Should The Avengers Be at the Oscars?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

SpiderJerusalem:

PortalThinker113:
No Harry Potter movie has won a single Oscar.

There's a very simple reason for that: They're not very good films. They're mediocre, ho-hum adaptations of a great series of books that managed to get by on the sheer gargantuan amount of money that WB threw at it. But in their haste to mimic the LotR frenzy, they hired tedious directors to create dull and lifeless phantoms of the books and lost out on their chances for awards that should have been easy grabs.

I thought the last couple (the David Yates films) were pretty great (loved Deathly Hallows), but I'd agree that it took those movies FOREVER to get genuinely good. Really inconsistent quality for the first few.

They wouldn't do it before and they definitely won't do it now when they're going through a hipster phase.

No, The Avengers was awesome, but not refreshing enough for my taste. At least not in the category Best Movie and Best Script. Because, lets face it, this is the most basic premise in the ever: villain wants to take over the world (Of course!), heroes try to stop him. I am not ruling it out entirley to win something, but this will be like Avatar: it gets the ''best varitions of explosions''-awards. The only serious category I would consider this movie is ''best supporting actor'' for Mark Ruffalo. That said, The Avengers will hit the freakin' jackpot at the Saturn Awards.

Who are we to say the Oscar's should change at all? The Academy Awards are awards given based on the Academy's own choice and for us to want to change that because "we are the people" is ridiculous.

You have a choice not to watch or listen to their recommendations, use that choice if you don't like it.
What's next? We rally together to try and tell the Cannes Film Festival who we think they should give the Palm d'Or Award to?
Maybe we should all get together and tell the Nobel Peace Prize people to give Ryan Gosling an award because a lot of people like him?

For all the talk about how 'entitled' we think the Academy are in who they choose to praise, we are sure not stopping to consider how entitled we sound by forcing our own agendas on a private organisation we think isn't praising the films we like.

Get over yourselves.

No. And columns like this are evidence of where Movie Bob needs improvement as a film critic. He's clearly smart and knows a heap about films, but he can't separate his love of geeky genres he identifies with from a film's objective quality. He did the exact same thing with Avatar, claiming it was awesome because it was like mixing Thundercats and Robotech, oddly missing how the shallow portrayal of the Na'avi created an offensively racist subtext in a movie that had pretensions of being about transcending cultural differences.

The Avengers was a good movie. It was a fun movie. It has no business being called a "best movie". It's shallow popcorn fun, like a Brittany Spears song or a bowl of Cheetos. Now, I loves me my Cheetos. That doesn't mean I'm going to claim they're gourmet.

The technical achievement of linking the different comic genre characters together into one movie is not an achievement that deserves Oscar attention because it's not an achievement that has any impact within the movie. I've never watched any of the individual superhero movies leading up to the Avengers, and without that background of expectation I had no reason to care about any of the characters. This is where the Avengers fails as best-movie quality work- if you have to have watched 10+ hours of other movies or be deeply embroiled in a subculture to think the movie is great, it's not a best movie.

Upping the challenge by building a cast from different genres is only Oscar-worthy if it results in a superior-quality movie, a movie that changes one's perspective or makes a meaningful comment on life or greatly moves it's audience. The Avengers does none of that. If it weren't for the background, it would at best be a good summer movie. You don't give the car-of-the-year award to a car that drives like a '92 Toyota Corola just because the engineers challenged themselves by making the car entirely out of glass. You don't award MVP of the year to a player who performs like a 14 year old when challenged by tying their arms behind their back.

I'm not so sure we should be so concerned with the Oscar worthiness of the Avengers. It's not really worth it. We all thought it was a good movie, but lets face it, the academy likes one type of movie. In my mind, trying to get the Avengers on the lineup for best picture is like trying to convince your grandfather how good it was. Even if it DID get on the lineup it would be bordering on sarcastic on the Oscar committee's part, so who wants that?

The real question is if you liked it, and a lot of people like it, and the creators know a lot of people like it, why does it matter if it gets an Oscar or not? Hell, we all know that the best picture is going to be some artsy dramatic film that no one even went to see (coughcoughTheArtist), and that's how it's always been, so why are we expecting anything different?

More to the point however, no, the Avengers would not deserve best picture even if it wasn't the case. It was a good movie and all, but the best? No. Just because they jumped through a lot of hoops to get there doesn't make the movie better than it really is.

I dunno... The Avengers is an AWESOME movie, but I don't know if it's really "Oscar-worthy".

Considering the title is "Should "The Avengers" Be at the Oscars?", I'd say yes. Joss Whedon should be nominated (at least) for Best Director for proving that an ensemble superhero action film is indeed possible to get right.

As for Best Picture, Bob's right about Dark Knight Rises probably being thrown a bone if there is a bone to be thrown. Avengers is big dumb fun, but probably doesn't stack up to the myriad of historicals that frequently populate the category. It would seem too out of place next to this year's "The King's Speech".

That said, I put it to anyone to describe what it actually is to be a Best Picture. Are there quantifiable aspects that a movie must have? Of course not. It's the same as "growing up" or (my least favorite) "being a REAL ______ (usually "man")" everyone has a slightly different idea of what that means and somehow think their description is the only right one. Avengers is such a good roller coaster, you don't even notice the plot holes -- if that makes a best picture, then The Dark Knight should have gotten one because Cracked is right -- just what was Joker's plan anyway? (Try planning out the second half of the movie from the bad guys' point of view...)

Does the film deserve a nomination for Best Picture? Undoubtedly. Should it win... well we will have to see but so far I am not sure.

It'd be nice to see it if only for the change to the status quo. But, it's Hollywood. Unless it is specifically designed Oscar bait, it won't.

If the Avengers is, thus far, the pop-culture "it" story of 2012, than I am glad I stopped giving a shit about pop culture decades ago.

I hope your nerdgasm lasts for a bit. Good for you, if you liked the Avengers movies. I haven't seen it yet, but the movies leading up to it were rather droll as far as I'm concerned.

Who knows, maybe this 'all of em together' thing can make up for the crap that was Thor, Captn A, and Hulk. Sure, the first Ironman was good (except the ending), and Joss is even in on this AAA blockbuster... But regardless if it's a great movie, it's still only a comic book movie.

All movies should be at the oscars, it's a fucking movie awards show.

Bob, you're an incredibly articulate guy, and a joy to read and listen to. But you need to bone up on your grammar.

"it's" - contraction, meaning "it is"
"its" - possessive adjective, something that belongs to "it"

Because possessive nouns get apostrophes (Mary's car, my dog's collar), it's (it is) easy to assume that possessive adjectives (its, hers) get them as well. They don't.

Nah, the Oscar'll go to some faux-artsy thing nobody actually liked except the Oscar judges.

The other day, I saw the first bit of The Descendants. The most blatant bit of Oscar-bait I've ever seen. Couldn't manage more than about 30 minutes of it.

irishda:

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Hubris. Loki is ridiculously overconfident, and didn't realize that the Hulk gives not two fucks about letting you finish your monologue. And by the point he realized that he was WAY in over his head, he was a little busy picking his spine out of the concrete to find time to flee.

irishda:

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

What the fuck else are you going to do? Walk around like nothing's happening with something that can literally tear you limb-from-limb and may have the inclination to do so at any point? Its not that they think it'll do anything, it's that the gun is a source of comfort.

irishda:

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

I do have a little problem with it myself, but I'll take a stab at it. He may be always angry, but he can restrain himself for the most part. You can seethe with rage and still keep it under check.

irishda:
How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

Because the weapons are experimental and they are on an airship. Now, replace experimental with "dangerous and highly unpredictable" and then there's hardly a reason to keep them on a flying anything, let alone pretty much the most technologically advanced piece of hardware in our possession.

Not gonna lie, I first read the title of this article as "Should The Avengers Beat the Oscars."

Yes. Yes they should beat the oscars, simply cuz no one else has yet.

They shoould be but only nominated because I think there's going to be better movies out this year like Prometheus or the The Amazing Spiderman.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Sorry Bob, but maybe you need to lay off the viagra a bit? This hard-on you've got for the Avengers is now threatening to poke people's eyes out...

For starters, THIS.

Secondly, the Avengers wasn't that great of a movie. What we're looking with the Avengers is an experiment that didn't fail. It was slightly above average with enough great bits (and I do mean bits - the longest great bit was Hulk vs Loki.) Everything else was a quick quip or a dialogue free visual scene, like Hulk punching Thor.) that fans and critics alike are willing to overlook the inanity of the plot and the crappy overall combat in the third act. (Seriously, the biggest reason that the climatic battle is so well liked is that it's better than anything Michael Bay has done since... erm. Ever?) It's not in the same league as Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. It's barely in the same league as the first two Sam Raimi Spiderman movies. I would go so far as to say that it's not even as good of a movie as the first Iron Man or Captain America.

And given the other movies that are coming out this year and are likely be fighting for the Geek Entry into the Best Picture, The Hobbit and The Dark Knight Rises are more likely to be deserving of that honour. Even if the Avengers ends up making more money than either of those two movies.

It'd be nice, because honestly Avengers was much better than Avatar. Still it most likely won't, but I wonder what will be nominated instead. Dark Knight Rises will most likely get a token nomination, if only because of the outcry that The Dark Knight was snubbed.

It's annoying because we're reaching the point where we can make genre films like this that are actually intelligent and compelling and should get some attention for the hard work put in to make them. Whereas I hardly remember what won last year, I'll be remembering Avengers for awhile yet. But ultimately it's up to whoever decides which film gets what, not our personal favorites. If we don't like it, then actually boycott the Academy Awards.

The Avengers should receive recognition.

It WON'T but it should.

He wrote a similar article about the last Harry Potter film capping off a monumental achievement in film making too but we all saw how the Academy Awards showed their appreciation for that.

I'm not really bothered if it does or not. The oscars don't matter to my opinions and seem kinda pretentious.

Fusioncode9:
Oscar for what? Avengers was a solid film but I don't see why the internet has put it on a pedestal. It's nowhere near as good as The Dark Knight or Xmen First Class.

I am confused as to why people keep putting First Class up like it was great. Hell the movie wasn't even good. A montage of montages, and Fassbender was the only good part of it.

OT: No it won't win. Also the Oscars have a great stigma for the Best Picture being a picture no one has seen. The Oscars are a who cares of movies.

I really enjoyed 'The Avengers', but the fact is I didn't leave having experienced any sort of emotional impact, and that makes the difference. The first two Spider-Man films dealt heavily with responsibility and the cost and loss that entails. Batman Begins followed a wayward kid to becoming a proactive, self-made crime fighter who stabbed through the heart of a corrupt city, only to lose a loved one and willingly sacrifice his reputation in The Dark Knight to ensure that city continued to improve.

'The Avengers' was unquestionably high-yield entertainment, and more like it should be made. But I didn't find it inspirational.

In the end Oscars just don't mean what they used to.

There was a time when almost everyone had seen the films that were nominated and people wanted to see the stars at the awards because they seemed so glamorous it was almost like the actors were from another world.

Now it's only the real film buffs that have seen all of the nominated films. The average person at random on the street likely knows very little about the nominated films. Thanks to scandals and the paparazzi catching stars at their worse the glamor is just gone.

The two things you seem to hear every year is about how the viewership is down for the Oscar awards and how the American box office is down because Hollywood just can't connect like they used to. Instead of working harder to win back that appeal they just live in the fantasy land of movies being the same force they were in the 1930's and 1940's. Because hey not adjusting for inflation makes those box office numbers sound impressive.

Tono Makt:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Sorry Bob, but maybe you need to lay off the viagra a bit? This hard-on you've got for the Avengers is now threatening to poke people's eyes out...

For starters, THIS.

Secondly, the Avengers wasn't that great of a movie. What we're looking with the Avengers is an experiment that didn't fail. It was slightly above average with enough great bits (and I do mean bits - the longest great bit was Hulk vs Loki.) Everything else was a quick quip or a dialogue free visual scene, like Hulk punching Thor.) that fans and critics alike are willing to overlook the inanity of the plot and the crappy overall combat in the third act. (Seriously, the biggest reason that the climatic battle is so well liked is that it's better than anything Michael Bay has done since... erm. Ever?) It's not in the same league as Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. It's barely in the same league as the first two Sam Raimi Spiderman movies. I would go so far as to say that it's not even as good of a movie as the first Iron Man or Captain America.

And given the other movies that are coming out this year and are likely be fighting for the Geek Entry into the Best Picture, The Hobbit and The Dark Knight Rises are more likely to be deserving of that honour. Even if the Avengers ends up making more money than either of those two movies.

I think that's the thing. IMHO for a film to be truly good it has to say something beyond that of it's own story. For all the abuse Bob give to the King's Speech at least it did that, saying "Sometimes in live you will be asked to do a job you not only don't want to do but are actively bad at". That observation, though a tad trite rings far more true to me then a big green man punching a robot snake.

Which isn't to suggest the Oscars always do that, Shakespeare in Love anyone? But I would see the Avengers winning being like that, albeit more appealing to boys.

conflictofinterests:

irishda:

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Hubris. Loki is ridiculously overconfident, and didn't realize that the Hulk gives not two fucks about letting you finish your monologue. And by the point he realized that he was WAY in over his head, he was a little busy picking his spine out of the concrete to find time to flee.

But his hubris is illogical. That was my point. He KNOWS the Hulk is strong enough to fight the other three superheroes (including his brother, who he knows is strong enough to beat him). That was his whole goddamned plan of getting rid of them. There's no reason for him NOT to take the Hulk seriously when his whole fucking plan was using the Hulk.

irishda:

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

What the fuck else are you going to do? Walk around like nothing's happening with something that can literally tear you limb-from-limb and may have the inclination to do so at any point? Its not that they think it'll do anything, it's that the gun is a source of comfort.

For one, I'd stop pointing guns at the guy who turns into the unstoppable killing machine whenever he's slightly agitated. Because lets face it, when the guy is getting angry, the best way to calm him down isn't threaten his mortality.

irishda:

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

I do have a little problem with it myself, but I'll take a stab at it. He may be always angry, but he can restrain himself for the most part. You can seethe with rage and still keep it under check.

Yeah, "I'm always angry" is cooler to say than "I'm always angry at my situation, but I suppress it in order to keep that situation from getting worse." Plus that still doesn't explain how he controls it. I know there was all that "meditation" jazz at the end of Incredible Hulk, but I really liked it better when he was a modern day Jekyll and Hyde. It would've been INFINITELY more interesting to see how the Avengers would use the Hulk without putting themselves in danger too.

irishda:
How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

Because the weapons are experimental and they are on an airship. Now, replace experimental with "dangerous and highly unpredictable" and then there's hardly a reason to keep them on a flying anything, let alone pretty much the most technologically advanced piece of hardware in our possession.

People keep focusing on the wrong part of what I said. The elite soldiers didn't NEED those new weapons, although they certainly would've helped. But, as Hawkeye and Black Widow proved, regular bullets or even technology since fucking biblical times is just as effective as experimental weapons, ergo, soldiers with machine guns and rifles and grenades wouldn't hurt anything.

The Avengers might get a nomination for best special effects (which it may or may not win, I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard good things about Prometheus), best editing, and possibly best directing, but I doubt it will win, and I know it won't win best picture. My reasoning? While it was an entertaining movie, and a very well done entertaining movie, it wasn't significant in any real way. It wasn't really saying anything or doing anything, it was just cool action. There wasn't any real emotional stimulation, there wasn't an underlying theme, it was just an adrenaline charged theater-filler and money maker.

To be honest, the only reason we see threads like this or "Harry Potter should sweep the Oscars" or whatever thread comes up whenever some big popular movie comes out is because there is a difference between finding something entertaining and that thing actually being good. For example, I have a strong distaste for metal, but I can appreciate that some of it is good, well put together music. Also, although it is difficult, I can admit that a lot of the alt rock I listen to isn't the greatest music ever made and likely won't stand the test of time. Being able to identify the underlying quality of something with subjective tastes is very difficult.

Also, just as a side note to all the people saying that The Avengers should win because it is popular and successful in the box office, do you want to know what other movies were widely popular and financially successful? The Twilight movies. Think about that for a minute.

I can't remember if the Oscars still do a 'Best Score', or if that's been replaced by 'Best Song'. If they do still hand a gong out for best score then Alan Silvestri should be nominated for his Avengers soundtrack. The main theme alone deserves recognition.

irishda:

conflictofinterests:

irishda:

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Hubris. Loki is ridiculously overconfident, and didn't realize that the Hulk gives not two fucks about letting you finish your monologue. And by the point he realized that he was WAY in over his head, he was a little busy picking his spine out of the concrete to find time to flee.

But his hubris is illogical. That was my point. He KNOWS the Hulk is strong enough to fight the other three superheroes (including his brother, who he knows is strong enough to beat him). That was his whole goddamned plan of getting rid of them. There's no reason for him NOT to take the Hulk seriously when his whole fucking plan was using the Hulk.

irishda:

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

What the fuck else are you going to do? Walk around like nothing's happening with something that can literally tear you limb-from-limb and may have the inclination to do so at any point? Its not that they think it'll do anything, it's that the gun is a source of comfort.

For one, I'd stop pointing guns at the guy who turns into the unstoppable killing machine whenever he's slightly agitated. Because lets face it, when the guy is getting angry, the best way to calm him down isn't threaten his mortality.

irishda:

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

I do have a little problem with it myself, but I'll take a stab at it. He may be always angry, but he can restrain himself for the most part. You can seethe with rage and still keep it under check.

Yeah, "I'm always angry" is cooler to say than "I'm always angry at my situation, but I suppress it in order to keep that situation from getting worse." Plus that still doesn't explain how he controls it. I know there was all that "meditation" jazz at the end of Incredible Hulk, but I really liked it better when he was a modern day Jekyll and Hyde. It would've been INFINITELY more interesting to see how the Avengers would use the Hulk without putting themselves in danger too.

irishda:
How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

Because the weapons are experimental and they are on an airship. Now, replace experimental with "dangerous and highly unpredictable" and then there's hardly a reason to keep them on a flying anything, let alone pretty much the most technologically advanced piece of hardware in our possession.

People keep focusing on the wrong part of what I said. The elite soldiers didn't NEED those new weapons, although they certainly would've helped. But, as Hawkeye and Black Widow proved, regular bullets or even technology since fucking biblical times is just as effective as experimental weapons, ergo, soldiers with machine guns and rifles and grenades wouldn't hurt anything.

Ignoring my earlier rebuttal are we? Oh well, I guess I can debunk these complaints just as easily.

1) I already covered this, it has less to do with hubris and more to do with the fact that Loki's illusion power isn't so convenient that he can just whip one up in a millisecond. The Hulk just started throwing him around like a rag-doll before he could do anything (his little rant that got interrupted was probably an attempt at buying time). After that he was too bruised to even get up so why is it a plot-hole that he didn't just walk away?

2) And if you aren't great diplomats and capable of such bargaining? Fury did try to calm him down with words and not guns. As I recall they only pulled guns on him when it looked like he was already at the breaking point. Again, that is pretty much all they CAN do at that point and hope it will do some good.

3) It kinda does, I already explained it to you that being always angry means that he is always close to becoming the Hulk. The Hulk is always a part of him and that is why he can be part of the Hulk too. And he doesn't control the Hulk as much as he just "aims" him. He still rage-smashes everything he fights, just now he is enough Banner to keep away from his allies (most of the time, he might still sucker-punch them apparently).

4) Already explained this too. Widow and Hawkeye are the only ones skilled enough with conventional weapons to do any good against the enemies with them. Normal shield agents can't shoot aliens moving at high speed on a hover-scooter out of the sky with a handgun or bow. Hawkeye can. They also can't battle their way through hordes of them without being overrun after taking down at most 2 or 3 soldiers, but Widow can. There is also that little problem of the Hellicarrier being understaffed after the attack on it. They probably couldn't have sent out much help anyways.

I'm really hyped about The Avengers, and I'll certainly enjoy it when I see it, but as for nominating it for Best Picture? No. Movies like The Avengers are enjoyable, fun, and they make a LOT of money at the box office, but that is not the criteria for nomination in the Best Picture category. If being popular were all it took for a Best Picture nomination then movies like Transformers and Twilight would be nominated, which is something that no rational person wants.

Films that get nominated for, or win, best picture should be more than just something to see for entertainment, it should be a good film that is well put together and has a strong message. Being well put together is pretty objective, and The Avengers does look like it succeeds in this. Having a strong message is more opinionated, but I doubt that many would honestly think that The Avengers excels in this category. It's a 'good' film, but not Oscar worthy.

As for my personal Oscar hopes? Les Miserables. :)

Do genre films deserve oscars? Yes, yes they do.

Does the Avengers deserve a oscar? No, fuck that.

You see, the issue with giving say Avengers, which is a popcorn-flick a oscar is that it opens up to Transformers to getting a oscar. It lowers a barrier, per-say which you need to shift out popcorn-flicks and get quality films in.

I'd love to see horror films or fantasy movies get a oscar, but fuck popcorn-flicks getting a oscar.

Sober Thal:
If the Avengers is, thus far, the pop-culture "it" story of 2012, than I am glad I stopped giving a shit about pop culture decades ago.

I hope your nerdgasm lasts for a bit. Good for you, if you liked the Avengers movies. I haven't seen it yet, but the movies leading up to it were rather droll as far as I'm concerned.

Who knows, maybe this 'all of em together' thing can make up for the crap that was Thor, Captn A, and Hulk. Sure, the first Ironman was good (except the ending), and Joss is even in on this AAA blockbuster... But regardless if it's a great movie, it's still only a comic book movie.

I'll give you a quick recap on the avengers so you don't have to see it.

Dudes get together for common goal. Dudes fall out because of dislike of each other. Dudes get back together again because they need to for some reason or another. Dude makes very bad inside joke about how the Hulk used to say he smashed things that is so worthy of cringing. Thirty minute or so fun fighting sequence.

Honestly, everything that wasn't combat was sub-par in the movie or cringe-worthy.

P.S. GO SEE IT FOR THE LAST HALF-HOUR!

Aprilgold:
Do genre films deserve oscars? Yes, yes they do.

Does the Avengers deserve a oscar? No, **** that.

You see, the issue with giving say Avengers, which is a popcorn-flick a oscar is that it opens up to Transformers to getting a oscar. It lowers a barrier, per-say which you need to shift out popcorn-flicks and get quality films in.

I'd love to see horror films or fantasy movies get a oscar, but fuck popcorn-flicks getting a oscar.

I completely agree with this. I'm not against genre films getting nominations, or even wins, for best picture, as long as they actually deserve it. There's a difference between making a "good" horror/action/whatever films, and making a(n) "important/meaningful" horror/action/whatever film.

Well, to name one plot hole, the story around the Hulk didn't make any sense. In the middle of the movie he was treated like he was ticking and everyone spoke softly because they were terrified the Hulk would appear, go berserk, and kill everyone. Then, magically, at the end of the movie the Hulk was in control of himself and a valued member of the team.

Silverspetz:

See, this is exactly the kind of attitude that some of us thinks need to change. The one that can't see past the film and that it is "just entertaining" and instead look at what an achievement this "popcorn movie" really is. How much actual effort went into it and how well it succeeded on every level that it was trying to accomplish something on, not to mention being a landmark in film history for trying and succeeding in adapting comic-book style continuity. If you can pull a "toll of war" message out of Return of the King, then surely we can all pull a message about "traditional one-man heroism in today's day and age" out of The Avengers.

Not saying it should get a spot mind you (lots of movies coming out before the Oscars, though even with the ones you mentioned there will be room for more), but snubbing it off because it is "a popcorn flick" is just narrowing your view and holding the awards back from seeing the big picture in my book.

Sorry, but where in my post did I complain about popcorn movies being shit?

I enjoy popcorn movies. But I enjoy them for the shallow, mindless entertainment they are. And shallow, mindless films do not Best Picture Oscars deserve.

The "one man heroism" message you're talking about in The Avengers is the exact same 'message' that every blockbuster of the last decade has been yammering on about. It's a generic message, delivered in a fun way.

Again, there is nothing wrong with enjoying popcorn entertainment. But taking a well-done yet ultimately generic superhero movie, and saying it should be put on the pedestal along side the works of Ken Loach and Wes Anderson is just ignorant. Every year, films are made that are intelligent, thought-provoking, and rich in thematic content. These sorts of films are what are supposed to be recognised as 'Best Picture' types, not films that simply make a billion dollars and provide a bit of spectacle.

If you enjoyed the Avengers, good for you. That doesn't mean it's a film worthy of being put alongside The Hurt Locker, Schindler's List or Million Dollar Baby.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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