes, I've seen Eastern Promises, and I liked it. I thought Viggo was very good too (despite the nude fight scene and all ), but I certainly didn't expect him to get a nomination.

10. Animated Feature Film: "Persepolis"; "Ratatouille"; "Surf's Up."

C'mon, no offense to the penguin and the little girl in Iran, but everyone knows the rat's gonna get the statue.

 

[Acid_crash]

All I can tell is that this year proves again that each year the politics of the academy awards is going more and more into a certain direction that only certain movies of a certain type can even be considered for best picture...

It's a crock, a sham, and they really need to broaden their horizons as to what makes a movie a good movie.

If a movie is not a drama, it will never be considered for best picture. It's a sham. It's all political, nothing more. Of all those movies nomiated for best picture, only Juno deserves it, the rest were okay and good, but nothing compared to other movies that were released this year.

They are elitist in their thinking, are unfair in their desicion making, and lets the politics of the event get in the way of being really open and fair about it.

I'd say in the last ten years or so, the only two movies to win that truly deserved it was Gladiator and Return of the King-Lord of the Rings. The rest were all political statements that didn't deserve to win, let alone be nominated. Some won to make up for a past wrong decision, as was the Departed last year, and others were just so stupid that only money must have been past into certain peoples hands in order for their movie to win, like American Beauty.

Stardust should have been on that list, as should Transformers and 300. And as much as I loved Transformers and feel that it was the best movie, I'd actually pick Stardust as THE Best movie made and relased in the last year.

I can't stand them.

 

[horacethegrey]

I'd say in the last ten years or so, the only two movies to win that truly deserved it was Gladiator and Return of the King-Lord of the Rings. The rest were all political statements that didn't deserve to win, let alone be nominated. Some won to make up for a past wrong decision, as was the Departed last year, and others were just so stupid that only money must have been past into certain peoples hands in order for their movie to win, like American Beauty.

I'm sorry... I must disagree with you there. If we were to follow your logic, then you're telling me that the brilliant Shakespeare in Love (1998 Best Picture) did not deserve to win? Or that The Fellowship of the Ring (a film which I love dearly) had it over A Beautiful Mind(a film I grudgingly admit was better than Fellowship) in 2001? Or that The Departed(great crime film) only won because the Academy owed Scorsese?

While I have on occasion questioned the Academy's nominations and picks (1994 being a particular sticking point, Forrest Gump did not deserve to trump up Pulp Fiction), I think by and large they pick the film that deserves the award the most.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

...and it's Heath Ledger for the win! This'll be the first year ever that someone not nominated wins it all.



I'm kidding.

 

[Acid_crash]

I'm sorry... I must disagree with you there. If we were to follow your logic, then you're telling me that the brilliant Shakespeare in Love (1998 Best Picture) did not deserve to win? Or that The Fellowship of the Ring (a film which I love dearly) had it over A Beautiful Mind(a film I grudgingly admit was better than Fellowship) in 2001? Or that The Departed(great crime film) only won because the Academy owed Scorsese?

While I have on occasion questioned the Academy's nominations and picks (1994 being a particular sticking point, Forrest Gump did not deserve to trump up Pulp Fiction), I think by and large they pick the film that deserves the award the most.

Fellowship of the Ring was hands down a far superior movie in every way in comparison to any other nomination of that year... and yes I do think that they focused more on The Departed because of the past, although I will say that the movie rocked it wasn't the best movie of the year...

Forrest Gump i will agree with as a phenomenal movie that deserved it.

In my mind, what the BEST Picture of the Year should be is the Best movie across the board... NOT just drama or what is politically correct for the current time of the selection process, and that is just what it is. The best picture should be the most Impressive movie, the most monumental, the most catching with some of the highest quality and at least a good movie that moves us... in other words, the best, and what they have picked as nominations this year clearly shows that they only pick certain movies that fit a specific criteria of their elitist views of what is politically correct at the time.

Of this year those picked, only Juno deserves the nomination. IMO of course.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In my mind, what the BEST Picture of the Year should be is the Best movie across the board... NOT just drama or what is politically correct for the current time of the selection process, and that is just what it is. The best picture should be the most Impressive movie, the most monumental, the most catching with some of the highest quality and at least a good movie that moves us... in other words, the best, and what they have picked as nominations this year clearly shows that they only pick certain movies that fit a specific criteria of their elitist views of what is politically correct at the time.

"Best", if you'll forgive the phraseology, is at best subjective and in fact, is not even accurate. The rules (and even the statue I think) state "for outstanding acheivement", not "BEST". In other words, strictly going by verbage, they have every excuse to snub films and performances that are truly classifiable as the best of a given year in favor of what they think should have been achieved - such as making a political statement or being the most popular person in town at the moment and they want to slap you on the back and call you one of their in-crowd.

Yeah, that's a little unfair but it's still accurate to a degree. The people who vote for the Oscars are the members of Academy. Their rules say NOTHING about WHY members should place one nominee at the top of the list over the others. It IS a popularity contest within the Academy and I think past results have demonstrated this repeatedly.

This is their right. It's their award so they can handle it the way they want. But the way they want people to THINK about their award is that it DOES represent an unbiased, accurate assessment of artistic and technical merit. I suppose that this is what has come to bother me so much about the Oscars. I would almost prefer the Peoples Choice Awards, or even MTV's movie awards which are openly a pure popularity contest - and have public voting. That at least, while it may completely miss actual artistic and technical merit, has no pretensions to those awards being other than what they are. The kind of awards which the Oscars pretend to be - and which I would have more respect for - would require a much more comprehensive set of rules for nomination and means of determining a winner. I mean in some years there could be the possibility of NO awards being handed out by virtue of the years crop of movies simply not being up to past standards, as well as the possibility of MULTIPLE winners rather than 1 vote difference meaning that one movie gets the award and all that goes with it while the other(s) are perceived to have failed or have been snubbed.

That kind of critical assessment is not what anyone wants with awards though. That kind of critical assessment is supposed to be what CRITICS are for - and critical opinions vary.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

This is why we have so many award shows. There are the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes, the Peoples Choice, the MTV Movie Awards, The Screen Actors Guild awards, the Directors Guild of America awards, and the Critics Choice awards. Each has differently rules and criteria, some are more popularity contests than others. There is no reason to say that the Academy Awards are any more important or better than any of the others, other than that over time a large number of people have been lead to believe that they are.

 

[Mistwell]

All I can tell is that this year proves again that each year the politics of the academy awards is going more and more into a certain direction that only certain movies of a certain type can even be considered for best picture...

It's a crock, a sham, and they really need to broaden their horizons as to what makes a movie a good movie.

If a movie is not a drama, it will never be considered for best picture. It's a sham. It's all political, nothing more. Of all those movies nomiated for best picture, only Juno deserves it, the rest were okay and good, but nothing compared to other movies that were released this year.

They are elitist in their thinking, are unfair in their desicion making, and lets the politics of the event get in the way of being really open and fair about it.

I'd say in the last ten years or so, the only two movies to win that truly deserved it was Gladiator and Return of the King-Lord of the Rings. The rest were all political statements that didn't deserve to win, let alone be nominated. Some won to make up for a past wrong decision, as was the Departed last year, and others were just so stupid that only money must have been past into certain peoples hands in order for their movie to win, like American Beauty.

Stardust should have been on that list, as should Transformers and 300. And as much as I loved Transformers and feel that it was the best movie, I'd actually pick Stardust as THE Best movie made and relased in the last year.

I can't stand them.

I disagree. And, I think you have not even seen many of the movies up for best picture this year, and are making that judgment.

In my opinion, Transformers was a bad movie. It was fine fluff, but there were so many laughably bad parts of the movie that to even mention it in the same breath as some of these best picture nominees is an insult to film film-making. I mean seriously, Transformers "bad guy" humans practically had a waxed handlebar mustaches, and we were supposed to believe she was in HIGH SCHOOL? Please...the dialog was mostly awful, and much of it geared towards teens. And we are to compare this to "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men"? Are you serious?

Stardust was a fine movie. It wasn't a best picture, but I agree it should have been up for something.

And while I agree sometimes that it's political, this year it really doesn't seem to be. They are all great movies up for it, and some of the more politically correct films (like Sean Penn's "Into the Wild", and Angelina Jolie in "A Mighty Heart" and all the Iraq movies) got snubbed. Of all years to be making this complaint about the Academy, this isn't the year. And to claim your clear example is friggen Tramformers? Ugh...it doesn't make a person a snob to not think that was a best picture movie...

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I hope Philip Seymour Hoffman wins best supporting actor for "Charlie Wilson's War". I really liked him in that...and most of his other roles.