Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Announcing the 81st Oscar Nominations

This is topic Announcing the 81st Oscar Nominations in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005693

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-22-2009, 10:01 AM:

I'm not sure how Hollywood justifies its picks for Best Picture. They get stranger and stranger to me every year. Of course there's no mention of Dark Knight in the Best Picture category because it doesn't fit in Hollywood's neat little box. There should be a "Most Successful" category. If there was, Dark Knight would get the recognition it deserves since it made almost 3 times as much money as all of the Best Picture nominations combined, if my math is right. I'm kind of glad Warner is re-releasing Dark Knight including the IMAX version. It will be fun to watch it's re-release revenue kick all of the Best Picture nominations' asses all over again.
[/soapbox]

Link

quote:
Complete list of 81st annual Academy Award nominations announced Thursday:

1. Best Picture: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "Frost/Nixon," "Milk," "The Reader," "Slumdog Millionaire."

2. Actor: Richard Jenkins, "The Visitor"; Frank Langella, "Frost/Nixon"; Sean Penn, "Milk"; Brad Pitt, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; Mickey Rourke, "The Wrestler."

3. Actress: Anne Hathaway, "Rachel Getting Married"; Angelina Jolie, "Changeling"; Melissa Leo, "Frozen River"; Meryl Streep, "Doubt"; Kate Winslet, "The Reader."

4. Supporting Actor: Josh Brolin, "Milk"; Robert Downey Jr., "Tropic Thunder"; Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Doubt"; Heath Ledger, "The Dark Knight"; Michael Shannon, "Revolutionary Road."

5. Supporting Actress: Amy Adams, "Doubt"; Penelope Cruz, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"; Viola Davis, "Doubt"; Taraji P. Henson, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; Marisa Tomei, "The Wrestler."

6. Director: David Fincher, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; Ron Howard, "Frost/Nixon"; Gus Van Sant, "Milk"; Stephen Daldry, "The Reader"; Danny Boyle, "Slumdog Millionaire."

7. Foreign Film: "The Baader Meinhof Complex," Germany; "The Class," France; "Departures," Japan; "Revanche," Austria; "Waltz With Bashir," Israel.

8. Adapted Screenplay: Eric Roth and Robin Swicord, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; John Patrick Shanley, "Doubt"; Peter Morgan, "Frost/Nixon"; David Hare, "The Reader"; Simon Beaufoy, "Slumdog Millionaire."

9. Original Screenplay: Courtney Hunt, "Frozen River"; Mike Leigh, "Happy-Go-Lucky"; Martin McDonagh, "In Bruges"; Dustin Lance Black, "Milk"; Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter, "WALL-E."

10. Animated Feature Film: "Bolt"; "Kung Fu Panda"; "WALL-E."

11. Art Direction: "Changeling," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "The Duchess," "Revolutionary Road."

12. Cinematography: "Changeling," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "The Reader," "Slumdog Millionaire."

13. Sound Mixing: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "Slumdog Millionaire," "WALL-E," "Wanted."

14. Sound Editing: "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man," "Slumdog Millionaire," "WALL-E," "Wanted."

15. Original Score: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," Alexandre Desplat; "Defiance," James Newton Howard; "Milk," Danny Elfman; "Slumdog Millionaire," A.R. Rahman; "WALL-E," Thomas Newman.

16. Original Song: "Down to Earth" from "WALL-E," Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman; "Jai Ho" from "Slumdog Millionaire," A.R. Rahman and Gulzar; "O Saya" from "Slumdog Millionaire," A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam.

17. Costume: "Australia," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Duchess," "Milk," "Revolutionary Road."

18. Documentary Feature: "The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)," "Encounters at the End of the World," "The Garden," "Man on Wire," "Trouble the Water."

19. Documentary (short subject): "The Conscience of Nhem En," "The Final Inch," "Smile Pinki," "The Witness — From the Balcony of Room 306."

20. Film Editing: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "Frost/Nixon," "Milk," "Slumdog Millionaire."

21. Makeup: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "Hellboy II: The Golden Army."

22. Animated Short Film: "La Maison en Petits Cubes," "Lavatory — Lovestory," "Oktapodi," "Presto," "This Way Up."

23. Live Action Short Film: "Auf der Strecke (On the Line)," "Manon on the Asphalt," "New Boy," "The Pig," "Spielzeugland (Toyland)."

24. Visual Effects: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-22-2009, 11:17 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Of course there's no mention of Dark Knight in the Best Picture category because it doesn't fit in Hollywood's neat little box

Or maybe it's just not as good as those other five? I haven't seen any of them yet so I can't say an opinion.

The noms are good news for us...we're playing Benjamin Button this week so it really gives us something to advertise.

I was surprised Wall-E didn't make the Best Picture noms what with all the acclaim it got, but since there is now an animated category, it's likely no animated film will ever get nominated for BP again no matter how good it is.

And the other surprise is no noms at all for Gran Torino.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-22-2009, 11:25 AM:

[puke]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-22-2009, 11:57 AM:

Wall-E for best original screenplay????? Here I'll write the sequel.

Enter cavernous room with long hallway. WALL-E spots Eve and turns to her. Eve "smiles".

WALL-E: "Eeev-aa"
EVE: "WALL-E"
WALL-E: "Eeev-aa"
EVE: "WALL-E"

An evil robot named EVIL enters the room and whisks EVE away down the hall.

WALL-E: "Eeeeeeeeev-aaaaaaaaa"
EVE: "WAAAAAAAAAL-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

A chase down the hall ensues.

[ 01-23-2009, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Lyle Romer ]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-22-2009, 12:11 PM:

Mark, Mike S and Lyle put it best. There is something wrong with the Academy. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-22-2009, 12:20 PM:

Agreed.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Or maybe it's just not as good as those other five?

Or maybe Hollywood's definition of what's "good" is seriously out of the mainstream.

The Best Picture Nominations, and their place on the top gross list for 2008, according to Box Office Mojo
Benjamin Button: #22
Slumdog Millionaire: #62
Milk: #111
Frost/Nixon: #145
The Reader: #150

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-22-2009, 12:59 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Or maybe it's just not as good as those other five?

It is fairly rare that a good movie gets nominated. Instead, movies with a lot of shouting get nominated for the acting categories. Same with people who play gay or retarded folk. It's a shoe-in. The Academy eats that shit up. I told you all that Sean Penn would be nominated. I think I may have even guaranteed it, and I haven't even seen "Milk". They do not like to nominate mainstream stuff. It is the art house stuff that usually has the more screaming, yelling and crying and therefore the better acting and better screenplay. It also has more "meaning" and makes you think after you've seen it (usually about vomiting, but still). The Academy does not disappoint in its predictability.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-22-2009, 01:01 PM:

Also movies about European people with large lawns seem to get a lot of attention.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-22-2009, 01:32 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Or maybe Hollywood's definition of what's "good" is seriously out of the mainstream.

The Best Picture Nominations, and their place on the top gross list for 2008, according to Box Office Mojo
Benjamin Button: #22
Slumdog Millionaire: #62
Milk: #111
Frost/Nixon: #145
The Reader: #150

The problem with this point is Slumdog, Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader have not had a wide release yet. The studios have been holding back in anticipation of the Oscar nominations. Plus, if you've been watching the charts, Slumdog has been steadily climbing over the last few weeks.

The other problem with this logic is it suggests Indiana Jones, Hancock, and Twilight should have received some Oscar love.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Richard Jenkins get a nomination for The Visitor.

Having seen most of the top films, I basically agree with the nominations - except I would have put Dark Knight instead of Button for Best Picture and Director - Director for sure.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-22-2009, 01:48 PM:

I guess there are actually three things in life that you can count on: Death, taxes, and annual griping about the Academy Award nominations.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-22-2009, 02:30 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
There is something wrong with the Academy.

Indeed... for the last 20 or so years there's been something wrong! I haven't watched them now in over 5 years... One thing you can bet on... if it's on network television its crap!

Mark

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-22-2009, 02:33 PM:

Even "Rock of Love Bus"? Oh wait...that's on cable.

I think I stopped watching the Oscars religiously after "Titanic" won in 1998. Not that I had a problem with Titanic. Maybe Whoopi hosted the next year. Especially since it's been eight years where the predominant theme was "George Bush sucks". I think I'll skip this year's "Isn't the world wonderful now" themed show too. I hope some wacko blows the shit out of the whole auditorium full of clowns because the new saviour wouldn't give the order to waterboard his buddy.

Is that too political?????

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-22-2009, 02:47 PM:

Mike Blakesley wrote, "I was surprised Wall-E didn't make the Best Picture noms what with all the acclaim it got,"

It shouldn't be a surprise. Remember that the majority of Oscar voters (and thus nominators) are unionized actors, and they are generally not enamored of films that don't involve actors acting (voice actors notwithstanding). So it is very very difficult for an animated film to garner a Best Picture Oscar.

"but since there is now an animated category, it's likely no animated film will ever get nominated for BP again no matter how good it is."

Basically I think that's true. Unless there is a really big vacuum that year.

--jhawk

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-22-2009, 02:54 PM:

Yep, probably too political, but as long as Whooopi doesn't host I'll probably at least record and skim the show. (Who IS hosting, Jon Stewart again?)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-22-2009, 02:55 PM:

In one respect I'm surprised The Curious Case of Benjamin Button still managed to get nominated for Best Picture, much less grab a total of 13 nominations.

It doesn't seem justified at all if you look at its decent, but not great "tomato meter" score at Rotten Tomatoes -a mere 72%. The Dark Knight had a score above 90%. So did at least one of the other Best Picture nominees, Slumdog Millionaire.

At least Heath Ledger was nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category. I was happy to see The Dark Knight get a cinematography nomination. Sure, there are movies that look more pretty than The Dark Knight, but I think all the native IMAX work Wally Pfister's crew did deserves a very strong notice. What other movie had anything shot in 70mm during 2008? None, that's who.

I think it seems pretty certain Wall•E will win the Best Sound Effects Editing award and may also take the Best Sound award too. The Best Animated Feature award is a lock.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-22-2009, 02:56 PM:

Wow...when was the last time all 5 Best Picture nominated films had all 5 Directors nominated too?

As far as the screenplay to Wall-E's sequel...there's more to a screenplay than just dialogue. I think it was a great film. I hate that there's now a 'Best Animated Film' catagory. At least Madagascar 2 wasn't part of the nominations. [Roll Eyes]

Also, I'm not too surprised not to see Gran Torino there. It's definately not one of Clint's better efforts (and I love how he's developed into a master film-maker over the years). Did he mean for the acting of everyone to be so amateurish? The young boy in it looks like he was picked from a group of kids and asked "Hey, do you want a major role in my new movie?" In fact, much of the 'cast' gives this impression.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-22-2009, 03:03 PM:

I think the Animated Feature category was probably a necessity. I don't believe one ever won best picture. I am still curious as to why "Life is Beautiful" wasn't nominated in the foreign film category.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-22-2009, 03:07 PM:

Life is Beautiful was nominated for Best Picture AND Foreign Language film. Life is Beautiful on IMDb

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-22-2009, 03:10 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
I think the Animated Feature category was probably a necessity.

I think jhawk may have it right - maybe it was a reaction by the union people as much as anything, seeing's how it was created right after BEAUTY AND THE BEAST got nominated for Best Picture.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-22-2009, 04:53 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Life is Beautiful was nominated for Best Picture AND Foreign Language film.

Technically then there's no reason why an animated film could not still be included as a Best Picture nomination if it was good enough.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-22-2009, 07:16 PM:

If actors really do have some prejudice against animated movies based on it being some kind of perceived threat to their careers then I think their stance makes little sense at all.

The flaw in their thinking is exposed by an important factor: human actors still provide much of the performance via their vocal track -not to mention the fact studios like Pixar and PDI/Dreamworks commonly videotape the actors voicing their performances.

In Beowulf at least some of the CGI actors looked similar to their real life counterparts and the performances were heavily dependent on motion capture technology.

Blurring the line further, movies like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are heavily reliant on CGI effects. There is a lot of "live action" movies featuring actors in many scenes that are merely CGI "virtual."

Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 01-22-2009, 07:39 PM:

Very Disappointing to see Dark Knight was not picked for best picture or director.

As one of the previous posters said, the academy loves movies about gay, retarded, foreign films shot with bad cinematography and the likes.

Too bad. [Razz]

Louis

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-22-2009, 09:30 PM:

"Who IS hosting, Jon Stewart again?"

Nope. It's...

...the Wolverine---

err, I mean Hugh Jackman! Who did an awesome job hosting the Tony's for 3 years running (youtube clip). In fact he won an Emmy for his hosting.

quote: AMPAS/Beverly Hills, CA (December 12, 2008)

Hugh Jackman will host the 81st Academy Awards® telecast, producer Laurence Mark and executive producer Bill Condon announced today. This will be Jackman’s first time center stage at the Oscar show, although he has previously been a presenter.

“Hugh Jackman is a consummate entertainer and an internationally renowned movie star,” said Mark and Condon in a joint statement. “He also has style, elegance and a sense of occasion. Hugh is the ideal choice to host a celebration of the year’s movies – and to have fun doing it.”

Jackman stars in the current release “Australia,” directed by Baz Luhrmann. He will next be seen in “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” having portrayed the title character in the previous three smash-hit “X-Men” movies. His other film credits include “The Prestige,” “Flushed Away,” “The Fountain,” “Happy Feet,” “Van Helsing,” “Kate & Leopold” and “Swordfish.”

--jhawk

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-23-2009, 01:14 AM:

Anyone know when (or if ever) was the last time a husband and wife were both nominated Best Actor and Best Actress at the same Oscars?

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 01-23-2009, 02:14 AM:

Five married couples have earned acting nominations in the same year (three times, a husband-and-wife team have been nominated for the same picture):

* Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne, Best Actor and Best Actress nominations for The Guardsman (1932) - both lost
* Charles Laughton and Elsa Lanchester, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress nominations for Witness for the Prosecution (1957) - both lost
* Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor (win), Best Actor and Best Actress nominations for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
* Frank Sinatra, Best Supporting Actor nomination (and win) for From Here to Eternity (1953), and Ava Gardner, Best Actress nomination for Mogambo (1953)
* Rex Harrison, Best Actor nomination for Cleopatra (1963), and Rachel Roberts, Best Actress nomination for This Sporting Life (1963)

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 01-23-2009, 09:27 AM:

Is Robert Downey Jr.'s nomination for best supporting actor in Tropic Thunder just meant to be something to get attention?

*sigh* Nothing to get excited about this year. Mickey will win best actor, Winslet will win best actress, & Slumdog will win best picture (and everyone will agree without even ever seeing it).

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-23-2009, 01:37 PM:

I saw Slumdog. I wouldn't say that it bored me to tears, but if I had a choice of seeing Slumdog free or spending $50 to see Dark Knight in IMAX, I wouldn't choose Slumdog.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-24-2009, 10:09 AM:

Here's an article from IMDB.com:

Is AMPAS Out Of Touch?
23 January 2009 1:38 AM, PST

Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences may have shot themselves in the foot with their selection of top Oscar nominees on Thursday, the Chicago Tribune suggested today (Friday). The newspaper observed that by selecting so many relatively obscure movies, the Academy seems to have guaranteed another low-rated Oscars ceremony. Entertainment writer Marc Caro noted that The Dark Knight, which took in $531 million at the domestic box office last year also garnered 94 positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes website, compared with 60 percent for The Reader, which has grossed only $7.9 million. "Yet The Reader is a best picture (and director) nominee, and The Dark Knight is not," Caro observed. Mediaweek analyst Marc Berman added: "The problem with the films this year is none of them are huge, mass-appeal hits." Caro concluded that by denying recognition to films like Knight and Wall-e, the movie academy "risks confirming the suspicions of those who think it has grown out of touch with mainstream tastes."
-------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that "The Dark Knight" was a really good movie and should have been on the BP list, it looks like the Tribune misses the point of the Academy. They are supposed to pick movies that are really good, not really popular. It's not all about the telecast ratings.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2009, 10:56 AM:

Generally speaking, I like Rotten Tomatoes' "tomato meter" system, although it could use some improvement. It's certainly a powerful enough and popular enough gauge for movie quality that it absolutely does embarrass the AMPAS membership for choosing a couple of Best Picture nominees that don't have great or even good tomato meter scores.

I think Rotten Tomatoes needs to make its tomato meter gauge a little more precise rather than giving a single critic's review and up or down vote. If they measured according to star ratings or numerical ratings and got the critics to play along with this a much more accurate average could be tabulated. Then you would have an even more accurate reading on which films were the best of the year.

Still, after reading the Rotten Tomatoes' site for a few years now, I have to say that it is usually pretty difficult for a mainstream movie to score well into 90's percentile. The Dark Knight managed that. So did Wall•E.

Time ultimately judges which movies are truly great and get lifted to "classic" status. There's lots of movies that endure as true greats of film that never won a Best Picture Oscar.

Star Wars lost out to Annie Hall. Both are good movies, but which one still endures? I saw Annie Hall again not long ago on some HD channel (HD Net Movies, I think). I won't deny that it is a great movie, but its humor and observations are only relevant for the 1970s. It doesn't play well today.

Raging Bull didn't win a Best Picture Oscar. If memory serves correct, I don't think classics like The Searchers or 2001 were even nominated for Best Picture Oscars at all.

Some of the same "important" best picture nominees may suffer the fate or simply be forgotten years from now while movies like The Dark Knight may be more likely to play well to audiences a couple decades from now.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 01-24-2009, 11:39 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
. . . it looks like the Tribune misses the point of the Academy. They are supposed to pick movies that are really good, not really popular. It's not all about the telecast ratings.

Absolutely right, Mike. There are already alternative award shows for popularity's sake, The People's Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards come to mind. The Oscars are members of the Motion Picture Academy deciding amongst themselves what is the best they saw in a given year, TV ratings be dammed. Thank God, too, or else a lot of fine films and performances would go unrecognized because of their lack of mainstream appeal. How many average film-goers do you thing even heard of Melissa Leo before the other morning (or for that matter, Marion Cotillard, last year's winner), and how many do you think saw Frozen River? It's a great movie and a terrific acting job, and deserves to recognized as such . . . but it sure isn't going to be by the People's Choice Awards.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-24-2009, 04:02 PM:

And Chris Nolan didn't do an absolutely fantastic job directing (and helping to write and produce) Dark Knight?

The Oscars ratings are important if the goal is to introduce the movie watching world to new talent (and clearly it is because they re-release the movies at Oscar time). But guess what... no one will be watching, because no one cares about the movies being showcased.

Isn't "Best Supporting Actor" one of the first categories presented? Well, after they give the award to Ledger my prediction is that everyone will turn the Oscars off and pop in their DVD of The Dark Knight.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-24-2009, 04:23 PM:

There was a time when the Oscar announcement was something I used to look forward to but not anymore because I have not seen any of the movies with the exception of the Batman film because I seldom see movies in theatres anymore. I do intend to watch the telecast however because by that time, I might have seen more of the nominated films on Blue-Ray and DVD at home.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-24-2009, 05:44 PM:

I haven't sat through an Oscar-cast in at least 20 years. If I watch it at all, it's on tape or DVD-R so I can fast forward thru the songs, production numbers, acceptance speeches for categories I don't care about (which is most of them) and of course commercials. I can usually get through the whole show in about 45 minutes.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2009, 05:52 PM:

quote: Mark Ogden
The Oscars are members of the Motion Picture Academy deciding amongst themselves what is the best they saw in a given year, TV ratings be dammed. Thank God, too, or else a lot of fine films and performances would go unrecognized because of their lack of mainstream appeal.

AMPAS has little credibility in that regard anymore. And that is reflected in the often strange nomination choices in certain key categories like Best Picture.

The Oscars are tainted by Hollywood industry politics and general favoritism. And all the ad campaigns run in trades like Variety just reduce the credibility even further.

I generally have liked the movies of David Fincher, but I don't think The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is worth all those nominations, particularly the one in the Best Picture category. But it was easy to predict this movie would gain a lot of nominations anyway for the people involved with the project. Brad Pitt and David Fincher are major industry veterans who've put in enough time to win some acknowledgment.

It's no secret the Academy often gifts out Oscars more as career achievement awards than something from a specific movie. The last two Best Picture winners, No Country For Old Men and The Departed are good movies, but they're far from the best work of the Coen Brothers and Martin Scorsese. Scorsese should have won an Oscar for Raging Bull, but it was Robert Redford's turn to have his career honored in 1980.

The choices made in who gets honored in a movie awards system, be it the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, etc. is all very subjective. The conclusions made can be disputed. Unfortunately, the Academy is not consistent in its choices. In the end, I believe the choices made by various critics circles as well as the Golden Tomato Awards from Rotten Tomatoes carry a much greater level of credibility. They may not have the pageantry of the Oscars, but their judgments make more sense.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-24-2009, 08:21 PM:

Maybe there ought to be a Rotten Tomatoes TV show. Nobody would watch it though, because everyone would know the results before it aired.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2009, 08:48 PM:

I think such a show would still be interesting. The Golden Tomatoes has numerous separate categories to honor the best in major studio releases, independent releases, animation, etc. Unlike the Oscars, the Golden Tomatoes awards also has its "moldy" category to point out the worst films of the year. That can be a laugh riot.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 01-25-2009, 08:51 PM:

I was surprised there weren't more nominations for Baz Luhrmann's AUSTRALIA.

quote: Tyler Potts
Is Robert Downey Jr.'s nomination for best supporting actor in Tropic Thunder just meant to be something to get attention?

No, it's meant to remind us that the Academy voters know a good performance when they see one!

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-25-2009, 09:03 PM:

...and on rare occasions, and especially if the role itself sparks controversy - no matter how trivial, they will recognize it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-25-2009, 11:09 PM:

Why is it that these marathon shows will only show a 20-30 second clip of a 2 hour movie that is nominated, but then force us to sit through the EVERY NOMINATED SONG IN ITS ENTIRETY?

If they are going to show us 1/200th of the nominated movie, why can't we see 1/200th of the nominated songs performed? I mean, that's only fair...and would greatly improve the show.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 01-26-2009, 12:27 AM:

And then to top it off, they have a strict time limit on the speeches before they get shuttled off the stage by music. The whole reason this ridiculous ceremony exists is to present these awards, yet they can't even allow the winners to talk for more than a minute or so.

Regarding the nominees, I liked Dark Knight a lot, however I feel it's hugely overrated, just like Heath Ledger's performance. By the end of the movie I felt like I had sat through a 3 hour lecture on the deeper meaning of good and evil. WE GET IT! That said - I would've rather seen Dark Knight nominated than Ben Button. That one surprised me. I would've genuinely liked to have seen Nolan nominated for best director also. Having the director nominations exactly the same as the picture nominations is redundant and silly.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-26-2009, 02:18 AM:

I have seen almost all of the top films nominated for Oscars this year, as well as some of the contenders. The only films with nominations in the top categories I haven't seen are Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Frozen River, Rachel Getting Married, and Kung Fu Panda. I honestly think the Academy mostly got it right.

Best Actor
An argument could be made that Leonardo DeCaprio got snubbed, but I don't think any of the 5 nominated actors are any less worthy.

Supporting Actor
I wasn't impressed by Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road and I think Robert Downey Jr's nomination for Tropic Thunder borders on ridiculous. But there isn't a performance that immediately jumps to mind as having been snubbed - maybe Ralph Fiennes in The Duchess (which I haven't seen) or The Reader.

Best Actress
I haven't seen two of the performances, but Angelina, Meryl, and Kate were all very deserving. Although it's not getting much buzz, I actually think Angelina Jolie's performance in Changeling was the best of the year. Kate Winslet could have been nominated for Revolutionary Road as well, but I think The Reader was better. The only other roll that comes to mind as a serious contender is Vera Farmiga in The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas.

Supporting Actress
I haven't seen Vicky Cristina, but of the other 4, Marissa Tomei was the best by far. Again, no one stands out has having been snubbed.

Best Picture
Ok, I'll agree that The Dark Knight was certainly worthy of a nomination. In fact, I think it could have won. But none of the 5 nominated films stand out to me as unworthy of a nomination. If I was going to pick the one to toss for Dark Knight it would have been Benjamin Button.

Director
I think Christopher Nolan not getting nominated was a bigger snub than The Dark Knight not getting nominated for Best Picture. Among the nominated films/directors, I think there very well could be a split between Director and Picture this year. I do think Slumdog will win Best Picture, but director could go to David Fincher.

Animated Feature
This one isn't even a contest. You could have put any two films in there with Wall*E and it still would be a landslide.

Screen Play - Adapted and Original
These categories almost seem to be Best Picture consolation prizes. I think Doubt will win Adapted and Original could well go to In Bruges.

When it comes to choosing who to nominate, I tend to think they should pick the smaller pictures when it's basically a tie. The Dark Knight received plenty of recognition in the form of mega box office success, but films like The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire, and The Wrestler may not even be seen if not for the Oscar recognition.

At the end of the day, I do think this year is a prime example of why Sean Penn is so vocal about not liking awards shows. There are so many strong films in a number of the categories that it's difficult to impossible to say which is really best over the others.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2009, 09:22 AM:

I think they should only give the Animated Feature award every three years. That way it would be a real contest. The only time in recent memory it's even been interesting is the year the original Shrek won.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-26-2009, 09:40 AM:

The real problem is there is too many awards shows happening.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2009, 10:27 AM:

I agree. The various awards shows do a lot to telegraph what will happen during the Oscars show. There are some exceptions, but generally the Screen Actors Guild and Director's Guild run pretty consistent with the Oscar results since so many SAG and DGA members are also AMPAS members too.

By the time the Oscars telecast airs there is an anti-climactic feel about it. You know what's going to happen. Moving the awards show up a few weeks earlier doesn't seem to change any of that.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 02-06-2009, 04:55 PM:

quote:
Scorsese should have won an Oscar for Raging Bull, but it was Robert Redford's turn to have his career honored in 1980.

I think many here would agree this happened to Scorsese twice. He should have won for Goodfellas too but it wasn't nearly as politically-correct as Dances With Wolves.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-07-2009, 07:20 PM:

They should get Christian Bale as a presenter this year, and have Shane Hurlbut "accidentally" wander into the frame while Bale is talking.

It practically writes itself! [Big Grin]

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-07-2009, 10:23 PM:

Since I believe the awards no longer have anything to do with talent and the Academy uses them to make political statements and promote their beliefs I won't even bother to watch them.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-07-2009, 11:13 PM:

I used to love to watch the Oscars when young. Later, I was required to watch the Oscars live for professional reasons (I was often asked to act as a commentator on TV or Radio).

For like 10 years I've only watched the edited, cut version they show the next day for the funny parts and general deception.

Today, I don't even know when it is on, and only know of a handful or people/films that are nominated.

Have Bale host it and "Wolverine" dance in front of him all the time. See how that goes.

BTW, who is hosting this year?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-07-2009, 11:56 PM:

Don't forget to read the whole thread (see page 2).

Hugh Jackman.

--jhawk

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-08-2009, 01:26 AM:

I must've missed that, but I heard the rumors. I like Hugh. He is a gay guy [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-13-2009, 10:03 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
If they are going to show us 1/200th of the nominated movie, why can't we see 1/200th of the nominated songs performed?

Brad - looks like you might get your wish (sort of). Peter Gabriel says on Billboard Bulletin that he will not perform his nominated song "Down to Earth" (from WALL-E) on the show due to it being part of a medley of the nominated songs. His song would have been trimmed 60 to 65-seconds.

Here's a link but I don't know if it'll work without a Billboard subscription...the item is on page 4. (Lots of other interesting news in this edition as well.)
Give it a shot

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-13-2009, 03:53 PM:

It does work.
See also Deadline Hollywood Daily.

I believe it is about being trimmed TO 60 seconds, not by 60 seconds.

--jhawk

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-13-2009, 07:41 PM:

So when the hell are the Oscars? I am getting tired of playing 10 movies in 6 auditoriums, so I'd like them to come and go so we can lose a few prints.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-13-2009, 08:34 PM:

quote: John Hawkinson
I believe it is about being trimmed TO 60 seconds, not by 60 seconds.

Oops, that's what I meant to say...thanks.

Joe: Oscars > 2/22/09

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-13-2009, 10:43 PM:

Ha ha this thread is now stickied. Never before has anyone cared his much about the Oscars!

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-14-2009, 12:27 AM:

According to Fridays' press release from AMPAS, they sent out trailers to 11,000 theatres. Does anyone actually play those things?

--jhawk

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-14-2009, 12:57 AM:

I've run them in the past, especially on nominated films. For the most part it's not worth the time because they come out 2 weeks before the ceremony and then you're having to take them out before the movie ends.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 02-19-2009, 09:10 AM:

I've seen almost all of the nominated pictures, and these are my predictions.

I am amazed that GRAN TORINO did not get nominated. This is a wonderful movie, entertaining and very moving. I've heard complaints that the supporting cast is weak, but I disagree with that. I really had to hold back tears at the end. Clint is outstanding...a much deeper character than one might think.

Best Picture -- Slumdog Millionaire (I didn't like it all that much, but it seems to have momentum. I would have picked THE READER or THE WRESTLER)

Best Actor -- Mickey Rourke (The academy LOVES a comeback, and this is one deserving performance. I agree with this one.)

Best Actress -- Kate Winslet (I don't understand why this was originally considered a supporting role. It is her movie. The performance is superb, making a pedophiliac, illiterate former Nazi guard into a sympathetic character. I did NOT want to see this movie, but I'm glad I did.)

Best Supporting Actor -- Heath Ledger (Great performance by Heath, stealing the movie. Academy loves this kind of situation.)

Best Supporting Actress -- This is the tough one. Statistician Nate Silver picks Taraji P. Henson from Benjamin Button. He's going by that fact that BB got so many nominations that it will win this one. I don't agree here...the movie was really not very good. I predict it will be won by Penelope Cruz. (Academy loves Woody Allen and this would be a nod to him. My personal selection would be Marissa Tomei. Her performance was raw and very real.)

Guess we'll find out what happens soon!

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-20-2009, 04:59 PM:

People often give the Academy Awards a hard time without appreciating they are only part of the work of the AMPAS, which also encompasses the Scientific and Technical Awards, educational activities, exhibitions, grant programs, the Academy Archive, the Pickford Center for Motion Picture Study, the Margaret Herrick Library, the Scientific and Technical Council of the Academy, the several AMPAS theaters, and so on.

A superb account of the work of the AMPAS (from which the above information was sourced), was given by Andrew Maltz in the September 2006 issue of the Journal of the SMPTE (An Update on the Science and Technology Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, pp 349-358).

The paper also stated that the AMPAS "is an international organization with members in over 30 countries" which many (including me) might find surprising.

Unlike the vast majority of other awards ceremonies, the Oscars are backed up by a genuine organisation that does meaningful and valuable work to "advance the arts and sciences of motion pictures" [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2009, 06:06 PM:

I think people who gripe about the Oscars are just jealous because they don't get to vote.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-20-2009, 06:17 PM:

Yeah, that's why nobody gripes about general elections. [Smile]