82nd ACADEMY AWARD Nominations

[BadMoon]

The only actual "hater" I can even think of is Shai and he hasn't posted much about it at all. Pretty much everyone else has said they liked it but it had flaws.

I saw all of the ancient Greek Gods after watching it. They then invited me up for dinner where they wooed me with a harp and fine wine.

 

[The Ween]

I hated near dark. *runs and hides*

I haven't seen Near Dark. *runs and hides*

*hiding in the dark with Darth and Moonie*

hee hee

 

[IrishJedi]

I saw all of the ancient Greek Gods after watching it. They then invited me up for dinner where they wooed me with a harp and fine wine.

Were they painted bright blue?

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

The irony is that a lot of the people trashing Avatar, were whining about the Dark Knight not being considered for Best Picture or Best Director...

I haven't seen avatar yet & honestly, I watched dark knight 2 times to see if I actually liked it and still didn't

 

[Kuzeh]

Who are they?

The bastards that killed Kenny...

The only actual "hater" I can even think of is Shai and he hasn't posted much about it at all.

Quick search shows about 40 posts of him trashing Avatar...

Pretty much everyone else has said they liked it but it had flaws.

Oh there's more than that... check the Avatar thread...
plenty of "hatred"....

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I just don't get the haters. Avatar is this generation's Star Wars.

god...I hope not

 

[CAhobbit]

WOW. Hurtlocker has got to be the most Over-rated film of all time. Possibly more so than Citizen Kane. I though it was OK. It was well made but I was very bored watching it. Alot of build up towards nothing.

It wasn't my favorite (or even in my top 10 films of 2009) but of those nominated it makes sense to have won (though my pick would have been 'Inglorious Basterds'). 'The Hurt Locker' wasn't a film I was entirely enamored with (but there are little moments here and there in it that were just oh so fantastic, and it was those tid bits that made me appreciate it).

Wow, and Citizen Kane overrated? I really like that film. The history behind it is quite interesting and I found it to be a very enjoyable film. But we all have different tastes in films (as it should be).

 

[Darth Madden]

Is it me or did the Best Picture feel rushed? It was like Tom Hanks just walked out on stage, said a couple of lines and and announced the winner.

Thats what happens when they run 30 minutes late. Did they really need to have 10 people yap about the best actors/actresses for 20 minutes.

 

[LChinoz]

I don't get the Avatar haters either. As I said in my first post about the film - I think in years to come it will be more highly regarded, although I doubt it will have the same impact on kids today that Star Wars had on my generation.

I agree with this, but we shall see.

 

[LOTRFan]

I agree with this, but we shall see.

I think audiences will lament the day that 3D was given such a free pass ("free" being the irony here); and the days of Avatar will be longed for, you know when you could actually afford to see films in theatres. Though perhaps the remake of Clue will be stellar in 3D?

 

[LChinoz]

Did anyone else notice they didn't mention Farrah Fawcett or Bea Arthur during the memoriam tribute?

 

[Dusty]

I'm REALLY bummed that Basterds got shafted, even for writing. I have a feeling QT is just not very popular in Hollywood. Which is awesome, but sucks for awards seasons

Other than that, I'm pretty happy. Was hoping to see D9 beat out Avatar for effects though

 

[Dusty]

That doesn't really mean anything. Lots of movies use new tech all the time. Basically any time Spielberg, Lucas or Cameron makes a film they are using some new kind of motion-capture or pre-viz technique never utilized before. Happened on all three SW prequels, A.I., TITANIC, MINORITY REPORT, you name it. Again AVATAR is nothing truly special in that regard either. In fact, one might argue that Lucas' shift to all digital cameras (with special lenses) for a scope theatrically released film on AOTC set more of a tech precedent than anything Cameron did with AVATAR. But you don't see folks touting that one, probably because AOTC is pretty crap and the only people it inspired to paint themselves blue were Amy Allen and her cosplay alteregos.

Actually it was quite a bit more revolutionary than anything before, behind the scenes, and the technology will be a great benefit to all future CGI films. To me though, that doesn't really matter. It didn't look much different on the screen, other than the 3D. And in my opinion, THAT'S what the effect award should be about - how it looks on screen, not what type of technology you came up with to do the filming (that's what the tech awards are for). And TO ME, District 9 looked way better, from an effects standpoint while watching. Plus, the story was just so much more powerful. But the 3D in Avatar was KILLER.

 

[Maglor]

What...?


CG has never... ever... looked that natural on screen. The body motion and facial expressions are unparaleled.

 

[barbelith]

CG has never... ever... looked that natural on screen.

Never seen Zodiac?

The body motion and facial expressions are unparaleled.

Where the Wild Things Are had better facial CG.

 

[tomandshell]

I just want to know how the makers of Logorama (the winner for Animated Short Film) are not sitting in court right now dealing with multiple law suits. I downloaded the film from iTunes and I think that at least McDonald's can't be happy with how Ronald McDonald is portrayed in that thing, lol.

I think I need to watch it again because my eyes and brain couldn't quite take it all in on the first viewing.

 

[LChinoz]

Never seen Zodiac?



Where the Wild Things Are had better facial CG.

I thought Avatar's CG was superior to Where the Wild Things Are in every way. Although Jonze and co. dropped the ball using CG at all IMO.

 

[D. Martin]

... And you of all people know that I was there from the very beginning, covering the film and all its tie-ins and SDCC last year. I was at the Cameron presentation and 25 minutes of finished footage and I was jacked. But the final film itself never rose above its hype to me. I wouldn't even put it in my Top 3-4 Cameron films. Again, it's good... but it has been hideously over-valued. And if that makes me a "hater", then so be it. But I'd like to think I'm one of the few actually being rational about this thing.

May be the problem right there Carl. I don't give in to pre-release hype. I simply don't give in to events. I either like what I see or I don't. A film's marketing is designed to to one thing: Sell you a ticket. I'd rather buy a ticket and let the film sell itself. I didn't have any preconceived notions walking into the movie theatre, and I walked out very happy with what I saw.

Take into account, I liked all the Star Wars prequels when I first saw them too (although, admittedly, TPM was a bit to adjust to since it had been sixteen years since I saw a Star Wars movie for the first time), and ten years after the fact, a lot of haters have openly admitted to liking TPM now that they have had it on DVD for years.

I've never understood the appeal some people have to certain films though. Scarface, Raging Bull, and Godfather come up as examples. A lot of hype, but not truly warranted, in my opinion. That's what I think of Hurt Locker.

On the topic of Hurt Locker, I'd love to hear what the 'flaws' all the supporters of the film are referring to and why they can be overlooked, because I don't think a film with 'flaws' deserves Best Picture...

 

[D. Martin]

I think audiences will lament the day that 3D was given such a free pass ("free" being the irony here); and the days of Avatar will be longed for, you know when you could actually afford to see films in theatres. Though perhaps the remake of Clue will be stellar in 3D?

Psst. 3D fights piracy. Don't expect it to go away too soon.

 

[D. Martin]

Did anyone else notice they didn't mention Farrah Fawcett or Bea Arthur during the memoriam tribute?

Noticed. Maybe at the families' request?