Thursday, January 22, 2009

And the "Winner" Is. . .

Ok, so the Oscar nominations are in.

I have my own opinions about their stupid, terrible, horrible and dumb choices, but I'll keep them to myself until you've formed your own opinions.

See the list here: http://www.oscar.com/nominees/?pn=nominees


Done reading? Ok then. . .

[ rant ]

WHAT IS THE ACADEMY THINKING??? They are SO out of touch with reality! They constantly choose films that 1. No one has seen and 2. No one CARES ABOUT! If the Academy is so concerned about getting viewers to watch their award show, then they should try to stop being such film snobs and choose films that audiences have seen and want to see!

Now, I'm not saying that the general public will always watch films that are worthy of praise. Heaven only knows why some directors keep getting box office revenue. But so many films were overlooked by the Academy while others got nominations in every single category! The nomination list gets redundant and tedious even before you get to the boring/made-up categories (seriously, sound mixing AND sound editing?).

I've had a mild interest in seeing Benjamin Button, but after 13 (THIRTEEN!!) nominations I still only have mild interest in seeing it. I've had friends who have seen it and said it wasn't that good, anyway.

Changeling (which has nothing to do with the awesomely creepy horror film of 1979) only got a 59% on Rotten Tomatoes (which is considered "rotten") meaning that most critics out there didn't like it and with only
$35,707,327 at the box office it looks like the public didn't care that much for it, either. . .and yet it got an Oscar nomination. Iron Man got a 93%, made $318,298,180 at the box office and it was only nominated for Sound Editing and Visual Effects. Nice.

I'm constantly bothered by how the Academy picks films that deal with wartime. If it's set during World War II it is more likely to get an award than one that isn't. Other bothersome favoritism happens when they give awards to films that deal with the mafia, biographical flicks, or films that deal with controversial material. If it's nominated solely because it deals with one of these subjects, then it's a stupid nomination.

Also, and this happens a lot, I am bothered by the severe lack of comedic films nominated. I know I've talked about this briefly before, but I truly believe that it's harder to make someone laugh then it is to make them cry. Sure, I can't say there were a lot of good comedies that I saw this year, but still - the Academy needs to recognize how hard it is to write and perform good comedy!

The one shining star in this list of hum-drum picks was Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. His performance gave us a character that was frightening, humorous and even vulnerable at times.

And while The Joker was an amazing character, the film was one of the best-reviewed films of 2008 (94% on Rotten Tomatoes)! It was well-received by critics, it did amazing at the box office
$530.9 million) and yet it was pushed out of the Best Picture category by films such as Frost/Nixon (91% on Rotten Tomatoes and only $8,777,776 box office gross), Milk (92% on Rotten Tomatoes and only $20,543,583 box office gross) and The Reader (60% on Rotten Tomatoes and only $7,808,169 box office gross). HUH? I wish Slumdog Millionaire the best because it is the ONLY film in that category that I feel deserves a win!!


The Academy SERIOUSLY needs an overhaul! I'm now more convinced that they choose these films because they AREN'T being watched and that they were paid off by the filmmakers to nominate them so people would actually go to theaters (because if it's nominated then it must be good, right? Right??) and pay to see these depressing and dull films!

If the Academy keeps moving further and further away from what the public wants, then they can't be surprised when the Academy Awards becomes a private ceremony for Hollywood that isn't televised because NO ONE will want to watch it!

[ /rant ]

*Sigh*

Anyway, your thoughts?

8 comments:

--jeff * said...

i'm torn.
i was going to pass on writing an oscar rant post, but you've raised enough points for me to talk about (some in agreement, some in dissonance), that i may have to do so.
but i've already got backed up postings to take care of and my computer just died as i'm working to edit a video, so time is tight.

i may come back here and post the aforementioned rant. we'll see...

--jeff * said...

i'm not sure what's more confusing: that you liked an article on steve urkel to the "biography" link, or that i read the entire wiki article....

The Former 786 said...

See? It'd make a GREAT biopic! It practically sells itself! :)

The Shark said...

I agree. I've felt for some time that the Oscars are a total farce -- a mere advertising scheme that goes to the highest bidder.

This article does a pretty decent job of summing up my thoughts, and the dude makes some interesting points.

I'm all for recognizing the underdog films, the ones that not many people saw but which are still beautiful. But totally giving the shaft to popular films that were also highly critically-acclaimed and awesomely artistic? It's just snootiness and fakeness. "The Dark Knight," and other films, deserve much more attention.

I do agree with your comment about comedies (though I also can't think of any from the past year I'd nominate for an Oscar), but it goes along with what the article I linked to says: if it's not depressing, the Academy probably won't nominate it.

The Former 786 said...

A very interesting article, Shark. Thanks!

It's nice to pin point the moment when the Academy Awards jumped the track.

Miss Berrie said...

I agree, and I wish I had your talent to argue a point. I'm glad we're on the same side!

The Former 786 said...

Aw, shucks, Miss Berrie. This "talent" only comes from hours and hours of watching movies and ignoring other aspects of my life. :)

Mike and Shaina said...

Sorry, if I were part of the Academy I would totally vote for a picture about the mafia. You probably should too....