2009 Oscars thread

[Thatz]

As I said earlier, Benjamin Button wins two production categories it never should have. Slumdog beats best Wall-E, a movie that was composed almost entirely of fucking sounds, in the sound mixing category. Iron Man and TDK made roughly 1 Trillion dollars this year, I guarantee they blew out most of the other competitors, yet they got shit for awards. Heath Ledger doesn't win Best Supporting if he lives, I know that much. Only in death was he able to win an award for one of the greatest cinematic performances I've ever seen. There's a difference from being acclaimed movies that no one has seen or will see and movies that were seen by millions of people and were almost universally enjoyed. I hate to continue to come back to Iron Man and TDK, but these are the best examples. Both movies were seen by a shit ton of people, both were cinematic masterpieces, and both won fuck all. Contrast that to Slumdog, which won almost every award it was nominated for just because it was Slumdog. That to me, is the definition of Elitism. I'm not anti-Slumdog or Benjamin Button, I've seen and enjoyed both, but where's the love for the movies that crush the box office? Isn't that the sole reason movies exist?

EDIT*

An in the end of the day, what does being critically acclaimed really get you? How many times have we seen critically acclaimed movies or tv shows that tank and are off the air or out of theaters more quickly than they arrived? Arrested Development won just about every award ever created. You can catch it on your box sets, but you won't see it on TV. Meanwhile The Simpsons have been on for like 20 years. Does that mean the Simpson is a better tv show than Arrested Development? According to the critics no, maybe according to the people it's a different answer.

It didn't win because it was Slumdog though. It won because it was a great piece of cinema. You're coming across as a bitter Iron Man/Dark Knight fan and you have to realize that box office results doesn't not equal Oscar. It never has and it never will. That said, only The Dark Knight should deserve any remote mention with the Oscars. I loved Iron Man, I did but it wasn't exactly chocked full of amazing performances. Downey Jr. was awesome in it but was it a better display of acting than Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke did in their specific roles? One can argue, but most would argue not. There's a difference between an Oscar movie and a big Summer action movie. The studios know this and they release their movies accordingly. And I bet you if it's the same nominees for Best Supporting Actor if Ledger was alive, he'd still win it because he was just too good in that role not to be recognized. Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman and Christian Bale were all good in their roles but not on the level Ledger was at as The Joker.

If you want to see high-grossing popcorn movies win awards, watch the MTV Movie Awards. The Oscars is different and whining about it because your favorite movie didn't win only makes you sound like a bitter fan who can't recognize reality.

And at the end of the critically acclaimed gets you Oscars. One would think that would be fairly obvious by now.

I'm not at all a bitter comic book movie fan, but honestly I don't see how Iron Man or TDK weren't better movies from a production standpoint than Slumdog. Was the acting better in Slumdog? Absolutely it was, Downey was serviceable but he wasn't best actor quality and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that these movies, Slumdog and Button, didn't deserve to win the cinematic awards. Again both the production awards that I previously mentioned going to Benjamin Button were jokes and the sound mixing award not going to Wall-E was also a joke. My problem with the Oscars in particular is that I see the entire show as being out of touch with the public. If the MTV awards is the award show that best represents the people then so be it, but I certainly don't believe the Oscars does. As far as my original statement about playing a gay or a nazi/jew winning you an Oscar, I didn't say that, Entourage did, but it holds up to be pretty true.

*EDIT* Roc you are right, my roommates and I all marked pretty big for Ben Kingsley. Actually we almost unanimously agreed that sans Adrian Brody, that whole lineup was pretty freaking bad ass.

Why didn't Slumdog deserve what you call the "cinematic" awards? Are you saying that Iron Man had better cinematography or editing? From a technical standpoint, Slumdog was an incredible film. It's what made it more than just a feel-good love story.

You don't even seem to realize what the Oscars are about. The Oscars are about recognizing film as an artistic medium, not about rewarding films that have already made millions (or a billion) dollars. And the bit about playing a Nazi or a Jew winning awards - of course people win awards for playing characters like that. Why? Because most of the people playing those characters aren't Nazis or Jews or Gay or anything like that. It's a lot more challenging for them to make a believable character with an emotional performance than it is for someone like Seth Rogen to play a stoner.

And please, the Oscars aren't about pleasing the public. If they were there would be no point in having the awards. Are you going to give sports awards to the player who sells the most jerseys or tickets too?

Edited February 23, 2009 by Thatz

[sahyder1]

The music, the background sounds, the way it was shot and the way his life experiences were edited in all added to Slumdog in a big way.

[Big Red Fury]

As I said earlier, Benjamin Button wins two production categories it never should have. Slumdog beats best Wall-E, a movie that was composed almost entirely of fucking sounds, in the sound mixing category. Iron Man and TDK made roughly 1 Trillion dollars this year, I guarantee they blew out most of the other competitors, yet they got shit for awards. Heath Ledger doesn't win Best Supporting if he lives, I know that much. Only in death was he able to win an award for one of the greatest cinematic performances I've ever seen. There's a difference from being acclaimed movies that no one has seen or will see and movies that were seen by millions of people and were almost universally enjoyed. I hate to continue to come back to Iron Man and TDK, but these are the best examples. Both movies were seen by a shit ton of people, both were cinematic masterpieces, and both won fuck all. Contrast that to Slumdog, which won almost every award it was nominated for just because it was Slumdog. That to me, is the definition of Elitism. I'm not anti-Slumdog or Benjamin Button, I've seen and enjoyed both, but where's the love for the movies that crush the box office? Isn't that the sole reason movies exist?

EDIT*

An in the end of the day, what does being critically acclaimed really get you? How many times have we seen critically acclaimed movies or tv shows that tank and are off the air or out of theaters more quickly than they arrived? Arrested Development won just about every award ever created. You can catch it on your box sets, but you won't see it on TV. Meanwhile The Simpsons have been on for like 20 years. Does that mean the Simpson is a better tv show than Arrested Development? According to the critics no, maybe according to the people it's a different answer.

It didn't win because it was Slumdog though. It won because it was a great piece of cinema. You're coming across as a bitter Iron Man/Dark Knight fan and you have to realize that box office results doesn't not equal Oscar. It never has and it never will. That said, only The Dark Knight should deserve any remote mention with the Oscars. I loved Iron Man, I did but it wasn't exactly chocked full of amazing performances. Downey Jr. was awesome in it but was it a better display of acting than Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke did in their specific roles? One can argue, but most would argue not. There's a difference between an Oscar movie and a big Summer action movie. The studios know this and they release their movies accordingly. And I bet you if it's the same nominees for Best Supporting Actor if Ledger was alive, he'd still win it because he was just too good in that role not to be recognized. Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman and Christian Bale were all good in their roles but not on the level Ledger was at as The Joker.

If you want to see high-grossing popcorn movies win awards, watch the MTV Movie Awards. The Oscars is different and whining about it because your favorite movie didn't win only makes you sound like a bitter fan who can't recognize reality.

And at the end of the critically acclaimed gets you Oscars. One would think that would be fairly obvious by now.

I'm not at all a bitter comic book movie fan, but honestly I don't see how Iron Man or TDK weren't better movies from a production standpoint than Slumdog. Was the acting better in Slumdog? Absolutely it was, Downey was serviceable but he wasn't best actor quality and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that these movies, Slumdog and Button, didn't deserve to win the cinematic awards. Again both the production awards that I previously mentioned going to Benjamin Button were jokes and the sound mixing award not going to Wall-E was also a joke. My problem with the Oscars in particular is that I see the entire show as being out of touch with the public. If the MTV awards is the award show that best represents the people then so be it, but I certainly don't believe the Oscars does. As far as my original statement about playing a gay or a nazi/jew winning you an Oscar, I didn't say that, Entourage did, but it holds up to be pretty true.

*EDIT* Roc you are right, my roommates and I all marked pretty big for Ben Kingsley. Actually we almost unanimously agreed that sans Adrian Brody, that whole lineup was pretty freaking bad ass.

Why didn't Slumdog deserve what you call the "cinematic" awards? Are you saying that Iron Man had better cinematography or editing? From a technical standpoint, Slumdog was an incredible film. It's what made it more than just a feel-good love story.

You don't even seem to realize what the Oscars are about. The Oscars are about recognizing film as an artistic medium, not about rewarding films that have already made millions (or a billion) dollars. And the bit about playing a Nazi or a Jew winning awards - of course people win awards for playing characters like that. Why? Because most of the people playing those characters aren't Nazis or Jews or Gay or anything like that. It's a lot more challenging for them to make a believable character with an emotional performance than it is for someone like Seth Rogen to play a stoner.

And please, the Oscars aren't about pleasing the public. If they were there would be no point in having the awards. Are you going to give sports awards to the player who sells the most jerseys or tickets too?

In the US the players who sell the most jerseys are often the players who score the most points or are the best players in the league so your argument is a little flawed there. You never see a player averaging 5.6 ppg and 2.0 rpg selling in in the Top 5 jerseys in the NBA because he has the best looking and most technically sound jumper anyone has seen for 20+ years.

*EDIT* Take the sounds and mixing out of Wall-E you literally have NO FUCKING MOVIE. Honestly how is that arguable point? Same with the make up one. Benjamin Button had one person in make up, Hellboy had 95% of the cast in make up. Just from a logical standpoint, neither of those makes any sense.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Big Red Fury

[zero]

I will agree that the sports analogy is off because the best athletes are the most popular ones, but that's not the same with movies and music. But speaking of music, if you want to see what the Oscars would be like if we just gave awards to the mega-blockbusters, just look at the Grammy's. Honestly, the Oscars are the last place where smaller films that no one can see actually get major recognition. Why? Because they were truly great films.

The ceremony has its issues, no question. It's laughably self-indulgent, it takes itself far too seriously (though I think they took some steps to fix that last night) and a lot of good things get snubbed, but I'd much rather it be this way than turn into The People's Choice Awards. I certainly agree, The Dark Knight deserved a Best Picture nomination, because it was an absolutely fantastic movie, but so were the movies nominated. Of all the years to get pissed about Oscar snubs, I don't think this is the year to do it because it was loaded with stiff competition.

[Boogey131]

As I said earlier, Benjamin Button wins two production categories it never should have. Slumdog beats best Wall-E, a movie that was composed almost entirely of fucking sounds, in the sound mixing category. Iron Man and TDK made roughly 1 Trillion dollars this year, I guarantee they blew out most of the other competitors, yet they got shit for awards. Heath Ledger doesn't win Best Supporting if he lives, I know that much. Only in death was he able to win an award for one of the greatest cinematic performances I've ever seen. There's a difference from being acclaimed movies that no one has seen or will see and movies that were seen by millions of people and were almost universally enjoyed. I hate to continue to come back to Iron Man and TDK, but these are the best examples. Both movies were seen by a shit ton of people, both were cinematic masterpieces, and both won fuck all. Contrast that to Slumdog, which won almost every award it was nominated for just because it was Slumdog. That to me, is the definition of Elitism. I'm not anti-Slumdog or Benjamin Button, I've seen and enjoyed both, but where's the love for the movies that crush the box office? Isn't that the sole reason movies exist?

EDIT*

An in the end of the day, what does being critically acclaimed really get you? How many times have we seen critically acclaimed movies or tv shows that tank and are off the air or out of theaters more quickly than they arrived? Arrested Development won just about every award ever created. You can catch it on your box sets, but you won't see it on TV. Meanwhile The Simpsons have been on for like 20 years. Does that mean the Simpson is a better tv show than Arrested Development? According to the critics no, maybe according to the people it's a different answer.

It didn't win because it was Slumdog though. It won because it was a great piece of cinema. You're coming across as a bitter Iron Man/Dark Knight fan and you have to realize that box office results doesn't not equal Oscar. It never has and it never will. That said, only The Dark Knight should deserve any remote mention with the Oscars. I loved Iron Man, I did but it wasn't exactly chocked full of amazing performances. Downey Jr. was awesome in it but was it a better display of acting than Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke did in their specific roles? One can argue, but most would argue not. There's a difference between an Oscar movie and a big Summer action movie. The studios know this and they release their movies accordingly. And I bet you if it's the same nominees for Best Supporting Actor if Ledger was alive, he'd still win it because he was just too good in that role not to be recognized. Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman and Christian Bale were all good in their roles but not on the level Ledger was at as The Joker.

If you want to see high-grossing popcorn movies win awards, watch the MTV Movie Awards. The Oscars is different and whining about it because your favorite movie didn't win only makes you sound like a bitter fan who can't recognize reality.

And at the end of the critically acclaimed gets you Oscars. One would think that would be fairly obvious by now.

I'm not at all a bitter comic book movie fan, but honestly I don't see how Iron Man or TDK weren't better movies from a production standpoint than Slumdog. Was the acting better in Slumdog? Absolutely it was, Downey was serviceable but he wasn't best actor quality and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that these movies, Slumdog and Button, didn't deserve to win the cinematic awards. Again both the production awards that I previously mentioned going to Benjamin Button were jokes and the sound mixing award not going to Wall-E was also a joke. My problem with the Oscars in particular is that I see the entire show as being out of touch with the public. If the MTV awards is the award show that best represents the people then so be it, but I certainly don't believe the Oscars does. As far as my original statement about playing a gay or a nazi/jew winning you an Oscar, I didn't say that, Entourage did, but it holds up to be pretty true.

*EDIT* Roc you are right, my roommates and I all marked pretty big for Ben Kingsley. Actually we almost unanimously agreed that sans Adrian Brody, that whole lineup was pretty freaking bad ass.

Why didn't Slumdog deserve what you call the "cinematic" awards? Are you saying that Iron Man had better cinematography or editing? From a technical standpoint, Slumdog was an incredible film. It's what made it more than just a feel-good love story.

You don't even seem to realize what the Oscars are about. The Oscars are about recognizing film as an artistic medium, not about rewarding films that have already made millions (or a billion) dollars. And the bit about playing a Nazi or a Jew winning awards - of course people win awards for playing characters like that. Why? Because most of the people playing those characters aren't Nazis or Jews or Gay or anything like that. It's a lot more challenging for them to make a believable character with an emotional performance than it is for someone like Seth Rogen to play a stoner.

And please, the Oscars aren't about pleasing the public. If they were there would be no point in having the awards. Are you going to give sports awards to the player who sells the most jerseys or tickets too?

In the US the players who sell the most jerseys are often the players who score the most points or are the best players in the league so your argument is a little flawed there. You never see a player averaging 5.6 ppg and 2.0 rpg selling in in the Top 5 jerseys in the NBA because he has the best looking and most technically sound jumper anyone has seen for 20+ years.

*EDIT* Take the sounds and mixing out of Wall-E you literally have NO FUCKING MOVIE. Honestly how is that arguable point? Same with the make up one. Benjamin Button had one person in make up, Hellboy had 95% of the cast in make up. Just from a logical standpoint, neither of those makes any sense.

Hellboy may have had more makeup in it, but the award isn't for "doing the most work" or doing"the hardest" thing. Its for excelling at that job and adding to the whole package of a movie. Without the visual effects of Benjamin button it wouldn't have been nearly as intriguing/emotional and the movie wouldn't have its story, the character wouldn't have the pity of the audience etc. They created something that looked downright AMAZING and to downplay it as "Brad Pitt looking older, then younger" is silly...one would argue it's a lot harder to replicate something than it is to create. The human body(And its aging process) is intricate, complicated and the way the body works/acts in Benjamin button is VITAL. So without the production team doing the job PERFECTLY the movie would have fell flat. With Hellboy, they are creating their own images, thy don't really have to abide by any laws of science. There is no Hellboy, there is no Abe Sapien etc etc

Benjamin Button deserved the technical Oscar.

[Thatz]

Eh, maybe my sports analogy was a bit off. It was hypothetical though - I was saying that if people wanted the Oscars to be (at least partially) based on popularity then they'd have no problem with sports awards being like that, too. And it is still a little true if you think about the All Star teams...every year in the NFL and MLB there are a good number of players who aren't recognized for their excellent performance because someone like Ken Griffey Jr. is much more well-known and popular.

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

In all honesty I didn't agree with hardly any of the results. Slumdog Millionaire continues to be the most overrated film in recent memory. This is probably why I don't ever take notice or watch these awards. Nice to see Winslet win a deserving award though.

[zero]

The funny thing about Winslet is she finally won against what I think might be her stiffest competition in all the years she's been nominated. Anne Hathaway is seven shades of amazing in Rachel Getting Married, I've heard great things about Angelina in Changeling, and Meryl Streep is Meryl Streep. I honestly think Kate should've won in 05 for Eternal Sunshine.

[RPS]

Once again proven, if you play gay, jew/nazi, opposite gender, or are a foreign film, you WILL win lots of Oscars. Also if the "critics" are on your dick, you stand a good chance of winning a lot as well because the Oscars only follow what has been "critically acclaimed", usually by people out of the touch with 75% of the public.

I just thought I'd point this out... because you CLEARLY have no idea what you are talking about.

Firstly, only seven Oscar performances have involved a gay or lesbian character. Milk (Penn), Capote (Hoffman), Monster (Theron), The Hours (Kidman), Boys Don't Cry (Swank), Phildephia (Hanks), Kiss of the Spiderwoman (Hurt). So out of 81 ceremonies in which FOUR acting awards are handed out, seven of those performances involved a gay or lesbian. And really, if you can humor me and tell me why none of those fine actors didn't deserve the Oscar, I'd love to here it. Because I honestly can't think why any of these actors didn't deserve their nomination, because they are all fantastic films.

Next, Jew/Nazi. While a lot of high profile Holocaust films have gotten lots of critical acclaim (many of which deserved it), there have been plenty of other films that didn't do as well. For every Sophie's Choice, The Reader and Schindler's List there are lots of films that don't get nominated or win.

And your dig at foreign films is so funny. Foreign films RARELY dominate the Oscars. In fact, the opposite is true. Foreign films (ESPECIALLY foreign language films) don't get enough recongition from the Academy. Too even try to argue the contrary is untrue and completely ridiclous. Just looking at most of the major awards, the movies that win are Hollywood films starring Hollywood actors. Slumdog is probably one of the few movies in recent memory that got nominated and won the Academy Award that was even remotely foreign in content and actors. Most of the films that win Best Picture have medium sized budget, established Hollywood actors and well-known directors.

[sahyder1]

I've heard a lot of complaints the last couple of days about how Slumdog should have been in the foreign films section.....people better get used to a lot more Indian background movies hitting the US over the next few years. Bollywood is the biggest movie industry in the world right now and it is only growing.

[zero]

I've heard a lot of complaints the last couple of days about how Slumdog should have been in the foreign films section

Which is just stupid, it's not like this is something that's never happened before. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon springs to mind.

[RPS]

And on top of that, I'd say that the majority of the movie was in English, not Hindi. The first bit of the movie when they are young children is Hindi, but for 75% of the movie it's English.

EDIT: Not to mention that Danny Boyle is British, the studio and disturbition behind it were British and American and the producer is British. Not really a foreign film at all.

Edited February 23, 2009 by PunkRockPete

[Clawson]

Speaking of Danny Boyle...he had to have been fucking hammered last night.

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

I've heard a lot of complaints the last couple of days about how Slumdog should have been in the foreign films section.....people better get used to a lot more Indian background movies hitting the US over the next few years. Bollywood is the biggest movie industry in the world right now and it is only growing.

That's not my debate. I'm not complaining about foreign films, I'm slightly moaning because the awards are same every year, usually overrated movies, this year more so than ever. I don't want to go on about how much I detest Slumdog Millionaire because it's simply my opinion, but it's honestly things like this that make me not care for these awards one bit. Fucking hell, East is East was twice the movie Slumdog was, yet that didn't start winning Oscars. I just don't get why films like this are so overrated nowadays.

[-A-]

They're not over-rated, they're just liked by the people that determine the Oscars. It's not their fault the Oscars have become by far the most prestigious awards. They have a certain opinion on films and they have certain preferences and that's what the Oscars are all about. If you don't like it, then fine, but what more do you expect from a bunch of sappy octogenarian film industry professionals?

[zero]

I just don't get what the standard is for "overrated" when it comes to Slumdog. Sure, it's critically-acclaimed and now has an Oscar, but its domestic gross is still under that of Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Zero

[-A-]

Over-rated is the most over-used phrase in all of the internets.

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

I just don't get what the standard is for "overrated" when it comes to Slumdog. Sure, it's critically-acclaimed and now has an Oscar, but its domestic gross is still under that of Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

What I'm trying to say is that it seems the media and everyone is claiming it to be fantastic and one of the best films in years, yet I think it's below average, which is a compliment to it. And Mall Cop was pretty good

[livid]

Overrated is always a term that's used to by somebody who doesn't like the thing in question, yet can't recognize that it's good, regardless of their personal opinion.

I had no interest in seeing The Queen because it's not my cup of tea but I'm not going to say that it's overrated because I know my opinion isn't the only one out there and very well could be a great movie in a lot of people's eyes.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Livid

[RPS]

I've heard a lot of complaints the last couple of days about how Slumdog should have been in the foreign films section.....people better get used to a lot more Indian background movies hitting the US over the next few years. Bollywood is the biggest movie industry in the world right now and it is only growing.

That's not my debate. I'm not complaining about foreign films, I'm slightly moaning because the awards are same every year, usually overrated movies, this year more so than ever. I don't want to go on about how much I detest Slumdog Millionaire because it's simply my opinion, but it's honestly things like this that make me not care for these awards one bit. Fucking hell, East is East was twice the movie Slumdog was, yet that didn't start winning Oscars. I just don't get why films like this are so overrated nowadays.

East is East is a completely different movie from Slumdog Millionaire and you can't really compare the two at all. The movies orignate from two separate countries as well - Pakistan and India.

East is East was a good movie, but not Oscar-worthy movie.