And the Nominees Are...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Took one look at the trailer for TKS, and saw it as Oscar bait. Havent seen it, dont plan to. I hope Inception wins Best Pic, but it doesn't look likely. Or Toy Story 3, because almost every fan of Toy Story in general welled up.
Lack of Edgar Wright is painful. Is no one else annoyed at the lack of Inception actors nominated?

SpaceSpork:

CosmicCommander:
IT'S A REPUBLICAN!

GENTLEMEN, FFIIIIIRE!

Me no like King's Speech = Republican?

Sorry, good sir, this right here is one Democratic mothafucka.

EDIT: And would a republican have thought that Black Swan was a great movie? Didn't think so :P

A Republican could like Black Swan

A social Conservative probably wouldn't ;)

Also if Portman doesn't win for Black Swan I am going to summon the internets to rage about it.

(sorry but your conversation was a great starting point for my pointless emotions)

I was so excited to hear that Inception and Toy Story 3 were nominated, but this one person I know felt that Toy Story 3 should just stick with other animated movies and no be nominated for best picture at all. Her reasoning is that you can express and/or convey a number of different expressions and emotions through animation that you can't with real-life actors, and I guess that makes sense, but I just feel that, if the movie is good and worthy of best picture, then it doesn't matter if it's animated or not, it should be nominated, and even win if it's good enough.

...Although it looks like, despite the nomination, Toy Story 3 won't win best picture, obviously. Oh well, it was my favorite movie of the year.

Tron gets snubbed in every category they had a shot in? ESPECIALLY score?! Nolan gets no nod for Inception; what the crap, Academy?!

itf cho:
And may this be the last time we have to hear Bob lament over Scott Pilgrim. For crying out loud, Marmaduke made more money than that clunker. It was way too much of niche movie to ever have any real success.

So, Bob... get past it, and move on. Thank you.

Ticket sales = how good the movie is. Logic.

eljawa:
I dont think CHristopher Nolan deserved Best Director. The movie lacked ay real emotion and i dont remember a lot of character development, just a ton of cool shots and ideas.

You see, to me, I thought that was the point. I thought they didn't develop any characters other than Cobb because it wanted you to wonder if the whole thing was a dream or not. If none of the characters had depth, they could've well been projections.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Just to put in a word for The Illusionist if it wins (which it won't) it would deserve it. It was a brilliant film with a touching story and perfect animated depiction of Edinburgh. Y'know that pawn shop in the film with the ventriloquist dummy in the window. That is a real shop that is still in edinburgh. Apart from maybe The Prime of Miss Jean Broide, i have never seen a more faithful showing of edinburgh. And yes i am from edinburgh. I saw the premiare of The Illusionist at the edinburgh film festival.

You should con the Escapist in to letting you cover EIFF, it is really good. Okay maybe not as good as Sundance (i love skiing and inde movies that won't even get DVD distrabution) but it' pretty close.

Also it is sad to see people dismiss TKS as Oscar bait, as much as the marketing is for the Oscar the film is good on it's own terms without being made for an award...... :\

Now 500 Days of Summer, THAT was Oscar bait (not that it got any). Such a pretentious movie......

Jaranja:

eljawa:
I dont think CHristopher Nolan deserved Best Director. The movie lacked ay real emotion and i dont remember a lot of character development, just a ton of cool shots and ideas.

You see, to me, I thought that was the point. I thought they didn't develop any characters other than Cobb because it wanted you to wonder if the whole thing was a dream or not. If none of the characters had depth, they could've well been projections.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Even cobb though...I mean, i dislike Dicaprio anyways so maybe im prejudice, but he was essentially a flat character

I have to agree on The King's Speech, the thing that drives it to be an exceptional movie is the performances. Firth and Rush(who is Australian by the way) carry the movie entirely, and I did get teary-eyed at the end. However, I can see that movie it's self was pretty formulaic(I want to say predictable, but that just seems stupid considering that it is a biopic).

Colin Firth is basically a lock, but Geoffrey Rush was the best part of the movie for me. I really didn't believe there was a better performance by a supporting actor this year, but then again I haven't seen The Fighter yet, maybe I will put aside my distaste for cheesy rags-to-riches/overcoming the odds boxing stories if Bale is that good..

Also there is no way you can even suggest Chloe Moretz delivered a performance on the same level as Hailee Steinfeld, who managed to carry a movie with Jeff fucking Bridges(who was also brilliant).

edit: also the social network/fincher should win picture/director imo.

eljawa:

Jaranja:

eljawa:
I dont think CHristopher Nolan deserved Best Director. The movie lacked ay real emotion and i dont remember a lot of character development, just a ton of cool shots and ideas.

You see, to me, I thought that was the point. I thought they didn't develop any characters other than Cobb because it wanted you to wonder if the whole thing was a dream or not. If none of the characters had depth, they could've well been projections.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Even cobb though...I mean, i dislike Dicaprio anyways so maybe im prejudice, but he was essentially a flat character

I didn't find that to be the case. Why dislike Dicaprio? He was good in Departed and Shutter Island.

Does anyone give a rats ass about what the oscars do anymore? The oscars are as politically motivated and commercially twisted as out and out politics. Often the bestr does not win or is snubbed even for a nomination if it is too edgy and daring, aka hit girl this year being left out, pulp fiction losing to fing forest gump.

Oscars are a waste of time and energy to devote even a single article to it less your going to flame it for all that is wrong with it.

Jaranja:

eljawa:

Jaranja:

You see, to me, I thought that was the point. I thought they didn't develop any characters other than Cobb because it wanted you to wonder if the whole thing was a dream or not. If none of the characters had depth, they could've well been projections.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Even cobb though...I mean, i dislike Dicaprio anyways so maybe im prejudice, but he was essentially a flat character

I didn't find that to be the case. Why dislike Dicaprio? He was good in Departed and Shutter Island.

he was good in the departed...but i feel that was an anomoly. somethign in his voice...idk

i didnt feel him to have a ton of depth in his character, idk

cerebus23:
Does anyone give a rats ass about what the oscars do anymore? The oscars are as politically motivated and commercially twisted as out and out politics. Often the bestr does not win or is snubbed even for a nomination if it is too edgy and daring, aka hit girl this year being left out, pulp fiction losing to fing forest gump.

Oscars are a waste of time and energy to devote even a single article to it less your going to flame it for all that is wrong with it.

held in higher regard than any other award in USA for film. and if you dont care, isnt it counterproductive to post azbout it? lol

I have to disagree with whats-her-name getting best supporting for True Grit being a 'WTF'.

Category Nominations for oscars are based on votes, and people were urged to vote for her for best supporting, instead of best lead, so that she goes into the category where she is front runner, instead of being lumped in the one she doesn't have a chance in.

They're doing the girl a big favour.

I don't necessarily think she'll win, but she has a proper chance, UNLIKE everyone but Portman in the lead actress field.

Maybe it's because I'm Australian and patriotic 'n' shit, but Jacki Weaver hooray.

Animal Kingdom was fucking great, and Jacki just dominated that film. She was awesome.

A high recommendation on my part.

Also, what was that you said about Splice being nominated, Bob? olololololololo

EDIT: Oh Escapist, how the great have fallen. The amount of hurrdurr in these comments is off the charts.

(PRESUMABLY MY OPINION BUT I WILL NOT WRITE "imo" BECAUSE IT LOOKS SILLY)

Really enjoyed your insight in the article, never knew that the Awards were just damage control for celebs.

It won't be worth watching the Oscars, because you're always going to be disappointed, and there's always that audience/Academy disconnect. I'll give it to the movies, 127 Hours and Black Swan were really great to look at from art direction compared to the other Oscar Bait movies.

The King's Speech or The Social Network are the major contenders at this year's Oscars. Pick your poison, both were excellent movies well deserving of the Best Picture Oscar.

What I Think Should Win: (Even though it won't)
1. Black Swan
2. 127 Hours
3. Inception
4. The Social Network
5. The King's Speech
6. True Grit
7. Toy Story 3
8. The Fighter
9. Winter's Bone
10. The Kids Are All Right

If you must know, my money is on The King's Speech.

bojac6:

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.

Well, like you say, soundtrack, but not just that. It was more than deserving of being at least shortlisted for costume design, production design and special effects. I never had any expectations of it getting into best movie/writing/director/actor type categories, I agree it is an enjoyable movie, made visually and audioally (what would be the real word to use there?) stunning by the production design and Daft Punks amazing soundtrack.

solidstatemind:
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'

Finally someone else who recognizes how that movie, that while nice in its directing style, is a pile of geek fantasy fulfillment and brings nothing unique at all in terms of story or writing.

I'm really only upset at how Chris Nolan isn't getting nominated for Inception on Best Director despite it being entirely driven by his ability as a director. And yeah The Kings Speech while a beautifully written movie was in-genuine oscar bait for sure. Ive honestly stopped caring about The Academy's decisions because they cater way to much to acting and not enough to technique.
Although I do hope Inception gets best editing.

The fact that Daft Punk got denied their chance at the best score makes me loose my faith in humanity even more.

Jeeze Bob, want to dump on the King's Speech anymore? I don't know what you hate so much about it, but I thought it was a fantastic film, probably the best I've seen all year next to Inception. You know, I actually went in to see it thinking like you, rolling my eyes and saying "oh boy, yet another movie tailor-made for an oscar, this is going to be so lame." But my mind was completely changed only a short way in. It had a lot of emotional richness and great acting, plus it was kind of educational (something I always appreciate). It was probably the first role I've seen Helena Bonham Carter in where I didn't want to strangle her.
Granted, I haven't seen all of these nominees, so I might like another one better (hell, I haven't even heard of a bunch of them).

Total complete bullshit that Nolan isn't up for best director. However, the Oscars have a long tradition of completely snubbing Sci-Fi, don't they? Not terribly surprising.

On the other hand, I'm glad they are snubbing all aspects of Tron. That movie was a filthy piece of crap in every manner, and deserves a quick fiery death. I don't think Daft Punk's score was original at all, either.

Winters Bone is a surprise, but I want to see more films from the first half of the year on the nominations list.

Where's Greenberg!!!!

I love it when the nerd lets the film critic come out and play. Good analisys Bob, thanx!

obisean:

Decabo:
Personally, I think James Franco deserves the Best Actor Oscar for 127 Hours, since Colin Firth's role didn't seem to far away from how he acts normally, minus the stammer. I'd like to see Firth try to act out cutting his own arm off.

Though I do agree with you to a point, but as Bob said, Firth is due. Sure Firth delivers in every performance and it's easy to overlook it simply cause he will do it again, but you run into the problem that Peter O'Toole had. Quoting Wikipedia here:

Peter O'Toole holds the record for having the most Oscar nominations (8 for Best Actor) without ever winning a competitive acting award. He was given an Honorary Award in 2002.

O'Toole is considered one of the best actors that ever lived, and yet received precisely 0 Oscars because he, "Will just do it again in his next movie and we can give it to him for that one if nobody else had a, not necessarily better, but breakout role."

To be fair, I've yet to see 127 hours, so I pass no judgement onto Franco. I just hate the "But X had the role of their lifetime and deserves it over Y" argument just because X is up against a Y that constantly delivers good performances.

I never said that Firth would just do it over and over again, what I meant was I don't think Firth had to be that out of character for his role. Franco, on the other hand, played a very unusual role that I personally think deserves more credit.

MovieBob:

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.

Sorry but TKS does actually break out of Historical 101 by actually mentioning Stanley Baldwin who got Britain on the path of Appeasement although Ramsay Macdonald should be blamed more.

Still it is nice to see people know it wasn't just Churchill who gave out hope.

I agree with your view on TSN with the Winklevoss' and Zuckerberg as Old money VS New money with some people siding with Mark as in Harvard Dean refusing to do anything once they mention family connections and also the audience including myself actually supported Zuckerberg until he screwed his friend over.

Going off topic slightly but was it just me or were the Winklevoss' the douchiest pair of twins ever? I mean they don't patent anything or make Mark sign a contract saying the idea is their's and when Eduardo even dared to say that Mark probably shouldn't be bound by the silent agreement (which is the old money way of agreeing while new money way is having everything signed twice) they just go 'Shut up you don't even matter with Facebook.' Yeah guys. Go and damage the idea of co-ordinating the cases and tempt Eduardo into settling with Mark and letting him massacre the Twins.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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