# The Official 82nd Annual Academy Awards live thread *spoilers*



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Didn't much feel like tuning to E! for their hours of red carpet coverage, so I just flipped to ABC on the hour.

Two initial thoughts:

Zac Efron probably spent several hours and hundreds of dollars to achieve a bedhead look I could have mastered in a matter of seconds.

Sapphire must have the best damn agent of all time. If I hear the words "based on the novel Push by Sapphire" just ONCE more...


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Sarah Jessica Parker must've pulled a Ross Geller in the spray tan booth.


----------



## CorgiMom28 (Jan 7, 2007)

Neenahboy said:


> Sarah Jessica Parker must've pulled a Ross Geller in the spray tan booth.


And Cameron Diaz must have been in the booth next to her.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Ah, Kate. Missed you last year.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

And here we go! Time to break out the scorecard...


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

REALLY not digging Carey Mulligan's hair. Going blonde _and_ the bowl cut? Yikes.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Loved, loved, loved the NPH opening.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

...but ye gods, this monologue is awkward.

And apparently I'm talking to myself in here.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I think it's funny.

But oddly, Clooney looks like he has no sense of humor. He's usually pretty good-natured about ribbing.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm thinking George Clooney was in on the act.

Kate Winslet is STUNNING. Helen Mirren looks fabulous. Not terribly enamoured with any of the other ladies.

Why is Jeff Bridges going all Burl Ives on us? Burl didn't win that 1959 Supporting Actor Oscar because of his "lucky beard."


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Stanley Tucci is so effing talented.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Supporting Actor*: Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds

That could not have been any more obvious.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Christoph Waltz deserves that Oscar. He was, in my mind, the best thing in "Inglourious Basterds."


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I have never been, nor will I ever be, the slightest bit interested in Tarantino films.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Getting a crawl now that Cablevision and ABC7 have "made significant progress" -- but is ABC7 back on Cablevision right now?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

If they're going to do these montages for all ten nominees, we'll be here all night.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I have never been, nor will I ever be, the slightest bit interested in Tarantino films.


That's your choice -- and freedom of choice is what MAKES AMERICA GREAT!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Just who the heck is George Clooney's date, anyway? She looks kinda familiar...


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> Just who the heck is George Clooney's date, anyway? She looks kinda familiar...


I was just thinking that a few minutes ago.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Ooh, an iPad commercial!

Damn, it was effective. Now I want one.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Graymalkin said:


> Just who the heck is George Clooney's date, anyway? She looks kinda familiar...


That would be his model girlfriend, Elisabetta Canalis.


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

First iPad commercial. Nice marketing, Apple.

deb


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Just googled Ms. Canalis's images. I can see why George likes her.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

The Animated Feature intro piece was awesome.

*Best Animated Feature:* Up, Pete Docter

Well deserved.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I guess I'm going to have to sit down one evening and watch "Up" now.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Yeah ABC is back!! I thought calling Streep a loser was hilarious!


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Seriously? Miley Cyrus and Amanda whatsername?

I guess just about anyone can present at the oscars.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Don't they usually perform the songs first then announce the winner later?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Original Song:* "The Weary Kind" from _Crazy Heart_, Ryan Bingham and T-Bone Burnett

Thought _Nine_ might have pulled off the upset there...I'm happy to have been wrong. This was the only one that truly set the tone of its film.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

gossamer88 said:


> Don't they usually perform the songs first then announce the winner later?


They scrapped that this year...and hopefully they'll skip it going forward as well, because the category is nowhere near as strong as it once was.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Seriously? Miley Cyrus and Amanda whatsername?
> 
> I guess just about anyone can present at the oscars.


That's Amanda Seyfried -- the only good thing in "Mama Mia!," if you ask me.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> That's Amanda Seyfried -- the only good thing in "Mama Mia!," if you ask me.


Yeah, I know who she is. She's just one I really, really don't care for. Hated her in that show with Kristen Bell (what the hell's wrong with my memory tonight?) I think she's very wooden.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Boy that was one big spoiler in the District 9 preview!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Hated her in that show with Kristen Bell (what the hell's wrong with my memory tonight?)


That would be _Veronica Mars_. She's fabulous in _Big Love_, though.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I guess I should catch up on Big Love someday. I don't get HBO.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> Don't they usually perform the songs first then announce the winner later?


I was just thinking the same! I would have loved to seen Colin Farrell sing The Weary Kind.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

WABC is back on Cablevision, per NYT, Deadline, et. al.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Sorry, Tina Fey, but your stylist done you wrong. HORRENDOUS Forties hairstyle on a 21st century face.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

TeighVaux said:


> I was just thinking the same! I would have loved to seen Colin Farrell sing Weary Heart.


Yeah, was that his voice in the clip? I had no idea he could sing so well.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm just happy it's not tape delayed on the west coast. Way to go ABC!:up:


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

That's one big-a$$ bow tie Downey is wearing.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Yeah, was that his voice in the clip? I had no idea he could sing so well.


Yes, that is really him, singing and playing the guitar.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Tarantino was robbed!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Original Screenplay:* Mark Boal for _The Hurt Locker_

Bit of a surprise here (and not a good one, IMO). It's shaping up to be a great night for this film...Tarantino was certainly the front runner.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Wow I did not recognize Molly Ringwald.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

That's Molly Ringwald? If she had plastic surgery, she needs to sue.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Nice, and unexpected, tribute to John Hughes outside of the traditional In Memoriam. :up:


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Wow. Neat.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Nice, and unexpected, tribute to John Hughes outside of the traditional In Memoriam. :up:


Certainly well deserved :up:


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Geez, the Brat Pack got OLD. Now I feel REALLY old.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Does it feel to anyone else as though they've cut Martin/Baldwin sketches based on audience response?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Carey Milligan's ears are going to turn into Dumbo ears with those earrings. Must be painful!


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Does it feel to anyone else as though they've cut Martin/Baldwin sketches based on audience response?


I'm not sure if they have or if that's the reason, but if cutting out that crap keeps the show on schedule and gives the award winners a fair chance at saying thanks to whomever they want, then GOOD. :up:


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Animated Short Film:* Logorama

I had meant to see the animated and live action shorts that were playing in theaters the past couple weeks, but I never had the time.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

So cool showing the directors who won best short and then showing their full length features.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Nice, and unexpected, tribute to John Hughes outside of the traditional In Memoriam. :up:


It was nice for sure, but it went on way too long, I thought.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Neenahboy said:


> *Best Animated Short Film:* Logorama
> 
> I had meant to see the animated and live action shorts that were playing in theaters the past couple weeks, but I never had the time.


The acceptance was great. He had fun with it.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Documentary Short Subject:* Music by Prudence


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Okay, who had Best Documentary Short in the "first orchestra playoff" category in their office pools?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Taking a brief nap with the cats...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Heh - with Documentary Short Subject, it seemed that the guy was seriously offended that his co-nominee actually dared come to the stage and expect to say something.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Played off with Thanks For The Memories...

I would use Hit the Road Jack.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Live Action Short:* The New Tenants

Haven't gotten a single one of this group right yet.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Cut to... who was that, anyway?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Um, were there blue mice in Avatar? A sentient species wiped out by the primitive Na'vi before they went all ecological or something?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Wow, Stiller's Na'vi imitation was dead on. :up: :up:

*Best Makeup:* _Star Trek_


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Heh - with Documentary Short Subject, it seemed that the guy was seriously offended that his co-nominee actually dared come to the stage and expect to say something.


I took it the other way. He was in the middle of talking and she came and rudely interrupted him, and wouldn't let him say anything at all.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

The Young Victoria nominated for Best Makeup?!!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> The Young Victoria nominated for Best Makeup?!!


Young Victoria beaten out by Young Kirk and Young Spock. Although Young Kirk would've been all over Young Victoria if she looked like Emily Blunt.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

MacRumors reports that Steve Jobs was spotted at the Oscars.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> I took it the other way. He was in the middle of talking and she came and rudely interrupted him, and wouldn't let him say anything at all.


At least she didn't say "I'ma let you finish, but..."


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Young Victoria beaten out by Young Kirk and Young Spock. Although Young Kirk would've been all over Young Victoria if she looked like Emily Blunt.


Just what do you think inspired the invention of the Holodeck?


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Neenahboy said:


> MacRumors reports that Steve Jobs was spotted at the Oscars.


His role in Disney/Pixar probably earns him some choice seats.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> MacRumors reports that Steve Jobs was spotted at the Oscars.


I'd be surprised if he weren't there, representing Pixar and Disney.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Adapted Screenplay:* _Precious_, Geoffrey Fletcher


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Whatever pull Sapphire had to get her book title and name into the title of "Precious," I want some of that!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Not looking forward to Mo'niques' acceptance speech.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Took me a minute to figure out why last year's Supporting Actor winner wasn't presenting this. 

*Best Supporting Actress:* Mo'Nique, _Precious_

A spectacular performance and a much deserved win.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

This will be interesting. Will she now go on to replicate Whoopi Goldberg's movie career?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

The look on Samuel L. Jackson's face after that.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I thought Anna Kendrick deserved it more.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

A salute to horror films, eh? Think I'll take a power nap.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Neenahboy said:


> The look on Samuel L. Jackson's face after that.


What was that all about?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Art Direction:* _Avatar_


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

What's with the interrupting other's speeches, either ill prepared or rude.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Ooh, they made a robotic version of Tom Ford!

*Best Costume Design:* The Young Victoria

Saw this one coming a mile away...period piece always brings 'er home.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Neenahboy said:


> Saw this one coming a mile away...*period piece always brings 'er home*.


That was my thought.

What she said was nice, and true.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Interesting costume there for Costume Design award winner. Reminded me forcibly of Ann Magnuson in "Making Mr. Right" (1987). Could've been the short red hair, though.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Meh, they can't even pull off a decent spoof of _Paranormal Activity_.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Pretty funny "Paranormal Activity" spoof.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm sorry, but "Young Frankenstein" and "Twilight" as horror movies -- but they left out "Ishtar" and "Town and Country"?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> I'm sorry, but "Young Frankenstein" and "Twilight" as horror movies -- but they left out "Ishtar" and "Town and Country"?


... and *All About Steve*


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Sound Editing:* _The Hurt Locker_
*Best Sound Mixing:* _The Hurt Locker_

If Avatar can't even grab THESE two, it'll be screwed in about an hour's time. Definitely _The Hurt Locker_'s night.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> ... and *All About Steve*


Indeed! Sandy Bullock very well may win Best Actress and Worst Actress in the same year! (She deserved Worst, not so sure about Best.)


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> *Best Sound Editing:* _The Hurt Locker_
> *Best Sound Mixing:* _The Hurt Locker_
> 
> If Avatar can't even grab THESE two, it'll be screwed in about an hour's time. Definitely _The Hurt Locker_'s night.


I agree. I gave Avatar all the technical awards in my office Oscar pool.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> Indeed! Sandy Bullock very well may win Best Actress and Worst Actress in the same year! (She deserved Worst, not so sure about Best.)


I hope so. She was so gracious and funny at the Razzies.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

gossamer88 said:


> I agree. I gave Avatar all the technical awards in my office Oscar pool.


Ditto.

Cameron's gotta be pissed...and Saldana looked close to tears when they cut to her during Sound Mixing.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I hope so. She was so gracious and funny at the Razzies.


I think she's a classy dame. I'm still trying to wrap my head around her marrying Jesse James, though.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Avatar finally won something...


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Cinematography:* _Avatar_

It's getting back on track here, but I still say Cameron must have really pissed some people off.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> *Best Cinematography:* _Avatar_


WOW, I thought for sure this would be Hurt Locker's.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> The look on Samuel L. Jackson's face after that.


I wondered if I imagined that when he rolled his eyes.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I can't help myself. I like James Taylor.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

They FINALLY grasp the concept of actually running the In Memoriam reel for the at-home audience, but I was worried they'd fark it up for the second year in a row.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I forgot Ron Silver died last year.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

OK, I liked that James Taylor song for "In Memoriam."


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Demi Moore's dress was absolutely stunning!


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Somehow I'd missed that Dom Delouise, Ron Silver, and Karl Malden had passed.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> OK, I liked that James Taylor song for "In Memoriam."


You realize it's a Beatles song, right?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I was expecting Neil Young singing "Long May You Run"


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

I'm stunned that Hurt Locker won the sound awards, considering the competition.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Graymalkin said:


> OK, I liked that James Taylor song for "In Memoriam."


Love the song, I have two versions, Johnny Cash and Bette Midler.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I love Sandra. Looks like she's put on some weight. Curves look great on her!


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

nyny523 said:


> Demi Moore's dress was absolutely stunning!


Yeah. There have been a lot of dresses that I liked, but didn't love, this year.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> You realize it's a Beatles song, right?


Oh, yeah. Right. OK, I liked James Taylor singing that Beatles song in that tempo.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I forgot Ron Silver died last year.


Judging by the #oscars Twitter stream, you aren't alone.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Demi Moore's gown was nice, but that hairstyle looked bedraggled and her shoulder blades look sharp enough to disembowel an M-1 Abrams tank.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> You realize it's a Beatles song, right?


ok, I have 3 versions.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Okay, I totally wasn't paying attention. What's this dance about?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Okay, I totally wasn't paying attention. What's this dance about?


I was paying attention and have no clue.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Okay, I totally wasn't paying attention. What's this dance about?


Celebrating the five Best Original Score nominees with dances set to those pieces.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

This must be a scene from "Step Up 3: Take It 2 the Movie Studio"


----------



## Steeler Mike (May 5, 2005)

Glaring ommission in the In Memorium - Where was Farah Fawcett?


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Graymalkin said:


> This must be a scene from "Step Up 3: Take It 2 the Movie Studio"


I was thinking Breakin' IV: Ballet Boogaloo.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Steeler Mike said:


> Glaring ommission in the In Memorium - Where was Farah Fawcett?


She really wasn't a "movie" star.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Steeler Mike said:


> Glaring ommission in the In Memorium - Where was Farah Fawcett?


w/o looking at her IMDB, did she ever cross onto the big screen?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> She really wasn't a "movie" star.


What do you mean, not a movie star?! What about "Saturn 9"? Oh, yeah, right. Never mind.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

Original scores from the movies...


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> She really wasn't a "movie" star.


Neither was MJ, but he did The Wiz.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> She really wasn't a "movie" star.





Graymalkin said:


> What do you mean, not a movie star?! What about "Saturn 9"? Oh, yeah, right. Never mind.


Logan's Run (very briefly, but yep, she was there...)


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Original Score:* _Up_, Michael Giacchino

_Up_'s doing quite well tonight...great to see. :up:


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Why do they keep cutting to Clooney?!


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

What is the purple button about?

And the blue ribbon?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> Why do they keep cutting to Clooney?!


To make up for when he loses a little later tonite


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

These guys are pretty nice visual effects


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

If Avatar doesn't win Visual Effects I don't know who will.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

Modern dance interpretation of non-musical movie original scores. Can't argue with the winner "UP" by James Horner.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Visual Effects:* _Avatar_

This supplants Best Supporting Actor as the "no s**t" category of the evening.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The Academy Awards show won't earn any sound editing awards, that's for sure... they have had bad feedback off and on all night.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

nyny523 said:


> What is the purple button about?
> 
> And the blue ribbon?


That isn't the Hugo Boss thing, is it? That's the only button I've heard about-but I'm certain there are others en vogue.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

Logorama is pretty decent.


----------



## Steeler Mike (May 5, 2005)

YCantAngieRead said:


> She really wasn't a "movie" star.


She was in some big screen movies, not good ones, but she was. They included a guy who was in "public relations" & they included Michael Jackson. She was a huge star & that was clearly a glaring ommission.

I guess being blackballed continues on post-humorously. (sp?)


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I missed Michael Jackson being there. Yeah, if he was included, she probably should have been, too.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I think "The Wiz" was a much bigger hit than "Saturn 9."


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Graymalkin said:


> I think "The Wiz" was a much bigger hit than "Saturn 9."


But not bigger than Logan's Run


----------



## Steeler Mike (May 5, 2005)

Graymalkin said:


> I think "The Wiz" was a much bigger hit than "Saturn 9."


OK, let disect the career of everyone they showed. Please! She should have been on there!


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Ok, the Modern Family spot was funny!


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Langree said:


> Ok, the Modern Family spot was funny!


Yeah, that was really funny.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Documentary Feature:* _The Cove_


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

I knew the Cove would win!


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Who knew Fisher Stevens was a documentary guy?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Anyone want to take one for the team and text DOLPHIN to 44144?


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Neenahboy said:


> Anyone want to take one for the team and text DOLPHIN to 44144?


No.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Let's take bets on how many minutes over this will go...


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Film Editing:* _The Hurt Locker_

Another one I thought would be in the bag for _Avatar_...wow.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Perhaps the Academy is still old-fashioned and prefers editing actual film over playing on computers?


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Keanu Reeves - the cure for insomnia.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Langree said:


> Keanu Reeves - the cure for insomnia.




Yeah - one of the most overrated actors in Hollywood...


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Anyone want to take one for the team and text DOLPHIN to 44144?


I bet it's a rickroll.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Graymalkin said:


> I bet it's a rickroll.


Haven't gotten anything back yet.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

What is this 44144 thing you're talking about? I must have missed it.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> What is this 44144 thing you're talking about? I must have missed it.


One of the producers of _The Cove_ held up a sign as he was walking off, and ABC quickly cut away.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Neenahboy said:


> One of the producers of _The Cove_ held up a sign as he was walking off, and ABC quickly cut away.


Ah.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Again with the messy hair?! (Almodovar and Tarantino)


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Google *dolphin 44144*. It tells you all you need to know.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Foreign Language Film:* _The Secret in Their Eyes_ (Argentina)

"...for not considering Na'vi a foreign language"


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Ooo. I love Kathy Bates.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Quite the odd bunch for this presentation...I see they're intent on doing the "five people present the big ones" thing going forward. :/


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

I guess, we will be going over by about 20-30 minutes.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

When's it supposed to end?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I amend my earlier statements about Farrah Fawcett. She was in "The Apostle" with Robert Duvall, and quite good in it. So she should've been part of the montage.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> When's it supposed to end?


My guide data has it going to 10:30 CT.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> When's it supposed to end?


11:30 est


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Actor:* Jeff Bridges

He's finally got one. Congrats on getting recognized for an incredible performance. :up:


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

You know, I really haven't seen any of these movies. And honestly, the only one I've come away wanting to see after the program is Crazy Heart.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> *Best Actor:* Jeff Bridges
> 
> He's finally got one. Congrats on getting recognized for an incredible performance. :up:


Well deserved. Who shoulda won long ago for The Fisher King. He wasn't even nominated for it!!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

They're green-lighting "The Big Lebowski 2" right now!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Have you noticed that they say "And the winner is" this time around. I remember at least a few years ago they were very adamant that people say "And the Oscar goes to"... I guess they're not afraid to hurt the losers' feelings anymore.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

It's already 5 minutes over - I am betting on 30-40 minutes over...


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Yep, it'll be at least half an hour. We've still got Actress, Director, and Picture...and if they screw around with the lengthy presentations again we'll be here for a while. Settle on in, people.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> Boy that was one big spoiler in the District 9 preview!


I was thinking the same.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Forrest Whitacker sure has lost a LOT of weight.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Please don't give it to Sandra Bullock. Not for that performance. Please please please...


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Even though technically it's listed as ending 21:30, they usually go to 22:00 every time. If it goes past that, I'd call it late. They might still make it, though it's doubtful.


----------



## Steeler Mike (May 5, 2005)

Graymalkin said:


> I amend my earlier statements about Farrah Fawcett. She was in "The Apostle" with Robert Duvall, and quite good in it. So she should've been part of the montage.


blackballed, even post mortem.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Neenahboy said:


> Please don't give it to Sandra Bullock. Not for that performance. Please please please...


It wasn't a terrible performance. I thought she was actually pretty good.

Maybe not THIS good, but very well done.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Ewww, bald Peter Sarsgaard.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Am I the only one who thinks these presentations of/to the best actors and actresses are incredibly awkward? I don't like them any more this year than I did last year.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> Am I the only one who thinks these presentations of/to the best actors and actresses are incredibly awkward? I don't like them any more this year than I did last year.


You're not alone. Unfortunately, we don't get to decide these things.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Am I the only one who thinks these presentations of/to the best actors and actresses are incredibly awkward? I don't like them any more this year than I did last year.


Yeah, I was thinking it'd be awkward to sit there on camera while someone said nice things about you.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> Am I the only one who thinks these presentations of/to the best actors and actresses are incredibly awkward?


No.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I like the best actor/actresses presentations a lot.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

*Best Actress:* Sandra Bullock

*sigh*


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Man.. so much ass kissing.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Neenahboy said:


> *Best Actress:* Sandra Bullock


Yes!:up:


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I do love Sandra Bullock. She's so funny and gracious.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

What a ripoff...


*changes channel*


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Yes, darlin', you wore 'em all down.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I do love Sandra Bullock. She's so funny and gracious.


+1


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm glad to see Carey Mulligan nominated, at least. As soon as I saw her in Doctor Who, I said that she was going to be a mega star for years to come. It's only a shame that because she's so quickly become that mega star that we probably won't ever see her back as a companion.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

They must really like her to let her ramble on like that.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Wait.

An African American has not won best director, and neither has a woman?

That's a bloody shame.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

She was GREAT in that movie.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Is Streisand presenting Best Director a spoiler?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> They must really like her to let her ramble on like that.


Actually, I thought hers was one of the best acceptances of the night.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Actually, I thought hers was one of the best acceptances of the night.


I agree.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> Is Streisand presenting Best Director a spoiler?


She IS a director...


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

OK, this is pretty exciting!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

nyny523 said:


> She IS a director...


I know that's why I felt it was a spoiler.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Why in the hell is Streisand awarding Best Director? 

*Best Director:* Kathryn Bigelow

Woohoo! Huge congratulations for spearheading a truly breathtaking film...and for trouncing your ex, of course.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Wait.
> 
> An African American has not won best director, and neither has a woman?
> 
> That's a bloody shame.


Nope.

Its still only 5 black women who have won Oscars for support actress or best actress.

I guess its not a bad night after all...

The Hurt Locker is cleaning up the Oscars...6 out of 9. Not bad.


----------



## Steeler Mike (May 5, 2005)

Graymalkin said:


> I amend my earlier statements about Farrah Fawcett. She was in "The Apostle" with Robert Duvall, and quite good in it. So she should've been part of the montage.


And the Cannonball Run was a pretty big movie. This is disgraceful! The Huffington Post is all over it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/07/farrah-fawcett-left-off-o_n_489445.html


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

The woman who directed Point Break has won an Oscar for directing. Astounding.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Well, we know who got all the Hollywood friends when their marriage broke up. 

Seriously, congratulations to Kathryn Bigelow for a much-deserved win.

And, hey, I enjoyed Point Break! So there!


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Why in the hell is Streisand *wearing that low-cut outfit?*


FYP  

Seriously, that outfit was -- hmmm, let me borrow the words of Mr. Tony (Kornheiser) when referring to an ESPN talent... -- hideous. Bleh.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> Why in the hell is Streisand awarding Best Director?
> 
> *Best Director:* Kathryn Bigelow


Danny Boyle too busy?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Noooo.... I wanted "Avatar" to win, but I haven't seen "The Hurt Locker".


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Are she and James Cameron on good terms, then? He seems politely happy for her.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Wow!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

"The Hurt Locker" is the lowest grossing movie ever to win Best Picture.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Dang, that was an abrupt reveal if I ever saw one.

*Best Picture:* _The Hurt Locker_

Congrats again to Bigelow and crew. :up:


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Are she and James Cameron on good terms, then? He seems politely happy for her.


They are on good terms.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Just how tall is Bigelow? Over six feet?

H'mm, IMDB says she's 5 feet 11.5 inches.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Dang, that was an abrupt reveal if I ever saw one.


Yeah, it seemed incredibly rushed and disorganized... as if they're just trying to wrap up before the hour (even though they're gonna be about 3 minutes past it as they wrap up)


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Dang, that was an abrupt reveal if I ever saw one.


Maybe they will take that as a clue for best actor and actress for the 83rd Ocars.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Noooo.... I wanted "Avatar" to win, but I haven't seen "The Hurt Locker".


Avatar couldn't carry Hurt Locker's jock. Take away the special effects and it's a complete Dances With Wolves/Return of the Jedi rehash. I would've preferred Inglourious Basterds, but Hurt Locker is a fine choice.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Are she and James Cameron on good terms, then? He seems politely happy for her.


Yes, they are. From watching her on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Are she and James Cameron on good terms, then? He seems politely happy for her.





MickeS said:


> They are on good terms.


I seem to recall reading somewhere (EW?) that he'd basically given her a push to take the job on that picture, so I imagine he's pretty proud even if he did lose to her.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

I guess The Hurt Locker has Nicolas Chartier to thank for tonight.

http://frontrowreviews.co.uk/news/hurt-locker-producer-banned-from-the-oscars/3783


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

That's refreshing, then. Good for the two of them.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

FireMen2003 said:


> Yes, they are. From watching her on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago.


Right. It's his other wives (particularly Linda Hamilton) that can't stand him.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

No wonder 'Up In the Air' didn't win. United is the official airline of the Academy Awards!


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

And so, not a single surprise in any of the major categories tonight. No wonder Roger Ebert called this one of the easiest Oscar races to predict in recent memory.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> Avatar couldn't carry Hurt Locker's jock. Take away the special effects and it's a complete Dances With Wolves/Return of the Jedi rehash. I would've preferred Inglourious Basterds, but Hurt Locker is a fine choice.


My only complaint about Avatar (which I've not yet seen) losing like this, even if I somewhat agree with the comments above, is that the Academy seems to have a long history of lacking appreciation for anything that even remotely resembles Sci-Fi or a popcorn flick. Yeah they'll give that stuff a technical award here or there, but that's it. Dollars be damned, audience appreciation be damned, if it's not artsy enough it can't possibly win. If it doesn't have a more overt political messasge, etc.

Avatar might not have been so original as a story, but that doesn't mean that the direction was lacking, or that it wasn't possibly the best picture. That said, again, I could have nailed this one going in as the chances that Avatar would win seemed pretty small to me (given what I've said above).


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

I was actually more impressed with this year than I thought I'd be, overall. I knew the hosting was an experiment that would fail miserably, and I'd say I was correct. Compared to last year, though, I think we saw a more authentic and free-flowing show with exponentially better production values. I'm curious to see the overnights.


----------



## EVizzle (Feb 13, 2005)

I told my main movie watching friend that if Avatar won best picture, I would stop watching movies forever... I am glad that The Hurt Locker won, it is a great movie.

Oh, and I am a huge Jeff Bridges fan, he is one of my favorites and am glad he won. He seems like such a great guy, and is amazing on screen. I almost bought a Hyundai because of him, no joke!


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

We'll at least we were spared a win by "Precious, blah, blah, blah". I would have preferred Inglourious Basterds, or Avatar, the latter for sheer entertainment and spectacle value.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> I knew the hosting was an experiment that would fail miserably, and I'd say I was correct.


Huh? Did I miss something? I thought they were excellent hosts. Barely there, but funny when they were.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> My only complaint about Avatar (which I've not yet seen) losing like this, even if I somewhat agree with the comments above, is that the Academy seems to have a long history of lacking appreciation for anything that even remotely resembles Sci-Fi. Yeah they'll give that stuff a technical award here or there, but that's it. Dollars be damned, audience appreciation be damned, if it's not artsy enough it can't possibly win. If it doesn't have a more overt political messasge, etc.
> 
> Avatar might not have been so original as a story, but that doesn't mean that the direction was lacking, or that it wasn't possibly the best picture. That said, again, I could have nailed this one going in as the chances that Avatar would win seemed pretty small to me (given what I've said above).


I agree to a certain extent with the sentiment about sci-fi, but how many sci-fi movies are truly Best Picture worthy? Maybe Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, E.T., the Lord of the Rings (which did win the big prize), maybe 2001? Is there really a slew of sci-fi robberies taking place?

And I don't think the Hurt Locker won because it was too artsy or it had an overt political message. It was just a good freaking movie.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Neenahboy said:


> Quite the odd bunch for this presentation...I see they're intent on doing the "five people present the big ones" thing going forward. :/


That is brutal. Had to change the channel while they did those.



Neenahboy said:


> Dang, that was an abrupt reveal if I ever saw one.


No kidding - poor Kathryn couldn't even get back to her seat to enjoy it.



terpfan1980 said:


> Dollars be damned, audience appreciation be damned, if it's not artsy enough it can't possibly win. If it doesn't have a more overt political messasge, etc.


Avatar had the most overt political message of any film made this year. It was so overt, they hit you over the head with it about every other second in the movie. The Hurt Locker, on the other hand, did not make any political statement about the war, other than a few comments from the soliders that were entirely in character (wondering why they were there).

I love a good popcorn flick as much as the next person (although I hated Avatar) and I love good sci-fi (District 9 is my pick for best of the year, though I haven't seen all the nominees yet; eta: Also, Moon, another sci-fi movie, which wasn't nominated but absolutely should have been), but I do think that to be the best film of the year a movie does need to have a few layers beyond "oh, shiny!"


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

There was something (which may have been mentioned but I haven't been participating in this thread until the end) I caught during the horror montage. They mentioned that it had been 37 years since the horror genre was honored at the Oscars, with The Exorcist taking a couple of statues. But in the montage they included The Silence of the Lambs, which swept the "big 5" in '91. Someone screwed up.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> There was something (which may have been mentioned but I haven't been participating in this thread until the end) I caught during the horror montage. They mentioned that it had been 37 years since the horror genre was honored at the Oscars, with The Exorcist taking a couple of statues. But in the montage they included The Silence of the Lambs, which swept the "big 5" in '91. Someone screwed up.


SOTL always gets placed in the horror category, but I'd argue it's more of a thriller/suspense movie. Good point though, since it's usually classified as a horror movie. But then they couldn't have made that argument.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Zevida said:


> I love a good popcorn flick as much as the next person (although I hated Avatar) and I love good sci-fi (District 9 is my pick for best of the year, though I haven't seen all the nominees yet; eta: Also, Moon, another sci-fi movie, which wasn't nominated but absolutely should have been), but I do think that to be the best film of the year a movie does need to have a few layers beyond "oh, shiny!"


I think the best movie of the year was "Where the wild things are", but it wasn't nominated. "Avatar" was by far the best movie going experience I've had in a long, long time. The movie isn't original, but damn it was entertaining (to me) and stood out like few others.

I still need to see "The Hurt Locker", but the people I've talked to who saw it didn't like it much.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I think the new voting system might have helped "The Hurt Locker" too. It's run-off voting which will help movies that are generally very well-liked, but less polarizing. It might not have won if the voting was done like it used to be.


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

Langree said:


> Neither was MJ, but he did The Wiz.


I believe MJ won an Oscar or was nominated for a short film "Thriller"


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

MickeS said:


> I still need to see "The Hurt Locker", but the people I've talked to who saw it didn't like it much.


I have yet to see Avatar but like the other people you talked to I didn't think it was anything special. I mean it was alright, Just not something I will watch ever again.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

MLR930 said:


> I believe MJ won an Oscar or was nominated for a short film "Thriller"


According to Wikipedia, no.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

MLR930 said:


> I believe MJ won an Oscar or was nominated for a short film "Thriller"


Fawcett was never nominated for an oscar, but she was nominated for a golden globe for Extremities. She did 11 other films, including Myra Breckenridge, Man About The House (with Jeff Bridges), Dr T and the Women (with Richard Gere), and the Apostle (with Robert Duvall). And, of course, the aforementioned Cannonball Run.

A dozen films is more than enough for inclusion. HUGE miss on the part of the Academy.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

MickeS said:


> I think the best movie of the year was "Where the wild things are", but it wasn't nominated. "Avatar" was by far the best movie going experience I've had in a long, long time. The movie isn't original, but damn it was entertaining (to me) and stood out like few others.
> 
> I still need to see "The Hurt Locker", but the people I've talked to who saw it didn't like it much.


That's fine and all, but a good movie going experience doesn't equate to a good movie. Hell, one of the best movie going experiences I had in high school was to see Wayne's World because of the audience, but I'd be a loon to suggest it deserves an Oscar.

I'm glad the Academy finally went out and honored the smaller, better movie, as opposed to giving the prize to the high grossing monstrosity that had no business winning the prize (a la Forrest Gump, Titanic).

And I'd strongly recommend renting The Hurt Locker. I think you'll wind up being fine with the winner.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

MickeS said:


> I think the best movie of the year was "Where the wild things are", but it wasn't nominated.


I haven't seen Where the Wild Things Are yet, but I am very much looking forward to it!


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Neenahboy said:


> I was actually more impressed with this year than I thought I'd be, overall. I knew the hosting was an experiment that would fail miserably, and I'd say I was correct. Compared to last year, though, I think we saw a more authentic and free-flowing show with exponentially better production values. I'm curious to see the overnights.


Huh? Hosts were great.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

If you guys didn't watch the E red carpet show - then you missed one of the funniest moments of the night as Ryan Seacrest interviewed A-List celebrities and D-List celebrities did everything in their power to stand in the background and be seen on camera. One female actress who I recognized but couldn't place her name was pushed back and forth by her publicist into the open space between the actual interviewees and some dude who preened and fixed his bad toupee...

It was made all the more hilarious if you caught SNL this weekend and Zach what's his name's appearances in a multitude of NBC shows...


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Steeler Mike said:


> Glaring ommission in the In Memorium - Where was Farah Fawcett?


Bea Arthur also  :down:


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> That's fine and all, but a good movie going experience doesn't equate to a good movie. Hell, one of the best movie going experiences I had in high school was to see Wayne's World because of the audience, but I'd be a loon to suggest it deserves an Oscar.
> 
> I'm glad the Academy finally went out *as they always do* and honored the smaller, better movie, as opposed to giving the prize to the high grossing monstrosity that had no business winning the prize (a la Forrest Gump, Titanic).
> 
> And I'd strongly recommend renting The Hurt Locker. I think you'll wind up being fine with the winner.


FYP just a little...

Except for Gump and Titanic (and perhaps Benjamin Button), highest grossing hasn't equated to awards in most cases and the academy has done everything possible (or so it seems) to thumb their noses at the popcorn flicks and crowd pleasers in favor of smaller or more artistic, or more political, etc.

That's the point I tried to raise a bit above. The academy loves to thumb their noses at the materials that were produced for the masses, and it's part of their complete hypocrisy. They strive to take in the almighty dollar but then pretend that they don't want to reward those that raised that money.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> FYP just a little...
> 
> Except for Gump and Titanic (and perhaps Benjamin Button), highest grossing hasn't equated to awards in most cases and the academy has done everything possible (or so it seems) to thumb their noses at the popcorn flicks and crowd pleasers in favor of smaller or more artistic, or more political, etc.
> 
> That's the point I tried to raise a bit above. The academy loves to thumb their noses at the materials that were produced for the masses, and it's part of their complete hypocrisy. They strive to take in the almighty dollar but then pretend that they don't want to reward those that raised that money.


In all honesty, though - Avatar was NOT the best film of the year. Best Special Effects of the year, without question. But best film?

Best Film implies excellence on all levels, and frankly Avatar didn't have this. The story has been told many times before (and better, IMO), so the script was nothing to write home about. The acting was OK, but there was not a single stellar performance. The direction was all about the special effects, which is what this film excelled in - this was the award they rightly won - but not about directing great performances, which is part of the Best Picture package.

I had the pleasure of attending a 24 hour marathon on Saturday which showed all 10 films Avatar was a cool picture, and I enjoyed it, but it wasn't the Best Picture.

Just my opinion, of course...


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

It's all fashionable to knock Avatar, but it was a good movie, deservedly nominated. It wasn't the best movie of the year, perhaps, but it was the most important movie for any number of reasons. That would have been justification enough for it winning, which I would have been fine with.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

MLR930 said:


> I believe MJ won an Oscar or was nominated for a short film "Thriller"


Impossible. First, MJ didn't direct it, John Landis did; he would have received the nomination. Second, Thriller premiered on MTV, not in a theater. Music videos that premiered on MTV don't get nominated for Oscars.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> It's all fashionable to knock Avatar, but it was a good movie, deservedly nominated. It wasn't the best movie of the year, perhaps, *but it was the most important movie for any number of reasons.* That would have been justification enough for it winning, which I would have been fine with.


For example?


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

terpfan1980 said:


> FYP just a little...
> 
> Except for Gump and Titanic (and perhaps Benjamin Button), highest grossing hasn't equated to awards in most cases and the academy has done everything possible (or so it seems) to thumb their noses at the popcorn flicks and crowd pleasers in favor of smaller or more artistic, or more political, etc.
> 
> That's the point I tried to raise a bit above. The academy loves to thumb their noses at the materials that were produced for the masses, and it's part of their complete hypocrisy. They strive to take in the almighty dollar but then pretend that they don't want to reward those that raised that money.


In the last 20 years, the nominated film with the highest gross has won Best Picture 6 times. The nominated film with the second highest gross has won 10 times. So, in 16 out of 20 years, higher grossing movies have beat out lower grossing movies.

Twice, it was the third-highest nominated film.

Only twice was it *truly* a smaller, more "artistic" film: Million Dollar Baby and The Hurt Locker (5th out of 5 and 8th out of 10 respectively).

So I think that it's fair to say that box office positively influences your chance of taking home the big prize and that small, under-performing films generally have to console themselves with the nomination.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> It's all fashionable to knock Avatar, but it was a good movie, deservedly nominated. It wasn't the best movie of the year, perhaps, but it was the most important movie for any number of reasons. That would have been justification enough for it winning, which I would have been fine with.


I agree that it was a good movie and that it deserved a nomination - but it did not deserve to win. It wasn't the Best Picture of the year.

I also don't think it was the "most important" movie. Yes, it utilized a lot of cool, new technology, which was great.

But a Best Picture is, at it's core, a great story told greatly. You don't need technology to accomplish this. You need great writing, great acting, great directing, and all the other pieces like sets and costumes and cinematography and sound, etc - all working together.

Avatar was a story that was told before. The script was not new or original, the dialogue did not shine, nor was it particularly memorable. None of the perfomances were memorable. The only really memorable thing about this film was the visuals - and those were justifiably rewarded. It was a fun, cool, entertaining film. But it missed some of the things that make a film a Best Picture...


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

nyny523 said:


> But a Best Picture is, at it's core, a great story told greatly. You don't need technology to accomplish this. You need great writing, great acting, great directing, and all the other pieces like sets and costumes and cinematography and sound, etc - all working together.
> 
> Avatar was a story that was told before. The script was not new or original, the dialogue did not shine, nor was it particularly memorable. None of the perfomances were memorable. The only really memorable thing about this film was the visuals - and those were justifiably rewarded. It was a fun, cool, entertaining film. But it missed some of the things that make a film a Best Picture...


The same thing can be said of the hurt locker except I didn't think it was fun or cool.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

domat said:


> The same thing can be said of the hurt locker except I didn't think it was fun or cool.


It doesn't have to be fun or cool to be a Best Picture.

It needs to be a great story (the fact that the screenplay won is indicative of this) greatly told (the best director nod solidified this).

What film had the same storyline as The Hurt Locker? I can name at least 2 films off the top of my head that had the EXACT same storyline as Avatar - I remember referencing them to my friends as I left the theater after seeing the film (Dances With Wolves and Ferngully, FYI - and Dances With Wolves told it better than Avatar). Avatar was fun and cool, but the script was meh and the acting was meh, too. Not Best Picture stuff...sorry.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

nyny523 said:


> I agree that it was a good movie and that it deserved a nomination - but it did not deserve to win. It wasn't the Best Picture of the year.
> 
> I also don't think it was the "most important" movie. Yes, it utilized a lot of cool, new technology, which was great.
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting this info. If you were to do some deeper analysis, I think you'd find that those higher grossing movies weren't the best movies, sometimes by a long shot (Titanic over L.A. Confidential, Good Will Hunting and Mr. Holland's Opus; Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption; Dances With Wolves over GoodFellas). Money does equal awards, just ask Harvey Weinstein (who uses his money in a different way).


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

nyny523 said:


> It doesn't have to be fun or cool to be a Best Picture.
> 
> It needs to be a great story (the fact that the screenplay won is indicative of this) greatly told (the best director nod solidified this).
> 
> What film had the same storyline as The Hurt Locker? I can name at least 2 films off the top of my head that had the EXACT same storyline as Avatar - I remember referencing them to my friends as I left the theater after seeing the film (Dances With Wolves and Ferngully, FYI - and Dances With Wolves told it better than Avatar). Avatar was fun and cool, but the script was meh and the acting was meh, too. Not Best Picture stuff...sorry.


FernGully! Thank you, that's what I wad thinking. You can also see strong traces of Return of the Jedi in the final battle sequence and Top Gun in the relationship between Sully and the alpha male.

I did think Zoe Saldana merited a nomination, but it'll probably be a while before digital actors get nominations (especially if Andy Serkis didn't get nominated for playing Gollum).


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Lori said:


> In the last 20 years, *the nominated film with the highest gross has won Best Picture 6 times*. The nominated film with the second highest gross has won 10 times. So, in 16 out of 20 years, higher grossing movies have beat out lower grossing movies.
> 
> Twice, it was the third-highest nominated film.
> 
> ...


The key word in that phrase is "*nominated* film with the highest gross", as that narrows the field down quite a bit. I think terpfan had a good point - the Academy does look down its nose for the most part at the highest-grossing films. In fact, if you take a long look at past winners, you'll see far more arthouse films than higher-grossing ones in the nominee field, much less the winner's circle. That's the whole reason they went to 10 nominees this year.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> The key word in that phrase is "*nominated* film with the highest gross", as that narrows the field down quite a bit. I think terpfan had a good point - the Academy does look down its nose for the most part at the highest-grossing films. In fact, if you take a long look at past winners, you'll see far more arthouse films than higher-grossing ones in the nominee field, much less the winner's circle. That's the whole reason they went to 10 nominees this year.


But again, are there really that many popcorn flicks that have been snubbed? Some will say The Dark Knight, and I don't disagree, but that movie had some serious flaws. You could make a case for Iron Man, which was a great flick and holds up better, IMO. Prior to that, I can only think of Jurassic Park as one of those high grossing movies that truly deserved a nomination.

Am I missing any?


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

I would have liked to see Up In The Air get some love... Ilana & I both thought it was a great film.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> My only complaint about Avatar (which I've not yet seen) losing like this, even if I somewhat agree with the comments above, is that the Academy seems to have a long history of lacking appreciation for anything that even remotely resembles Sci-Fi or a popcorn flick. Yeah they'll give that stuff a technical award here or there, but that's it. Dollars be damned, audience appreciation be damned, if it's not artsy enough it can't possibly win. If it doesn't have a more overt political messasge, etc.
> 
> Avatar might not have been so original as a story, but that doesn't mean that the direction was lacking, or that it wasn't possibly the best picture. That said, again, I could have nailed this one going in as the chances that Avatar would win seemed pretty small to me (given what I've said above).


Except in rare cases, the votes always choose artistic over box office. Regardless of the fact that, by the way they keep score, Avatar is the most desirable movie of the year, it was pre-ordained that it would win nothing but technical awards.

They think they are "artistes" when in fact they are just entertainers like anyone else who gets paid to perform. Nothing better or worse than the folks at Disneyland, just more highly paid.


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

nyny523 said:


> It doesn't have to be fun or cool to be a Best Picture.
> 
> It needs to be a great story (the fact that the screenplay won is indicative of this) greatly told (the best director nod solidified this).
> 
> What film had the same storyline as The Hurt Locker? I can name at least 2 films off the top of my head that had the EXACT same storyline as Avatar - I remember referencing them to my friends as I left the theater after seeing the film (Dances With Wolves and Ferngully, FYI - and Dances With Wolves told it better than Avatar). Avatar was fun and cool, but the script was meh and the acting was meh, too. Not Best Picture stuff...sorry.


The fact that it won another award by the same people that had to justify there choice for best picture does not indicate anything.

I don't see the originality of a story of a guy with a deathwish/thrillseeker and having a teammate who is fed up with it. The first Lethal Weapon has much the same story but with the added benefit of being fun to watch. Both movies also had scenes where they were pinned down until they shot their way out. heck they even had a white guy and black guy filling the same roles. And the black guy in both movies couldn't wait until his tour was over.

There is nothing new in any movie. All themes are borrowed and done many times over and will be done many times over again.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> Bea Arthur also  :down:


Bea Arthur did even less movies than Farrah. I would agree more with the Farrah being missed than Bea. They're tarred with the TV sign of Cain.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

DreadPirateRob said:


> The key word in that phrase is "*nominated* film with the highest gross", as that narrows the field down quite a bit. I think terpfan had a good point - the Academy does look down its nose for the most part at the highest-grossing films. In fact, if you take a long look at past winners, you'll see far more arthouse films than higher-grossing ones in the nominee field, much less the winner's circle. That's the whole reason they went to 10 nominees this year.


OK, how about this statistic? I am not sure how many movies were released per year back in the 90s, but I know that we release in the neighborhood of 600 films per year now.

For, again, the past twenty years, here's how the films that won best picture stack up:

6 Best Picture winners placed in the top 5 grossing films for the year that they were released--that's 30%
7 Best Picture winners placed in the top 10 grossing films for the year that they were released--That's 35%.
11 Best Picture winners placed in the top 15 grossing films for the year that they were released--that's 55%.
15 Best Picture winners placed in the top 20 grossing films for the year that they were released--that's 75%.

So, over the past 20 years, 75% of the best picture winners came from a film that placed in the top twenty of all films released that year. Assume an average of, even, 400 films per year (which I think is low, but I don't have the energy to look this one up...) that means that 75% of the films that have won best picture came from the top 5% of films released.

Did the TOP grossing films get nominated every year? Nope. But to say that popular films are overlooked is a little disingenuous. The academy has a history of awarding their top honor to popular films. Maybe not THE most popular...but to say that they routinely award small, art house films is false.

The Hurt Locker, however, is the 126th highest grossing film of last year...and that does make it the least popular movie to ever win.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

While I enjoyed the tribute to John Hughes, and loved his movies as much as anyone, doesn't that set a bad precedent? Does that mean every time someone of his stature or higher in the industry passes away, they should get a special tribute segment at the Oscars? What if more than one big name dies in the same year? Will they each get their own segment? Will they combine them? Will they just scrap it that year? Just seems like an odd choice to me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I love Sandra. Looks like she's put on some weight. Curves look great on her!





Lori said:


> OK, how about this statistic? I am not sure how many movies were released per year back in the 90s, but I know that we release in the neighborhood of 600 films per year now.
> 
> For, again, the past twenty years, here's how the films that won best picture stack up:
> 
> ...


Those are some interesting stats. I wonder how much those totals were influenced by the fact that they were nominated for (and won) Best Picture. While I know it's impossible, I'd be interested to see how each of those BP winners would have done without the added hype and acclaim from the nomination/win.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Lori said:


> OK, how about this statistic? I am not sure how many movies were released per year back in the 90s, but I know that we release in the neighborhood of 600 films per year now.
> 
> For, again, the past twenty years, here's how the films that won best picture stack up:
> 
> ...


Maybe some of those numbers spiked after it won? I know I didn't find the need to see Hurt Locker, but now maybe I will.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Those are some interesting stats. I wonder how much those totals were influenced by the fact that they were nominated for (and won) Best Picture. While I know it's impossible, I'd be interested to see how each of those BP winners would have done without the added hype and acclaim from the nomination/win.


Oh, it's possible...I just don't have the time or energy. 

boxofficemojo.com/oscar has it all broken out by movie...what their year-end rank was, what their pre-nomination gross was, what their pre-award gross was and what their post-award gross was. Of course, the awards themselves will give a bump to nominated films...but it's not like...Secrets and Lies was transformed into a blockbuster based on the nomination. And it IS impossible to separate the box office that a film would have done if it had not been nominated from the box office it actually did do.

So, yeah, you're right. It's impossible. 

However, there aren't a ton of movies that grossed 15 million winning. One, actually. That would be Hurt Locker. 

Edited to correct something--there are quite a few *nominations* for small movies over the years. They just don't win, usually.  The average box office of the *winners* is 133 million.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> While I enjoyed the tribute to John Hughes, and loved his movies as much as anyone, doesn't that set a bad precedent? Does that mean every time someone of his stature or higher in the industry passes away, they should get a special tribute segment at the Oscars? What if more than one big name dies in the same year? Will they each get their own segment? Will they combine them? Will they just scrap it that year? Just seems like an odd choice to me.


It doesn't matter. I would bet that the producers of the Academy Awards were big John Hughes fans and decided to do a tribute. It's just a TV show.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I just rented "The Hurt Locker" and watched it. Didn't think it was deserving of Best Picture (Avatar was still better), but it was good. WAY too slow and boring in the middle though.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> While I enjoyed the tribute to John Hughes, and loved his movies as much as anyone, doesn't that set a bad precedent? Does that mean every time someone of his stature or higher in the industry passes away, they should get a special tribute segment at the Oscars? What if more than one big name dies in the same year? Will they each get their own segment? Will they combine them? Will they just scrap it that year? Just seems like an odd choice to me.


The interesting thing about it is that Hughes made the type of movies that were by and large ignored when awards season rolled around.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

domat said:


> The fact that it won another award by the same people that had to justify there choice for best picture does not indicate anything.
> 
> I don't see the originality of a story of a guy with a deathwish/thrillseeker and having a teammate who is fed up with it. The first Lethal Weapon has much the same story but with the added benefit of being fun to watch. Both movies also had scenes where they were pinned down until they shot their way out. heck they even had a white guy and black guy filling the same roles. And the black guy in both movies couldn't wait until his tour was over.
> 
> There is nothing new in any movie. All themes are borrowed and done many times over and will be done many times over again.


I guess I look at it the same way I look at what makes certain literature great. It isn't just the story - it's the way it is told. It's the words and the language and the nuances and the memorable lines and the stuff that just hits you in the gut because you feel it and the stuff that makes you think because you don't (to me, every truly great film starts with a truly great screenwriter - without a great writer, you have nothing). It's a great performance that sucks you in and makes you forget about the actor, and makes you connect with the character. It's direction that is so perfect, you forget you are watching a film, and become absorbed in a new reality.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> The interesting thing about it is that Hughes made the type of movies that were by and large ignored when awards season rolled around.


That's a very solid point. I doubt any of this films were ever nominated for anything.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's a very solid point. I doubt any of this films were ever nominated for anything.


Not to mention the award to Roger Corman. Yeah, a real Oscar staple...


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Lori said:


> OK, how about this statistic? I am not sure how many movies were released per year back in the 90s, but I know that we release in the neighborhood of 600 films per year now.
> 
> For, again, the past twenty years, here's how the films that won best picture stack up:
> 
> ...


Those are interesting stats indeed, ones that almost seem unbelievable (I don't doubt that they are real, they just seem counter to my recollection). I do wonder how much box office they got after the win, but I'm going to guess not a lot - most of the nominated motives are usually out of theatres before the awards are handed out.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

What the heck does Oprah have to do with Precious? How does someone like Geoffrey Fletcher win for best adapted screenplay win and not thank the woman who wrote the book but thanks Oprah in his speech? Since when do Tyler Perry and Oprah rate over the actual people involved in the project?

Strangest moment of the night: The acceptance speech by Roger Ross Williams and Elinor Burkett for Music by Prudence. I don't understand why she cut him off so abruptly at the start of his acceptance speech?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

flyers088 said:


> What the heck does Oprah have to do with Precious? How does someone like Geoffrey Fletcher win for best adapted screenplay win and not thank the woman who wrote the book but thanks Oprah in his speech? Since when do Tyler Perry and Oprah rate over the actual people involved in the project?
> 
> Strangest moment of the night: The acceptance speech by Roger Ross Williams and Elinor Burkett for Music by Prudence. I don't understand why she cut him off so abruptly at the start of his acceptance speech?


http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1633402/20100308/story.jhtml


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Sparty99 said:


> http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1633402/20100308/story.jhtml


Wow! Strange stuff. I am sure this happens more than we all know about but to make it so public at such a big event is crazy!


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

domat said:


> The fact that it won another award by the same people that had to justify there choice for best picture does not indicate anything.
> 
> I don't see the originality of a story of a guy with a deathwish/thrillseeker and having a teammate who is fed up with it. The first Lethal Weapon has much the same story but with the added benefit of being fun to watch. Both movies also had scenes where they were pinned down until they shot their way out. heck they even had a white guy and black guy filling the same roles. And the black guy in both movies couldn't wait until his tour was over.
> 
> There is nothing new in any movie. All themes are borrowed and done many times over and will be done many times over again.


I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that nothing's new, but are you really comparing The Hurt Locker to Lethal Weapon? I get your points, but you're talking about a few coincidences. If you were to look at the script for Avatar I'm pretty sure it's just Dances With Wolves with the title crossed off. You could probably do a scene-by-scene comparison and walk away saying, "I knew I'd seen that somewhere before!"



MickeS said:


> I just rented "The Hurt Locker" and watched it. Didn't think it was deserving of Best Picture (Avatar was still better), but it was good. WAY too slow and boring in the middle though.


I'm curious how Avatar's going to hold up once all the hype has died down and people start to realize that it doesn't hold up when you're not watching it on a gigantic screen in 3-D. My guess is not well. I've seen Avatar twice and didn't really want to the second time, but it was either that or sit at home on a Friday night, and that didn't interest me much. Inglourious Basterds will stand up for years, as will Up and possibly District 9. Precious and The Hurt Locker are important films for the subject matter they relay to the world at large.

But Avatar? That'll just have to live on as the highest grossing movie ever. Such an insignificant consolation prize.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Heh - with Documentary Short Subject, it seemed that the guy was seriously offended that his co-nominee actually dared come to the stage and expect to say something.





Sparty99 said:


> http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1633402/20100308/story.jhtml


Hah - I was right.  He WAS offended that she would come to the stage, and if that story is accurate, he has good reason to be offended.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

flyers088 said:


> What the heck does Oprah have to do with Precious? How does someone like Geoffrey Fletcher win for best adapted screenplay win and not thank the woman who wrote the book but thanks Oprah in his speech? Since when do Tyler Perry and Oprah rate over the actual people involved in the project?


Oprah and Tyler Perry are the executive producers of Precious.

And if you watched Oprah today Fletcher was on and they made a big thing over his forgetting to thank Sapphire - he said he was in shock yada yada yada.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

MickeS said:


> I just rented "The Hurt Locker" and watched it. Didn't think it was deserving of Best Picture (Avatar was still better), but it was good. WAY too slow and boring in the middle though.


I too felt the same way. There are many dubious "winners". Many deserving. But at the end of the day it's all political. They felt it was time for a woman to win Best Director.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Cainebj said:


> Oprah and Tyler Perry are the executive producers of Precious.
> 
> And if you watched Oprah today Fletcher was on and they made a big thing over his forgetting to thank Sapphire - he said he was in shock yada yada yada.


Pretty cheesy producer credits from what I can see. Still no reason to thank people who came in after the film was done over the woman who wrote the book. If he was truly shocked he should have remember people who actually got the film done over people who come in at the end of the process and take credit for a film they really had nothing to do with in the entire process.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Lori said:


> The Hurt Locker, however, is the 126th highest grossing film of last year...and that does make it the least popular movie to ever win.


The weirder part is that the film was actually released first in 2008, at least in some places. They must have finessed the release to the US to qualify this year.

BTW, am I the only one who had no idea that Kathryn Bigelow was 58?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> BTW, am I the only one who had no idea that Kathryn Bigelow was 58?


She looks great. Not surprised though. She directed my favorite vampire flick: 1987s Near Dark.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> The weirder part is that the film was actually released first in 2008, at least in some places. They must have finessed the release to the US to qualify this year.
> 
> BTW, am I the only one who had no idea that Kathryn Bigelow was 58?


From the wikipedia article:



> It was first released theatrically in Italy in 2008, when it premiered at the Venice Film Festival. After being shown at the Toronto International Film Festival in North America, it was picked up for distribution in the United States by Summit Entertainment.[5] It was released in the United States on June 26, 2009, in New York and Los Angeles. Based on the success of its limited run, the independent film received a more widespread theatrical release in the United States on July 24, 2009. Because the 2008 film was not originally released in the U.S. (at least in an Oscar-qualifying run in L.A.) until 2009, it was eligible to be judged for that year's awards, the 82nd Academy Awards held in 2010.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Lori said:


> From the wikipedia article:


They got some weird rules for sure.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

flyers088 said:


> Pretty cheesy producer credits from what I can see. Still no reason to thank people who came in after the film was done over the woman who wrote the book. If he was truly shocked he should have remember people who actually got the film done over people who come in at the end of the process and take credit for a film they really had nothing to do with in the entire process.


Do you know what a movie producer does?  Based on your comments, I think you may not...


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

flyers088 said:


> Pretty cheesy producer credits from what I can see. Still no reason to thank people who came in after the film was done over the woman who wrote the book. If he was truly shocked he should have remember people who actually got the film done over people who come in at the end of the process and take credit for a film they really had nothing to do with in the entire process.


I would venture a guess that Tyler Perry and Oprah are almost entirely responsible for the film getting a wide release and getting the exposure it did. That's not nothing.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Neenahboy said:


> *Best Animated Short Film:* Logorama


There goes the love for Wallace and Gromit.



YCantAngieRead said:


> Okay, I totally wasn't paying attention. What's this dance about?


It's about producer/choreographer Adam Shankman promising the top couple from the most recent _So You Think You Can Dance?_ season that they would appear on the Oscars. Now watch him win an Emmy for choreographing the show.



Langree said:


> Neither was MJ, but he did The Wiz.


He also sang the title song in _Ben_, which was nominated for Original Song (although he didn't write it).



MickeS said:


> Have you noticed that they say "And the winner is" this time around. I remember at least a few years ago they were very adamant that people say "And the Oscar goes to"... I guess they're not afraid to hurt the losers' feelings anymore.


One presenter stuck with "And the Oscar goes to". IIRC, the last person to say, "And the winner is," was Kirk Douglas, when he and his son Michael presented Best Picture the year _Chicago_ won. (It was part of a joke - Michael said, "And the Oscar goes to," then Kirk "corrected" him - and there was a definite positive audience reaction.) From what I have seen, fan reaction seems to be split on this; I wonder how many of them remember when the change was first made.



YCantAngieRead said:


> Wait.
> 
> An African American has not won best director, and neither has a woman?
> 
> That's a bloody shame.


Very few African-Americans and women have even been _nominated_ for best director. (Spike Lee has never been nominated for directing.) Remember, directors are nominated by other directors, and it tends to be a "closed shop". It's possible that one reason Streisand was asked to present was because she was the victim of one of the most famous snubs, when _The Prince of Tides_ was nominated for pretty much everything _except_ for her as director. (Billy Crystal even referenced it in his opening song at that year's awards.)



Neenahboy said:


> Dang, that was an abrupt reveal if I ever saw one.


Almost certainly a time problem. The only other time I remember not reading the nominees was when _Amadeus_ won; I think the presenter had some sort of eyesight problem and he couldn't see the teleprompter well enough to read the names, so he just came out, said a few words, and announced the winner...which would have been the first name read among the nominees, so it took a moment for people to realize that _Amadeus_ had actually won.

-- Don


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

That Don Guy said:


> It's about producer/choreographer Adam Shankman promising the top couple from the most recent _So You Think You Can Dance?_ season that they would appear on the Oscars. Now watch him win an Emmy for choreographing the show.


I thought the dance was beautiful HOWEVER ...

COMPLETELY wrong for the Oscars and a gazillion times *SELF-INDULGENT* on the part of Shankman (and why he was asked to produce is still beyond me).


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

Sparty99 said:


> I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that nothing's new, but are you really comparing The Hurt Locker to Lethal Weapon? I get your points, but you're talking about a few coincidences. If you were to look at the script for Avatar I'm pretty sure it's just Dances With Wolves with the title crossed off. You could probably do a scene-by-scene comparison and walk away saying, "I knew I'd seen that somewhere before!"
> 
> I'm curious how Avatar's going to hold up once all the hype has died down and people start to realize that it doesn't hold up when you're not watching it on a gigantic screen in 3-D. My guess is not well. I've seen Avatar twice and didn't really want to the second time, but it was either that or sit at home on a Friday night, and that didn't interest me much. Inglourious Basterds will stand up for years, as will Up and possibly District 9. Precious and The Hurt Locker are important films for the subject matter they relay to the world at large.
> 
> But Avatar? That'll just have to live on as the highest grossing movie ever. Such an insignificant consolation prize.


Well not fair I agree as Lethal Weapon was a good fun movie and The Hurt Locker was meh. I have not seen Avatar but I would guess the similarities with DWW are as much of a coincidence as THL and Lethal weapon.

I don't understand why you think THL was an important film can you elaborate? Do you think you would want to sit through THL again in the same time frame as your two Avatar viewings? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

nyny523 said:


> Do you know what a movie producer does?  Based on your comments, I think you may not...


Yes I know what a real producer does but one after the fact lending there name to a movie should not rate a mention at the Oscars over the writer of the book.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

David Platt said:


> I would venture a guess that Tyler Perry and Oprah are almost entirely responsible for the film getting a wide release and getting the exposure it did. That's not nothing.


I am sure they got the word out but you are missing my point, I don't see how they rate a mention at the Oscars over the woman whom without her there is no movie.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

flyers088 said:


> I am sure they got the word out but you are missing my point, I don't see how they rate a mention at the Oscars over the woman whom without her there is no movie.


The guy admitted he screwed up by not thanking Sapphire. That's a given. But if you look at it from his point of view, as someone who's been involved in promoting the film constantly for the last year, he's probably had much more contact with Perry and Winfrey than he has with Sapphire, so it's not surprising that their names would be at the forefront of his mind.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

and it's not like Sapphire's name wasn't burned into the mind of the viewers, talk about indulgant.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

flyers088 said:


> I am sure they got the word out but you are missing my point, I don't see how they rate a mention at the Oscars over the woman whom without her there is no movie.


While I agree that without the book, there is no movie, I also believe that without producers there is no movie.

A movie producer isn't just someone who puts their name on a project at the end, as you seem to think. A movie producer is the person who gets the movie made. They are the person who pitches it to a studio. They arrange the funding. They budget the film. They are involved in everything from hiring the director and crew to casting. They are involved in the film on a daily basis from the time it is an idea until it is finished. The job of the producer is all-encompassing, and very, very hard work.

The term "Producer" means just that. The produce the product. There is no product without them. So yeah, I think they are pretty important!


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

domat said:


> Well not fair I agree as Lethal Weapon was a good fun movie and The Hurt Locker was meh. I have not seen Avatar but I would guess the similarities with DWW are as much of a coincidence as THL and Lethal weapon.


The similarities between Avatar and Dances With Wolves are not at all coincidental, and if you'd seen Avatar you'd recognize them quite easily. Soldier choosing to get posted to an undiscovered frontier? Check. Soldier doing research on native population and ultimately becoming part of them? Check. Soldier becoming the enemy of his own people? Check. Soldier abandoning his people to become a member of the natives? Check. Soldier falling in love with native? Check. Hell, you can even compare the great buffalo stampede in Dances With Wolves to the taming of the flying creatures in Avatar.

And keep in mind, I'm coming up with these comparisons and I haven't seen Dances With Wolves in at least 15 years.



domat said:


> I don't understand why you think THL was an important film can you elaborate? Do you think you would want to sit through THL again in the same time frame as your two Avatar viewings? I know I wouldn't.


I felt that The Hurt Locker was important because it shows the amount of crap our soldiers are going through out there right now, which we so often forget (and I'm not some gung ho, "The Iraq war was the right thing to do" person). It's an important look at the dangers that the people we sent over there are going through, and typically the only other exposure we get to these people are news stories saying, "IED kills 2."

I thought Precious was important because it shows that there are people who are out to game the system (although it would also be irresponsible to think that everyone on welfare is the type of person Precious's mother was in that movie), and what a young person must deal with to overcome that kind of mindset in their surroundings.

And I thought An Education could've been important, showing a young woman rebelling against the limited opportunities for women back in her day, but then the ending sort of screwed everything up.

I wouldn't necessarily call the other nominees "important" films, but they were solid, quality films. Well, except for A Serious Man. I didn't get that one at all.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Hmm, I never knew that _Edward Scissorhands_ was a "horror" movie. And including _Twilight_ was just a joke. Frankly, I could have done without that whole horror montage. What was the point? People like horror movies. Yeah, we know. 

And what the hell does break dancing have to do with the _Hurt Locker_ or _Sherlock Holmes_?  I thought they did away with the "interpretive dance" numbers years ago, but now they've brought it back, only it's all about break dancing. Yet they can't find time for the nominated songs. :down:

After reading this thread, I guess the explanation is that the producer has some connection to some other dance show and wanted to showcase those dancers. Or something. But I couldn't give a crap about any of that. It was weird.

If they want to have production numbers (and I don't know why they feel they have to have them, when the show runs SO FREAKING LONG), they should stick with the nominated songs. The opening number is one thing (I miss Billy Crystal's funny opening bits), but the interpretive dance numbers really need to go. And I am a big fan of song and dance numbers in general, but the show is just too damn long and filled with too much crap.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Lori said:


> Did the TOP grossing films get nominated every year? Nope. But to say that popular films are overlooked is a little disingenuous. The academy has a history of awarding their top honor to popular films. Maybe not THE most popular...but to say that they routinely award small, art house films is false.


I completely agree with you. And your statistics are interesting. Whenever I hear or read this "Oscar voters hate the popular movies!" I always wonder if that person has looked at a list of BP winners overall. Most of them were hugely popular movies.

I have no opinion on _Avatar_ vs. _The Hurt Locker_ (haven't seen either) but high-grossing films are pretty popular with Oscar in general: _Titanic_, _Gladiator_, ROTK, _Forrest Gump_, _Braveheart_ have all won Best Picture even though "art house" movies probably had more critical acclaim in the same year.

_Forrest Gump_ beat out _Pulp Fiction_ AND _The Shawshank Redemption_ for best picture. And I like FG, but c'mon!

Having said that . . . I do think that younger Oscar voters are more likely to prefer the edgier "indie" movies and they are getting more popular at the Oscars than they used to be. Which may or may not be reflected in this year's choice. I don't think it's a "bias" against big grossing movies so much as it reflects taste and personal preference of the voters.

A lot of people really found the story in _Avatar_ to be pretty corny and cliched, based on the reviews and among my friends who've seen it, even if they really loved the visual aspects of it. So I still think it comes down to each voter choosing the film he/she likes the most.

Another factor against _Avatar_: a lot of people think Cameron is an egomaniac and couldn't stand his speech and behavior the last time he won, and personal animosity is bound to factor into voting for some people, just as personal popularity figured big in Sandra Bullock's win. Everybody votes for different reasons, but if there was any Avatar "backlash" among voters, it may have been more about Cameron than it was about how much money the movie made.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

nyny523 said:


> While I agree that without the book, there is no movie, I also believe that without producers there is no movie.
> 
> A movie producer isn't just someone who puts their name on a project at the end, as you seem to think. A movie producer is the person who gets the movie made. They are the person who pitches it to a studio. They arrange the funding. They budget the film. They are involved in everything from hiring the director and crew to casting. They are involved in the film on a daily basis from the time it is an idea until it is finished. The job of the producer is all-encompassing, and very, very hard work.
> 
> The term "Producer" means just that. The produce the product. There is no product without them. So yeah, I think they are pretty important!


http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-11-08/entertainment/17178915_1_gift-cell-phone-attention

Looks at lot to me like she threw her name on at the end.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

flyers088 said:


> I am sure they got the word out but you are missing my point, I don't see how they rate a mention at the Oscars over the woman whom without her there is no movie.


Oh, I agree totally on that point. I was just disagreeing with your point that Oprah and Perry did nothing.



nyny523 said:


> While I agree that without the book, there is no movie, I also believe that without producers there is no movie.
> 
> A movie producer isn't just someone who puts their name on a project at the end, as you seem to think. A movie producer is the person who gets the movie made. They are the person who pitches it to a studio. They arrange the funding. They budget the film. They are involved in everything from hiring the director and crew to casting. They are involved in the film on a daily basis from the time it is an idea until it is finished. The job of the producer is all-encompassing, and very, very hard work.
> 
> The term "Producer" means just that. The produce the product. There is no product without them. So yeah, I think they are pretty important!


To be fair, though, Oprah and Perry were both EXECUTIVE producers, which can mean an entirely different thing. In some cases, it's purely a vanity title given to a star who wants a producer credit. In this case, it was given to two people powerful enough to stand behind the movie and get it released. I don't think they were in any way involved in the day-to-day production of the movie.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

I think having Oprah's name attatched to it gives it more notice. Oprah reads a book, millions read the book, Oprah talks about a product/diet/place it gets a bump in activity.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

I cant fault the screenwriter of Precious.

He was bumbling and fumbling through his whole speech and out of breath and imho, rambling. He tried his best.

As, it has been said, her name is already in the title so everyone knows so she will be ok...

If it weren't for Tyler Perry and Oprah exposure, Precious would probably ended up like The Hurt Locker and very few people would have seen it....


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Lori did a good job of bringing in some stats that could be used to argue the point that I made about the Acamdey hating on pop-corn flicks and commercial successes, but then something seemed to missing from the argument and those statistics....

Part of the point that I was making is that the Academy seems to hate *big-budget* films and seems to prefer to reward smaller films, arthouse films, and material that might be deemed to be more creative or make more of a political statement or have a cause behind it. I still think that's true, regardless of the numbers that might argue a bit to the contrary.

Titanic is sort of the exception to the rule, and until Titanic it was less common to see a film with a big budget get the more important rewards. The nominations grudgingly yes, the awards not so much.

I think it's a bit like a point that Lisa DeMoraes of The Washignton Post made on Tony Kornheiser's radio show... part of why Avatar was somewhat dissed is because the people losing out to the CGI images are actors, costumers, and others and those people are thinking of their own jobs and the jobs of their friends. Which is perhaps part of why animated films seem like second class citizens and had to have their own category created for them so that the Academy can acknowledge them but not have to reward them as 'best pictures'.

I still think budget plays into things quite heavily too, and perhaps it should. I think the Academy looks at a film that is made on a shoestring budget (like say The Hurt Locker) and would prefer to reward it for being able to be somewhat successful on fewer/less resources as compared to Avatar which had a ton of money poured into making it. Once a film is nominated of course the box-office notice kicks in and the people start making a bigger effort to go see what the buzz is about, but as Lori (I think) had noted, the numbers for pre-nom vs. post-nom or post-award box-office should be available to find if someone wants to look that hard. (Perhaps a film student can write their own thesus on same )


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> I still think budget plays into things quite heavily too, and perhaps it should. I think the Academy looks at a film that is made on a shoestring budget (like say The Hurt Locker) and would prefer to reward it for being able to be somewhat successful on fewer/less resources as compared to Avatar which had a ton of money poured into making it. Once a film is nominated of course the box-office notice kicks in and the people start making a bigger effort to go see what the buzz is about, but as Lori (I think) had noted, the numbers for pre-nom vs. post-nom or post-award box-office should be available to find if someone wants to look that hard. (Perhaps a film student can write their own thesus on same )


The problem with doing that kind of analysis is that so many of these films are released during the last week of the year just in time to be eligible for awards season, and then are nominated within a couple of weeks, so they really haven't had much time to find an audience pre-nomination. Therefore, doing that kind of analysis will be meaningless.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

terpfan1980 said:


> Titanic is sort of the exception to the rule, and until Titanic it was less common to see a film with a big budget get the more important rewards. The nominations grudgingly yes, the awards not so much.


Titanic is an "exception"? What about LOTR:ROTK? Gladiator? Braveheart? Forrest Gump? Dances with Wolves? The Sting? The Godfather? Lawrence of Arabia? The Sound of Music? Ben-Hur?

Big budget movies have swept the Oscars, many many times. If anything it's _The Hurt Locker_ that is the "exception" to the rule that a movie has to have fairly decent box office to win Best Picture.

Personally, I don't think the "Academy" thinks this or that. I think every individual voter has his or her own reasons for voting this way or that, and all of them have different reasons for liking one movie over another. It's hard to please everyone, and sometimes it's the "least disliked" movie that wins. Avatar had some detractors, and the big budget and success isn't necessarily the reason.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> Titanic is an "exception"? What about LOTR:ROTK? Gladiator? Braveheart? Forrest Gump? Dances with Wolves? The Sting? The Godfather? Lawrence of Arabia? The Sound of Music? Ben-Hur?
> 
> Big budget movies have swept the Oscars, many many times. If anything it's _The Hurt Locker_ that is the "exception" to the rule that a movie has to have fairly decent box office to win Best Picture.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the "Academy" thinks this or that. I think every individual voter has his or her own reasons for voting this way or that, and all of them have different reasons for liking one movie over another. It's hard to please everyone, and sometimes it's the "least disliked" movie that wins. Avatar had some detractors, and the big budget and success isn't necessarily the reason.


Lets see... with the Lord of the Ring trilogy they waited until the last of the 3 films was done and released and basically rewarded all three films at one time. The earlier films were basically ignored with the excuse that they were part of a series and by ignoring those flicks, well other flicks certainly benefited, no? And yes, Titanic is somewhat the exception and somewhat started things back toward a point that films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy could and would be expected to be rewarded. If not for Titanic, it's possible that the Lord of the Rings series would just have been the latest in the series of obviously ignored works...

And yes, you've listed several other big box office films, but... hmmm, who is to say that a bunch of other films might not be listed there if they'd gotten some attention from the Academy. There's no way of knowing for sure other than looking at things from a distance and questioning why some popcorn flicks get absolutely no love at all while others get it in buckets.

Spielberg's works were basically trashed and ignored until Shindlers List and Saving Private Ryan (though I'm sure you'd like to prove me wrong here somehow... ) He certainly isn't the only one to have had popular work looked past in favor of something else, just about anything else, because, for some reason that Academy seemed to want to reward something else rather than reward the popcorn flicks.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

terpfan1980 said:


> Spielberg's works were basically trashed and ignored until Shindlers List and Saving Private Ryan (though I'm sure you'd like to prove me wrong here somehow... )


Yes, heaven forbid, the actual _evidence_ gets in the way of your arguments. 

Spielberg's works were "trashed and ignored" until Schindler's List? That is just completely false. Spielberg got his first Oscar nomination in 1978 and had a few Best Picture nominees before Schindler's List.

Anyone who actually looks at the list of Best Picture winners cannot say that "big budget pictures get "snubbed" or "overlooked" in any way. It just isn't true. Maybe a certain film in a certain year got "snubbed" for one reason or another but big budget movies as a whole are usually pretty successful come Oscar time.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Lets see... with the Lord of the Ring trilogy they waited until the last of the 3 films was done and released and basically rewarded all three films at one time. The earlier films were basically ignored with the excuse that they were part of a series and by ignoring those flicks, well other flicks certainly benefited, no? And yes, Titanic is somewhat the exception and somewhat started things back toward a point that films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy could and would be expected to be rewarded. If not for Titanic, it's possible that the Lord of the Rings series would just have been the latest in the series of obviously ignored works...
> 
> And yes, you've listed several other big box office films, but... hmmm, who is to say that a bunch of other films might not be listed there if they'd gotten some attention from the Academy. There's no way of knowing for sure other than looking at things from a distance and questioning why some popcorn flicks get absolutely no love at all while others get it in buckets.
> 
> Spielberg's works were basically trashed and ignored until Shindlers List and Saving Private Ryan (though I'm sure you'd like to prove me wrong here somehow... ) He certainly isn't the only one to have had popular work looked past in favor of something else, just about anything else, because, for some reason that Academy seemed to want to reward something else rather than reward the popcorn flicks.


I'm sorry, but it's becoming apparent that you just don't know what you're talking about on this subject. First you argue that the high-grossing popcorn flicks don't get nominated. Someone proves you wrong (and they did, whether you'll admit it or not).

Then you point out that it's not the box office, but the big budget flicks that get ignored, and that's also proven wrong. And when they prove you wrong on that one they don't even bother pointing out that a lot of Oscar nominated epics likely have much higher budgets than you expected.

Finally, you say that Spielberg's movies were trashed, which is just blatantly incorrect. Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., The Color Purple and I believe Empire of the Sun were all nominated for Best Picture and/or Best Director. How exactly does that qualify as his movies being trashed?

And I'll ask a question that no one yet has been able to answer. Exactly what movies are we talking about that were big-budget and/or high-grossing and/or popcorn flicks that were so egregiously snubbed? Are you that upset that Terminator 2 or Transformers didn't get a nomination for Best Picture?


----------



## kristinaz (Mar 10, 2010)

I haven't seen The Hurt Locker or Avatar but I was really shocked that Avatar didn't win, I think for me that was the biggest shocker in terms of the winners


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

kristinaz said:


> I haven't seen The Hurt Locker or Avatar but I was really shocked that Avatar didn't win, I think for me that was the biggest shocker in terms of the winners


What do you base that on since you didn't see them? Do you expect Alice in Wonderland to win next year? It beat Avatar's opening weekend.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> I'm sorry, but it's becoming apparent that you just don't know what you're talking about on this subject. First you argue that the high-grossing popcorn flicks don't get nominated. Someone proves you wrong (and they did, whether you'll admit it or not).
> 
> Then you point out that it's not the box office, but the big budget flicks that get ignored, and that's also proven wrong. And when they prove you wrong on that one they don't even bother pointing out that a lot of Oscar nominated epics likely have much higher budgets than you expected.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the personal swipe, since you seem assured that I know not of what I speak.

Remind me again, how many nominations and for what was The Dark Knight eligible for? Best Picture? Nah. Look at the list of nominees that it could have been up against, was it not worthy? Was it not a "popcorn" flick? Sure, Heath Ledger won for best supporting actor, but then again he likely should have been called best actor. Ooops, couldn't do that because the Academy had Sean Penn in Milk to award there.

You listed a batch of Spielberg flicks, but which of those got him the big prize? Nominations, sure he got a few nods, but wins? Not so much because why? I'll let you answer me that question please as you wanted answers on what popcorn flicks were so overlooked.

I'm not the only one saying this, as it gets said by reporters yearly, and gets explained away yearly by the same reporters, critics and others. You seem to disagree and believe that myself and others have been proven wrong. Fine, but that doesn't make me wrong or prove a darned thing about me not knowing what I'm talking about.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

How long have the arguments about big box office films getting overlooked by the Academy been around? Check out this article looking at the 2004 awards noms (handed out in 2005).

Note the source and that I am not the author please.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't understand the argument here. It seems that both sides have valid points. I don't think anyone is saying that if a movie is successful, it is therefore automatically shunned by the Academy. On the other hand, I don't think anyone is denying that the Academy often rewards movies that don't have mass appeal.

Generally, the movies that are nominated by the Academy (in all areas) are not the same set of movies that provided the most enjoyment to the general public. But there's nothing wrong with that. The things the Academy values in a film are very different than the things that the general public values in a film. It's actually pretty rare when those two things come together (and it results in some of the examples already stated in this thread). But more often than not, the nominated films and performances are nominated for things that the general public doesn't appreciate.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> But more often than not, the nominated films and performances are nominated for things that the general public doesn't appreciate.


I mostly agree with everything you said. The Oscars are supposed to value the "best" of the film industry, and that is not always in sync with the movies that the public embraces. I guess the argument is over whether it's truly "more often than not" that the nominated films and performances are for things that the general public doesn't appreciate.

I think a lot of _nominations_ go to films that were overlooked by the public, but the Best Picture is very often a movie that did very well at the box office. terpfan seems to be arguing that if a movie was a huge hit, the Academy voters will shun it automatically as a "popcorn" movie, but that just isn't true. Many Best Picture winners were big budget blockbuster movies (and Lori's statistics demonstrate that it's more than one would think).

Then there are movies like _The Shawshank Redemption_. Audiences mostly ignored it in the theaters, but it still got a nomination for Best Picture (losing to the huge blockbuster Forrest Gump, the biggest hit that year). At the time it was nominated, everybody was all _The Shawshank what? Why do they nominate these movies nobody has heard of?_ But largely because of that Best Picture nomination, it got a lot more attention and ultimately did big business on home video, so it now ranks as a "beloved audience favorite" even though almost nobody saw it in the theater.

That's why the Oscars are supposed to be about the "best" movies, not the most popular with audiences. They bring attention to many smaller or lesser known movies that get lost in the cinemaplex shuffle, but deserve a wider audience. But to say they "ignore" the popular movies just because they are popular is poppycock. The voters love to reward the big blockbuster that is also critically acclaimed and vote for those big movies all the time.

In fact, I'd say the "epic" movie that has a cast of thousands is the most common type of movie to win Best Picture (the voters adored Braveheart and Gladiator which were not universally loved by critics), and it's rare that a truly low budget "indie" type film wins. It's becoming more common with Slumdog and The Hurt Locker in the past two years, but who knows what will win next year.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Thanks for the personal swipe, since you seem assured that I know not of what I speak.
> 
> Remind me again, how many nominations and for what was The Dark Knight eligible for? Best Picture? Nah. Look at the list of nominees that it could have been up against, was it not worthy? Was it not a "popcorn" flick? Sure, Heath Ledger won for best supporting actor, but then again he likely should have been called best actor. Ooops, couldn't do that because the Academy had Sean Penn in Milk to award there.
> 
> ...


Fine, I made a poor choice of words based on your saying that Spielberg was routinely "trashed". I'm sorry, but when I see someone referred to as trashed in the current context, I thought you meant they were ignored by the Academy altogether. That was my mistake, and I apologize.

If I recall, this whole argument started because the Academy chose the small budget, small grossing Hurt Locker over the huge budget Avatar out of general principal, that we were rewarding the small budget films over the big budget spectacles. In the case of Avatar, this simply wasn't the case, it's an inferior film. Going back decades, it's not the case. Titanic, highest grossing film of all time, inferior to other nominees that year, won the big prize. Forrest Gump, top 10 grossing films, inferior to other films nominated that year, won the big prize. The Godfather, one of the highest grossing movies of all time, not inferior to other nominees, but it still won the big prize. Going all the way back to 1939, Gone With the Wind is still the highest grosser adjusted for inflation, and it won 9 prizes.

If you look at the all time box office list, adjusted for inflation (found here), 17 of the top 25 were nominated for Best Picture (of the remaining 8, 4 of them were animated films, which were never nominated, 3 of them were Star Wars sequels, and the 8th was Jurassic Park). 7 of those 18 won Best Picture (and another 2 were nominated in the same year as one of those 7). So let's just say that the argument that the big-budget, high-grossing movies can win nor be nominated for Best Picture just isn't true.

Now, sure, you've got a beef with The Dark Knight (although, like I said, I'd make a claim that Iron Man was a better choice), but really, what do you bump out of those nominees, and do you replace it with The Dark Knight? I could make the case that movies like Revolutionary Road or The Wrestler or Vicky Cristina Barcelona would've made as good a claim as Dark Knight. As for Heath Ledger, would you rather have a win in the small category or a nomination in the big one? Because as good as his performance was, he's not winning the prize over Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke or Frank Langella. It was a concerted effort by the producers of Dark Knight to slot Ledger into a category he could win, as opposed to merely one he would be nominated in.

Finally, after reading the article you posted, are any of those really Best Picture worthy? Is anyone out there saying, "Damn it, I really wish Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban had gotten a nomination"? I doubt it.

Like I said, I see two great popcorn flick travesties. The first is that Empire Strikes Back didn't win and wasn't even nominated. It was better than Ordinary People, which did win that year. However, for some reason, Raging Bull wasn't nominated that year, and that was by far the best movie that year, so it's clear the voters had their heads up their asses that year. If all was right with the world, Empire doesn't win that year anyway, so no big whoop to me.

The other was Jurassic Park, which should've gotten the nomination over The Fugitive in '93, but again, nothing was beating Schindler's List that year, especially not another Spielberg movie, so again, no big whoop.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Sparty99 said:


> Like I said, I see two great popcorn flick travesties. The first is that Empire Strikes Back didn't win and wasn't even nominated. It was better than Ordinary People, which did win that year. However, for some reason, Raging Bull wasn't nominated that year, and that was by far the best movie that year, so it's clear the voters had their heads up their asses that year.


_Raging Bull_ was definitely nominated for Best Picture. _Ordinary People_ beat out _Raging Bull, Coal Miner's Daughter, Tess_, and _The Elephant Man_.

I completely disagree that _Empire Strikes Back_ was a better picture than _Ordinary People_. But I'm not a big Star Wars fan. We agree that _Raging Bull_ should have won.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> _Raging Bull_ was definitely nominated for Best Picture. _Ordinary People_ beat out _Raging Bull, Coal Miner's Daughter, Tess_, and _The Elephant Man_.


Wow, I totally botched that one. Just overlooked it. When I read it I was very surprised, and this would explain why. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

My favorite WTF? year was 1989, when _Driving Miss Daisy_ won over _Crimes and Misdemeanors_, _Glory_, _Do the Right Thing_, and _Henry V_.

Oh, wait. None of those other movies was nominated! 

_Driving Miss Daisy_ actually beat out _Field of Dreams_, _Born on the Fourth of July_, _My Left Foot_, and _Dead Poets Society_. Seriously. I won't argue with the other noms, but Dead freaking Poets? I liked it at the time, like I liked Dirty Dancing and Ferris Bueller too. But c'mon. Now that I'm a grownup, I can't believe they chose Driving Miss Daisy over all those other great movies that year. I like it fine, and it was even set and filmed in my current neighborhood (I didn't live here at the time). But it doesn't have quite the impact of Glory or Do the Right Thing or Crimes and Misdemeanors. Or My Left Foot. Or Born on the Fourth of July.

The next year wasn't so great either. It's not just that Kevin Costner beat out Martin Scorsese for both picture and director. But Ghost nominated for Best Picture? Yeah, it wasn't because it was popular or anything.  And I'm a girl who loved Ghost like most other girls, but seriously.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Mine was 1981 - with all of the buzz surrounding _Reds_ and _On Golden Pond_, _Chariots of Fire_ got the nod (over _Atlantic City_ and _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ as well). (Rumors of some sort of vote-splitting started pretty much immediately; it's possible that, had the new voting system been in place, _Chariots_ would not have won.)

-- Don


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

Anybody remember the comic line and who said it that had to do with ".................the loser get's a toyota"


----------

