Considering Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique have won every award you can think of for Supporting (including the GG's and the SAG awards), I think "lock" applies.  I would soooo put money on it.

I think Star Trek easily desevers the visual effects nom over Transformers 2 and 2012.  There was nothing in Transformers 2 that we didn't see in the first one, just more of.  2012 was the same Day After Tomorrow old Emmerich just scaled up.  Not saying either of those movies had bad effects (although I thought 2012 was kinda typical CG stuff) but Star Trek at least did something no other Trek film had done before... made Trek look really cool.  Plus, I thought the effects in ST blended in and looked more seamless then anything in Transformers or 2012.  Not like anything is going to win this category except Avatar anyway.

In terms of quality of the overall movie, I think Star Trek is an infinitely better movie than either of them. However, I do think that Transformers 2's special effects were excellent and more deserving of a nomination than Trek. It's not about whether it was new (and there's nothing particularly ground breaking in Trek), it's about what was the best effects work.

Like you said though, it's all a non-issue since Avatar is going to win.

Transformers is the kind of critically reviled piece of juvenilia that the academy is loathe to nominate for anything.  It's plugged in to add a third or fifth nominee into a visual or sound category to round out the numbers when necessary.

Tranformers 2 also built off Transformers 1, so there was less original content. "2012" is second only to "Avatar" for best effects of the year. It was robbed.

I'm not sure I agree regrading TF's visuals, they did build off the original but Bay pushed the visuals even further, he refined and improved on the technology used for the first film and that's what should count.

To this day his films feature the most realistic CGI car simulated metal I've yet seen anyone attempt.

The only upside to it not being nominated is it will make for a fun commentary track for Transformers 3, he was pissed that his effects teams didn't win for the first film, I can just imagine what he'll have to say about being shut out of the race entirely lol.

I thought the Prawns in D9 were more believable than the Na'vi were.  I know that there was a lot more going on in Avatar, but I totally bought into the illusion that Prawns exist more so than I did with Pandora.

I'm sure we will look back at Avatar years from now and consider its effects quaint like we do today with Episode IV (which seemed mind-blowing back in the day).  The effects in Jurassic Park already look very dated.

The Prawns did look outstanding but I think that has more to do with the fact that they were inserted into live plates that were shot for real rather than a completely CGI environment like Pandora. The Navi, IMO, were every bit as real looking as the Prawns but they were surrounded by a total CGI world thus they didn't look as real and that's the distinction I think.

For me, all of the little articulated appendages and whatnot moved so realistically on the Prawns that it gave it a layer of physical realness.  The Na'vi at times moved in a boxy manner that broke the illusion for me.  Some of the Na'vi facial movements looked odd to me at times, and that also broke the illusion.

But I do agree with you about the fantastical CGI vs. filmed backgrounds helping the Prawns look more real.

Or, perhaps, lots and lots of people really loved Juno. (It did get additional nominations for Picture, Director and Actress after all).

If it's a toss up between "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds" and "Avatar", then I would vote for "The Hurt Locker" as best picture. "Inglourious Basterds" was very good but the blatant historical changes in regards to Hitler and his gang's ultimate end knocks the film down a notch in my book. Whether "The Hurt Locker" is a 100% accurate depiction of Baghdad doesn't matter to me; it comes close enough to make me feel that the film depicted the situations going on there authentically enough to put across the kind of stress, fear and adrenaline that soldiers over there face on an ongoing basis. I also like that the film, considering its a war film about an ongoing war, actually succeeds in being completely apolitical. It doesn't take a pro-war or anti-war stance. It merely shows the routine tedium and terror that its main characters face day in and day out. 

Out of all three films, "Avatar" would be my last choice as Best Picture. Visually, the film is amazing but the story is just too boilerplate for me to think that it deserves a BP Oscar. The story was too by the numbers in its construction and my second viewing of it in 3D confirmed my feelings regarding the film. When I start actually seeing the situation from the villain's point of view and start smiling and nodding at proclamations like "and that is how you scatter the cockroaches", I know somethning has gone horribly wrong. Frankly, after my second viewing, I couldn't shake the feeling that Quaritch, in all of his sociopathic glory, was the character who was the most honest and true to himself.

Or perhaps it was one of the best screenplays of the year it was nominated. It was certainly the most articulate. Those who describe it as a hodgepodge quilt of too-hip pop culture references do it a great disservice. "Juno" pulls off a hell of a juggling act, embuing each character with his own unique vernacular and often meaning exactly the opposite of what he says. Juno's wall of dialog was a shield from a world that scared the shit out of her and threatened an idealism that she fierced protected through a cynical verneer. Her father and stepmother were written beautifully, with none of the ornimentation of dialog that the film is know for. Bleeker is a showcase in the power of understatement, an example of how much a character can say without barely saying anything. The adoptive parents are shown as being intelligent and complicated, and what we learn about them and when says a lot about how Juno changes over the course of the film.

It's an easy film to hate because it revels in its kitschy style and overtly emphasizes its crafted nature. Was its win more of a runner's up prize for the film? Probably, that's the way the politics of the Oscars work. That doesn't change that fact that Diablo Cody's screenplay arguably is the best original screenplay of a 2008 film.

Well said Adam.

I loved Juno and it was a finely written screenplay.

Come on. Talentless hack?? Please

There are always moments when some form of mass hysteria strikes and good, reasonable people are suckered into embracing and promoting something that is not worth any of the accolades.  I admit it -- I loved Shakespeare in Love.  I rooted for it to beat Saving Private Ryan.  But you know what?  I can admit it -- it was piffle.  But there was a lot of stuff going on and I just fell for it.  Back in 1997, I thought Titanic was one of the greatest films ever made.  Now, I don't hate it, but I recognize now that it isn't Gone With the Wind.  Such was the case with Juno, a movie I dare you to watch again (if you love so goshdarned much), a movie that got to where it was because the screenwriter used to be a stripper -- that was the hook.  And TPTB who were looking for another autodidact like Tarantino (whose talent is unquestioned in my mind) decided to promote Cody a diamond in the rough and the find of the decade.  They overlooked the fact that the movie had problems galore, starting with dialog that is as annoying as the Macarena and woeful acting from Ellen Page, who seems to be channeling Macauly Culkin circa Home Alone.  It's the kind of movie that, if it ever took corporeal form, I would punch in the face, because it's that irritating.

In any case, if you like the film (or even love it) fine by me, but then again Danny Gokey has fans, such is the way of life.

BTW, if you think Cody is such a talented screenwriter, sit through Jennifer's Body and get back to me.

So if a bad movie is made once from a screenwriter's screenplay, that automatically makes the screenwriter completely talentless?

Yup...it's gotta be mass hysteria...............

Juno (2007)

• T-Meter Critics
• Top Critics
• RT Community
• My Critics
• My Friends
• DVD

BTW, Top Critics is 100%

Your intense dislike of Juno makes me think you might be biased against her work. For what it's worth, I thought Jennifer's Body was a decent enough movie that was mis-marketed as a horror movie when it's really a black comedy.

I'm not starting the Diablo Cody fan club but she isn't the anti-christ of screenwriting either.

I really don't like the 10 nominations rule for Best Picture. It somehow cheapens the category. It's like that year where they brought all the people including "the losers" on stage!

Perhaps I'm not grokking your point, but it appears to have something to do with a lot of people liking it and buying tickets somehow refutes the theory of mass hysteria, to which I say, part of the phrase "mass hysteria" seems to be eluding you.

Wow Hanson:

Actually, I enjoyed Juno.  Still do.  I watched Napoleon Dynamite once, didn't like it, and have no interest in watching it again.  It just struck me as stupid.  I enjoyed Juno, and I found it watchable, still do.  And the dialog gets beat up, but it has a ring to it that I enjoy.  I guess it's to each there own, just as there are people who love/hate Kevin Smith.  I have no interest in Jennifer's Body, primarily because I think that Meagan Fox can't act to save her life.

But "United States of Tara" which Cody also writes, had a fun first season, and I'll watch the second.

While I don't love the film personally, this is pretty much the whole point, no?

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I, for one, saw Juno and loved it and had no idea who Diablo Cody was, or her backstory, aside from the name on the screen.

I know very well what he term "mass hysteria" means, thank you very much.

But to suggest that those of us that loved Juno, with it's terrific OSCAR winning screenplay, as well as most critics, are suffering from "mass hysteria" because YOU hated it and Diablo Cody, is frankly a bit "hysterical" itself.

And before we derail this thread further, I suggest if you would like to continue this debate, we move it to the *Official Juno Discussion Thread*.

I think including films like Blindside cheapens it a lot more than having 10 nominations. I don't mind the 10 nominations as long as they select 10 deserving films. Now you can say that there were not 10 deserving films released last year, and I will say that Foreign language films are not excluded from this category, so include a couple of them. A great film such as Summer Hours (which isn't even nominated for best Foreign Language film), is way better than most of the nominations in this category. But the Academy is trying to promote it's own product so the odds are extremely long that we will see this happen.

Anyway, there were quite a few better American films that they could have picked besides Blindside. But of course the Academy is trying to get better ratings which is the main reason for the 10 nominations and the inclusion of this film.

The purpose of expanding to 10 was to include a couple of populist films and a couple of little seen films, so I'm not in any way surprised that The Blindside got a nom.  It's not totally critically reviled, has a best actress nomination, and was seen by a ton of people.  Up is another movie that would have been shut out if the field were not expanded to 10.

The bigger issue is the Best Foreign Language Film category.  The way they do it now is nonsensical, excluding co-productions and  allowing only one film per country.  Also, the films are submitted by the countries themselves, which means a movie like La Vie En Rose was ineligible because the French selection committee chose Persepolis instead.  Cache wasn't even eligible because is was a co-production and no one country could take ownership of it.  Here's a NYT article about this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/movies/awardsseason/31oscar.html

They should have done away with the Foreign Language category a long time ago, the show runs long enough as it is.

I agree. A simple benchmark, like less than 10 percent English dialog, would open up the category in a big way while still keeping it solidly international in flavor. Or maybe less than 10 percent English dialog and less than 50 percent American financing.

I'm a Tarantino fan, but I don't think INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS has any business being up there for "Best Picture". However, I thought Waltz was very good in it, and I wouldn't mind him getting an award.

I actually didn't really care for Inglorious Basterds, I'm a Tarantino fan as well and I thought it was actually a little boring at times and I also thought that Pitt hammed it up quite a bit.