Official 2009 Oscar Discussion (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

Well, I apologize if I'm coming off that way and I would hate to think I am making any enemies. Things can often get misinterpreted when you don't actually hear someone speaking. I post here alot and make certain observations, put forth certain theories and so forth. And I respond when someone directly quotes me and can get a little fired up when I perceive replies to things I have said to be somewhat aggressive. But I'm not really fighting to change anyone's mind about what they think.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It can also be misinterpreted, mischaracterized, treated selectively (something you said you think is a legitimate strategy), and otherwise distorted for the sake of reaching a predetermined result.

That's what I mean by "tailoring", and I'm not a fan of the approach.

 

[WillG]

Fair enough. You may not like it and I can understand that. I try not to make it a practice to be dishonest when debating something. And if someone brings up a good point contrary to what I think, I'm willing to acknowledge it. If I can honestly, at least in my mind, interpret information or evidence to suit my position, I'll do so (and there's a possibility I could be wrong). Many arguements have legitamate counterpoints, but I feel that's that job of my "opponent" to introduce that and then I'll either have to acknowlede its legitamacy or do what I can to discredit. That's what I think when when I hear "tailoring" so, I guess we're assigning different meanings to words. And maybe I'm wrong, you did point out that tailoring is synonymous with altering.

And when I say I think it's a legitamate strategy. I don't mean it to be interpreted as knowingly being dishonest just to win a debate. I mean it more in the sense that it seems to me to be a common practice. I think of a trial. You might have a prosecuter introduce a piece of evidence. Then a defender would try to discredit it. The defense interpretation or rhetoric might be somewhat of a stretch, but it doesn't necessairly mean it's dishonest.

 

[todd s]

Heston also appeared briefly in Burton's Planet of the Apes remake...

 

[Jeff_Standley]

I heard someone say once to another person driving a car and getting pissed off at other drivers on the road; "isn't it funny how all the people going slower than you are idiots, and all the people going faster than you are jack asses?"

This is what the arguments in this thread have come too. Some in here are not conceding good performances over their own personal preferences.
I think it's funny that when the Oscar goes to your favorite the academy got it right for once in their lives. Yet, when it goes to someone else that wasn't your favorite, they're a bunch of jack ass fools who don't know good talent. The Ledger argument is absolutely this type of reasoning.

I hate to bring up subjects from three pages ago, but I find it amazing that people can not give Ledger his much due respect for his absolutely worthy performance in the Dark Knight, and try to pass it off as nothing more than a sympathy nod for his untimely death. BS!
Can anyone really say that his performance would not have been recognized had he not died? And if so, you're going to say that in the same year that Robert Downey got nominated for Tropic Thunder? Really?
You mean to say that the academy can recognize Downeys performance as worthy and well worth it, but not Ledger is only there because he died? Really?
Come on! /Gob Bluth

I think anyone who has any argument over Ledgers nomination, not his win, is only doing so to be that guy who purposely goes against the mainstream opinion. The same guy who hears everyone talking up something and he says "aw no way, Ledger wasn't that great as the Joker" even though he was brilliant, and created a character more deranged and as memorable as Hannibal Lector.
Just give it a rest, it was a memorable character created for a great movie by a great actor, and that is exactly what the Oscars recognizes. That's why you see nominations for wild characters all the time like, My cousin Vinny, Jack Sparrow, etc. They are memorable characters done extremely well by gifted actors, and Ledgers portrayal of the Joker is no different.

After saying that, I think Ledgers nomination was well deserved, but I will definitely agree with who ever said it a few pages back, his performance was a given, but his death locked the win. (I honestly think he still would have won even if he had he not died)
Personally I'm glad he got the win, but his death helped seal the deal, no question about it.

 

[Nick Martin]

^^ To add to that (100% of which I am in complete agreement with) those same detractors/spiteful types will try to debunk what you just said any way they can, because they MUST be right, no matter how long and far-reaching the road is to get them to that conclusion.

I haven't seen "Lord Of The Rings", and yet I'd never deny the incredible filmmaking achievements or go against the films in any way, even though they aren't something I've ever been interested in seeing. Not because of their success, but because of the type of films they are - the whole sorcery/knights with swords/medieval fantasy has never appealed to me. Their accolades were well-earned.

So by saying that, I'm saying it's certainly easy to think well of something even though you may not be interested in it, or think something is better without thinking of something else as worse or less-than, especially just to prove a point.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, at least we agree his death locked it in.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

No. Because again, none of this is "factual" or "right" --- it's all about subjective OPINION.

From what I can see, I sense more that those who loved THE DARK KNIGHT like yourself (just look at your Joker avatar!) are the ones who'll try anything to convince themselves that they are "right". It seems to me that you types want to ignore other possibilities, and try to believe beyond anything that "Heath Ledger deserved his win and he would have got it anyway, period!!!"

 

[Jeff_Standley]

That's kind of ignorant isn't it?
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. Someone might have to talk me into Brolins nomination, but I can see why these people were nominated and have no bias and don't need to ignore the other nominees. I wouldn't have lost it or have been pissed had Ledger not won. I could have easily seen it go to Hoffman, and I would have loved to see it go to Downey. But after watching all, of the best supporting performances my obvious and educated choice was Ledger.

And Ledgers death and the media blitz behind it all did not convince me that he was the perfect choice for the Oscar this year. I walked out of the Dark Knight first night and said he will get nominated for that. I did the same thing with Hoffman and Robert Downey Jr as well. I told my wife and my mom directly out of Tropic Thunder that I bet Downey is nominated for that performance. They laughed of course and said no way. The only reason I say this, is that I do not need the media to convince me of any thing, I can see good performances on my own. Hell some are just obvious if you watch a lot of movies.

 

[Nick Martin]

Indeed it is.

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?

Considering I've not really revealed my stance on this aside from my view that it was talent above sympathy, saying NOTHING about who was better or more/less deserving, yeah, ignorant fits.

In actuality, if Downey had won the Oscar, I'd have been happy as hell because he deserved it AS MUCH as Ledger did....in my opinion. Kirk Lazarus/Lincoln Osiris was amazing, and hearing of his nomination was to me an incredibly pleasant surprise. That film was VERY well made, but since Downey was the ONLY nomination for Tropic Thunder, was that one out of sympathy or based on Downey's talent? Were politics in play when nominating a controversial character in a comedy picture?

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..

 

[Joe Karlosi]

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.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

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.

 

[TravisR]

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.

 

[Pete-D]

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.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

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?

 

[TonyD]

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

Toby Maguire, seriously?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Michael Reuben]

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.

 

[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.