82nd ACADEMY AWARD Nominations

[wofford29]

Moon probably would have got some love had the team behind it made a push. Instead they just came right out and said they weren't going to make the effort.

 

[The ill Jedi]

You also have a bad taste...and it shows.

I meant to say this too.

 

[CelticPredator]

Now I aint saying MY taste is that much better....but I know a good movie when I watch it. I mean, some I may not enjoy, but I do appreciate.

 

[The ill Jedi]

Now I aint saying MY taste is that much better....but I know a good movie when I watch it. I mean, some I may not enjoy, but I do appreciate.

That dude is nuts to say those things about Hurt Locker, Inglourious and Moon, just plain crazy talk.

 

[CelticPredator]

Indeed. I still havent seen Moon. I'll get to that...someday.


But Inglorious is one of my all time favorite movies. I can watch that movie every day and NOT get sick of it. I love it. Every second of it. Not one dull moment.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Sigh...

Wordsmith it all you want, but AVATAR is not a typical Academy Award type film. Neither was THE DARK KNIGHT. And if either had even middling box office success, the nominations would not have been there. STAR WARS, afterall, did lose to ANNIE HALL in '77.

Thing is... we geeks have a habit of seriously over-valuing the movies we like, especially when they become financial successes by tipping into the mainstream. A year from now Joe Sixpack won't give a care in the world about AVATAR. Neither will Hollywood.. until the hype begins anew for the sequel.

Neither is Return of the King or Titanic or The Exorcist.

 

[ironwez20]

This post =

All of those movies were fantastic.

you must really love the hurt locker, the movie wasn't even that great, inglorious was a better war movie and it should have won.

 

[IrishJedi]

Neither is Return of the King or Titanic or The Exorcist.

ROTK is indeed an exception. But that was more of a cumulative award for the entire LOTR trilogy. And still none of them would have been Best Picture noms had they received tepid box office results.

THE EXORCIST did not win Best Picture, though it was nominated. And while the subject matter/genre is certainly not typical Oscar fare, that movie was filled with highly-regarded industry pedigree and was based on a best-selling novel.

TITANIC. I don't know why you even listed that one. That movie screams, "Academy... look at me!!" the entire way.

you must really love the hurt locker, the movie wasn't even that great, inglorious was a better war movie and it should have won.

Neither of those is really a war movie you know.

 

[The Ween]

That dude is nuts to say those things about Hurt Locker, Inglourious and Moon, just plain crazy talk.

He's not nuts, it's just his opinion. Everyone likes different things. I probably will never see The Hurt Locker because I'm not interested at all in war flicks, especially newer ones.

 

[The ill Jedi]

you must really love the hurt locker, the movie wasn't even that great, inglorious was a better war movie and it should have won.

He's not nuts, it's just his opinion. Everyone likes different things. I probably will never see The Hurt Locker because I'm not interested at all in war flicks, especially newer ones.

To both of you, my post was not just in reference to the Hurt Locker, but Inglourious Basterds and Moon as well. Those two were also amazing films and for him to say that they were "Lame" and "Boring" really makes me question his taste.

And yes, I do love the Hurt Locker, it's too bad that most Avatar fans are, as Carl would say "Butthurt", to recognize it as the great film it is.

...
Neither of those is really a war movie you know.

Exactly, it takes place in the middle of a war, but a war movie it is not.

 

[The Ween]

Neither is Return of the King or Titanic or The Exorcist.

Return of the King was a win for Lord of the Rings as a total, and I think it fits what the academy likes. Same with Titanic. And the stories were both good. Plus, the academy seems to like LONG movies.

The Exorcist is a bit of a shock, but thinking back on it, I can see where it could win. The performances and the story were both great. Not typical horror stuff.

 

[karamazov80]

Neither of those is really a war movie you know.

Admittedly, I haven't seen Inglorious Basterds yet, but I have seen Hurt Locker, and am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the war in Iraq is not actually a war (though I'm pretty sure that World War II was ), or that a film not examining the "decisions at the top" aren't war films? I figure Hurt Locker is as much a war movie as Saving Private Ryan or Platoon, to name a few recent ones. Takes place in war, follows the story of those involved in war doing things that people do in those respective wars. What else are you looking for?

 

[The Ween]

To both of you, my post was not just in reference to the Hurt Locker, but Inglourious Basterds and Moon as well. Those two were also amazing films and for him to say that they were "Lame" and "Boring" really makes me question his taste.

And yes, I do love the Hurt Locker, it's too bad that most Avatar fans are, as Carl would say "Butthurt", to recognize it as the great film it is.


Exactly, it takes place in the middle of a war, but a war movie it is not.

There are movies that I absolutely love and most hate them. Same with TV shows. If I like it, it usually gets cancelled.

Stop and think of how many "chick flicks" you all hate but women love. It's all a matter of opinion.

 

[The ill Jedi]

There are movies that I absolutely love and most hate them. Same with TV shows. If I like it, it usually gets cancelled.

Stop and think of how many "chick flicks" you all hate but women love. It's all a matter of opinion.

Ween, you'd be very surprised at just how many 'Chick Flicks' I like. I love all different kinds of movies and genres (except musicals).

 

[Khev]

Neither of those is really a war movie you know.

Actually by definition they both are.

 

[BadMoon]

Hurt Locker = just another war movie. Inglorious Basterds = lame. But above all, do you know what movie I'm glad ended up with nothing? Moon. I hate that movie. Useless and bore. ing.

WTF! GHEY!

 

[barbelith]

Moon probably would have got some love had the team behind it made a push. Instead they just came right out and said they weren't going to make the effort.

Which only goes to show how silly it is to pretend the Oscars mean anything about quality rather than PR.

 

[wofford29]

Well we can all thank the Weinstein's for that.

 

[IrishJedi]

Actually by definition they both are.

Then that definition is stupid. Because neither film is about war. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a darkly comedic satire of that era (particularly Europe) and homage to the propaganda films of that time... and doesn't feature a single true battle/war scene. And THE HURT LOCKER (while admittedly much more of a war film than IG) is at its core strictly a character study... Iraq is but the backdrop.

On the other hand, films like PLATOON, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, FULL METAL JACKET, etc are all examinations of war itself (particularly those wars) and use their characters as vessels rather than the focus of complex arcs. They are films that feature combat. I might be able to buy putting HURT LOCKER in that camp. But IG? No way.

Are we to throw any film that takes place during or against the back drop of a war into the "war movie" category? I surely don't. Is SCHINDLER'S LIST a "war movie" to you?? How about THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, which takes place during the Spanish Civil War? Come on...

 

[The ill Jedi]

Excellent points Carl.

And by that definition Avatar should be considered a 'War' movie too right? Just sayin'.