Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Official 2009 Oscar Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official 2009 Oscar Discussion - Page 18

post #511 of 537
2/25/09 at 2:11pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_Standley
It actually is fact now, because he was nominated, and won.

No, it's still not a "fact" that Ledger gave a good performance just because he happened to be nominated and won (after dying). We'll never know for certain what motivated his Oscar nod. Hey, at least take heart in knowing that I agree with you and happen to think his Joker was a good performance myself ... but that still doesn't make me right. It's just my opinion as well.

Quote:
He wasn't even close to Oscar worthy in Iron Man. His character in Tropic Thunder was unforgettable and played extremely well, that's why he was nominated. I really question your movie opinions from here on out if you think he was Oscar worthy in Iron Man.

I don't know how you warp this into my thinking Downey was exceptional as Iron Man -- I don't think that at all, and I wasn't even that fond of the movie.

Quote:
You keep talking about comic book movies being consistently left out of the nominations, name me one comic book movie that was even close to good enough to earn a nomination.

I'm no big fan of comic book films, but I think Burton's BATMAN was better than THE DARK KNIGHT (though it still wasn't Oscar worthy). SPIDER-MAN 2 was good. I'd bet if Christopher Reeve had met his tragic paralyzing accident just before his SUPERMAN was due to premiere, he might have been nominated for an award (not that I think he deserved it either - I'm not a big fan of the film). A lot of comic fans feel SUPERMAN II was a very good comic book film.

Quote:
The Academy is also smarter than you would like to give them credit for.

Oh, they certainly are. They road this thing with Ledger's death for all it was worth.

Quote:
I don't need to convince myself of anything. I saw all but one of the movies nominated this year, and watched all but four of the actor/actress nominated performances this year, and Ledgers performance in my opinion was equally as good as Hoffmans, or Downeys in their category.

I thought Hoffman was better than Ledger. I did see TROPIC THUNDER and I thought it was a medicore piece of nothing. As for Downey's performance -- I went in thinking he was playing a black man, not a white actor who's playing a black man. Whatever the case, he didn't impress me.
Reply
post #512 of 537
2/25/09 at 2:15pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
Some people have a Star Wars avatar or screenname (the latter of which is the biggest internet cliche around) while others have someone like Humphrey Bogart in their avatar. Is there some kind of direct link between my avatar and my thoughts on Ledger winning his Oscar?

It tells me you liked the Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT - probably a lot. I personally wouldn't use an avatar of someone/something I wasn't keen on. Over on the horror boards I use a picture of the monster from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN -- and that's because I love the film, and the character; not just for the heck of using it.

Quote:
Iron Man:

Great film.

Oscar-worthy performance by Downey as Tony Stark?

I've got no idea, really. Aside from what's more memorable than others, I don't really know the criteria for who decides these things..

Well, as I explained to Jeff above, I didn't think that much of IRON MAN ... nor Downey in the part. Other than that he looked right as Tony Stark, that's about it.
Reply
post #513 of 537
2/25/09 at 2:42pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
I thought Hoffman was better than Ledger.
It's a different topic but Hoffman shouldn't even have been nominated as the Best Supporting Actor, he should have been up for the Best Actor.
Reply
post #514 of 537
2/27/09 at 10:20pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

I was thinking about this ... Javier Bardem won in 2008 for Best Supporting Actor.

Honestly ... was that a better performance than Ledger's Joker?

Both are psychotic, fairly one note, scene stealing characters.

To say the Academy never nominates comic book films and that's proof that Ledger only got nominated because of his death -- Which performances in a comic book film were really worthy prior to Ledger's anyway? Was Tobey Maguire robbed in Spider-Man or something? There may be a bias but I don't think it's as massive of a conspiracy as its made out to be.

The only comic book character I can really think of prior to Ledger's Joker that maybe deserved a nod was ironically enough Jack Nicholson's Joker in from Burton's Batman.

The scene in the interrogation room between the Joker and Batman alone probably sealed the deal for Ledger at least getting nominated, if the "nurse outfit" scene didn't outright seal the deal. I think it's easy to forget now that there are some really insane places the films allowed Ledger to go. The shot of the Joker hanging out of the cop car, hair blowing in the wind, taking in the chaos he's created probably is the most iconic shot of the last year too. You can't tell me these scenes in particular didn't help Ledger's case tremendously. Any actor worth his salt would love to have scenes like that.

I think the Academy is also getting more progressive in their ideas about what can be nominated and what can't. Keep in mind the "Academy" itself isn't some static body, it changes and adds/drops members all the time. Dakota Fanning I believe is one of the new members for instance. Robert Downey Jr. getting nominated for Tropic Thunder actually would be a far bigger stretch than Ledger getting nominated. Ian McKellan was nominated just a few years ago for Gandalf as well.

Every year there's someone who cries bloody murder that movie X or performance X was completely overrated and won because of politics and this that and the other anyway. And no, I don't believe Chris Reeve would've been nominated for Superman II if he had his accident then. The Superman movies were honestly only a notch below the 60s Batman TV series in goofiness.
Reply
post #515 of 537
2/28/09 at 4:27am

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete-D
To say the Academy never nominates comic book films and that's proof that Ledger only got nominated because of his death -- Which performances in a comic book film were really worthy prior to Ledger's anyway? Was Tobey Maguire robbed in Spider-Man or something? There may be a bias but I don't think it's as massive of a conspiracy as its made out to be.

I'd bet if Maguire had met the same fate as Ledger -- right before the opening of the first SPIDER-MAN, it would have been a similar situation. Now, I'm not saying Tobey's Spidey was as good as Ledger's Joker, but still.

Quote:
The only comic book character I can really think of prior to Ledger's Joker that maybe deserved a nod was ironically enough Jack Nicholson's Joker in from Burton's Batman.

And what would have happened at the Oscars that year, had Jack died under similar circumstances before the big debut of Burton's BATMAN came out to packed theaters in 1989? We'll never know for certain, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Academy had nominated Nicholson's Joker as well.

Quote:
The scene in the interrogation room between the Joker and Batman alone probably sealed the deal for Ledger at least getting nominated, if the "nurse outfit" scene didn't outright seal the deal. I think it's easy to forget now that there are some really insane places the films allowed Ledger to go. The shot of the Joker hanging out of the cop car, hair blowing in the wind, taking in the chaos he's created probably is the most iconic shot of the last year too. You can't tell me these scenes in particular didn't help Ledger's case tremendously. Any actor worth his salt would love to have scenes like that.

Ledger was very good as the Joker, no doubt about it for me. His performance was riveting ... the only negative thing I'd say is that for me the effect gradually wore out its welcome by the end of the film. But because Heath WAS so effective in the part, it's hard to know for certain what would have happened with the Academy, had he not met his tragic end. Would he have been nominated anyway? Even if he would have been, I highly doubt he'd have won.

Quote:
And no, I don't believe Chris Reeve would've been nominated for Superman II if he had his accident then. The Superman movies were honestly only a notch below the 60s Batman TV series in goofiness.

I'm not so sure those films were thought of like that at the time. Hey, I don't like the Superman movies at all (or even THE DARK KNIGHT), but none of that is even the point. I most certainly would bet the farm that Chris Reeve would have been nominated if he'd had his accident prior to the film's release. But we'll never know, will we?
Reply
post #516 of 537
2/28/09 at 9:46am

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
I'd bet if Maguire had met the same fate as Ledger -- right before the opening of the first SPIDER-MAN, it would have been a similar situation. Now, I'm not saying Tobey's Spidey was as good as Ledger's Joker, but still.



And what would have happened at the Oscars that year, had Jack died under similar circumstances before the big debut of Burton's BATMAN came out to packed theaters in 1989? We'll never know for certain, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Academy had nominated Nicholson's Joker as well.



Ledger was very good as the Joker, no doubt about it for me. His performance was riveting ... the only negative thing I'd say is that for me the effect gradually wore out its welcome by the end of the film. But because Heath WAS so effective in the part, it's hard to know for certain what would have happened with the Academy, had he not met his tragic end. Would he have been nominated anyway? Even if he would have been, I highly doubt he'd have won.



I'm not so sure those films were thought of like that at the time. Hey, I don't like the Superman movies at all (or even THE DARK KNIGHT), but none of that is even the point. I most certainly would bet the farm that Chris Reeve would have been nominated if he'd had his accident prior to the film's release. But we'll never know, will we?

Joe now this is getting ridiculous.
None of those would have been nominated alive or dead.

Toby Maguire, seriously?
Reply
post #517 of 537
2/28/09 at 10:51am

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
Joe now this is getting ridiculous.
That's a good reason to quit arguing with him.

Joe's not going to change his opinion. And Ledger and his family still have the Oscar.
Reply
post #518 of 537
2/28/09 at 2:21pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
That's a good reason to quit arguing with him.

Joe's not going to change his opinion.

And Ledger and his family still have the Oscar.

Actually, I am the rare type of person who can be persuaded to change his opinion. It's happened before in discussions, if the argument was convincing. But in this particular case, no amount of persuasion (and that goes from my point of view in trying to persuade others' as well) is "right" or "wrong". There's no more of a clear cut argument for saying Ledger got his award deservedly than there is to say he won it for sympathy reasons. So nobody's "knows" anything for certain. Nobody will EVER know for certain -- including Heath's family. With or without a statue that is really not much of a consolation.

So I now think it's a good idea for me to "quit arguing" as well, since others aren't going to change their opinions, either.
Reply
post #519 of 537
2/28/09 at 4:21pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Actually, I am the rare type of person who can be persuaded to change his opinion. It's happened before in discussions, if the argument was convincing. But in this particular case, no amount of persuasion (and that goes from my point of view in trying to persuade others' as well) is "right" or "wrong".
I know that, because you're already said so, and that's quite literally all I was referring to:
Quote:
The whole thing is subjective. Saying his performance is "absolutely worthy" is absolutely a matter of opinion.
No statement about your general nature was intended or should be inferred.

You see, I'm the rare type of person who actually reads (and remembers) what people write in their posts.
Reply
post #520 of 537
2/28/09 at 10:13pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Actually, I am the rare type of person who can be persuaded to change his opinion. It's happened before in discussions, if the argument was convincing. But in this particular case, no amount of persuasion (and that goes from my point of view in trying to persuade others' as well) is "right" or "wrong". There's no more of a clear cut argument for saying Ledger got his award deservedly than there is to say he won it for sympathy reasons. So nobody's "knows" anything for certain. Nobody will EVER know for certain -- including Heath's family. With or without a statue that is really not much of a consolation.

So I now think it's a good idea for me to "quit arguing" as well, since others aren't going to change their opinions, either.

I'm sorry, but is a comment like this necessary? Bringing his family into it? Are you kidding me?

That's really bordering on a complete lack of class.

He won. The performance was praised by hundreds of critics and millions of movie goers around the world, and in case you're still acting aloof about it -- his family thought very, very highly of his performance. Get over yourself, seriously.

You should've quit when you even entertained the notion of Tobey Maguire getting an Oscar for Spider-Man too if only he was deceased. Anyone could've won if they just ended up dead, right? Even his family knows it was all a fix, right? To downplay someone else to this point ... there's a point and I think you already crossed it -- this is just getting shameful now.
Reply
post #521 of 537
2/28/09 at 10:26pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete-D
I'm sorry, but is a comment like this necessary? Bringing his family into it? Are you kidding me?

That's really bordering on a complete lack of class.

He won. The performance was praised by hundreds of critics and millions of movie goers around the world, and in case you're still acting aloof about it -- his family thought very, very highly of his performance.

Get over yourself, seriously. You should've quit when you even entertained the notion of Tobey Maguire getting an Oscar for Spider-Man too if only he was deceased. Anyone could've won if they just ended up dead, right? Even his family knows it was all a fix, right? To downplay someone else to this point ... there's a point and I think you already crossed it -- this is just getting shameful now.
He has stated that he's done arguing, yet you're making another post aimed at him and then editing it to be more personal towards him than is necessary. Time for all of you to let this go and move on.






Crawdaddy
Reply
post #522 of 537
2/28/09 at 10:30pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
He has stated that he's done arguing, yet you're making another post aimed at him and then editing it to be more personal towards him than is necessary. Time for all of you to let this go and move on.






Crawdaddy

I debated not posting at all, and I've been on this board for many years without incident.

But when you're going to bring things like someone's family into it and basically insult the individual by implying anyone who died could win and then bail out -- y'know, I think you deserve to be called out for that.

That's just me though. The "post" button doesn't give you free reign to shoot your mouth off. Generally I expect a higher quality of posting here.
Reply
post #523 of 537
3/1/09 at 3:38am

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete-D
I debated not posting at all, and I've been on this board for many years without incident.

But when you're going to bring things like someone's family into it and basically insult the individual by implying anyone who died could win and then bail out -- y'know, I think you deserve to be called out for that.

That's just me though. The "post" button doesn't give you free reign to shoot your mouth off. Generally I expect a higher quality of posting here.
I didn't agree nor did I like some of that member's comments stated in this thread. However with that being said, that still doesn't give you or anybody else the right to insult another HTF member on this board and our rules are explicit in that regard.




Crawdaddy
Reply
post #524 of 537
3/1/09 at 12:43pm

re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Having seen WENDY AND LUCY this weekend I must say Michelle Williams was robbed when it comes to the Best Actress nominations. I still don't think this film has played more than 75-100 theaters, which is a real shame as the film and performance deserves more attention than it's getting.
Reply
post #525 of 537
3/10/09 at 12:56am

The 2009 Oscar Winners

Wow Slumdog Millionar got quite a few.

The 2009 Oscar Winners

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Actor in a Leading Role: Sean Penn, Milk
Best Actress in a Leading Role: Kate Winslet, The Reader
Best Directing: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Foreign Language Film: Departures (Japan)
Best Original Score: Slumdog Millionaire, A.R. Rahman
Best Original Song: ''Jai Ho,'' Slumdog Millionaire
Best Editing: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Sound Mixing: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Sound Editing: The Dark Knight
Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Documentary Short: Smile Pinki
Best Documentary Feature: Man on Wire
Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Penélope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Best Live Action Short: Spielzeugland (Toyland)
Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Makeup: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Costume Design: The Duchess
Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Animated Short: La Maison en Petits Cubes
Best Animated Feature: WALL-E
Best Adapted Screenplay: Slumdog Millionaire, Simon Beaufoy
Best Original Screenplay: Milk, Dustin Lance Black
Reply
post #526 of 537
6/24/09 at 11:13am

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

I found this Oscar news interesting -

Quote:
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – The Academy Awards are doubling the number of best-picture nominees from five to 10.

Academy President Sid Ganis said at a news conference that the academy's board of governors made the decision to expand the slate. Ganis said the decision will open the field up to more worthy films for the top prize at Hollywood's biggest party.

The change takes effect with next year' Oscars on March 7.
The move is a return to Oscar traditions of the 1930s and '40s, when 10 nominees were common.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/...mo/us_oscars_1
Reply
post #527 of 537
6/24/09 at 11:54am

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

I don't like it, only because they'll be stretching to find 10 nominees. No doubt the studios wanted it...more AA noms for pull-quotes and marketing, right?
Reply
post #528 of 537
6/24/09 at 2:10pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer
I don't like it, only because they'll be stretching to find 10 nominees. No doubt the studios wanted it...more AA noms for pull-quotes and marketing, right?
Back in the "Golden Age," they used to nominate 10 films. I don't recall why they cut it down to 5.
Reply
post #529 of 537
6/24/09 at 2:20pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

All for it.

Sometimes there are more than 5 films worthy of BP nods and now there will be room for them.

Another option would be to nominate UP TO ten films, if there are 6 worthy films, nominate those 6, if there are 8, nominated those 8 and so on.
Reply
post #530 of 537
6/24/09 at 2:35pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

If they do this they should go the whole hog and have ten nominations for the other categories too.

I think they're doing this because in recent years the 5 Best Picture nominees have mostly, with notable exceptions, consisted of well acted dramas that the general film going public would normally run a mile from let alone buy the dvd of. (Hey it is possible to end a sentence with 'of') And with 10 nominations they're hoping blockbusters like Star Trek, Harry Potter or Avatar might make the grade and boost Oscar ratings, get younger people to watch the Oscars, by young I mean people under 50.
Reply
post #531 of 537
6/25/09 at 5:39am

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

What's gonna happen is the Golden Globes will become obsolete, because those same films that get nominated for the Globe will get nominated for the Oscar - you know, the musicals and comedies.

the Globes break it down, however - Best Picture (musical/comedy) vs Best Picture (drama). Now it seems like the Oscars will combine it up.

Actors like Jim Carrey and Richard Gere are keeping their fingers crossed about letting 10 Actors getting nominated, as they were big Globe winners in the recent past.
Reply
post #532 of 537
6/25/09 at 5:52am

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

I don't see the big deal with this.
Doesn't it just simply open up the list to see who the top 10 noms are?

there always was a top ten we just never knew who they were after the top 5.

This doesn't mean that the number 8 on the list has a chance to win any more the they did before.

The only change is now we see the rest of the list, up to 10.
Reply
post #533 of 537
6/25/09 at 12:35pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
I don't see the big deal with this.
Doesn't it just simply open up the list to see who the top 10 noms are?

there always was a top ten we just never knew who they were after the top 5.

This doesn't mean that the number 8 on the list has a chance to win any more the they did before.

The only change is now we see the rest of the list, up to 10.
Right, but when voting between the nominations you now have 5 more films to choose from. It may be that an Academy member who voted to nominate a film that didn't make the Top Ten will vote to award a film that got 6-10 placement in the nomination vote totals.
Reply
post #534 of 537
6/25/09 at 12:41pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Brandon's right, instead of picking just 5 films for the voters to vote on, they now have 10. I think this is a good thing. The Dark Knight with 8 nominations would have almost certainly appeared in a top 10 list. Not that it would have got far though, many voters might be a little embarrassed about voting for a comic book movie no matter how well made or successful it was. But it would have been nice to see that and Iron Man on the list.
Reply
post #535 of 537
6/25/09 at 12:48pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Christou
Not that it would have got far though, many voters might be a little embarrassed about voting for a comic book movie no matter how well made or successful it was.

I wish I could adequately express how much and how deeply that statement pisses me off. That's why my faith in the Oscars has waned greatly over the last few years.
Reply
post #536 of 537
6/25/09 at 12:53pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Not just comic-book movies John, my favourite genre, science fiction, has been pissed on by the academy for decades. 2001 A Space Odyssey wasn't even nominated for best picture in 1968. Star Wars lost to a Woody Allen film for chrissakes.
Reply
post #537 of 537
6/25/09 at 1:43pm

Re: Official 2009 Oscar Discussion

Ok i see,

as far as I knew the voters just voted for the movies they thought should be
the winner, then the top 5 would be the noms.

I have know idea why I thought that, I should have known better.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Official 2009 Oscar Discussion