Oscars 2010

**TonyH** · 02-02-2010, 12:16 PM

So what are your thoughts about today's nominations? I'm looking for honest opinions of this years nominated films, not "I hate award shows" rants.

I'll be watching "The Hurt Locker" finally tonight, and "District 9" tomorrow. SWMBO and I generally go on a theater-going tear this time of year and see as many nominees as possible before the show. It seems that we're WAY behind this year.

I've been excited to see "Crazy Heart" for a while now, and if the reviews I've read of "Precious" are any indication, that's going to make me wish I'd just stabbed my eyes out with a pencil.

I really enjoyed "Avatar", especially in 3-D but if it actually wins the Best Picture award I'll be pretty disappointed. I'll concede it a Director win for the way Cameron put it all together, but the paper thin screenplay and plot take too much away for it to be a realistic contender in my humble opinion.

**moodymick** · 02-02-2010, 01:23 PM

Christoph Waltz (Col Landa - Inglourious Basterds) for Best Supporting Actor, or there is no justice!

**SalvadorMontenegro** · 02-02-2010, 01:29 PM

The problem is that it's really hard to define "BEST." For instance, Star Wars lost out on Best Picture to Annie Hall in 1978. Which movie is more revered and acknowledged 30 years later? Annie Hall had its moments (I actually did not like the movie) - witty screenplay, quality acting, etc., but it hasn't endured the way Star Wars has. Star Wars had a script that actually embarrassed Alec Guiness, but it was a landmark movie and is still beloved by people in all demographics. Can you say that Annie Hall is a better movie because it had better acting, a better screenplay and less pizazz?

Avatar is the type of movie that I think will be remembered . It doesn't have much of a screenplay or great acting, but it did what it was intended to do exceptionally well. For that reason, I have no problems if it wins Best Picture, though I have not seen many of the other nominated films. Of course I understand that people will be outraged, particularly the artsy fartsy folks who think all movies should be visceral and thought provoking.

It looks to be a good list. I often don't agree with the outcomes - for instance, I absolutely HATED HATED HATED Chicago - so I'll just enjoy the show for its glitz and glamor.

**TonyH** · 02-03-2010, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by SalvadorMontenegro

The problem is that it's really hard to define "BEST." For instance, Star Wars lost out on Best Picture to Annie Hall in 1978. Which movie is more revered and acknowledged 30 years later? Annie Hall had its moments (I actually did not like the movie) - witty screenplay, quality acting, etc., but it hasn't endured the way Star Wars has. Star Wars had a script that actually embarrassed Alec Guiness, but it was a landmark movie and is still beloved by people in all demographics. Can you say that Annie Hall is a better movie because it had better acting, a better screenplay and less pizazz?

Avatar is the type of movie that I think will be remembered . It doesn't have much of a screenplay or great acting, but it did what it was intended to do exceptionally well. For that reason, I have no problems if it wins Best Picture, though I have not seen many of the other nominated films. Of course I understand that people will be outraged, particularly the artsy fartsy folks who think all movies should be visceral and thought provoking.

It looks to be a good list. I often don't agree with the outcomes - for instance, I absolutely HATED HATED HATED Chicago - so I'll just enjoy the show for its glitz and glamor.

I understand your position completely. It's tough to argue against you, especially as a huge fan of Star Wars! That aside, I still think that Avatar had it's chance 20 years ago when it was still called Dances With Wolves. I was entertained for 3 hours, but I couldn't tell you one thing about that movie now. It's like that massive comic review of Star Wars: Episode One that's floating around. Describe Han Solo for me. Rogue, scoundrel with a heart of gold, dashing. How about Luke? Idealistic, naive, brave. Now describe any one character from Avatar for me. Uhhh....blue?

I'm glad to see a genre movie nominated, but overall it was a weak entry.

And I agree with you 100% on Chicago!

**raisindot** · 02-03-2010, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by SalvadorMontenegro

Can you say that Annie Hall is a better movie because it had better acting, a better screenplay and less pizazz?

Yes. "Annie Hall" is a much much better movie than "Star Wars." And its influence was felt in many other ways other than in toys and spinoffs. It revolutionized the "romantic comedy," opened the doors for a whole new generation of actresses to go beyond stereotypical housewife/ditzy blond roles, and established a number of cultural trends (the regrettable "Annie Hall" look lasted several years).

Oscars aren't awarded for popularity and mainstream influence--if that were so, "Transformers," "The Matrix" and "Spiderman" would have won everything. Occasionally, there are exceptions to this role, i.e., "blockbuster" type movies like "Ben Hur" and "Titanic" that are truly awful and age horribly but win everything because their sheer chutzpah and box office pushes all rational objections aside. Neither of these movies holds up at all.

Movies like "Star Wars" will be remembered as influential cultural phenomena. Movies like "Annie Hall" and "Slumdog Millionaire" will rightly be remembered as lankmark cinematic achievements.

Jeff in Boston

**ouch** · 02-03-2010, 05:14 AM

I think that upping the number of nominations for best picture from five to ten is nothing more than a cheap attempt to boost ticket and dvd sales.

**chainfire** · 02-03-2010, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by ouch

I think that upping the number of nominations for best picture from five to ten is nothing more than a cheap attempt to boost ticket and dvd sales.

+1

tho it has the opposite effect on me, once a movie i haven't seen starts getting oscar attention it usually goes off my netflix queue quick. i just find the more 'awards' acclaimed a movie, the worse it actually is to watch.

**KarthVader** · 02-03-2010, 06:22 AM

Hurt Locker was by far the best movie I saw this year. Yes, I liked it better than Avatar. James Cameron is great at telling stories and he has achieved a lot, technologically speaking. Avatar will be one of those films that will start some sort of evolution in cinema, but I'm not sure if it is going to be remembered. Hurt Locker was just much more visceral and just kept me at the edge of my seat.

**TonyH** · 02-03-2010, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by ouch

I think that upping the number of nominations for best picture from five to ten is nothing more than a cheap attempt to boost ticket and dvd sales.

I think you're mostly right. The increase in nominations won't do as much to increase sales (though it will), as it will increase flagging ratings for an awards show. How many folks in "Middle America" will watch the Oscars to see if "An Education" will win? Two? But nominate "Avatar" and "The Blind Side" and suddenly viewers have a vested interest. The Acadamy has even admitted as much.

In the 30's and 40's, between eight and twelve films were selected every year, so this move isn't unprecedented. It does seem to somewhat cheapen the proceedings though, especially when you count in all the movies that had no business getting such interest in the first place.

**airplanedoc** · 02-03-2010, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by ouch

I think that upping the number of nominations for best picture from five to ten is nothing more than a cheap attempt to boost ticket and dvd sales.

+2

Music industry has lost 57% profits in the last 10 years, Movies are doing the same as, netflicks, redbox, etc are erroding their profits. It is just a bleat attempt to get a boost in sales.

**TonyH** · 02-03-2010, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by airplanedoc

+2

Music industry has lost 57% profits in the last 10 years, Movies are doing the same as, netflicks, redbox, etc are erroding their profits. It is just a bleat attempt to get a boost in sales.

I'm just curious about this. "Avatar" ($600m+) certainly doesn't need any help, nor did "The Blind Side" ($238m+) or "District 9" ($115m+). Do you really thing there's going to be a rush on tickets to "A Serious Man"?

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryid=1237&cs=1

The film industry has shown record breaking profits for the last several years now. 2009 was no exception. I linked the Variety article to support this. The movie industry is NOT in the same boat as the music industry. Not yet anyway.

Bear in mind that the Variety article was written in late November/early December, i.e. before the releases of "Avatar" and "Sherlock Holmes". These were two of the most successful movies of the year.

My intent with this thread was specifically to avoid the show bashing and just discuss the films themselves. I'm not interested in arguing, especially when the facts simply don't support the argument. I'll buy the ratings grab. Bigger nominees = more viewers, but I don't think that ticket sales were the focus here.

**SalvadorMontenegro** · 02-03-2010, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by raisindot

Yes. "Annie Hall" is a much much better movie than "Star Wars." And its influence was felt in many other ways other than in toys and spinoffs. It revolutionized the "romantic comedy," opened the doors for a whole new generation of actresses to go beyond stereotypical housewife/ditzy blond roles, and established a number of cultural trends (the regrettable "Annie Hall" look lasted several years).

Oscars aren't awarded for popularity and mainstream influence--if that were so, "Transformers," "The Matrix" and "Spiderman" would have won everything. Occasionally, there are exceptions to this role, i.e., "blockbuster" type movies like "Ben Hur" and "Titanic" that are truly awful and age horribly but win everything because their sheer chutzpah and box office pushes all rational objections aside. Neither of these movies holds up at all.

Movies like "Star Wars" will be remembered as influential cultural phenomena. Movies like "Annie Hall" and "Slumdog Millionaire" will rightly be remembered as lankmark cinematic achievements.

Jeff in Boston

I cannot speculate on the influence of Annie Hall, because I don't know enough about the film. I sincerely doubt, though, that it has had as great an influence on cinema as Star Wars; or is as well remembered. Also, I don't understand how it opened the doors for actresses to go beyond "housewife/ditzy blond roles." From what I know, which perhaps is not enough, Betty Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Grace Kelly and a number of other actresses weren't playing ditzy blonds.

In regards to your comment about mainstream influence winning awards, I agree. The Oscars should not be awarded to movies simply because they make a fortune. That said, Avatar not only made a fortune, but also was critically acclaimed and has redefined special effects. As I said, it did what it was intended to do very well.

I am not saying Avatar should win. I'm saying that I don't have a problem if it does win. Again, it boils down to how you define "Best." Best is a matter of personal opinion and movies are created for different purposes. At the fundamental level, though, all movies must be entertaining. Does that mean the most entertaining movie is the best? Not necessarily. Obviously what's entertaining is a subjective opinion as well. So, how do you define "Best?" Do you select a number of categories such as screenplay, acting, directing, set design, etc. and award points in each category than tally them up? Furthermore, Best Picture winners aren't always considered the best picture of that year, years later. Think of How Green Was My Valley beating Citizen Kane.

To be honest, I think the awards are silly. I enjoy watching them. I enjoy the entertainment of the show, but the awards themselves don't mean a lot to me, because it's not really possible to say that something is the "best," as it's not some absolute value. I will always remember Marlon Brando making a comment along the lines of "Who's the best hairstylist?" or "What's the best fruit?" It's like saying, what is the best hat? And the nominees are: the baseball cap, the newsboy cap, the cowboy hat, the fedora, the Panama hat. And the winner is, THE NEWSBOY CAP! And one guy says, "Oh, that's baloney the baseball cap is much cooler looking." And another guy says, "The cowboy hat covers both your front and back. It has double the protection from the sun!" And another guy says, "But the newsboy cap is so stylish, it's definitely the best!" I believe in honoring art (or movies, in this case, if you don't consider them art), but to try and decide which one is the best, is somewhat absurd to me.