Topic: Oscars wut

[GoldenPhoenix]

Oscars Shmoscars. 

Thank you for that insightful post that contributed to the topic at hand.  Your keen grasp on the matters currently discussed have enlightened and entertained us all.  Somebody give this poster a point.

Be nice Vudu.

[vudu]

Am I ever nice?  You wanted to claw my eyes out for a while.  Perhaps you still do?

[wulffman04]

My only complaint, is how the hell did The Golden Compass get the award for Visual Effects over Transformers, i mean come on people... really?

[Stogi]

I didn't watch a lot of it (maybe a good 30 minutes total; and BTW Marion Cotillard is hot as ****).

I loved No Country For Old Men. I literally wanted to stay in the theater after I watched it to watch it again, but that was the last showing.

The movie was absolutely brilliant, so I'm glad it won picture of the year. I'm also glad that Havier (creepy dude) one best supporting actor because he made the movie.

That said, I wish Jon Stewart was on stage more cuz the dude's hilarious. Him and Colbert never cease to amaze me.

EDIT::: Oh ya, I forgot to mention that I think Daniel Day-Lewis is a bad ass. I've only seen one movie of his and that is Gangs Of New York and he does that movie proud. I want to see There Will Be Blood mainly cause of how bad ass he was is GONY.

[Dasmos]

I agree with wandering, There Will Be Blood would have been my choice. Daniel Day Lewis was just phenomenal in that film. i'm glad he won best actor.

My only complaint, is how the hell did The Golden Compass get the award for Visual Effects over Transformers, i mean come on people... really?

Because Transformers is a Michael Bay film. It shouldn't have even been nominated.

[Deguello]

That and there's more to visual effects than just making a bunch of good looking 3D models.

[THE Princess]

Thank You Golden Phoenix

[Khushrenada]

No Country for Old Men won 4 Oscars.
The Bourne Ultimatium won 3 Oscars.
All other movies won 2 or less Oscars.

That means The Bourne Ultimatium was the second best movie of the year. Though who can tell for sure. Maybe if it had been nominated in more catagories it would have won the most Oscars. It won every catagory. Something you can't say about No Country for Old Men.

Go Bourne.

[Plugabugz]

So nobody watched the brits

[vudu]

That means The Bourne Ultimatium was the second best movie of the year.

Even though I know you're joking, I feel the need to step in the correct.  Bourne Ultimatium was only nominated (and therefore only won) for categories that don't matter all that much.  Who really cares about best sound editing?

[IceCold]

I'm happy that the winner for Best Original Song was decent. How often does that happen?

I was psyched for that, as well.  Most people here probably haven't seen it, but I highly recommend Once for the music alone.  The rest of the movie isn't bad, either.  But there are 4 or 5 really excellent songs in that movie.

I wanted the ending song from Ratatouille to win.

Ah well.

[Svevan]

The ending song from Ratatouille was great, but it wasn't nominated (the score was, and it was as great as anything else Michael Giacchino has done; for reference, go watch Cloverfield and stay through the credits). Though I am not a lover of the film Once, I did find it to be charming and the music catchy. The win was entirely appropriate next to the other stuff nominated.

I appreciate that more and more people are saying that the Oscars don't matter. This is great; they don't! But this year, for once, the nominations were almost all-around superb (best actor might be an exception, maybe). The five films nominated for Best Picture are all fantastic (of course I have my caveats, but meh, this is a good selection), and the winners of the acting awards were all deserving. If this is the way the Oscars went every year, I'd care more! But considering that this decade we've seen Crash, A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, and Chicago all win Best Picture, having a Coen bros. film win is probably going to go down as a bizarre fluke.

I have heard some (outsider, ridiculously uneducated, and stupid) commentators say that the Oscars don't matter cause they don't line up with public taste. This is the most ridiculous thing ever: public taste sucks.

Of the three awards that Bourne Ultimatum won, Best Editing is a MAJOR award and usually indicates who will win Best Picture that year. Since Ultimatum was not (and had no chance of being) nominated, I want to say that it is a ringing endorsement for the quality of the pic. No Country or There Will Be Blood deserved it more, but it's great to me that Paul Greengrass's quality shaky-cam and editing is being recognized while so many lesser imitators are ignored.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I appreciate brutal, violent movies, one with little to no message winning along with the movie series I will forever know as "Hey I can do these camera shots on my handheld camcorder" winning best editing. It is too bad that they don't actually pick movies for movie of the year that people, you know, actually enjoy watching. Besides Gladiator (one of my favorites) they always seem to be semi-obscure or less popular movies. To me, if a movie can bring in people and get those people to enjoy, it should be deserving of a nomination. If you have a "fun" action movie or an animation, you are screwed.

[IceCold]

I'm glad There Will Be Blood didn't win.

[Deguello]

I think the Oscars are important, if only because it's a time when an entertainment industry self-reflects and ponders what they thought was the best movie.  It may not always line up with with most of the viewers think, but hey, I like cartoons and animated films more than live action ones, and thought Ratatouille was the best picture in 2007, and I know for a fact that an animated film will never win Best Picture.  But that doesn't bother me much, because I don't invest so seriously in who wins.

I do like to notice trends in what gets named and nominated Best Picture, mainly because I consider the nomination good enough.  Of note was 2006's, where basically all of the Best Picture movies were films with protest messages, like Good Night and Good Luck against Senatorial Blacklisting, Brokeback Mountain against anti-gay sentiments, Capote somewhat against mixing truth and fiction in Non-fiction novels, Crash against racism, and Munich against retaliatory terrorism.  I've notice they're starting to move away from the larger-than-life stuff from a decade ago into more personal and focused things.  It must be a different mood they're in these days.

Oh and Crash only won because the gay Academy voters were split between Brokeback and Capote.  This allowed Crash to win through divide and conquer.  I personally would have rather seen Good Night and Good Luck take it, but meh.

But ugh, people saying they should reflect public taste.  If that happened you'd have garbage like Domino and Jumper getting any recognition whatsoever.  Ugh, that's a nightmarish thought.

[NWR_insanolord]

I'm gonna start campaigning now for Star Trek to win Best Picture two years from now.

[Khushrenada]

I appreciate brutal, violent movies, one with little to no message winning along with the movie series I will forever know as "Hey I can do these camera shots on my handheld camcorder" winning best editing. It is too bad that they don't actually pick movies for movie of the year that people, you know, actually enjoy watching. Besides Gladiator (one of my favorites) they always seem to be semi-obscure or less popular movies. To me, if a movie can bring in people and get those people to enjoy, it should be deserving of a nomination. If you have a "fun" action movie or an animation, you are screwed.

Yeah. Because no one enjoys watching the Bourne movies.

And I doubt you could make a Bourne movie with your handheld camera. Please, prove it to me. I do invite you. Will your movie be able to suspend my disbelief and make me feel like this is really happening? That I'm experincing the crashes or the fights?

My brother made an interesting point awhile ago when we were watching Bounrce Supremacy again. There's a scene where Bourne is driving a vehicle in Germany and he looks at a wall with posters and the camera also moves over to that wall for a brief moment to show what he is looking at. One of the posters is of a rally that is scheduled to happen in a public square that day. It's something I missed the first few times I watched the movie. But as you watch the movies again, you see more of the details of how Bourne planned things and why this or that happened. That's good editing. That's why I was hoping Ultimatium would win and was glad it did since it incorporated those same feelings and clues.

If you think the movie series is all about movie the camera wildly in a scene, you are very mistaken. Or is that you are upset Bourne beat the Transformers movie at some of these awards?

Khushrenada. Lover of the cheap shot.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I appreciate brutal, violent movies, one with little to no message winning along with the movie series I will forever know as "Hey I can do these camera shots on my handheld camcorder" winning best editing. It is too bad that they don't actually pick movies for movie of the year that people, you know, actually enjoy watching. Besides Gladiator (one of my favorites) they always seem to be semi-obscure or less popular movies. To me, if a movie can bring in people and get those people to enjoy, it should be deserving of a nomination. If you have a "fun" action movie or an animation, you are screwed.

Yeah. Because no one enjoys watching the Bourne movies.

And I doubt you could make a Bourne movie with your handheld camera. Please, prove it to me. I do invite you. Will your movie be able to suspend my disbelief and make me feel like this is really happening? That I'm experincing the crashes or the fights?

My brother made an interesting point awhile ago when we were watching Bounrce Supremacy again. There's a scene where Bourne is driving a vehicle in Germany and he looks at a wall with posters and the camera also moves over to that wall for a brief moment to show what he is looking at. One of the posters is of a rally that is scheduled to happen in a public square that day. It's something I missed the first few times I watched the movie. But as you watch the movies again, you see more of the details of how Bourne planned things and why this or that happened. That's good editing. That's why I was hoping Ultimatium would win and was glad it did since it incorporated those same feelings and clues.

If you think the movie series is all about movie the camera wildly in a scene, you are very mistaken. Or is that you are upset Bourne beat the Transformers movie at some of these awards?

Khushrenada. Lover of the cheap shot.

Oh yeah that is it, give me a freaken break. The only Bourne Movie I enjoyed was the first. Shaky camera has been so abused that it isn't even creative anymore (if you wanted to call it creative back when it was first used). It is disorienting and it looks sloppy to me, regardless of how the scenes are edited together. But I see this is one of those elite movies that if you don't like it you are ignorant. So please, quit the elitist crap. I realize it is more than just the camera shots, but the camera ruined my enjoyment the two sequels for me, the acting was great, and the plot was great but the camera removed me from it, it didn't make me feel anything. It was nauseating, and what I do enjoy is hearing people defend Bourne for its camera but something like Transformers they rip for its shakey camera, oh wait is it "point of view" camera? Regardless I hated the shakey camera in BOTH the movies, though Transformers wasn't nearly as bad. Also what would I be upset with Bourne winning over transformers? Sound editing? Oh no, such an important award? I am not even sure what that entails, and not sure if I care.

Oh yeah since you felt like being a smart ass, maybe you should learn to read, I was talking about the movie of the year awards in general I was NOT talking about Bourne in that line. I realize people like it, but I frankly don't see what is so great about the camera, and it ruins the experience for me. If it doesn't for you, great, but it has nothing to do with Transformers (which I might add was vastly more successful).

[Kairon]

As for shakey camera, it obviously isn't for everybody. Just like Moulin Rouge is a great movie as long as you don't get motion sickness at all those spinning shots and throw up in the seat right next to me. Still, when it isn't overused, it's pretty neat because it makes me realize or empathize with the narrator, or the imagined narrators in the movie. You know, just like how unreliable narrators make me realize that the truth has multiple angles to it and not to always believe what I see or hear, shakey cams help me realize something too: that unlike in Turok 2, Real Life has no option to turn off head-bob.

But sometimes unreliable narrators just suck. And sometimes shakey-cam does too. What are we talking about again?

[GoldenPhoenix]

As for shakey camera, it obviously isn't for everybody. Just like Moulin Rouge is a great movie as long as you don't get motion sickness at all those spinning shots and throw up in the seat right next to me. Still, when it isn't overused, it's pretty neat because it makes me realize or empathize with the narrator, or the imagined narrators in the movie. You know, just like how unreliable narrators make me realize that the truth has multiple angles to it and not to always believe what I see or hear, shakey cams help me realize something too: that unlike in Turok 2, Real Life has no option to turn off head-bob.

But sometimes unreliable narrators just suck. And sometimes shakey-cam does too. What are we talking about again?

I've never really been a fan of shakey camera or erradic action where it cuts from one scene to another. I've always been someone gets more involved in movies with relatively steady camera shots and ones that let the action play out without getting fancy with different angles.

[Serialcode]

No awards for Superbad means the Oscars are made of fail.

Or, perhaps, higher quality films.

Anyway, 2007 didn't really have any spectacle hits in my opinion. I don't see the appeal of No Country for Old Men, but with hipster-dom reaching new levels of pervasiveness (look at the Wii), the Cohen Brother's weirdness is likely to appeal to a large following. I can appreciate a departure from the norm of Hollywood like anyone else, but when the entire grand point of your film has nothing to do with the characters the audience gets to watch for over 80% of it-- I tend to be disappointed when all is said and done.

The Bourne Ultimatium for Best Editing is a bunch of bull****. The film is barely watchable. The level of shaky cam and face and body shots that touch the camera is present in retarded amounts.

Actually wait, I take it back. Piecing together all of those ****ty, shaky takes into a semi-cohesive product is an achievement worth merit!

[ShyGuy]

I'd like to bump this thread just to say that I miss Evan.

Plus, Heath better win.


Edit: Heath won! Yay!

[mantidor]

Of course he was going to win, nothing better than to pander to sentimentality to boost the failing ratings, the oscar are worthless and irrelevant, and he won for all the wrong reasons. He didn't get the oscar for his much better performance in brokeback mountain so its just stupid he gets one now, but at least is not like his acting was terrible in TDK so is not as irritating, still, urgh...

you know this past year was terrible for movies when this award is probably the only one who will turn people's heads, no one cares about the rest.

[GoldenPhoenix]

A matter of opinion, I think his Joker role was very tough and quite unique. He deserved it and would have received it regardless. Though these Oscars were beyond lame, once again animated films are snubbed from contention for film of the year.

[ThePerm]

i think he was much greater in tdk than most people are in most movies. When I first found out he died, i was like "wait, hold up fucker can't die unless he finishes batman..did he? ok good". Then I watched the movie and it was actually better than I had expected. It was the opposite of having your hopes let down, it was having pretty good hopes and then having them surpassed. My favorite 4 characters in movies before TDK were Hannibal Lector, Alex the Droog, Alex the Rapist(house at the edge of the park), and Tyler Durdan. Now I have a 5th to add to the list and thats Heath Ledger's Joker. I'm not so sure its that the movie was just well written, or his acting was just really good. I've read the script itself and I can see how it could have been played in different ways. When the joker walks on screen its the joker, not a man playing joker. He just melts away into the part. He's sick, vicious, and creepy. He could have been just a typical mob guy in clowns makeup or he could have been some cornball lamo, he ended up being a Mephisto, a devil who walks into a situation and gives the protaganist impossible choices. It could be the writing though, the grounding in realism I think was the way to go(much like all the anarchist buddhist stuff tyler durden and Bodhi from Point Break used to throw out i think alot about the philosophy of the character..of course thats the writing nopt the acting) . I've been organizing my new room, and what i've been doing while doing it just so i can have some sound in the backround is put on the older batman movies. My dvd player was broken for the last couple of weeks(until i got bored and took it apart and amazingly fixed it) and all i had was vhs tapes. As good as everyone loves the last series of batman(im talking about Burtons..and schumachers) they have corny dialog(both directors) and theres really no connection to how one thing leads to another

In TAS Mark Hamil was a great Joker as well. The nice part about having episodes on a tv show is that you can tweak the personality of a character each and every appearance. However, in a movie its hard to capture who joker is. Jack Nicholson was great, but i can see his routine. He plays mob boss(which jack just does well especially in The Departed..god i hope he's not retired) and then smiles to fit into the joker character. Cesar Romero played a cornball..although i have to say he could be pretty good at times..the character at that point was obviously dumbed down for kids..or at least television.

I remember when they were picking who was going to be the Joker during pre-production, and there were fan speculation ablaze. I found it quite funny that they zoomed in on Adrien Brody, because he was one of the fan's top contenders

http://comics.ign.com/articles/679/679631p1.html

heck in some of my searchery it looks like some of the plot of the movie is similar to Joker's first appearance...wrapped around Harvey Dent's back story, and getting rid of lame gem story to fit in with what batman did with Falcone in the first movie.

I think he deserves it to be honest, whether he got it for the right reasons it up in the air(but your probably right,it probably is because he died). If Ledger was not deserving than certainly the Nolans were...although i haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button(i need to), so its hard for me to fully assess.

also agreed Wall-E was quite great, and so was Kung Fu Panda. If only there was a best CG voice actor award. Jack Black certainly deserved it. I do agree about Wall-E beating KFP, because it was better(but not by much).