Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 82nd Academy Award Nominations

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » 82nd Academy Award Nominations (Page 2)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author

Topic: 82nd Academy Award Nominations

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 02-02-2010 07:00 PM

quote: Joe Tommassello
Anyone want to venture an opinion which five of the ten Best Picture nominees are the REAL nominees and which ones are there to try to create interest in the show and get the rating up?

I am thinking that these four would have made the cut to five:

Avatar
Blind Side
Hurt Locker
Up in the Air

First off, the "real" ones are in fact all ten that were nominated ... for example, the animated feature section switches back & forth between 3 & 5, it doesn't mean each year one should only pay attention to 3 of them ... they expanded it to 10 this year, big deal. BUT for argument's sake: Avatar, Hurt Locker, Inglourious, Precious, Up in the Air would be the five I'd assume. Blind Side - very doubtful in a 5 nominee year.

I'm kind of curious how Joe Klotz is up for editing for Precious ... I'm fine with the other four nominees, but I don't remember the editing in Precious being anything particularly worthy of note.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-02-2010 07:12 PM

Sandra Bullock deserves her nomination, but I don't understand the overall enthusiasm for "The Blind Side". Apart from her performance, it's a very ordinary movie at best.

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 02-02-2010 07:28 PM

Agreed whole heartedly, David.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well I'm glad to see "Up" get into the expanded Best Picture category at least.

I guess for posterity's sake I'll point out that it's only the second time ever for an animated film to be nominated for best picture (after 1991's Beauty and the Beast, but of course B&B did it before the existence of the feature animation category, too).

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 02-02-2010 07:42 PM

quote: Joe Tommassello
Anyone want to venture an opinion which five of the ten Best Picture nominees are the REAL nominees

If you want to know which films would have been nominated in a 5 picture race, just look at the Director category. Normally the Director category is the same 5 films as the Best Picture category - or at least 4 of 5 are the same.

I'm glad to see District 9 nominated. It show the Academy has some imagination. It would have been nice to see a nod for The Hangover, if for no other reason than to show the Academy takes comedy seriously.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-02-2010 08:18 PM

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
I'm kind of curious how Joe Klotz is up for editing for Precious ... I'm fine with the other four nominees, but I don't remember the editing in Precious being anything particularly worthy of note.

Isn't that the main qualification in the editing category? The Academy loves "invisible" editing.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 02-02-2010 09:05 PM

I saw this "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and it could easily be a 'sleeper winner' in the Oscars as much as it's one of those original and totally different kind of films.

Story, just plain original even not really towards the young people...just something..

And even with George Clooney in the lead character really pulls it off as the typical cocky know-it-all .. even the same when he did "Batman and Robin"

..and even heading back to stop action animation puppet stuff - almost had the flair of Ray Harryhausen kind of stop action animation.

..see what happens with this one... - Monte

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 02-02-2010 09:42 PM

quote: Martin McCaffery
"invisible" editing

Yeah, but it's all the more impressive when the editing is invisible with a more complex __________ (insert something here: timeline, plotline, grouping of locations, collection of sfx, state of mind of the character(s) ... blahblahblah). Sure, I know Precious had some fantasies in her head which were shown on screen, but to me it wasn't the editing that made or broke those scenes. Nothing against it [the editing], because it certainly works & does its job, but IMHO there were quite a few "richer" choices in editing from 2009 than Precious.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-02-2010 11:29 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
I'll be griping if Hurt Locker does not win Best Picture.

I don't think The Hurt Locker deserves it. The movie is marketed as an authentic portrayal of Army EOD troops in Iraq, but the movie fails in numerous areas to maintain authenticity. In certain respects the production was limited by its budget to do some scenes properly. But there were other scenes in the show that were pure Hollywood horse shit.

The sniper warfare sequence with the British mercs was inaccurate in numerous ways. If the crew wanted to include use of sniper tactics they had other opportunities. EOD guys can sometimes use rifles to set off charges or take out insurgents attempting to plant IEDs. Marine scout/sniper teams set up hides in key places to kill insurgents planting IEDs.

OTOH, I do agree with Jeremy Renner getting an acting nomination. His performance was the main thing that made the movie work at all. I just kept getting pulled out of it by all the BS I kept seeing.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 02-03-2010 12:48 AM

Bobby, when I watch a movie like The Hurt Locker, I'm less concerned with every detail being right. What I want is a movie that does the job of making me feel like I'm there; like I know what the characters are going through. Not having been in Iraq and not having done any of that personally, I can only assume The Hurt Locker does a pretty good job of showing what it's like to be there.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Worthing
Master Film Handler

Posts: 384
From: Hereford, UK
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-03-2010 03:52 AM

You have to love a film which has no nomination for best actor, best actress, best supporting actor or actress & best screenplay (adapted or original).

Can still be in the best film & and director.

So what are they saying Avatar, a great film but the story was not up to much.

Or what brilliant direction but look at the [bs]

he had to work with.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-03-2010 07:58 AM

Titanic had two acting nominations (Best Actress for Kate Winslet and Best Supporting Actress for Gloria Stewart) but was otherwise only honored for the "technical" awards. Return of the King got a writing Oscar but otherwise only got the "technical" awards. But they still won for directing and for Best Picture.

I struggle with this. You see, we expect the Oscars to go to less-popular movies and, somehow, we think that less-popular movies must be "better" or "more artistic" than a movie which has the nerve to be the biggest-grossing movie on the year. Anyone remember (off the top of your head) which movie won Best Picture in the year that Raiders of the Lost Ark was released? How about the year E.T. was out? But when Spielberg makes a black-and-white Holocaust movie his Oscar is a done deal because it was more "artistic" than his popular movies.

And I wish they didn't have so many years when one movie "swept" the Oscars. Really? With as many movies as we get in one year, can one movie really be the best in so many categories?

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-03-2010 08:45 AM

You have to give up on the idea that the Noms and Awards mean anything, or there is anything coherent about them.

For instance, the Acting noms are only made by the acting branch of the Academy, not the body as a whole, as the Best Pix noms are. Totally different though overlapping blocks of votes. The noms are made through a plurality of votes, so no one (or no picture) is likely to be nommed by a majority of voters. And it is just members of the Academy, none of whom (I am willing to bet) saw all of the films that year, and many of whom (I'm also willing to bet) didn't see all of the films they voted to nom.

Then there are all the special rules for special categories. And the Foreign Language Films!

Of course, with 10 Best Pix Noms, the winner can take the Award with only 10%+1 of the votes.

Relax, enjoy the wretched excess.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 02-03-2010 09:54 AM

quote: Greg Anderson
Anyone remember (off the top of your head) which movie won Best Picture in the year that Raiders of the Lost Ark was released? How about the year E.T. was out?

Two of the biggest travesties in Academy history in my opinion...
Chariots of Fire and Gandhi if I remember correctly.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Worthing
Master Film Handler

Posts: 384
From: Hereford, UK
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-03-2010 09:55 AM

quote: Greg Anderson
How about the year E.T.

Yes but E.T. was [bs]

& Gandi was a much better film

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-03-2010 11:30 AM

I don't know, I thought Gandhi was a pompous piece of crap. (The movie, not the person.)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.