And the Nominees Are...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

mrx19869:
Must say the Kings Speech was an excellent movie, i hope it wins many Oscars, with that said I have not seen Black Swan, The Fighter, Toy Story 3, True Grit, Winter's Bone. I have seen Inception and it was a decent movie but I do not think it is Oscar worthy. I do not plan on seeing True Grit even though Jeff Bridges is a good actor nobody could ever top The Duke aka John Wayne in the original.

Really? You think he was good in that? You think he actually acted? Jeff Bridges completely immersed himself in the role and brought out Rooster's personality, good and bad traits alike. Bridges is a different person in each movie he's in, whereas John Wayne was just John Wayne.

WHERE'S DAFT PUNK?NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Ahem, well I know which award Toy Story 3 is getting. The masses of crying adults can't be wrong!

itf cho:
Equating good to people wanting to see it, which in itself does equal cash; then for two movies that are reasonably contemporary in time frame - then Yes. Face it, the vast majority of the movie going public had zero interest in Scott Pilgrim. Was it a good film for it's niche audience? I have no doubt it was. But Bob seems to think the flick was the best thing to hit the silver screen since Ben Hur. He spent a huge amount of his time on the Expendables review not giving us real information on that film; but whining about how it trashed Scott Pilgrim at the box office, and how the public that decided to see Expendables over Pilgrim must basically be a bunch of cretinous neanderthals.

Now, if the two films are up for debate on their merits at the local college's moderm film class - maybe then Pilgrim comes out on top. I wouldn't know - I didn't bother to pay my money to see either movie (nor Transformers 2). But at least the producers behind The Expendables had a much better vision of what the public was willing to pay to see.

Look, man. You're a good person. I know you from Escapecraft. But what you just said is so horrible and putrid that I can hardly bear to read it again. Let's dissect it, shall we?

Most of this post is argumentum ad populum, which is that just because quite a few people like it, that instantly means it's good. This is not so.

Lil Wayne went platinum, which means that many people paid Cash Money (pun!) to listen to his music; does this instantly mean he is a good rapper?
Twilight has made millions, which means many people thought that Twilight looked so good, they purchased it; does this mean it is a good series?
Avatar is the best selling movie of all time, which means that billions of people payed money to see it; does this make it the best movie of all time?
No. Of course not, that's silly. So why, without even having seen either movie, do you declare The Expendables to be an inherently better film?
Certainly it was a niche audience movie, but I find that the meaning of film is to make a film that is good, not to make a buck or two. Perhaps those who made the Expendables were marketing geniuses, but were they artistic geniuses?

Although I do admit that perhaps Moviebob is overdoing it a bit. (he is)

P.S. Ben Hur? Why Ben Hur? :P

Wait, so Tron: Legacy didn't get ONE SINGLE MENTION?

I officially hate everything about the oscars, forever. It's not my favourite film in the world, but not even so much as nominating Daft Punk for best score is just so blatantly ludicrous, when so many people loved it. Maybe it's just the internet population, and the rest of the world hated it or something...

THERE SHALL BE MUCH NERD RAGE

At least Inception and Hanz Zimmer are getting some nominations. Loved that film and its soundtrack.

Well I can already predict Nolan getting best director for Batman Rises. I really can't work out why the Acadamy Award committee feels that directors, actors and actresses must prove themselves for at least 5 years before receiving an award. That bullshit needs to end. Oh and MovieBob's opening rant about the Oscars being nothing more than the apex of all the years marketing strategies is right on...

Oh and yes, Tron Legacy was snubbed big time for the visual effects and wardrobe. And Daft Punk probably deserves that Oscar more than anyone else who wasn't nominated for an award this year...

SpaceSpork:
Look, man. You're a good person. I know you from Escapecraft. But what you just said is so horrible and putrid that I can hardly bear to read it again. Let's dissect it, shall we?

Most of this post is argumentum ad populum, which is that just because quite a few people like it, that instantly means it's good. This is not so.

Lil Wayne went platinum, which means that many people paid Cash Money (pun!) to listen to his music; does this instantly mean he is a good rapper?
Twilight has made millions, which means many people thought that Twilight looked so good, they purchased it; does this mean it is a good series?
Avatar is the best selling movie of all time, which means that billions of people payed money to see it; does this make it the best movie of all time?
No. Of course not, that's silly. So why, without even having seen either movie, do you declare The Expendables to be an inherently better film?
Certainly it was a niche audience movie, but I find that the meaning of film is to make a film that is good, not to make a buck or two. Perhaps those who made the Expendables were marketing geniuses, but were they artistic geniuses?

Although I do admit that perhaps Moviebob is overdoing it a bit. (he is)

P.S. Ben Hur? Why Ben Hur? :P

Well... actually the initial thrust of my original post has been lost. It's not that Expendables is better Scott Pilgrim. Like I said, I didn't bother to see either -- incidentally, it was Bob's review of Scott Pilgrim that convinced me not to bother to see it.

The Expendables only really enter into it, because Bob spent a lot of his review of that movie lambasting the viewing public that chose to see it, instead of Pilgrim. That doesn't make it a better film - just a more popular one.

But my original post was simply to say... Bob, it's a new year now. Seriously, it's time to give up the whining about Scott Pilgrim.

Question. Is it generally accepted that they had out awards to actors and directors based partially on everything they've done as opposed to just the movie their nominated for? Also, is it supposed to be that way or is it an unwritten rule?

I'm glad to see The Illusionist up for nomination. That was one fascinating film. =) I doubt it will win, but it's nice that it gets a nod all the same.

As for the TRON debacle, although I have yet to see the film, I am surprised (given its nature) that it didn't get pegged for *anything* in the music/FX/costume line.

itf cho:
But my original post was simply to say... Bob, it's a new year now. Seriously, it's time to give up the whining about Scott Pilgrim.

Guess I must have misread your post, sorry. I think we can all agree that the whole Scott Pilgrim thing has gone at least a tad too far.

SpaceSpork:

sosolidshoe:
Watching Bob deriding The King's Speech, one of the most credible, entertaining, evocative dramas of the last decade, while simultaneously bemoaning the lack of recognition for Scott Pilgrim, is actually pretty sad.

Also, could somebody please explain to me what it is about The Social Network that is award-worthy, other than it being about Facebook, and thus "cool" via some kind of moronic social-alchemy? It's a story about idiots and arseholes, and it's boring as hell to watch.

Credible, sure. Entertaining, I suppose, if you're into that sort of thing. But evocative? That movie was the most bland, uninspired Oscar Bait film of 2010.

Also, the reason The Social Network is award worthy is because of its complex human emotions. What you percieve to be "idiots and arseholes" were actually real human characters with depth up the ass.

Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.

Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me :P

PlasmaCow:
I am literally stunned that Tron Legacy got precisely zero nominations. It's just ludicrous.

Actually, it got one nomination, for sound editing. I don't see why this is so ludicrous anyways. Besides decent special effects what category should it be nominated in?

None of the actors really stood out, the screen play was pretty sloppy, the direction was terrible (tons of quick cuts and close ups, give me a light cycle fight with a wide angle where you can see all the action) and the movie itself was moderately entertaining.

EDIT: It did deserve a soundtrack nomination. That I am upset about.

Just a few notes:

The King's Speech wasn't workmanlike or by-the-numbers Oscar bait, you're confusing it with The Fighter, a dull, horrifically directed Oscar baiter that leans entirely on the three lead performances. O Russel being nominated is a joke.

The King's Speech on the other hand was a refreshingly shot, directed and acted look at what makes a man, instead of the obvious glaring look at the Royal Household of Britain. Pretty much every frame in that film is glorious to look at, and Tom Hooper directs in such a subtle, understated manner full of sarcastic humor in what can only be described as Stephen Fryish that it's a joy to watch.

Scott Pilgrim wasn't nominated because it has no appeal to anyone outside of the vocal minority of geekdom. Even for most of that minority it was too much made of too little.

The only movie I saw this year was 'The Fighter,' and I wish that Melissa Leo would win over that Amy Adams. I thought Melissa Leo did a much better job as the ruthless mother than Amy did as the hot, headstrong, and kinda formulaic girl-friend. Amy had almost no important scenes, all she did was prance around in a see-through bra. Melissa on the other hand had her job cut out for her. She had to strike a balance between being a cold-hearted and yet very human and redeemable character that we simply cannot file under bad or good. Her character was much more dynamic as she had to show exploitative vicarious ambition as well as tender motherly love. She and Bale form what can be considered the antagonist of the story so she has a negativity associated with her performance. However I find that to be the interesting part about her character.

I must say I'm surprised, following the hatred Bob received for naming it as one of his three films of the year only a month ago, at the support Scott Pilgrim's receiving.
(And delighted too, cause I love it, it was just never going to win an Oscar)

Frankly there are several potential surprises this year but the main categories are pretty easy to call.

Isn't it about time for a director of a Pixar movie to get a nomination for it? If there's one word that can best describe the majority of Pixar's films, it's this: whiplash.
The movies are all about rapid changes in tone and atmosphere: one minute you're laughing, then you're crying, then you're on the edge of your seat. In the wrong hands, that could be disastrous. And with the exception of Cars, Pixar has always done it right.

Yeah, I didn't think Tron: Legacy was all that incredible of a film as a whole, but I agree that it probably deserves an oscar for costuming, and Daft Punk possibly deserves a nomination for score; personally, I'm not the biggest fan of that score, but I get where people are coming from.

I really hope How to Train your Dragon gets score, though. John Powell's work for it is just mind-blowingly good.

Hey, you didn't mention the best part! The Expendables doesn't have a single nomination!

Go animal kingdom, the best Australian film for years.

Based on the true story of the slaying of two police officers.

Gives an insight into the corruption of the armed offenders squad...

Has a special guest appearence by Zara Garde-Wilson?

Brilliant acting and script?

Somebody?

bloody yanks

Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.

Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me :P

I am glad that I am not the only one who feels this way. That is pretty much my exact problem with "the social network."

Oh great some arse made more money than the Vatican and continues to do so by selling peoples privacy in an inventive way. And now he has a movie lauding him for it. Yay.

The King's Speech was a fantastic movie, very human and quite moving.

Lauding? The social network did everything but laud Mark Zuckerberg. He's portrayed as a know-it-all asshole who finds it impossible to relate to other people.

Muertos:
Lauding? The social network did everything but laud Mark Zuckerberg. He's portrayed as a know-it-all asshole who finds it impossible to relate to other people.

Isn't that the goal to which we all aspire? :D

Okay fair enough. I didn't make that last point very well.

Edgar Wright should've gotten a nom for Director and at the very least Scott Pilgrim should have gotten a nom for Special Effects or Art Direction. Nolan also keeps getting snubbed for some bizarre reason despite him getting commendations from the Director's Guild THREE FUCKING TIMES (though considering how the Academy voters love pretentiousness, I suppose Nolan is too lacking in that category). I will go as far to say that Inception and Scott Pilgrim are JUST as good as True Grit, The Fighter, and The Social Network, if not better.

As for the King's Speech, it's director shouldn't even be nominated. There are TONS of directors who could've done that job and probably done it better. The King's Speech is the very example of an Oscar Bait film like Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Milk, An Education, and Up in the Air. All of them are straightforward narratives taking place in the "real world" whose quality hinges on their actors' performances. Criminy, we need some young blood in voting.

"Sadder still, fans of the duo are thus denied the fun of explaining to their bewildered family/friends/coworkers why the Power Rangers were sitting in the audience at the Oscars."

That may literally be why they weren't nominated.

I'm glad you agree with me on the soundtrack! Daft Punk has been my favorite band for as long as I've liked music. Having them be in a big hollywood movie was FANTASTIC, but being shut out of the most obvious award is just a shit-cherry on top of an otherwise delicious sunday.

But not being nominated for best effects? Now, they're just trying to be stupid. Alice in Wonderland got nominated instead? That movie looked like ass. Oh sure, it has all the cool and "spooky" and "quirky" designs and stuff, but when you really take a step back and look at the big picture, there's nothing original or immersive about that movie's look. I haven't seen all of his movies yet, but so far, I can say that Tim Burton is not--and has never been--a good filmmaker.

I was a bit disappointed about no Daft Punk and no Tron: Legacy for visual effects. But it was to be expected, I guess.

I'm super excited that Black Swan is getting all of these nominations, though. I would love it if it won best picture, but that seems extremely unlikely. Everyone writing articles like yours doesn't even mention the movie, except for best actress.

I thought it was one of, if not the best film I have ever seen. It's perfect in every way. It's original, it's captivating, it's extremely well acted, everything has a purpose without being pretentious (even the "lesbian sex scene"), and I haven't gone a day without thinking about it at least once since I saw it exactly one week ago.

Enough with Scott Pilgrim, Bob.

Was it a little different? Sure. Was it geek-tastic? Sure. Was it an exceptional example of cinema?

Fuck No!

I'm sorry that so many geeks feel like it was somehow transcendent. The truth is that it actually didn't introduce anything new-- it only exchanged old '60s Batman 'action balloons' (BIFF! BAM!) for higher rez events like coin drops.

Not anywhere near as revolutionary as you would seem to want to make it out to be.

Michael Cera can only play a twerp. The plot was straight out of geek fapping-fantasies, and you think it deserves any sort of credit?

Bob? It's time to get out of your mom's basement, put on 'big boy' pants, and realize that, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to stop evangelizing for Geek fanservice crap like 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World'

sosolidshoe:
Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.

Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me :P

RE: "Oscar Bait" - if you haven't yet watched this, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhrz1-4hN4

As regards the specific films in question... Naturally, it can't be seriously argued that the story in TKS - monarchs, royal sucession, World War II, overcoming disability, etc - is on it's face more interesting, human and even "important" than TSN's story of a handful of Harvard brats suing eachother over who invented what part of a website. But, to borrow a quote from Roger Ebert: Movies are not about what they are about but HOW they are about it. It's "in the telling," in other words.

Speaking only for myself, I thought TKS was a perfectly adequate movie; but also a decidedly unambitious and "boilerplate" one. No, not everything needs to reinvent the wheel - but by the same token not every wheel that comes off the assembly line is getting displayed in the Smithsonian. From the moment I first became aware of the film (and I mean prior to seeing even a trailer) I already knew more-or-less the exact movie to expect: Firth all clipped and mannered, Rush "zany" with private pain, constant hammering on British! Class! Differences!, the obligatory "ho-ho! That's so funny now!" jabs at hilariously-incorrect old-time medical advice, comic-relief "funny therapy" sequence ("LOLZ! He is cursing awkwardly!") the mandatory family structure (stern disapproving dad, cool-yet-callous brother, quietly-strong wife, unknowingly-insightful moppet children, etc) the poor-guy-oversteps/rich-guy-overreacts "breakup" scene, "b-b-but y-your majesty... he is... A POOR!" "Silence! He is my bestest buddy, class differences be damned!", the autumnal/washed-out contrasting color palette cinematography; right down to the impressively pretzel the narrative twists itself into in order to add dramatic-heft by making it seem as though "The Speech" is Bertie Versus Hitler: SHOWDOWN!!!" There's not really a single moment in it that breaks out of Historical Biopic 101. Again, IMHO.

On the flipside, TSN uses a slew of unexpected and/or unconventional narrative and visual techniques in order to tell it's story. The multi-layered lawsuit-upon-lawsuit flashback-structure most obviously; but also the editing, composition of scenes and even use of color. Most "techie" stories use heavy-lighting and "digital-looking" colors; this one goes for deep shadows and rich, aged tones to convey the "bigness" of what's actually going on - it's a movie about making a website that "looks" like a movie about building a Mafia Empire. Or the sequence with the boat race, using the "miniaturization-focus" camera trick to emphasize the idea of the "Old Money World" of the Winklevoss Twins being reduced in the face of the enroaching "New Money World" represented by Zuckerberg etc. There's more narrative/visual invention in the way Fincher executes the "simple" first-act scene of Jesse Eisenberg copy-pasting JPGs into Facesmash than there is in almost any of the other nominated films this year. For me, that's the difference.

RE: True Grit and supporting actress... it's not the Academy, is it? I thought the filmmakers kind of decided where to submit their actors for consideration in pre-nomination campaigns and often believed that kid roles or first timers had a better shot at getting a nom as supporting than lead, particularly in a year with an unusual number of high profile female leads... If that's the case, it totally worked.

I'm more baffled by The King's Speech being an original screenplay but Toy Story 3 being adapted. If adapting your own treatment is now considered an adapted screenplay (which I guess is something Nolan's Memento kind of started) things are going to get weird in the screenplay category in the future.

RTR:
Isn't it about time for a director of a Pixar movie to get a nomination for it? If there's one word that can best describe the majority of Pixar's films, it's this: whiplash.
The movies are all about rapid changes in tone and atmosphere: one minute you're laughing, then you're crying, then you're on the edge of your seat. In the wrong hands, that could be disastrous. And with the exception of Cars, Pixar has always done it right.

I agree with you that Pixar movies are fantastic, but a lot of that is writing. I'm not sure how much say a director has in animated films.

OT: I too am disappointed in the snub of Daft Punk and Christopher Nolan for Best Director. When I was reading the nominee lists and didn't see him on there for Best Director, my thought was "Oh, this has to be a projections list. Right? RIGHT?"

Also, I loved Scott Pilgrim, and Edgar Wright did deserve a nom for Best Director. I don't think Bob mentioning that is too much. I particularly enjoy how a lot of you lambasting him for continuing to promote it didn't actually see it.

itf cho:

SpaceSpork:
snip

Well... actually the initial thrust of my original post has been lost. It's not that Expendables is better Scott Pilgrim. Like I said, I didn't bother to see either -- incidentally, it was Bob's review of Scott Pilgrim that convinced me not to bother to see it.

The Expendables only really enter into it, because Bob spent a lot of his review of that movie lambasting the viewing public that chose to see it, instead of Pilgrim. That doesn't make it a better film - just a more popular one.

But my original post was simply to say... Bob, it's a new year now. Seriously, it's time to give up the whining about Scott Pilgrim.

Jumping into this fray, I'd like to defend Bob's attention to Pilgrim by saying that, despite not being a perfect movie or (admittedly itf cho) a popular movie, it was an important movie. Future audiences, for action movies particularly, will become used to seeing faster cuts, comic book and video game iconography, unapologetic graphical embellishments and other flourishes that, either poorly or (for the most part) well, were tried first in Pilgrim. The people, including Bob, who are pumping this film up are both acknowledging the likely upcoming shift in the zeitgeist and, as fans, encouraging studios to start getting behind this trend sooner rather than later. I don't think of this as "whining"; it's active advocacy of the medium.

MovieBob:

Speaking only for myself, I thought TKS was a perfectly adequate movie; but also a decidedly unambitious and "boilerplate" one. No, not everything needs to reinvent the wheel - but by the same token not every wheel that comes off the assembly line is getting displayed in the Smithsonian. From the moment I first became aware of the film (and I mean prior to seeing even a trailer) I already knew more-or-less the exact movie to expect: Firth all clipped and mannered, Rush "zany" with private pain, constant hammering on British! Class! Differences!, the obligatory "ho-ho! That's so funny now!" jabs at hilariously-incorrect old-time medical advice, comic-relief "funny therapy" sequence ("LOLZ! He is cursing awkwardly!") the mandatory family structure (stern disapproving dad, cool-yet-callous brother, quietly-strong wife, unknowingly-insightful moppet children, etc) the poor-guy-oversteps/rich-guy-overreacts "breakup" scene, "b-b-but y-your majesty... he is... A POOR!" "Silence! He is my bestest buddy, class differences be damned!", the autumnal/washed-out contrasting color palette cinematography; right down to the impressively pretzel the narrative twists itself into in order to add dramatic-heft by making it seem as though "The Speech" is Bertie Versus Hitler: SHOWDOWN!!!" There's not really a single moment in it that breaks out of Historical Biopic 101. Again, IMHO.

Well, in my humblest of opinions, you've missed the point of all those scenes and thus, the movie itself by a country mile or two.

Again, imho.

dante brevity:

itf cho:

SpaceSpork:
snip

Well... actually the initial thrust of my original post has been lost. It's not that Expendables is better Scott Pilgrim. Like I said, I didn't bother to see either -- incidentally, it was Bob's review of Scott Pilgrim that convinced me not to bother to see it.

The Expendables only really enter into it, because Bob spent a lot of his review of that movie lambasting the viewing public that chose to see it, instead of Pilgrim. That doesn't make it a better film - just a more popular one.

But my original post was simply to say... Bob, it's a new year now. Seriously, it's time to give up the whining about Scott Pilgrim.

Jumping into this fray, I'd like to defend Bob's attention to Pilgrim by saying that, despite not being a perfect movie or (admittedly itf cho) a popular movie, it was an important movie. Future audiences, for action movies particularly, will become used to seeing faster cuts, comic book and video game iconography, unapologetic graphical embellishments and other flourishes that, either poorly or (for the most part) well, were tried first in Pilgrim. The people, including Bob, who are pumping this film up are both acknowledging the likely upcoming shift in the zeitgeist and, as fans, encouraging studios to start getting behind this trend sooner rather than later. I don't think of this as "whining"; it's active advocacy of the medium.

No arguments that Pilgrim could help expand the content that is brought to movies, and could affect stylistic choices as you mention. But you have to acknowledge that Bob's whining - indeed rant - right after Expendables trashed it at the box office was taken to ridiculous lengths.

MovieBob:
-le snip-

Thank you for taking the time to respond Bob.

Regarding "Oscar Bait", my aim was to point out that, as far as I'm concerned, a film being "Oscar Bait", or marketed as such, has no bearing on whether or not it's a good film.

As far as your other comments, I believe this stems from a difference in the way we view movies. You appear to place great value on novelty in technique, which is understandable considering the amount of films you watch. Personally, I don't care, I watch the film and judge it by how much it managed to capture my attention throughout, and whether I found the story itself moving or at least interesting.

The reason I like The King's Speech more than TSN is, well, it's a better story, to my mind. I don't care that it doesn't break out of "Historical Biopic 101" because I generally don't watch biopics, as I find the stories of most celebrities and historical figures to actually be pretty dull, when you get right into them.

Finally, I wasn't actually taking a shot at you regarding TSN, that was the other chappy. I was taking a shot at YOU for liking Scott Pilgrim :P

Is it just me, or does it seem like the committee watched only 10 movies last year, nominated them all for best picture and then decided that every other nominee for every other Oscar needed to be from one of those movies? I mean, I get that a good movie probably has good directing and actors and stuff (or it wouldn't be good), but it just seems a little absurd looking at this list.

...I think I'll mail Daft Punk my own, home-brewed awards considering the Academy seems to like being such douche-bags to talent. While they won't have any merit, perhaps it'll show them that we love them so. :)

Otherwise, good list. The lack of Tron and Scott Pilgrim makes my balls hurt...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here