f13.net

I predict that unless Dark Knight squeaks in, the Best Picture nominees will be a bunch of movies nobody actually went to see. I also predict a bunch of Academy types spouting off in the press a week later about how they can't understand why the ceremony ratings were in the shitter yet again. I could give a shit less who wins an Oscar, but it's that second part that annoys me.

(Entertainment Weekly had it's own picks for Oscar noms this week and my overwhelming reaction to the contenders was "Nobody I know knows anyone who went to see Frost/Nixon or Doubt" so you get a thread.)

Fortunately movies aren't nomitated based on "how many of WUA's friends went to see this?".

Tell that to Titanic. LOLOLOLOL.

No, seriously though. Fuck Penn. It's all about Ledger vs. Langella.

Yeah, but none of the Star Wars prequels were ever nomitated for best picture.  I'm sure that's what's really bothering him.

With the throngs packing theaters nationwide to catch the phenomenon that is... say... Milk, I'm going to be shocked when we get a bunch of "This year's Oscars least-watched ever!" headlines for the third year in a row or whatever.

I'm not entirely sure if I'm understanding your point.  It seems to be that nomiations should be given out to movies based on popularity rather than actual merit, because that will bring in more viewers, who would presumably be more likely to tune in if the movies up for awards are ones they've seen (which I'm sure is a great idea if you own the station broadcasting the show, and not so much for anyone else). 

I'm saying that while award shows are always self-congratulatory circlejerks, lately it's become so blatant with the Oscars that it's turned into it's own little incestuos cottage industry. They're very near the point where they may as well just be filming things and screening them directly to a room full of Academy voters and no one else, without going through the pantomime of releasing them commercially.

They're supposed to be self-congratulatory circlejerks.  I'm not sure what else you'd expect from an awards show.  As for the ratings decline, with all the celebrity gossip available out there, I'm sure bored housewives find watching all the red carpet bullshit to see what everyone is wearing to be a little tame these days.  It used to be a novel thing to see actors and actresses outside of the movies they were in, or the occasional talk show interview.  Now the minutiae of their lives (especially all the bad shit) is crammed down our throats.  It's no surprise the general public no longer wants to tune in to watch them all patting each other on the back.

Or America woke up at some point and said, "Hey we like what we like, fuck you," to the Academy. They either recognize what America likes and get ratings, or they recognize what they like and get nothing. The two rarely intersect.

Unlikely.  In fact people seem to like discussing Best Of or Top 10 lists more when they don't coincide with their own opinions (since it gives them the jumping off point for discussing how they would have done it better).  No, I'm fairly convinced it's not the awards themselves.  It's the fact that nobody cares about the hours of spectacle surrounding the awards anymore, and when you don't care about that, there's little reason to actually watch the awards rather than just check online or tomorrows newspaper to see who won.

Perhaps, the award presentation in total has become a bloated piece of crap that's coupled with ridiculous amounts of commercial time. "Oh we ran over...hahahaha." No, fuck you. Sports run over because they go into overtime unexpectedly. An awards show has a definite amount of stuff that must be presented in a definite time. The reason it runs overtime is laziness and stupidity. Also, nobody wants to watch people do speeches that go on forever. You could be accepting an award for saving Earth from invading aliens, and people would still want it to be over in three minutes. We stopped caring at that point.

People have no stake in a race between a bunch of movies they've never seen. Duh. And actually they may not be down again this year, if only because I just looked back and they shed a whopping 1/5th of their viewership between 2007 and 2008 alone. There has to be at least a little bit of a plateau after a hit like that, right? And people might actually tune in if they nominate Dark Knight for some stuff.

I don't really care if Hollywood has some beret-fest award for movies nobody watches once a year and calls it the Oscars, but I have to roll my eyes because it's like they're going out of their way to be irrelevant by nominating crap maybe a couple percent of the adult population has seen.

EDIT: To expand, once upon a time the studios made movies, and the Academy (hopefully) nominated the best ones for Oscars. Thirty or thirty-five years ago you'd see stuff like Rocky and Godfather winning Best Picture, movies of merit that the public actually liked. Nowdays studios manufacture Oscar-bait that isn't even really meant to appeal to anyone but Academy voters, and the whole thing has been turned into an obvious farce with most people going "WTF was Shakespeare in Love?" Sometimes a Lord of the Rings or a Gladiator gets in there and wins, but anymore even people who go to the movies a lot are likely not to have seen most of the nominees.

You've come off the pills again, haven't you?

The films that win and get nominated now are pretty much exactly the same sort of films that were being made and getting nominated for ever. The birth of the blockbuster movie in the 70s changed what movies and cinema experience were but a good thing about the films that get nominated is that, while generally it's very much an industry backslapping circlejerk, they will not necessarily award either the populist or highest earning film although sometimes they happen to (see Titanic, Return of the King, Gladiator).

You even mention Rocky as an example: Rocky was released in November 1976, got pretty mixed reviews but went on to win best picture in March 1977 - at that point it was still a relatively new film and only after it's Oscar win did it go on to do very well in the box office.  It pretty much fell in line with the films your maligning now.  Other films nominated in the same year: All The President's Men, Taxi Driver, Bound for Glory, Network.  What about 1972 when The Godfather won? Other nominations? Deliverance, Cabaret, Sounder and The Emigrants.

30 years ago? The Deer Hunter won. Also rans: Coming Home, Heaven Can Wait, Midnight Express, An Unmarried Woman
20 years ago? Rain Man won. Also rans: The Accidental Tourist, Dangerous Liaisons, Mississippi Burning, Working Girl
10 years ago? Shakespeare in Love won. Also rans: Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Life is Beautiful, Elizabeth

Lots of films over the decade which get nominated but which "most people" may not have seen or heard of. Sometimes that's to do with when they're released - both the Deer Hunter and Kramer vs Kramer got released in December and won a few months afterwards.  The Deer Hunter didn't even make that much money in the box office at the time.

If you want an awards show in which people get to shower praise on any old tosh just because it was a huge summer blockbuster then the MTV awards are thataway.

I agree with your broader point that the hype around award shows is increasingly pointless and that award shows are largely irrelevant anyway but complaining that the Oscars don't recognise populist films is like wringing your hands over the fact that Tom Clancy will never win the Booker prize.

Wired has a good article regarding this. (http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/la-film-critics.html)

The Oscars, har.

What was the sappiest, soddingly heart-wrenchiest drama of the last 12 months?  That'll win it.

People don't have any stake in a competition that is obviously pandering towards the audience either.  You think people won't know something is up if the Best Picture nominations just happen to be the top 5 movies at the box office that year, or if Sarah Jessica Parker gets nominated for Sex and the City?

Let's take a look at the Top 30 movies by Box Office grosses:


Do you really think Oscar-bait is the problem here and they're robbing otherwise deserving movies from getting nominations?  Would you really like to see Hancock, Twilight, or Indiana Jones nominated?  If so maybe you should be watching the MTV or Teen Choice awards.  The masses go see movies for entertainment.  The Oscars, and similar awards are more about the art.  Also, I'm not typically into what most would consider "Oscar-bait" movies.  This year's lineup was really fucking stellar though.  I can also tell you, as someone who works at a theater that has Gran Torino on two screens, Frost/Nixon, Doubt, and Slumdog Millionaire, that a lot of people are going to see these movies, with several shows of each being sold out every day.  They're in more limited release so it will take longer for the box office numbers to get up there, but they're doing really fucking well.

There are some truly awful films in that list.

Hay guyz!  Did jo know that industry internal awards are back-slapping circle jerks?  Whoda thunk it?   :why_so_serious:

I don't think Ledger gets nominated for Best Actor. Much more likely Best Supporting Actor.

WUA, you've been bitching about what movies will likely get nominated but haven't provided any examples of what you think SHOULD be nominated. Let's have 'em.

I conquer.

Although very glad to see that Meet the Spartans didn't make it in despite getting to top of the box office the weekend it was released.

"I Conquer " ???!

You guys are getting worse, yet funnier.

Concur.

I accidentally your whole spelling lesson.  What should do? Is it dangerous?

No, you should be fine.  What you do is hold down the power button for just over 10 seconds till the errors go away.

Tee-hee.

Ironwood doesn't see what's going on.

I am a box of tools.

The Academy is out of touch. News at 11. Most of the voters are the older people in the industry and they believe, for instance, that a Comic Book movie is never, never to be taken seriously.

 I think the Dark Knight is that rare mix of blockbuster and great movie that stands on its artistic merits. If the Academy even gives it a nomination I'll be shocked. And if it wins? Well, that only means that the super collider in Europe has already punched a hole into another dimension.

But we still love ya!  :heart:

The movie-going public is out of touch.

The Dark Night and Heath Ledger does NOT deserve to be nominated for anything! Well maybe except for people's choice and MTV awards - thats what they are there for - to pander to public.

Really. If Heath Ledger did not OD conveniently before release, would it have had the big boxoffice and all the buzz on Ledger's performance? "Of the dead, nothing but good" - if Ledger was still alive, would the critics have been so kind on his performance? Frankly, Nutzoid psycho is so easy to do on screen. "Never go full retard"... In this case, Ledger went full psycho - his joker was utterly 2D - even the TV version was more interesting than his version of the Joker. I hated his performance, the movie, hate the public for obligingly providing the "sympathy" box-office boost for this movie and hate the critics that were too pussy to stand up and say his performance just plain sucked.

Who the heck says that the Osctards don't pander to the so called public tastes?
Case in point the 1998 academy awards (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774113.html):
How the f*** did Shakespeare in Love (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138097/awards) win FOUR major awards - best actress (Gwen, Kate Blanchett called - she wants her Oscar bacK), best supporting actress (Dame Judi Dench - less than 10 mins on screen? they gave you that Oscar for your other works - not in this movie), BEST F**K*** PICTURE???? (against Saving Private Ryan and Elizabeth?)

Lost all respect after that, will go negative points if The Dark Knight gets nominated or even wins this year.

Frankly, these days - as awards shows go, I find the MTV movie awards a lot more entertaining.

That had way more to do with the power and marketing of the Weinsteins than "pandering to the public."  Saving Private Ryan actually made way more money.

Fucking wrong.


Still wrong.


STILL WRONG.


Making up words makes you sound like a 5 year old. Between this, M$ in the gaming forum, and Darkfail in the MMOG forum, I'm starting to get stabby.

Edit: And yes, when I say you're wrong, I mean you are NOT entitled to your opinion because it is wrong. Flat out. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.  :vv:

Are you sure you were watching The Dark Knight?  I say this because you surely must be mistaken, either that or something in your life is going terribly wrong.

Incurable disease?  Trouble at home?  ARE YOU POSTING FROM GAZA???

I mean you didn't even go the somewhat plausible route and say Nicholson was better in the original, you went for the TV JOKER.  I know the natural urge is to go against whatever general consensus the public may have when posting on forums, it makes you look edgy and gives the illusion you're a man of discriminating taste.  This is not that.  You fail.

Damn, even Ookii's avatar is aghast at your wrongitude.

You Lose. Good Day, Sir.

Ubvman- I wonder, with no small amount of horror, what your picks would be for this year and those prior.

I'd like to see Ledger be given credit for a great performance but Batman still wasn't that good of a movie.  I mean if Alfred had spelled out one more moral obvious moral dilemma through a boring stupid speech, if Morgan Freeman's whole character had sucked any more, if the Batman voice was a tiny bit more fucking annoying.  You see where I'm going with this?

Also WUA bashing Milk and Sean Penn, ya that is a total oscar movie, they only wanted to win an oscar, god you are a fucking maroon.

I watched Dark Knight for the first time this weekend. Ledger's performance had me rolling at times, and completely uncomfortable at others. He also moves from being almost believable in his logical rants to randomly chaotic and homocidal. It was a great performance in my book. It was also the ONLY performance in my book. He was it. The rest of the characters were forgettable and boring. I didn't give a rat's ass about the Rachel character. Morgan Freeman did nothing. Alfred was too preachy. They also completely blew a great opportunity to do something meaningful with the two-face character. That never really fleshed itself out at all before the story abruptly stops.

Ledger stood out, and nobody else did at all. Also, Batman is not a grizzly bear. The decision to further alter his voice into a sub-human level was moronic, and that guy needs to be fired.

I thought lead paint was banned.

Heath just took the award in the golden globes. ^_^

Old news (fucking tape delay).

Yes, now STFU.

I agree, it was fantastic, and I think he may have redefined the joker with his performance, so much so...if this series continues. Do not expect a recasting. This may also be why they "killed off" Two face.

Ledger was the bright spot in a shitty movie.  He deserves any and all awards for that performance.  It was brilliant. 

It is definitely a Supporting Actor role, though, not an Actor role.

A lot of the smaller releases are finally starting to expand now.  Gran Torino went from 84 screens to 2808 this last weekend and took the #1 spot at the box office with close to $30 mil.  On the 23rd, Slumdog Millionaire goes up to about 1300 screens (currently on about 600) and the Wrestler expands to 400 (after expanding to 160 this Friday).

This decade's Hannibal Lecter.

I don't know, sometimes you can have two leads. Both, say, Dicaprio and Hanks would be leads in Catch Me if You Can. Bloom and Depp in Pirates. Riggs and Murtaugh in the Lethal Weapon series.  :why_so_serious:

Ensemble casts make everyone a supporting actor. When they split people into lead and supporting, it's because they wanted more than one person from a film to win an award.

I know what you're saying.. One example that comes to mind recently is Penn and Robbins (Mystic River) Their parts are almost identical in screen time and dramatic importance.. Yet, Robbins is supporting actor. Then they both win.

Back to DK, there isn't anyone else in the Dark Knight who really has a chance to win a lead award other than Ledger... So if he's going to get categorized as anything, it'll be Best Actor or nothing (I do think Eckhart was pretty good too, but he's outshined by Ledger... Or at least, his character is.. and even if he was recognized for some kind of running... which he won't be.. it'd definitely be a supporting role).

Don't think it matters. His role was a supporting role to Bale's eponymous Dark Knight so he'd get the supporting actor nomination by virtue of that and not because Bale didn't get nominated himself.

Daniel Day Lewis was nominated for Best Actor in Gangs of NY... he was playing second fiddle to Dicaprio. Same case here, I think? Maybe if you're a big plot moving villain, then you're a lead too.

Nominations should be up in a few hours (5:30AM PST).

Sad as I am, I just checked the rules on this. It seems that an actor can be put forward for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for the same role but can only be nominated for one of the awards for that role and that's determined by whichever category they get the most votes for.   But I've also read that, due the Academy rules, Kate Winslet is only eligible for Best Supporting Actress for The Reader so I might have to delve further.

Nominations:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15945.0