Filmspotting Forum

Filmspotting Message Boards => Movie Talk => Topic started by: ¡Keith! on November 30, 2009, 09:57:09 PM

Title: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 30, 2009, 09:57:09 PM
IFP Gotham Awards

Best Feature

The Hurt Locker

    * Amreeka
    * Big Fan
    * The Maid
    * A Serious Man

Best Ensemble Cast Performance

The Hurt Locker

    * Adventureland
    * Cold Souls
    * A Serious Man
    * Sugar

Best Breakthrough Actor/Actress

Catalina Saavedra, The Maid

    * Ben Foster, The Messenger
    * Patton Oswalt, Big Fan
    * Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
    * Souléymane Sy Savané, Goodbye Solo

Best Breakthrough Director

Robert D. Siegel, Big Fan

    * Cruz Angeles, Don't Let Me Drown
    * Frazer Bradshaw, Everything Strange and New
    * Noah Buschel, The Missing Person
    * Derick Martini, Lymelife

Best Documentary

Food, Inc.

    * Good Hair
    * My Neighbor, My Killer
    * Paradise
    * Tyson

Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You

You Won't Miss Me

    * Everything Strange and New
    * Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench
    * October Country
    * Zero Bridge
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: smirnoff on November 30, 2009, 09:59:57 PM
Cool. This is great for filling up my queue :)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on November 30, 2009, 10:00:25 PM
Can't wait for the Kid's Choice Awards!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 03, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
National Board of Review Awards for 2009:  

Best Film
UP IN THE AIR

Top Ten Films
(In alphabetical order) AN EDUCATION, (500) DAYS OF SUMMER, THE HURT LOCKER, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, INVICTUS, THE MESSENGER, A SERIOUS MAN, STAR TREK, UP, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

Best Foreign Language Film
A PROPHET

Top Five Foreign Films
(In alphabetical order) THE MAID, REVANCHE, SONG OF SPARROWS, THREE MONKEYS, THE WHITE RIBBON

Best Documentary
THE COVE

Top Five Documentaries
(In alphabetical order) BURMA VJ: REPORTING FROM A CLOSED COUNTRY, CRUDE, FOOD, INC., GOOD HAIR, THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA: DANIEL ELLSBERG AND THE PENTAGON PAPERS

Top Independent Films
(In alphabetical order) AMREEKA, DISTRICT 9, GOODBYE SOLO, HUMPDAY, IN THE LOOP, JULIA, ME AND ORSON WELLES, MOON, SUGAR, TWO LOVERS

Best Actor
GEORGE CLOONEY, Up In The Air; MORGAN FREEMAN, Invictus

Best Actress
CAREY MULLIGAN, An Education

Best Supporting Actor
WOODY HARRELSON, The Messenger

Best Supporting Actress
ANNA KENDRICK, Up In The Air

Best Ensemble Cast
IT'S COMPLICATED

Breakthrough Performance by an Actor
JEREMY RENNER, The Hurt Locker

Breakthrough Performance by an Actress
GABOUREY SIDIBE, Precious

Spotlight Award for Best Directorial Debut
DUNCAN JONES, Moon; OREN MOVERMAN, The Messenger; MARC WEBB, (500) Days of Summer

Best Director
CLINT EASTWOOD, Invictus

Best Adapted Screenplay
JASON REITMAN and SHELDON TURNER, Up In The Air

Best Original Screenplay
JOEL AND ETHAN COEN, A Serious Man

Best Animated Feature
UP

Special Filmmaking Achievement
WES ANDERSON, The Fantastic Mr. Fox

William K. Everson Award For Film History
JEAN PICKER FIRSTENBERG

Freedom Of Expression
BURMA VJ: REPORTING FROM A CLOSED COUNTRY; INVICTUS; THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA: DANIEL ELLSEBERG AND THE PENTAGON PAPERS
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on December 03, 2009, 03:15:08 PM
I don't know if this counts, but Empire has already done it's top 10 of the year, and I like it. It's much better then what I was expecting:

1. Let the Right One In
2. Slumdog Millionaire
3. Up
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Star Trek
6. The Wrestler
7. Inglourious Basterds
8. In The Loop
9. District 9
10. Coraline
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 03, 2009, 03:16:02 PM
How are they getting away with calling LtROI and Slumdog 2009 films?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on December 03, 2009, 03:38:07 PM
How are they getting away with calling LtROI and Slumdog 2009 films?

Uk release dates, came out here April and January respectively.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 03, 2009, 03:41:32 PM
Ah okay. Either way, I'm all about not giving Pixar top honours for anything.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Pink on December 03, 2009, 06:42:26 PM
I like NBR's list. Doesn't go for bait like Precious or Nine or The Lovely Bones. Still can't say no to Clint though...

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on December 04, 2009, 01:13:49 AM
How do you know those movies are bait? Couldn't they be good?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 04, 2009, 01:21:34 AM
thats Randal Pink Floyd yr talkin to.

[/Wooderson]
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 04, 2009, 09:38:46 AM
How do you know those movies are bait? Couldn't they be good?

Do you mean to imply that 'bait' films cannot be good? Doubt was your favorite film of last year, correct?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Pink on December 04, 2009, 09:58:46 AM
How do you know those movies are bait? Couldn't they be good?

They could be good, yeah. I liked Up in the Air a lot, and that's Oscar-bait if there ever was one. In general though, I just grow weary of these prestige films paraded out in a trickle at the end of the year. I think most folks roll their eyes when they see a trailer that touts how many involved won Oscars or Golden Globes. It was nice to see some films released earlier this year on the list. Especially genre films, which generally are given little love.

And while probably unfair speculation, I'd put money down that The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, and Inglourious Basterds are all better than Precious, Nine, or The Lovely Bones.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 04, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
Well, IB and A Serious Man certainly are better than Precious. Not sure if The Hurt Locker is or not though.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on December 04, 2009, 10:18:41 AM
I just don't like the term "bait" because it degrades the movie before anybody even sees it. It implies that the movie was made only to get awards. I doubt (get it?) that Peter Jackson was trying to get an Oscar with The Lovely Bones. He seems like a guy that makes movies because he loves film, not to make a speech.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 04, 2009, 10:24:39 AM
I just don't like the term "bait" because it degrades the movie before anybody even sees it. It implies that the movie was made only to get awards. I doubt (get it?) that Peter Jackson was trying to get an Oscar with The Lovely Bones. He seems like a guy that makes movies because he loves film, not to make a speech.

I think the "bait" term comes in above a directors head - the calculations are on the studio and producer level.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on December 04, 2009, 10:39:14 AM
Perhaps, but I don't give a shit about that stuff.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Pink on December 04, 2009, 10:41:35 AM
I just don't like the term "bait" because it degrades the movie before anybody even sees it. It implies that the movie was made only to get awards. I doubt (get it?) that Peter Jackson was trying to get an Oscar with The Lovely Bones. He seems like a guy that makes movies because he loves film, not to make a speech.

I see your point. Same could be said for a "summer" movie. But at the end of the day, these movies are not degraded because of this status.  They will get more money, a wider audience, and greater critical emphasis (if not reception). I just have grown cynical to the process and was happy to see other kinds of movies on the NBR list.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 04, 2009, 11:06:42 AM
Perhaps, but I don't give a shit about that stuff.

sure, but its a bonafied way to market a film - slow roll out release pattern, previously nominated cast & crew, based on well regarded middle-brow source material.  The studio would call it a "prestige picture" but with so many of them in the water they act more like chum for the oscar shark.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on December 04, 2009, 03:23:38 PM
I just don't like the term "bait" because it degrades the movie before anybody even sees it. It implies that the movie was made only to get awards. I doubt (get it?) that Peter Jackson was trying to get an Oscar with The Lovely Bones. He seems like a guy that makes movies because he loves film, not to make a speech.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on December 04, 2009, 04:00:23 PM
Oh, come now, there are plenty of studio products made to win Oscars, and suck as a result. Happens every year.

There is absolutely such a thing as "Oscar Bait".

Funny enough though, those movies haven't been winning Oscars the last few years. Starting with Crash(whatever you think of the movie regardless), a film that didn't even have distribution before it was picked up at Toronto, more and more genre films(The Departed, No Country) and independents(the aforementioned Crash and Slumdog) have been winning.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on December 04, 2009, 04:03:57 PM
I just don't like the term "bait" because it degrades the movie before anybody even sees it. It implies that the movie was made only to get awards. I doubt (get it?) that Peter Jackson was trying to get an Oscar with The Lovely Bones. He seems like a guy that makes movies because he loves film, not to make a speech.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 04, 2009, 04:33:59 PM
Oh, come now, there are plenty of studio products made to win Oscars, and suck as a result. Happens every year.

There is absolutely such a thing as "Oscar Bait".

Funny enough though, those movies haven't been winning Oscars the last few years. Starting with Crash(whatever you think of the movie regardless), a film that didn't even have distribution before it was picked up at Toronto, more and more genre films(The Departed, No Country) and independents(the aforementioned Crash and Slumdog) have been winning.

Oscar Bait was kinda pioneered by The Weinsteins and peaked in the late 90s.  Yes they specifically engineered their products to garner awards. (doens't mean the quality wasn't there but their whole money making strategy rested on slow build released during awards seasons.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on December 05, 2009, 11:31:01 AM
On roughly one day I'll be interested in the Oscars. That day is the day the Oscars take place. Until that time I'll enjoy the movies I enjoy without really caring how or why it is advertised the way it is. It certainly won't be a part of my criticism because it is meaningless to me.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dracula on December 10, 2009, 12:13:37 PM
I agree with those speaking out against the term “bait,” I think that gets thrown about a bit too recklessly at times.  For example, Clint Eastwood’s movies are constantly accused of being Oscar bait, but I think his success at award ceremonies has more to do with a simple shared set of sensibilities between him and the Academy than anything else.  I suppose it’s fair to assume the Academy’s taste has influenced a lot of studios to greenlight certain projects, but that and the marketing push is probably where the influence stops at least 85% of the time.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on December 14, 2009, 02:48:35 AM
New York Film Critics Online 2009 Awards

Best Film
Avatar

Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

Best Actress
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Supporting Actress
Mo'Nique, Precious

Animated Feature
Up

Best Ensemble
In the Loop

Best Foreign Film
The White Ribbon

Best Documentary
The Cove

Best Cinematography
Robert Richardson, Inglourious Basterds

Best Screenplay
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Best Directorial Debut
(500) Days of Summer

Breakthrough Performance
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

BEST 11 PICTURES (Alphabetical)
Adventureland (Miramax Films)
Avatar (20th Century Fox)
Fantastic Mr. Fox (Fox Searchlight)
The Hurt Locker (Summit Entertainment)
Inglourious Basterds (The Weinstein Company)
The Messenger (Oscilloscope)
Precious (Lionsgate)
A Serious Man (Focus Features)
Two Lovers (Magnolia
Up (Disney/Pixar)
Up in the Air (Paramount)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on December 14, 2009, 04:22:44 AM
Two Lovers!





Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 14, 2009, 04:27:16 AM
Two Lovers!

Is this film really that good?  just asking...
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 14, 2009, 08:14:28 AM
Two Lovers!

Is this film really that good?  just asking...

It's pretty damn good.

Go Avatar!

Boo (500) Days of Summer. Really, best debut? Not even close.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on December 14, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
Two Lovers!

Is this film really that good?  just asking...
Yes. It's my #2 of the year.

And wow, Avatar. Interesting. I'm actually looking forward to it now.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 14, 2009, 09:47:31 AM
Two Lovers!

Is this film really that good?  just asking...
Yes. It's my #2 of the year.

And wow, Avatar. Interesting. I'm actually looking forward to it now.

I'm interested to see if, pending it comes out and is a good to great film, how willing the mass amounts of people who shat all over the film for the past month or so will be to change their tune. I'm a big 3-D fan, so I've been looking forward to Avatar for a while and been an early trailer defender since it was released, but I've had to defend its potential to be good to my friends for the past month and a half. Spoiler warning, this film will project very well, prematurely.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on December 14, 2009, 09:54:49 AM
Boo (500) Days of Summer. Really, best debut? Not even close.

I agree.  That would be District 9.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on December 14, 2009, 09:59:07 AM
Two Lovers!

Is this film really that good?  just asking...

It's strong.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on December 14, 2009, 10:01:41 AM
Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards 2009

PICTURE
The Hurt Locker
Runner-Up: Up in the Air

DIRECTOR
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Runner-Up: Michael Haneke, The White Ribbon

ACTOR
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Runner-up: Colin Firth, A Single Man

ACTRESS
Yolande Moreau, Seraphine
Runner-up: Carey Mulligan, An Education

ANIMATION
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Runner-up: Up

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Summer Hours
Runner-up: The White Ribbon

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Mo'Nique, Precious
Runner-up: Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Runner-up: Peter Capaldi, In the Loop

SCREENPLAY
Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, “Up in the Air”
Runner-up: Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci and Tony Roche, In the Loop

DOCUMENTARY/NON-FICTION FILM
The Beaches of Agnès and The Cove (tie)

MUSIC/SCORE
T-Bone Burnett and Stephen Bruton, Crazy Heart
Runner-up: : Alexandre Desplat, Fantastic Mr. Fox

PRODUCTION DESIGN
Philip Ivey, District 9
Runner-up: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg, Avatar

CINEMATOGRAPHY
Christian Berger, The White Ribbon
Runner-up: Barry Ackroyd, The Hurt Locker
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ferris on December 14, 2009, 10:10:04 AM
Boo (500) Days of Summer. Really, best debut? Not even close.

I agree.  That would be District 9.

I'm going with Moon
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on December 14, 2009, 10:12:50 AM
Hunger or Afterschool(is Afterschool a debut?)

And the two front runners for Best Pic are definitely The Hurt Locker and Up In The Air.

I would bet money that Bigelow is gonna be the first female to win Best Director.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 14, 2009, 10:46:21 AM
Boo (500) Days of Summer. Really, best debut? Not even close.

I agree.  That would be District 9.

I'm going with Moon

I need to see District 9 still, but I'm basically locked in to Lymelife or Moon.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: skjerva on December 14, 2009, 12:15:36 PM
Boo (500) Days of Summer. Really, best debut? Not even close.

I agree.  That would be District 9.

I'm going with Moon

I need to see District 9 still, but I'm basically locked in to Lymelife or Moon.

out of these three i enjoyed (500) the most, am the most intrigued by Moon, and was a bit bored with District.  my vote goes to Michel O. Scott for The Horse Boy
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on December 14, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
Boo (500) Days of Summer. Really, best debut? Not even close.

I agree.  That would be District 9.

I'm going with Moon

I need to see District 9 still, but I'm basically locked in to Lymelife or Moon.

out of these three i enjoyed (500) the most, am the most intrigued by Moon, and was a bit bored with District.  my vote goes to Michel O. Scott for The Horse Boy

Moon, District 9, and Hunger we're all much better then (500), which is an enjoyable film. I'm really looking forward to Horse Boy, though, it looks amazing.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on December 14, 2009, 01:46:52 PM
Two Lovers!

Is this film really that good?  just asking...

It is.  It made my top 10 (of 2008).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: THATguy on December 14, 2009, 03:29:33 PM
I just don't like the term "bait" because it degrades the movie before anybody even sees it. It implies that the movie was made only to get awards. I doubt (get it?) that Peter Jackson was trying to get an Oscar with The Lovely Bones. He seems like a guy that makes movies because he loves film, not to make a speech.

I think the "bait" term comes in above a directors head - the calculations are on the studio and producer level.

I'd disagree.  I'd say.. for example.. Ed Zwick doesn't do anything except make bait.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on December 14, 2009, 04:35:54 PM
I just don't like the term "bait" because it degrades the movie before anybody even sees it. It implies that the movie was made only to get awards. I doubt (get it?) that Peter Jackson was trying to get an Oscar with The Lovely Bones. He seems like a guy that makes movies because he loves film, not to make a speech.

I think the "bait" term comes in above a directors head - the calculations are on the studio and producer level.

I'd disagree.  I'd say.. for example.. Ed Zwick doesn't do anything except make bait.

Really?  Or is it that Zwick, or say, Ron Howard just tend to gravitate to projects that happen to fit the stereotype of what the Academy seems to love.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 14, 2009, 04:46:15 PM
Quote
Ed Zwick doesn't do anything except make bait.

We watched Defiance this week and it was a really solid, entertaining film. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on December 14, 2009, 05:12:41 PM
I'd disagree.  I'd say.. for example.. Ed Zwick doesn't do anything except make bait.

True, but Glory is great nonetheless.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on December 14, 2009, 09:58:17 PM
Blood Diamond is such an infuriating film.
Title: Re: 2009 Tarantino and Time Magazine
Post by: 1SO on December 15, 2009, 12:03:56 AM
Tarantino's Top 8 of 2009 (http://video.hollywoodreporter.com/services/player/bcpid30780834001?bctid=57142806001)

Having not seen Avatar, Invictus and The Lovely Bones (and leaving his movie out)

1. Star Trek
2. Drag Me To Hell
3. Funny People
4. Up in the Air
5. Chocolate (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1183252/)
6. Observe & Report
7. Precious
8. An Education

Honorable Mentions to Bright Star and District 9.


Time Magazine

Top 10 Movies
1. The Princess and the Frog
2. Up
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Up in the Air
6. The White Ribbon
7. A Single Man
8. Of Time and the City
9. District 9
10. Thirst

Top 10 Movie Performances
1. Mo'nique as Mary Jones in Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
2. Carey Mulligan as Jenny in An Education
3. Saoirse Ronan as Susie Salmon in The Lovely Bones
4. Meryl Streep as Julia Child in Julie & Julia
5. Marion Cotillard as Luisa Contini in Nine

1. Colin Firth as George in A Single Man
2. Jeremy Renner as Staff Sergeant William James in The Hurt Locker
3. George Clooney as Ryan Bingham in Up in the Air
4. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds
5. Michael Jackson as Michael Jackson in Michael Jackson's This Is It
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on December 15, 2009, 12:58:39 AM
Time Magazine

Top 10 Movies
1. The Princess and the Frog
2. Up
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Up in the Air
6. The White Ribbon
7. A Single Man
8. Of Time and the City
9. District 9
10. Thirst

Were 1-5 and 6-10 decided by the same person, or was this a combined list?  Because if that's one person's list, that person is weird.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on December 15, 2009, 12:59:58 AM
Time Magazine

Top 10 Movies
1. The Princess and the Frog
2. Up
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Up in the Air
6. The White Ribbon
7. A Single Man
8. Of Time and the City
9. District 9
10. Thirst

Were 1-5 and 6-10 decided by the same person, or was this a combined list?  Because if that's one person's list, that person is weird.

Corliss.
Title: Re: 2009 Tarantino and Time Magazine
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 15, 2009, 08:16:11 AM
Tarantino's Top 8 of 2009 (http://video.hollywoodreporter.com/services/player/bcpid30780834001?bctid=57142806001)

Having not seen Avatar, Invictus and The Lovely Bones (and leaving his movie out)

1. Star Trek
2. Drag Me To Hell
3. Funny People
4. Up in the Air
5. Chocolate (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1183252/)
6. Observe & Report
7. Precious
8. An Education

Honorable Mentions to Bright Star and District 9.


Time Magazine

Top 10 Movies
1. The Princess and the Frog
2. Up
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Up in the Air
6. The White Ribbon
7. A Single Man
8. Of Time and the City
9. District 9
10. Thirst

Top 10 Movie Performances
1. Mo'nique as Mary Jones in Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
2. Carey Mulligan as Jenny in An Education
3. Saoirse Ronan as Susie Salmon in The Lovely Bones
4. Meryl Streep as Julia Child in Julie & Julia
5. Marion Cotillard as Luisa Contini in Nine

1. Colin Firth as George in A Single Man
2. Jeremy Renner as Staff Sergeant William James in The Hurt Locker
3. George Clooney as Ryan Bingham in Up in the Air
4. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds
5. Michael Jackson as Michael Jackson in Michael Jackson's This Is It


QT's list is actually mostly good. Not where I would rank the films, haven't seen Chocolate or Up in the Air yet, but there's a lot to love about Drag me to Hell and Precious, and to a radically lesser extent An Education. Also, his ability to recognize greatness where others have called foul, in the form of the wonderful Observe and Report and, at least excising the Leslie Mann stuff, Funny People is great. However, Star Trek is absolutely terrible and one of the year's worst films, so placing it at number one basically undermines whatever comes after.

That Time list is a load of crap, at least in regard to the films I've seen already. I love the inclusion of FMF up by the top and the mention of Thirst, but those other two animated films are abominations. Also, I know I wouldn't call Mulligan's performance better than Charlotte's in Antichrist, but of the two nominated females I have seen they both are great, Mo'Nique more so than Mulligan, but whatever. Disappointed that Charlotte didn't earn a spot. But the true misstep is giving Michael Jackson a spot on that list over Sam Rockwell in Moon. Personally I think Rockwell gives the best performance of the year, and while I don't get the love for Renner in Hurt Locker his inclusion is fine. Waltz is great too, and it makes sense that Time would pick these individuals for this list, given the films they are in, and I have not seen This is It, or Up in the Air, or A Single Man, but I find it hard to believe that out of those three films that all three of those guys turn in better performances than Rockwell.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on December 15, 2009, 08:57:41 AM
The Golden Globes are a joke at this point. They nominate The Hangover, but not Up. The fail to nominated Breaking Bad for either Drama or Actor. They ignore A Serious Man. Meryl is nominated twice in the same category. Ugh.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on December 15, 2009, 09:04:39 AM
I'm just relieved to see (http://www.goldenglobes.org/news/id/159) Sandra Bullock recognized for both her dramatic and comedic roles.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: skjerva on December 15, 2009, 09:17:09 AM
The Golden Globes are a joke at this point. They nominate The Hangover, but not Up. The fail to nominated Breaking Bad for either Drama or Actor. They ignore A Serious Man. Meryl is nominated twice in the same category. Ugh.

wait, at this point?  next thing you'll be telling us the Oscars are a joke, too.  the horror.  the horror.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 15, 2009, 09:37:02 AM
The Golden Globes are a joke at this point. They nominate The Hangover, but not Up. The fail to nominated Breaking Bad for either Drama or Actor. They ignore A Serious Man. Meryl is nominated twice in the same category. Ugh.

wait, at this point?  next thing you'll be telling us the Oscars are a joke, too.  the horror.  the horror.

 :D

That comedy list is really weak, though the inclusion of Up would only serve to make it more of a joke.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on December 15, 2009, 10:47:23 AM
FLY, complain all you want about UP, but it is likely the most critically acclaimed film of the year AND it has one of the highest grosses of the year. Both of those together should amount to something. And considering the Golden Globes have nominated Pixar films in that category in the past (and Toy Story 2 even won) I just don't see why it was left off in favour of at least three of the films on that list. Hell, I didn't realize anybody even liked Julie and Julia.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: exskiman on December 15, 2009, 11:35:20 AM
I cry fowl over Breaking Bad (hasn't Malcolm-in-the-middle-dad (aww I feel bad I forgot his name - he is great though!) been winning the emmy for the last 2 years? how can he not even be nominated?) and A Serious Man (granted I feel its been a fairly weak year for cinema (maybe a lot of good things that I've simply never heard of) but this would definitely make my top 3 of the year so far).

Haha Bullock got a double nomination...I hope she wins both of them so she can become the second person to ever do that after Eddie Murphy's shocking double win for Dreamgirls and Norbit. (seriously though out of curiosity and assuming for just a moment that anybody actually cares - has anyone done that before? Can Bullock make history?) 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 15, 2009, 11:54:28 AM
Hunger or Afterschool(is Afterschool a debut?)

And the two front runners for Best Pic are definitely The Hurt Locker and Up In The Air.

I would bet money that Bigelow is gonna be the first female to win Best Director.

this is a golden selling point - why is this the first time i've ever heard anyone mention it? (as usual i'll assume its my fault)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on December 15, 2009, 12:00:07 PM
The fail to nominated Breaking Bad for either Drama or Actor.
I thought that was strange too. Was BB on hiatus during the period of eligibility? Just wondering, because Cranston has been winning everything lately.

I'm just relieved to see (http://www.goldenglobes.org/news/id/159) Sandra Bullock recognized for both her dramatic and comedic roles.
:D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 15, 2009, 12:01:10 PM
Female or not, The Hurt Locker is the best directed film of the year (sorry Quentin). She makes the perfect choice at every step.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 15, 2009, 05:05:40 PM
FLY, complain all you want about UP, but it is likely the most critically acclaimed film of the year AND it has one of the highest grosses of the year. Both of those together should amount to something. And considering the Golden Globes have nominated Pixar films in that category in the past (and Toy Story 2 even won) I just don't see why it was left off in favour of at least three of the films on that list. Hell, I didn't realize anybody even liked Julie and Julia.

Critics are dumb, sometimes even more so than the general public.

Female or not, The Hurt Locker is the best directed film of the year (sorry Quentin). She makes the perfect choice at every step.

I do not agree with either of these statements, but the second one is much easier to defend, I think.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on December 15, 2009, 05:38:10 PM
Every time these awards lists pop up, I think, "Wait, who did Colin Firth play in A Serious Man?  I don't remember him."

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Tarantino and Time Magazine
Post by: Dracula on December 15, 2009, 06:53:30 PM
Tarantino's Top 8 of 2009 (http://video.hollywoodreporter.com/services/player/bcpid30780834001?bctid=57142806001)

Having not seen Avatar, Invictus and The Lovely Bones (and leaving his movie out)

1. Star Trek
2. Drag Me To Hell
3. Funny People
4. Up in the Air
5. Chocolate (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1183252/)
6. Observe & Report
7. Precious
8. An Education

Honorable Mentions to Bright Star and District 9.

Other than Chocolate that seems awefully mainstream, isn't Tarentino the guy who's supposed to highlite obscure Cambodian films or something.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on December 16, 2009, 12:46:31 AM
SAN DIEGO FILM CRITICS

Best Film: Inglourious Basterds
Best Director: Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
Best Actress: Michelle Monaghan, Trucker
Best Actor: Colin Firth, A Single Man
Best Supporting Actress: Samantha Morton, The Messenger
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Best Foreign Language Film: Il Divo
Best Documentary: The Cove
Best Cinematography: The Road
Best Editing: (500) Days of Summer
Best Production Design: Inglourious Basterds
Best Score: A Single Man
Bets Ensemble Performance: Inglourious Basterds
Body of Work award: Woody Harrelson for The Messenger, Zombieland, and 2012.



AUSTIN FILM CRITICS

Best Film: The Hurt Locker

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

Best Actor: Colin Firth, A Single Man

Best Actress: Melanie Laurent, Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress: Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air

Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino

Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air, Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Best Cinematography: The Hurt Locker, Barry Ackroyd

Best Original Score: Up, Michael Glacchino

Best Foreign Language Film: Sin Nombre, Cary Fukunaga

Best Documentary: Anvil! The Story of Anvil

Best Animated Feature: Up

Best First Film: District 9, Neill Blomkamp

Breakthrough Artist Award: Christian McKay, Me & Orson Welles

Austin Film Award: Me & Orson Welles


Top 10 Films:
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Up
A Serious Man
Up in the Air
Avatar
Inglourious Basterds
District 9
Where the Wild Things Are
(tie) Moon, The Messenger

Top 10 Films of the Decade:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
There Will Be Blood (2007)
The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Kill Bill (2003/4)
No Country for Old Men (2007)
The Incredibles (2004)
Children of Men (2006)
(tie) Memento (2000), The Departed (2006)



Not a lot of foreign language films on that last list.  Or documentaries, of course.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on December 16, 2009, 07:27:53 PM
SAN DIEGO FILM CRITICS

Best Actress: Michelle Monaghan, Trucker

Uh....

Anyone?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on December 17, 2009, 01:00:22 AM
A.V. Club: The year in film 2009  (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-year-in-film-2009,36408/)

20. Coraline
19. 35 Shots Of Rum
18. Passing Strange
17. Summer Hours
16. Still Walking
15. Gomorrah
14. Antichrist
13. Collapse
12. Big Fan
11. Up
10. The Informant!
9. Where The Wild Things Are
8. Duplicity
7. Humpday
6. In the Loop
5. Julia
4. Inglourious Basterds
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
2. A Serious Man
1. The Hurt Locker
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 17, 2009, 01:03:04 AM
I love that list (minus WTWTA but I know I am alone on that one).

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on December 17, 2009, 01:06:57 AM
I love that list (minus WTWTA but I know I am alone on that one).
Not everybody over there liked it. Check out Rabin (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-year-in-film-2009,36408/3/)'s pick for overrated of the year.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: oneaprilday on December 17, 2009, 01:27:08 AM
A.V. Club: The year in film 2009  (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-year-in-film-2009,36408/)

20. Coraline
19. 35 Shots Of Rum
18. Passing Strange
17. Summer Hours
16. Still Walking
15. Gomorrah
14. Antichrist
13. Collapse
12. Big Fan
11. Up
10. The Informant!
9. Where The Wild Things Are
8. Duplicity
7. Humpday
6. In the Loop
5. Julia
4. Inglourious Basterds
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
2. A Serious Man
1. The Hurt Locker
Duplicity at #8. Huh. Weird.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on December 17, 2009, 01:30:02 AM
I like that list a lot, but Duplicity stood out as strange to me. Maybe it is worth a watch...
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on December 17, 2009, 01:30:31 AM
Duplicity at #8. Huh. Weird.
I know, very strange. When they reviewed it in March they gave it a C+ (http://www.avclub.com/articles/duplicity,25301/).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: oneaprilday on December 17, 2009, 01:40:16 AM
Duplicity at #8. Huh. Weird.
I know, very strange. When they reviewed it in March they gave it a C+ (http://www.avclub.com/articles/duplicity,25301/).
Yeah, I thought it was fine, but basically unremarkable.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 17, 2009, 02:02:12 AM
I like that list a lot, but Duplicity stood out as strange to me. Maybe it is worth a watch...

It had a huge plot hole.  The time line was confusing (possibly on purpose, but still).  I didn't really like JR in it, but she's far down the list of my personal favs.  I could not believe how good the press for it was when it came out.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 17, 2009, 08:08:12 AM
I'm still looking forward to seeing Duplicity, back in last January through December I was hit over the head with that trailer before each and every film I saw. At some point it grew slightly on me. Though I'd rather it star Emma instead of Julia.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 17, 2009, 08:57:47 AM
SAG 2009

- THEATRICAL MOTION PICTURES -

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role

JEFF BRIDGES / Bad Blake - "CRAZY HEART" (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
GEORGE CLOONEY / Ryan Bingham - "UP IN THE AIR" (Paramount Pictures)
COLIN FIRTH / George Falconer - "A SINGLE MAN" (The Weinstein Company)
MORGAN FREEMAN / Nelson Mandela - "INVICTUS" (Warner Bros. Pictures)
JEREMY RENNER / Staff Sgt. William James - "THE HURT LOCKER" (Summit Entertainment)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role

SANDRA BULLOCK / Leigh Anne Tuohy - "THE BLIND SIDE" (Warner Bros. Pictures)
HELEN MIRREN / Sofya - "THE LAST STATION" (Sony Pictures Classics)
CAREY MULLIGAN / Jenny - "AN EDUCATION" (Sony Pictures Classics)
GABOUREY SIDIBE / Precious - "PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL ‘PUSH' BY SAPPHIRE" (Lionsgate)
MERYL STREEP / Julia Child - "JULIE & JULIA" (Columbia Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

MATT DAMON / Francois Pienaar - "INVICTUS" (Warner Bros. Pictures)
WOODY HARRELSON / Captain Tony Stone - "THE MESSENGER" (Oscilloscope Laboratories)
CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER / Tolstoy - "THE LAST STATION" (Sony Pictures Classics)
STANLEY TUCCI / George Harvey - "THE LOVELY BONES" (Paramount Pictures)
CHRISTOPH WALTZ / Col. Hans Landa - "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS" (The Weinstein Company/Universal Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role

PENÉLOPE CRUZ / Carla - "NINE" (The Weinstein Company)
VERA FARMIGA / Alex Goran - "UP IN THE AIR" (Paramount Pictures)
ANNA KENDRICK / Natalie Keener - "UP IN THE AIR" (Paramount Pictures)
DIANE KRUGER / Bridget Von Hammersmark - "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS" (The Weinstein Company/Universal Pictures)
MO'NIQUE / Mary - "PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL ‘PUSH' BY SAPPHIRE" (Lionsgate)

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture

AN EDUCATION (Sony Pictures Classics)
THE HURT LOCKER (Summit Entertainment)
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (The Weinstein Company/Universal Pictures)
NINE (The Weinstein Company)
PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL "PUSH" BY SAPPHIRE (Lionsgate)

- PRIMETIME TELEVISION -

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries

KEVIN BACON / Lt. Col. Michael R. Strobl - "TAKING CHANCE" (HBO)
CUBA GOODING, JR. / Ben Carson - "GIFTED HANDS: THE BEN CARSON STORY" (TNT)
JEREMY IRONS / Alfred Stieglitz - "GEORGIA O'KEEFFE" (Lifetime)
KEVIN KLINE / Cyrano de Bergerac - "GREAT PERFORMANCES: CYRANO de BERGERAC" (PBS)
TOM WILKINSON / Salter - "A NUMBER" (HBO)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries

JOAN ALLEN / Georgia O'Keeffe - "GEORGIA O'KEEFFE" (Lifetime)
DREW BARRYMORE / Little Edie - "GREY GARDENS" (HBO)
RUBY DEE / Mrs. Harper - "AMERICA" (Lifetime)
JESSICA LANGE / Big Edie - "GREY GARDENS" (HBO)
SIGOURNEY WEAVER / Mary Griffith - "PRAYERS FOR BOBBY" (Lifetime)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series

SIMON BAKER / Patrick Jane - "THE MENTALIST" (CBS)
BRYAN CRANSTON / Walter White - "BREAKING BAD" (AMC)
MICHAEL C. HALL / Dexter Morgan - "DEXTER" (Showtime)
JON HAMM / Don Draper - "MAD MEN" (AMC)
HUGH LAURIE / House - "HOUSE" (FOX)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series

PATRICIA ARQUETTE/ Allison Dubois - "MEDIUM" (NBC/CBS)
GLENN CLOSE / Patty Hewes - "DAMAGES" (FX)
MARISKA HARGITAY / Det. Olivia Benson - "LAW & ORDER: SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT" (NBC)
HOLLY HUNTER / Grace Hanadarko - "SAVING GRACE" (TNT)
JULIANNA MARGULIES / Alicia Florrick - "THE GOOD WIFE" (CBS)
KYRA SEDGWICK / Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson - "THE CLOSER" (TNT)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series

ALEC BALDWIN / Jack Donaghy - "30 ROCK" (NBC)
STEVE CARELL / Michael Scott - "THE OFFICE" (NBC)
LARRY DAVID / Himself - "CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM" (HBO)
TONY SHALHOUB / Adrian Monk - "MONK" (USA NETWORK)
CHARLIE SHEEN / Charlie Harper - "TWO AND A HALF MEN" (CBS)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series

CHRISTINA APPLEGATE / Samantha Newly - "SAMANTHA WHO?" (ABC)
TONI COLLETTE / Tara Gregor - "UNITED STATES OF TARA" (Showtime)
EDIE FALCO / Jackie Peyton - "NURSE JACKIE" (Showtime)
TINA FEY / Liz Lemon - "30 ROCK" (NBC)
JULIA LOUIS-DREYFUS / Christine Campbell - "THE NEW ADVENTURES OF OLD CHRISTINE" (CBS)

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series

THE CLOSER (TNT)
DEXTER (Showtime)
THE GOOD WIFE (CBS)
MAD MEN (AMC)
TRUE BLOOD (HBO)
CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM (HBO)
GLEE (FOX)
MODERN FAMILY (ABC)
THE OFFICE (NBC)

- SAG HONORS FOR STUNT ENSEMBLES -

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

PUBLIC ENEMIES (Universal Pictures)
STAR TREK (Paramount Pictures)
TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (Paramount Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Television Series

24 (FOX)
THE CLOSER (TNT)
DEXTER (Showtime)
HEROES (NBC)
THE UNIT (CBS)

- LIFE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD -

Screen Actors Guild Awards 46th Annual Life Achievement Award

Betty White
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on December 17, 2009, 10:17:23 AM
- LIFE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD -

Screen Actors Guild Awards 46th Annual Life Achievement Award

Betty White
This was my favorite part of the entire list.  I'm in a Golden Girls marathon right now and she's a real national treasure.  I'm so happy for her. 
And this is much more deserving than any kind of Supporting Actress nomination.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on December 17, 2009, 10:20:19 AM
We speak the same language, 1SO.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 17, 2009, 11:39:06 AM
Online sports books are coming out with lines now...

Funny things of note:

1) Amelia and Taking Woodstock are twice as likely to win best picture than Star Trek (which sadly I think is about right).

2) Cameron is more likely to win best director than Bigelow (which I think is wrong)


2010 Academy Awards – Odds to Win Best Picture

    * Up in the Air 3/1
    * The Hurt Locker 7/2
    * Precious 6/1
    * Inglorious Basterds 15/2
    * An Education 8/1
    * The Lovely Bones 9/1
    * Public Enemies 10/1
    * Up 10/1
    * Avatar 10/1
    * Shutter Island 10/1
    * A Serious Man 12/1
    * The Road 15/1
    * Nine 15/1
    * Invictus 15/1
    * Cheri 15/1
    * Biutiful 15/1
    * Bright Star 15/1
    * A Single Man 20/1
    * The Human Factor 20/1
    * Taking Woodstock 25/1
    * Amelia 25/1
    * The Informant 25/1
    * The Last Station 25/1
    * The White Ribbon 30/1
    * Star Trek 50/1

Golden Globe Odds

2010 Golden Globe Awards - Odds to win Best Picture

    * Up in the Air 1/1
    * The Hurt Locker 5/2
    * Avatar 7/2
    * Precious 4/1
    * Inglorious Basterds 5/1

2010 Golden Globe Awards - Odds to win Best Director

    * Jason Reitman (Up in the Air) 3/2
    * James Cameron (Avatar) 7/4
    * Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) 3/1
    * Clint Eastwood (Invictus) 4/1
    * Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds) 5/1

2010 Golden Globe Awards - Odds to win Best Actor (Drama)

    * George Clooney (Up in the Air) 1/1
    * Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) 5/2
    * Colin Firth (A Single Man) 3/1
    * Morgan Freeman (Invictus) 4/1
    * Tobey Maguire (Brothers) 7/1

2010 Golden Globe Awards - Odds to win Best Actress (Drama)

    * Gabourey Sidibe (Precious) 5/4
    * Carey Mulligan (An Education) 3/2
    * Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) 4/1
    * Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria) 5/1
    * Helen Mirren (The Last Station) 6/1

2010 Golden Globe Awards - Odds to win Best Picture - Comedy or Musical

    * Nine 1/2
    * Julie & Julia 7/2
    * It’s Complicated 9/2
    * The Hangover 6/1
    * 500 Days of Summer 7/1
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on December 17, 2009, 11:44:05 AM
Biutiful isn't going to be out, is it? And Shutter Island got pushed to next year, everyone knows that. And The Human Factor=Invictus.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 17, 2009, 11:53:58 AM
Remind me to nominate Betty White fondling Sandra Bullock for the years top comedic scenes.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on December 17, 2009, 06:02:28 PM
2) Cameron is more likely to win best director than Bigelow (which I think is wrong)



So, you think it's wrong but you haven't seen Avatar yet and therefore don't have an informed opinion to offer.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 17, 2009, 06:03:37 PM
2) Cameron is more likely to win best director than Bigelow (which I think is wrong)



So, you think it's wrong but you haven't seen Avatar yet and therefore don't have an informed opinion to offer.

Odds are not based on the quality of the films. They are based on the buzz and hype.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on December 17, 2009, 06:04:59 PM
2) Cameron is more likely to win best director than Bigelow (which I think is wrong)



So, you think it's wrong but you haven't seen Avatar yet and therefore don't have an informed opinion to offer.

Odds are not based on the quality of the films. They are based on the buzz and hype.

It's not like it matters anyways, you have already decided that Avatar is a horrible movie and a blight upon humanity, so this discussion will go nowhere.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 17, 2009, 06:11:15 PM
So if I put down $50 on (500) Days winning, and it wins, they will pay me whatever 50 times 7 is? I'd consider taking that, since those odds seem pretty odd. People flipped shit over that film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 17, 2009, 06:16:40 PM
So if I put down $50 on (500) Days winning, and it wins, they will pay me whatever 50 times 7 is? I'd consider taking that, since those odds seem pretty odd. People flipped shit over that film.

yep that is how it works (of course they take a little juice off the top)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 17, 2009, 06:17:17 PM
2) Cameron is more likely to win best director than Bigelow (which I think is wrong)



So, you think it's wrong but you haven't seen Avatar yet and therefore don't have an informed opinion to offer.

Odds are not based on the quality of the films. They are based on the buzz and hype.

It's not like it matters anyways, you have already decided that Avatar is a horrible movie and a blight upon humanity, so this discussion will go nowhere.

I have? Oh I hadn't realized I had.

The point I am making is when they set odds it is not based on the film but the buzz. Looking at all the recent awards I would say Bigelow has a better chance to win than Cameron since she and her film are winning so far.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 17, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
So if I put down $50 on (500) Days winning, and it wins, they will pay me whatever 50 times 7 is? I'd consider taking that, since those odds seem pretty odd. People flipped shit over that film.

yep that is how it works (of course they take a little juice off the top)

Hmm, I may need to make an investment. If Nine doesn't fare well review wise, and I think iKeith! said it's not very good, (500) Days seems to be the likely winner.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on December 17, 2009, 06:19:58 PM
2) Cameron is more likely to win best director than Bigelow (which I think is wrong)



So, you think it's wrong but you haven't seen Avatar yet and therefore don't have an informed opinion to offer.

Odds are not based on the quality of the films. They are based on the buzz and hype.

It's not like it matters anyways, you have already decided that Avatar is a horrible movie and a blight upon humanity, so this discussion will go nowhere.

I have? Oh I hadn't realized I had.

The point I am making is when they set odds it is not based on the film but the buzz. Looking at all the recent awards I would say Bigelow has a better chance to win than Cameron since she and her film are winning so far.

Every post you make on the subject is a diss of Avatar in some way, and you ignore anything positive that myself and others have said about the film instead focusing only on the negative thoughts that further back up your preconceived notion that it will be a bad film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 17, 2009, 06:25:15 PM
So if I put down $50 on (500) Days winning, and it wins, they will pay me whatever 50 times 7 is? I'd consider taking that, since those odds seem pretty odd. People flipped shit over that film.

yep that is how it works (of course they take a little juice off the top)

Hmm, I may need to make an investment. If Nine doesn't fare well review wise, and I think iKeith! said it's not very good, (500) Days seems to be the likely winner.

I dont think that is a very good bet though FLY. Remember that these odds are based on buzz not the film itself. I have not been hearing any buzz over 500 Days in the awards season so I dont think it has much chance. 7:1 does sound like good odds, but I think you are very likely to lose.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 17, 2009, 06:31:04 PM
So if I put down $50 on (500) Days winning, and it wins, they will pay me whatever 50 times 7 is? I'd consider taking that, since those odds seem pretty odd. People flipped shit over that film.

yep that is how it works (of course they take a little juice off the top)

Hmm, I may need to make an investment. If Nine doesn't fare well review wise, and I think iKeith! said it's not very good, (500) Days seems to be the likely winner.

I dont think that is a very good bet though FLY. Remember that these odds are based on buzz not the film itself. I have not been hearing any buzz over 500 Days in the awards season so I dont think it has much chance. 7:1 does sound like good odds, but I think you are very likely to lose.

Even if that's the case, Nine is in a very tricky position. If word comes out that it's bad then the next likeliest film to win, given the nominees, would be (500) Days, I think. It won't be The Hangover, and Julie and Julia did not fare well critically, then there's It's Complicated, which I know little about outside of the cast, and even that does not look all that good. Conversely, critics loved (500) Days, the public seemed to love it, and the positive feelings, from what I have observed, have been sustained.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 17, 2009, 06:33:28 PM
So if I put down $50 on (500) Days winning, and it wins, they will pay me whatever 50 times 7 is? I'd consider taking that, since those odds seem pretty odd. People flipped shit over that film.

yep that is how it works (of course they take a little juice off the top)

Hmm, I may need to make an investment. If Nine doesn't fare well review wise, and I think iKeith! said it's not very good, (500) Days seems to be the likely winner.

I dont think that is a very good bet though FLY. Remember that these odds are based on buzz not the film itself. I have not been hearing any buzz over 500 Days in the awards season so I dont think it has much chance. 7:1 does sound like good odds, but I think you are very likely to lose.

Even if that's the case, Nine is in a very tricky position. If word comes out that it's bad then the next likeliest film to win, given the nominees, would be (500) Days, I think. It won't be The Hangover, and Julie and Julia did not fare well critically, then there's It's Complicated, which I know little about outside of the cast, and even that does not look all that good. Conversely, critics loved (500) Days, the public seemed to love it, and the positive feelings, from what I have observed, have been sustained.

I agree with your analysis and I think you are right the 7:1 line does sound good. As long as you realize you are most likely to lose and are ok with that (but I guess that is true of any long odds bet :P ).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 17, 2009, 06:46:14 PM
So if I put down $50 on (500) Days winning, and it wins, they will pay me whatever 50 times 7 is? I'd consider taking that, since those odds seem pretty odd. People flipped shit over that film.

yep that is how it works (of course they take a little juice off the top)

Hmm, I may need to make an investment. If Nine doesn't fare well review wise, and I think iKeith! said it's not very good, (500) Days seems to be the likely winner.

I dont think that is a very good bet though FLY. Remember that these odds are based on buzz not the film itself. I have not been hearing any buzz over 500 Days in the awards season so I dont think it has much chance. 7:1 does sound like good odds, but I think you are very likely to lose.

Even if that's the case, Nine is in a very tricky position. If word comes out that it's bad then the next likeliest film to win, given the nominees, would be (500) Days, I think. It won't be The Hangover, and Julie and Julia did not fare well critically, then there's It's Complicated, which I know little about outside of the cast, and even that does not look all that good. Conversely, critics loved (500) Days, the public seemed to love it, and the positive feelings, from what I have observed, have been sustained.

I agree with your analysis and I think you are right the 7:1 line does sound good. As long as you realize you are most likely to lose and are ok with that (but I guess that is true of any long odds bet :P ).

We'll see. It's all theoretical anyway because I have no intention of putting money down anyhow, but if I was to it would be on (500) Days.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on December 18, 2009, 04:06:38 PM
Complete list of 274 eligible for Academy Awards (http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2009/12/18/82nd-academy-awards-list-274/)

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 18, 2009, 06:23:51 PM
Here we go Miley, here we go!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 19, 2009, 11:30:25 PM
Ebert's List: best films of 2009 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/the_best_films_of_2009.html)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Pink on December 19, 2009, 11:33:06 PM
I see what Ebert did there, but the it is still a cop-out.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on December 19, 2009, 11:47:59 PM
I think it could easily be argued that about half of his Mainstream List are Indie films.  I'd like to believe we live in a world where Michael Haneke is mainstream, but we don't.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 19, 2009, 11:50:02 PM
Was Knowing really a good film?  Top 10 ?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on December 19, 2009, 11:51:55 PM
Was Knowing really a good film?  Top 10 ?

no, Ebert has a thing for Alex Proyas
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dracula on December 20, 2009, 12:01:20 AM
I think it could easily be argued that about half of his Mainstream List are Indie films.  I'd like to believe we live in a world where Michael Haneke is mainstream, but we don't.

I'm guessing he just made a top twenty list and chose the ten films that could most easily be called mainstream.  I'm not sure what he wanted to accomplish by splitting that top twenty in two, because if anything it complicates things further, but whatever.  Oh, and Knowing is garbage.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 20, 2009, 01:52:45 AM
A.O. Scott's List (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/movies/20scott.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesmovies)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Pink on December 20, 2009, 10:48:31 AM
I like the thread he finds in these picks, but surprised "Up" didn't make the cut with 19(!) movies in the running.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ferris on December 20, 2009, 04:06:12 PM
A.O. Scott's List (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/movies/20scott.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesmovies)

Wild Things at #1!  WOOT!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on December 20, 2009, 04:07:07 PM
A.O. Scott's List (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/movies/20scott.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesmovies)

Wild Things at #1!  WOOT!

Finally! I was so happy to see that up there, as Phillips and Matty really let me down.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on December 20, 2009, 05:20:02 PM
AFI Awards (Australian Film Institute) 2009

Best Film
   Samson & Delilah. Kath Shelper
Nominations
   Balibo. John Maynard, Rebecca Williamson
   Beautiful Kate. Leah Churchill-Brown, Bryan Brown
   Blessed. Al Clark
   Mao’s Last Dancer. Jane Scott
   Mary and Max. Melanie Coombs

Best Direction
   Samson & Delilah. Warwick Thornton
Nominations
   Balibo. Robert Connolly
   Beautiful Kate. Rachel Ward
   Mao’s Last Dancer. Bruce Beresford

Best Original Screen Play
   Samson & Delilah. Warwick Thornton
Nominations
   Cedar Boys. Serhat Caradee
   Mary and Max. Adam Elliot
   My Year Without Sex. Sarah Watt

Best Adapted Screen Play
   Balibo. David Williamson, Robert Connolly
Nominations
   Beautiful Kate. Rachel Ward
   Blessed. Andrew Bovell, Melissa Reeves, Patricia Cornelius, Christos Tsiolkas
   Mao’s Last Dancer. Jan Sardi

Best Lead Actor
   Anthony LaPaglia. Balibo
Nominations
   Ben Mendelsohn. Beautiful Kate
   Hugo Weaving. Last Ride
   Rowan McNamara. Samson & Delilah

Best Lead Actress
   Frances O’Connor. Blessed
Nominations
   Sophie Lowe. Beautiful Kate
   Sacha Horler. My Year Without Sex
   Marissa Gibson. Samson & Delilah

Best Supporting Actor
   Oscar Isaac. Balibo
Nominations
   Brandon Walters. Australia
   Damon Gameau. Balibo
   Bryan Brown. Beautiful Kate

Best Supporting Actress
   Rachel Griffiths. Beautiful Kate
Nominations
   Bea Viegas. Balibo
   Maeve Dermody. Beautiful Kate
   Mitjili Gibson. Samson & Delilah

Best Music Score
   Mao’s Last Dancer. Christopher Gordon
Nominations
   Australia. David Hirschfelder, Felix Meagher, Baz Luhrmann, Angela Little
   Balibo. Lisa Gerrard
   Samson & Delilah. Warwick Thornton
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: exskiman on December 20, 2009, 06:19:29 PM
Wow I do not think I have heard of a single one of these movies. Have any of them opened in the states yet (and how many of them do you think actually will?)?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on December 20, 2009, 07:28:15 PM
Wow I do not think I have heard of a single one of these movies. Have any of them opened in the states yet (and how many of them do you think actually will?)?

Apart from the film Australia, you might be lucky and get a few at festivals. I still have not seen Samson & Delilah but everything I have heard about it is fantastic. Blessed is largely downbeat, but has some great performances in it. Last Ride is ok, think it did get some cinema time in the US. One of the best of the very recent Australian films, due for release here in January, is 'Bran Nue Day' an Aboriginal musical that is lots of fun (saw it at MIFF this year).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: oneaprilday on December 20, 2009, 10:41:01 PM
A.O. Scott's List (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/movies/20scott.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesmovies)
Good to see Bright Star and Anvil! on there.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FifthCityMuse on December 20, 2009, 10:46:46 PM
Samson & Delilah is pretty great until the end. It's an important film for the Australian industry tho, and it's good to see the acclaim. I doubt you'll see many of these in the US. They'll probably play arthouse cinemas if they screen at all.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on December 21, 2009, 12:11:17 PM
AFI Awards (Australian Film Institute) 2009

Best Music Score
Nominations
   Australia. David Hirschfelder, Felix Meagher, Baz Luhrmann, Angela Little

LOL!

S&D is really good though it certainly flirts with oppressive at times.  I don't think it has a NA distributer yet so the only place to catch it is at festivals.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 22, 2009, 01:32:07 AM
Chicago Film Critics List (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/how-my-readers-voted-in-the-no.html) from Ebert's Journal at the Chicago Sun-Times
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: saltine on December 22, 2009, 01:43:07 AM
Slate's Dana Stevens' List (http://www.slate.com/id/2239354/)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on December 26, 2009, 08:12:54 PM
Films I know nothing about that are from 2009 and have at least 500 votes at IMDB with a rating of at least 8.0:

About Elly (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1360860/) (Asghar Farhadi, 2009, Iran)
Dev.D (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327035/) (Anurag Kashyap, 2009, India)
The Secret of Her Eyes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305806/) (Juan José Campanella, 2009, Argentina)
Gulaal (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1261047/) (Anurag Kashyap, 2009, India)
Hachiko: A Dog's Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028532/) (Lasse Hallström, 2009, US)
Home (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014762/) (Yann Arthus-Bertrand, 2009, France)
I Love You Phillip Morris (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045772/) (Glenn Ficarra & John Requa, 2009, US)
Iron Maiden: Flight 666 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1361558/) (Sam Dunn and Scot McFadyen, 2009, US)
Mother (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216496/) (Bong Joon-ho, 2009, South Korea)
Mary and Max (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0978762/) (Adam Elliot, 2009, Australia)
The Breath (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1171701/) (Levent Semerci, 2009, Turkey)
A Prophet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235166/) (Jacques Audiard, 2009, France)

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on December 26, 2009, 08:17:58 PM
I'll see Mother after I see Memories of Murder, which will probably not be anytime soon.

Editor's Note: I suck.

Another Editor's Note: It's been a while since I used one of these.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FifthCityMuse on December 27, 2009, 12:04:05 AM
Films I know nothing about that are from 2009 and have at least 500 votes at IMDB with a rating of at least 8.0:

About Elly (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1360860/) (Asghar Farhadi, 2009, Iran)
I saw this one at MIFF and rated it a B. It's currently at my number 6 of the year strictly counting 2009 titles. (Actually, that's a lie. The List I'm working from isn't totally up to date and doesn't include (500) Days of Summer amongst others. It's still probably top ten tho. Actually, I've just looked closer and my spreadsheet program is stupid. It's potentially top 20, but definitely not top 10. I don't know how I thought it was.
About Elly (Asghar Farhadi, 2009)
A really interesting little Iranian film. It's about three couples and two singles who go on holiday, and the way everything falls apart. Some great performances, some great filmmaking, really tense in moments, but, by the end, I just felt like there wasn't enough weight to sustain the full two hours. Cut 20-30 minutes from the last hour, and this would be superb. As is, it's pretty damn good.

B
I Love You Phillip Morris (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045772/) (Glenn Ficarra & John Requa, 2009, US)
I expect this will fall to 2010, surely? I don't think it's received a release and hasn't played many festivals. Should be interesting to see Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor playing gay tho.
Mother (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216496/) (Bong Joon-ho, 2009, South Korea)
South Korea's submission for Foreign Language film from South Korea. Heard good things. Missed the chance to see it at MIFF (chose Thirst instead).
Mary and Max (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0978762/) (Adam Elliot, 2009, Australia)
I've heard good things. It's out on DVD here, so I should get it out and have a look. Actually, I might do it in the next few days, as it's one of the few films that'll be available in the hometown video store, and I assume the 'rents will watch it with me. Have heard it's not entirely successful tho, something to do with the tone and the length. Will see.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on December 27, 2009, 01:25:02 AM
I was a fan of "The Beat That My Heart Skipped" and "Memories Of Murder", so I'm very much looking forward to "A Prophet" and "Mother" respectively.

I adored "Harvie Krumpet" (a short film, I think it won an Oscar), so I can't wait for "Mary And Max".
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on December 27, 2009, 08:32:31 AM
Hachiko: A Dog's Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028532/) (Lasse Hallström, 2009, US)
I Love You Phillip Morris (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045772/) (Glenn Ficarra & John Requa, 2009, US)
A Prophet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235166/) (Jacques Audiard, 2009, France)

pixote

I've heard of Hachiko because a co-worker has one of those dogs and told em the story of it, but that for the movie they're moving the setting from Japan to Connecticut.

What FCM said for I Love You Phillip Morris.

I've heard of A Prohpet somewhere, it's in my queue afterall. Maybe they mentioned it in passing on the 'cast.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on December 27, 2009, 05:58:38 PM
Chicago Film Critics List (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/how-my-readers-voted-in-the-no.html) from Ebert's Journal at the Chicago Sun-Times

I am really glad Anvil won out over that hippie dolphin doc.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on December 27, 2009, 06:00:37 PM
Chicago Film Critics List (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/how-my-readers-voted-in-the-no.html) from Ebert's Journal at the Chicago Sun-Times

I am really glad Anvil won out over that hippie dolphin doc.

The Cove is excellent, while Anvil is passable entertainment, at best, with little special either in the subject material or the manner in which the band is filmed. Essentially, "Metal on Metal" is ten times better than this entire film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on December 28, 2009, 06:23:53 AM
Films I know nothing about that are from 2009 and have at least 500 votes at IMDB with a rating of at least 8.0:

About Elly (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1360860/) (Asghar Farhadi, 2009, Iran)
Home (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014762/) (Yann Arthus-Bertrand, 2009, France)
Mother (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216496/) (Bong Joon-ho, 2009, South Korea)
Mary and Max (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0978762/) (Adam Elliot, 2009, Australia)

pixote

I have seen the above. Home was enjoyable, about a family that suffers the consequences of living right next to a highway (no sound barrier). Along with Mary and Max the best of these 4. I agree with Fithly's comment on About Elly. Mother was well made, but one thing about the film (it is a spoiler so I will not say what) really irritated me, downgrading the film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on January 08, 2010, 02:17:28 PM
Art Director's Guild Nominees:

Period Film
A SERIOUS MAN, Production Designer: Jess Gonchor
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, Production Designer: David Wasco
JULIE & JULIA, Production Designer: Mark Ricker
PUBLIC ENEMIES, Production Designer: Nathan Crowley
SHERLOCK HOLMES, Production Designer: Sarah Greenwood

Fantasy Film
AVATAR, Production Designer: Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg
DISTRICT 9, Production Designer: Philip Ivey
HARRY POTTER & THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, Production Designer: Stuart Craig
STAR TREK, Production Designer: Scott Chambliss
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, Production Designer: K.K. Barrett

Contemporary Film
ANGELS & DEMONS, Production Designer: Allan Cameron
THE HANGOVER, Production Designer: Bill Brzeski
THE HURT LOCKER, Production Designer: Karl Juliusson
THE LOVELY BONES, Production Designer: Naomi Shohan
UP IN THE AIR, Production Designer: Steve Saklad
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on January 08, 2010, 02:29:58 PM
Doesn't The Lovely Bones take place in the 70's?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on January 11, 2010, 11:31:37 AM
Films that will NOT be getting a WGA nomination today: (http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/wga-awards-heres-whos-eligible-12654)

“Inglourious Basterds,”
“A Single Man,”
“The Road,”
“An Education,”
“Me and Orson Welles,”
“In the Loop,”
“District 9,”
"Adam,”
“Antichrist,”
“Broken Embraces,”
“Capitalism: A Love Story,”
“The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus,”
“The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond,”
“Moon,”
“Trucker,”
“The White Ribbon,”
“Angels & Demons,”
“Coco Before Chanel,”
“The Damned United,”
“Everybody’s Fine,”
“The Men Who Stare at Goats,”
“Red Cliff,”
“That Evening Sun”
“A Woman in Berlin,”
“Fantastic Mr. Fox,”
“Ponyo,”
“The Princess and the Frog”

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on January 11, 2010, 11:34:53 AM
The WGA's treatment of writers in animation is shameful.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on January 11, 2010, 11:36:22 AM
The absense of IB makes the WGA a joke.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on January 11, 2010, 11:41:18 AM
The absense of IB makes the WGA a joke.

Those issues have more to do with IB likely not adhering to WGA rules for whatever reason. The fact that the WGA would consider people like Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, John Lasseter, and Pete Docter to be in a tier lower than writers for live action is ridiculous.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on January 11, 2010, 01:25:57 PM
"that the WGA Awards are not in the business of honoring the finest film scripts of the year; they’re in the business of honoring the finest scripts produced by guild members or under guild rules.

That may lessen their value as an Oscar precursor, but it’s not an unreasonable stance for a union to take."

Tarantino's non-union.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ferris on January 11, 2010, 01:27:04 PM
"that the WGA Awards are not in the business of honoring the finest film scripts of the year; they’re in the business of honoring the finest scripts produced by guild members or under guild rules.

That may lessen their value as an Oscar precursor, but it’s not an unreasonable stance for a union to take."

Agree.   LIke a wise friend of mine once said - "what's the fun of having a clubhouse if you don't get to decide who can enter"
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on January 11, 2010, 06:17:41 PM
The fact that the WGA would consider people like Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, John Lasseter, and Pete Docter to be in a tier lower than writers for live action is ridiculous.
It does? They're not allowed to join?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 01, 2010, 12:02:40 PM
The Nominees for the 2009 Golden Raspberry

Worst Picture

All About Steve
20th Century-Fox

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Paramount / Hasbro

Land of The Lost
Universal

Old Dogs
Disney

Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen
(Aka Trannies, Too)
Dreamworks/Paramount

Worst Actor of 2009

All Three Jonas Brothers
JONAS BROTHERS: THE 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE

Will Ferrell
LAND OF THE LOST

Steve Martin
PINK PANTHER 2

Eddie Murphy
IMAGINE THAT

John Travolta
OLD DOGS

Worst Actress of 2009

Beyonce
OBSESSED

Sandra Bullock
ALL ABOUT STEVE

Mylie Cyrus
HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE

Megan Fox
JENNIFER’s BODY and TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

Sarah Jessica Parker
DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE MORGANS?

Worst Supporting Actor of 2009

Billy Ray Cyrus
HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE

Hugh Hefner (as Himself)
MISS MARCH

Robert Pattinson
TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON

Jorma Taccone (as Cha-Ka)
LAND OF THE LOST

Marlon Wayans
G.I. JOE

Worst Supporting Actress of 2009

Candice Bergen
BRIDE WARS

Ali Larter
OBSESSED

Sienna Miller
G.I. JOE

Kelly Preston
OLD DOGS

Julie White (as Mom)
TRANNIES, TOO

Worst Screen Couple of 2009

Any Two (or More) Jonas Brothers
THE JONAS BROTHERS 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE

Sandra Bullock & Bradley Cooper
ALL ABOUT STEVE

Will Ferrell & Any Co-Star, Creature or “Comic Riff”
LAND OF THE LOST

Shia LaBeouf & EITHER Megan Fox OR Any Transformer
TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

Kristen Stewart & EITHER Robert Pattinson OR Taylor Whatz-His-Fang
TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON

Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel (Combined Category for 2009)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Land of The Lost

Pink Panther 2
(A Rip-Off of a Sequel to a Remake)

Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen

Twilight Saga: New Moon

Worst Director of 2009

Michael Bay
TRANNIES, TOO

Walt Becker
OLD DOGS

Brad Silberling
LAND OF THE LOST

Stephen Sommers
G.I. JOE

Phil Traill
ALL ABOUT STEVE

Worst Screenplay of 2009

All About Steve
Screenplay by Kim Barker

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Screenplay by Stuart Beattie and David Elliot & Paul Lovett
Based on Hasbro’s G.I. JOE® Characters.

Land of The Lost
Written by Chris Henchy & Dennis McNicholas
Based on Sid & Marty Krofft’s TV Series

Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen
Written by Ehren Kruger & Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman
Based on Hasbro’s Transformers Action Figures

Twilight Saga: New Moon
Screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg
Based on the Novel by Stephenie Meyer

Worst Picture of the Decade
(Three Special 30th Razzie-Versary Awardz)
(Special Category!)

Battlefield Earth (2000)
Nominated for 10 RAZZIES® / “Winner” of 8
(Including Worst Drama of Our First 25 Yrs)

Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
Nominated for 9 RAZZIES® / “Winner” of 5

Gigli (2003)
Nominated for 10 RAZZIES® / “Winner” of 7
(Including Worst Comedy of Our First 25 Yrs)

I Know Who Killed Me (2007)
Nominated for 9 RAZZIES® / “Winner” of 8

Swept Away (2002)
Nominated for 9 RAZZIES® / “Winner” of 5

Worst Actor of the Decade

Ben Affleck
Nominated for 9 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 2 RAZZIES®
DAREDEVIL, GIGLI, JERSEY GIRL, PAYCHECK, PEARL HARBOR, SURVIVING CHRISTMAS

Eddie Murphy
Nominated for 12 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 3 RAZZIES®
ADVENTURES of PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT, MEET DAVE, NORBIT, SHOWTIME

Mike Myers
Nominated for 4 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 2 RAZZIES®
CAT IN THE HAT, THE LOVE GURU

Rob Schneider
Nominated for 6 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 1 RAZZIE®
THE ANIMAL, BENCHWARMERS, DEUCE BIGALO: EUROPEAN GIGOLO, GRANDMA’s BOY, THE HOT CHICK, I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK & LARRY, LITTLE MAN, LITTLE NICKY

John Travolta
Nominated for 6 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 3 RAZZIES®
BATTLEFIELD EARTH, DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE, LUCKY NUMBERS, OLD DOGS, SWORDFISH

Worst Actress of the Decade

Mariah Carey
The Single Biggest Individual Vote Getter of the Decade:
70+% of ALL Votes for Worst Actress of 2001
GLITTER

Paris Hilton
Nominated for 5 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 4 RAZZIES®
THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE of WHACKS, REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA

Lindsay Lohan
Nominated for 5 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 3 RAZZIES®
HERBIE FULLY LOADED, I KNOW WHO KILLED ME, JUST MY LUCK

Jennifer Lopez
Nominated for 9 “Achievements,” “Winner” of 2 RAZZIES®
ANGEL EYES, ENOUGH, GIGLI, JERSEY GIRL, MAID IN MANHATTAN, MONSTER-IN-LAW, THE WEDDING PLANNER

Madonna
Nominated for 6 “Achievements,”“Winner” of 4 RAZZIES®
DIE ANOTHER DAY, THE NEXT BEST THING, SWEPT AWAY
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 01, 2010, 12:03:36 PM
I love how it is called Trannies Too. That would actually be a good movie!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on February 01, 2010, 12:22:31 PM
Gotta love the Razzies.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 01, 2010, 02:42:28 PM
Gotta love the Razzies.

I don't.  They're still pretending Freddy Got Fingered is an awful movie?  Guess they still haven't seen it.  Jerks.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 01, 2010, 02:47:34 PM
Land of the Lost will have its day.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 01, 2010, 02:52:12 PM
Gotta love the Razzies.

I don't.  They're still pretending Freddy Got Fingered is an awful movie?  Guess they still haven't seen it.  Jerks.

pixote

It is worse than Stealing Harvard
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 01, 2010, 03:02:18 PM
Land of the Lost will have its day.

its worse than Year One
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: THATguy on February 01, 2010, 04:24:28 PM
Yeah, Cera was robbed of his Razzie nom. Between his awful work in Year One and his awful work in Paper Heart, he deserved recognition.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on February 01, 2010, 04:27:34 PM
Yeah, Cera was robbed of his Razzie nom. Between his awful work in Year One and his awful work in Paper Heart, he deserved recognition.
Something meatwad this way comes...
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 01, 2010, 04:30:14 PM
Yeah, Cera was robbed of his Razzie nom. Between his awful work in Year One and his awful work in Paper Heart, he deserved recognition.

dont forget his laughably bad turn as 'evil' in Youth in Revolt.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 01, 2010, 04:32:32 PM
Oh come on!! Year One was hardly Cera's fault, and his work in Paper Heart was just fine.

And don't you start on Youth in Revolt, cloverman!


Michael Cera is the greatest comedic actor of all time.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: THATguy on February 01, 2010, 04:36:54 PM
Ok FLY. He was like 10th best on the best project he ever lucked into.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 01, 2010, 06:32:44 PM
You people are so wrong. His best role so far has either been in Paper Heart, where he wonderfully plays the public perception of Michael Cera to further advance the film's choice to revel in a world between the real and the imagined, or in Youth in Revolt where he shows the range all the critics say he doesn't have and manages to further refine his unique brand of comedy, a quiet and laid back sensibility that, until he burst on to the scene, was nearly unheard of even in regard to guys who generally spend careers playing the straight man. He paved the way for smart, convention defying comedy in a wasteland that had been plagued, and in many ways still is, by the notion that the person who curses the loudest and is the most in your face is automatically hysterical. Also, the ladies love Cera, and he has the biggest stamp of approval anyone can hope for, the okay from the Jersey Shore

(http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20100105/425.cera.michael.jerseyshore.lc.010510.jpg)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 01, 2010, 06:50:52 PM
Yeah, Cera was robbed of his Razzie nom. Between his awful work in Year One and his awful work in Paper Heart, he deserved recognition.

dont forget his laughably bad turn as 'evil' in Youth in Revolt.

2010 dude, 2010
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 01, 2010, 06:54:02 PM

Michael Cera is the greatest comedic actor of all time.

You need to get to rehab quick, your brain is just about completely melted.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 01, 2010, 06:56:39 PM
Michael Cera is the greatest comedic actor of all time, it is a claim I have made on many occasions, it's good to see more people catching on. You want a Reelists article, there's a topic I could get a ton out of. I should get on that one. Time is my vindicator!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 01, 2010, 07:00:36 PM

Michael Cera is the greatest comedic actor of all time.

You need to get to rehab quick, your brain is just about completely melted.

Nah. I just felt like imitating FLY for a bit.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 01, 2010, 07:02:20 PM
It's always good to aspire to greatness.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 01, 2010, 07:09:44 PM
It's always good to aspire to greatmadness.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 01, 2010, 07:10:24 PM
It's always good to aspire to greatmadnessparta.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 01, 2010, 07:11:56 PM

It's always good to aspire to greatmadnessparta.

Jerk. That's my thing!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 01, 2010, 07:15:01 PM
I usually just aspire to Gerald Butler.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 01, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
I usually just aspire to Gerald Butler.

yr gonna have to get ripped in 4 weeks then


It's always good to aspire to greatmadnessparta.

Jerk. That's my thing!

pfft, you don't own it.  quit bein jello.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 01, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
I take copious amounts of steriods daily. Unfortunately the only exercise I get is walking to campus and back so I've mostly just become a sack of meat.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Basil on February 02, 2010, 01:08:13 AM
Good job ABC? (http://movieblog.iheartmovies.com/2010/02/02/list-of-rumored-leaked-abc-oscar-nominations/)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 01:18:44 AM
Good job ABC? (http://movieblog.iheartmovies.com/2010/02/02/list-of-rumored-leaked-abc-oscar-nominations/)

It's Complicated and The Hangover? I'll believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Basil on February 02, 2010, 02:07:24 AM
Probably fake, but still weird. I was surprised when my own search produced the same suspicious results.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: THATguy on February 02, 2010, 07:47:39 AM
YAY: A SERIOUS MAN
BOO: THE CINECAST!ING BLIND SIDE
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 07:50:32 AM
I'm pretty sure Morgan Freeman just robbed someone of a nomination, I just can't remember who.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
In The Loop getting a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination is a pleasent surprise. As is A Serious Man getting a Best Pic nomination.

Everything else is boring.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 08:03:04 AM

BEST PICTURE:
Avatar (20th Century Fox)
The Blind Side (Warner Bros.)
District 9 (Sony)
An Education (Sony Classics)
The Hurt Locker (Summit)
Inglourious Basterds (Weinstein Co.)
Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (Lionsgate)
A Serious Man (Focus Features)
Up (Disney/Pixar Animation)
Up in the Air (Paramount)

DIRECTING:
Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker (Summit)
James Cameron - Avatar (20th Century Fox)
Lee Daniels - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (Lionsgate)
Jason Reitman - Up in the Air (Paramount)
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds (Weinstein Co.)

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart (Fox Searchlight)
George Clooney - Up in the Air (Paramount)
Colin Firth - A Single Man (Weinstein Co.)
Morgan Freeman - Invictus (Warner Bros.)
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker (Summit)

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE:
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side (Warner Bros.)
Helen Mirren - The Last Station (Sony Pictures Classics)
Carey Mulligan - An Education (Sony Classics)
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (Lionsgate)
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia (Sony)

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
Matt Damon - Invictus (Warner Bros.)
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger (Oscilloscope Pictures)
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station (Sony Pictures Classics)
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones (Paramount)
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds (Weinstein Co.)

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
Penelope Cruz - Nine (Weinstein Co.)
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air (Paramount)
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart (Fox Searchlight)
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air (Paramount)
Mo'Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (Lionsgate)

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
Neill Blomkamp and - District 9 (Sony)
Nick Hornby - An Education (Sony Classics)
Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci and Tony Roche - In the Loop (IFC Films)
Geoffrey Fletcher - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (Lionsgate)
Jason Reitman - Up in the Air (Paramount)

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
Mark Boal - The Hurt Locker (Summit)
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds (Weinstein Co.)
Oren Moverman and - The Messenger (Oscilloscope Pictures)
Joel and Ethan Coen - A Serious Man (Focus Features)
Pete Docter and Bob Peterson - Up (Disney/Pixar)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
Ajami (Kino International) - Israel
El Secreto de sus Ojos - Argentina
The Milk of Sorrow
Une Prophéte (Sony Pictures Classics) - France
The White Ribbon (Sony Pictures Classics) - Germany

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:
Coraline (Focus Features)
Fantastic Mr. Fox (Fox Searchlight)
The Princess and the Frog (Disney Pictures)
The Secret of the Kells
Up (Disney/Pixar)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 08:11:39 AM
Not one nomination for Moon *sigh*

District 9 was also mostly ignored.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: THATguy on February 02, 2010, 08:15:20 AM
Thanks to Sony Pictures Classic for fully not giving a CINECAST!.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Hal Warren on February 02, 2010, 08:21:41 AM
Not one nomination for Moon *sigh*

District 9 was also mostly ignored.

Mostly ignored? It got best pic and best adapted screenplay nominations, neither of which it deserved, to go along with a few technical nominations. What else could it have gotten?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 02, 2010, 08:25:22 AM
Everything else is boring.

I guess, but I'm happy with it. 4 Movies from my top ten got best pic nods and 2 other nominees are movies I also really like. So, I'm happy. I'd be ecstatic if it wasn't for the CINECAST!ing Blind Side.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 08:42:05 AM
Not one nomination for Moon *sigh*

District 9 was also mostly ignored.

Mostly ignored? It got best pic and best adapted screenplay nominations, neither of which it deserved, to go along with a few technical nominations. What else could it have gotten?

Best picture has 10 nominees so it only half counts...  I really hoped it would get best director and actor nominations.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 08:45:59 AM
How many people who are saying The Blind Side doesn't deserve to be there have actually seen the film?

Also, Rockwell is who was robbed of a nomination by Freeman, likely, Tequila.

In the prefect world there would still be 5 nominees and the 5 most deserving films (Avatar, Basterds, Up in the Air, A Serious Man, and Hurt Locker) would have been nominated. Instead we get those great and good films alongside utter shit like District 9, An Education, and Up. Though even if The Blind Side sucks there are still 6 good films to 4 terrible films, so I guess the system works mostly. Seriously though, those three films being recognized for anything other than mediocrity is a travesty. Obvi Avatar deserves to win, A Serious Man or Up in the Air should win, and Inglorious Basterds, The Hurt Locker, and Precious should be forgotten. The others deserve no love from anyone as they are all worse than Hannah Montana: The Movie, and likely are all worse than Hotel for Dogs as well.

Way cool to see In the Loop nominated, hope that can score a win.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 08:50:32 AM
Kinda funny how Best Supporting Actor transformed into Best Villain category.  Chigurh, Joker, and now probably Landa (not bashing any of the performances).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 02, 2010, 08:52:02 AM
Kinda funny how Best Supporting Actor transformed into Best Villain category.  Chigurh, Joker, and now probably Landa (not bashing any of the performances).

There just haven't been many great, small "good guy" roles lately. Not that I can think of anyway.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 02, 2010, 08:53:30 AM
Pretty boring but if it hadn't been for the 10 noms A Serious Man probably wouldn't have been nominated.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 08:53:48 AM
Also, nominating Up for Best Screenplay is about equivalent to nominating Princess and the Frog for that category, because both of the scripts in those films are terrible. Hell, Avatar is more deserving of a script nomination than those films. FMF should have that Best Picture nomination. Anderson got robbed!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 02, 2010, 09:10:46 AM
I think I'm just going to ignore FLY's comments on this thread today rather than take the bait.

FYI
Nicest Surprise... DISTRICT 9 for Best Picture
Biggest Disappointment... No Sam Rockwell
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 02, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
FMF should have that Best Picture nomination. Anderson got robbed!

There was never any chance, but I agree.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 09:12:49 AM
The nicest surprise is In the Loop being recognized for anything. The biggest disappointment is that Peter Cappaldi didn't get nominated. Additionally, should I be doing all in my power to see The Last Station?

FMF should have that Best Picture nomination. Anderson got robbed!

There was never any chance, but I agree.

Best Director of 2009
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 02, 2010, 09:17:14 AM
Hey FLY, did you see the Razzie nominees? It's like the Oscars made just for you!

yes, he did (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=6976.msg400757#msg400757)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 09:20:01 AM
Yeah, it's a load of crap. It's a ton of unwarranted hate on everything that is trendy to bash. How original. Especially when Miley is CINECAST!ing great in Hannah Montana: The Movie. She's like Michael Cera in Youth in Revolt except not as good. Also, how are any of the JoBros considered actors in a CINECAST!ing concert film? They do a poor job acting as themselves being documented? The Razzies are so stupid.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 09:32:34 AM
I refuse to acknowledge the troll in the room, and I don't care that much, but I will say I'm surprised Ponyo wasn't nominated for best animated.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 02, 2010, 09:38:45 AM
Do nominees actually show up to the razzies?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 09:43:44 AM
Do nominees actually show up to the razzies?

Sometimes, I remember people making a big deal out of Halle Berry showing up to accept her Razzie for Catwoman.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 10:48:08 AM
Not one nomination for Moon *sigh*

District 9 was also mostly ignored.

Mostly ignored? It got best pic and best adapted screenplay nominations, neither of which it deserved, to go along with a few technical nominations. What else could it have gotten?

Seriously. Though I do kind of love that the film is nominated. I don't know the politics of it, but it shows me that the Academy is finally starting to open up to that sort of film. Almost ALMOST redeems them for not having The Dark Knight on there. Though, honestly, I would have far preferred Star Trek on the list over District 9. But think about it this way: when was the last time the Oscars honoured a film that prominently featured people's head exploding?

And for everybody cheering about In the Loop being nominated for screenplay. It's all nice, but the Oscars give a screenplay nod to that sort of film every year. I completely expected it. Last year the nomination was for In Bruges. No chance of winning, just a nice nod of recognition.

Ans while The Blind Side being nominated is utter bullcrap, I think it's also a sign of the politics of this year's Oscars. The push is to be more audience-friendly, and what better way than including a film for everyone (Avatar), a film for the middle-aged women and southerners (The Blind Side), and a film for the action lovers and total geeks (District 9). Could you imagine if all of those very successful films were beat out by The Hurt Locker? It would be a dream come true. It would leave just about the entire audience yelling at the screen because they haven't seen the movie, but it would maybe prompt a lot more of them to check it out it.

Finally, the small notes: The Most Dangerous Man in America being nominated for Best Documentary Feature is very nice to see. The Secret of Kells is funny to see on the animated features list. I have heard it was good, but I'm surprised it beat out some other contenders. My favourite nomination has to be Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for Best Cinematography. VINDICATION! The cinematography in that film is stunning. Unfortunately they went with Avatar in that category over something better, like Lens Flare: The Movie, perhaps.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 10:52:37 AM
Not one nomination for Moon *sigh*

District 9 was also mostly ignored.

Mostly ignored? It got best pic and best adapted screenplay nominations, neither of which it deserved, to go along with a few technical nominations. What else could it have gotten?

 when was the last time the Oscars honoured a film that prominently featured people's head exploding?


 Funny enough, you answered that in your own post.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 10:56:58 AM
Not one nomination for Moon *sigh*

District 9 was also mostly ignored.

Mostly ignored? It got best pic and best adapted screenplay nominations, neither of which it deserved, to go along with a few technical nominations. What else could it have gotten?

 when was the last time the Oscars honoured a film that prominently featured people's head exploding?


 Funny enough, you answered that in your own post.

Hahahaha. I forgot about the head explosion in In Bruges. I suppose that's true, but I think you know what I meant.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
It would benefit no one if The Hurt Locker beat out the more deserving films.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Wilson on February 02, 2010, 11:01:58 AM

Ans while The Blind Side being nominated is utter bullcrap, I think it's also a sign of the politics of this year's Oscars. The push is to be more audience-friendly, and what better way than including a film for everyone (Avatar), a film for the middle-aged women and southerners (The Blind Side), and a film for the action lovers and total geeks (District 9). Could you imagine if all of those very successful films were beat out by The Hurt Locker? It would be a dream come true. It would leave just about the entire audience yelling at the screen because they haven't seen the movie, but it would maybe prompt a lot more of them to check it out it.


Eh, surely it's going to be more of a surprise if The Hurt Locker doesn't win?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on February 02, 2010, 11:09:04 AM
The Hurt Locker featured prominantly in my Filmspot ballot (perhaps helped by seeing it again the night before) and I'm glad to see Renner get a nom. What I'm not so happy about is the lack of anything for WTWTA. Max Records surely deserves some kind of something. Let's hope we fix that.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 02, 2010, 11:19:58 AM
I think I'm most disappointed that Bright Star didn't get a cinematography nomination.

Don't know if that's because I'm OK with the rest, or my expectations were just really low.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on February 02, 2010, 11:20:12 AM
I just don't understand why A Serious Man was nominated (deservedly) for Best Picture and then basically ignored in every other category. Also if Christoph Waltz doesn't win, I'm done with movies.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: edgar00 on February 02, 2010, 11:23:55 AM
I just don't understand why A Serious Man was nominated (deservedly) for Best Picture and then basically ignored in every other category. Also if Christoph Waltz doesn't win, I'm done with movies.



I'm sure you mean that if Christoph Waltz doesn't win, you'll be done with award shows, not movies. I would feel very sad for you if that were the case.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 02, 2010, 11:24:17 AM
I just don't understand why A Serious Man was nominated (deservedly) for Best Picture and then basically ignored in every other category.

The only other place it really had a shot was Best Actor (other than screenplay, which it got).  It just wasn't flashy enough in any of the technical categories, and Actor was stacked this year with longtime Academy favorites.    Even Christopher Plummer didn't get a nomination.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 02, 2010, 11:27:16 AM
Even Christopher Plummer didn't get a nomination.

Best Supporting Actor, actually. I've never heard of the movie.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 11:27:24 AM
It would benefit no one if The Hurt Locker beat out the more deserving films.

Less deserving films often eek out wins at the Oscars. So I try and make the best of it by saying this: in a fight between Avatar and The Hurt Locker, The Hurt Locker easily deserves to win.


Ans while The Blind Side being nominated is utter bullcrap, I think it's also a sign of the politics of this year's Oscars. The push is to be more audience-friendly, and what better way than including a film for everyone (Avatar), a film for the middle-aged women and southerners (The Blind Side), and a film for the action lovers and total geeks (District 9). Could you imagine if all of those very successful films were beat out by The Hurt Locker? It would be a dream come true. It would leave just about the entire audience yelling at the screen because they haven't seen the movie, but it would maybe prompt a lot more of them to check it out it.


Eh, surely it's going to be more of a surprise if The Hurt Locker doesn't win?

Do not count out Avatar.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 11:28:23 AM
I think the answer to that (and some of the questions regarding District 9 or The Blind Side) may be that it's now a ten nominee-category and they needed something to fill it up.
I also liked how The Hollywood Reporter had to point out that, surprisingly, only five of the Best Pictures nominees got a nod for Directing too.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on February 02, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
I just don't understand why A Serious Man was nominated (deservedly) for Best Picture and then basically ignored in every other category. Also if Christoph Waltz doesn't win, I'm done with movies.



I'm sure you mean that if Christoph Waltz doesn't win, you'll be done with award shows, not movies. I would feel very sad for you if that were the case.

Well yeah. I just haven't felt this strongly about a nomination ever before.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 11:34:13 AM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 02, 2010, 11:36:22 AM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.

Wow, that's offensive.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 11:37:19 AM
Has everyone who is posting that Avatar will win/was nominated simply because it's a crowd pleaser stopped to think about all of the people, both casual and hardcore, who legitimately loved the film and that if it does win it will be because a number of voters fall into that camp? Don't like the film all you want, but all of this, "Anything involving Avatar and the Oscars=fan service" talk is becoming very, very annoying.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 11:39:07 AM
If Avatar wins Best Picture is will be so LOL bad as to make the Oscars a laughing stock.

The biggest travesty is Fantastic Mr Fox is not going to win anything! Stupid Up.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 11:42:22 AM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.

If Cameron winning Best Director is because of his pushing forward film technology then he should simply win some sort of achievement award. His direction is ultimately the sum of the film's parts, and the film does not work on a number of levels, many of which have to do with Cameron's directing. The worst offense, in my opinion, is his totally masturbatory slow motion shots. The Hurt Locker uses slow motion in a new and relevant way, but Cameron puts them in Avatar just to jack off on audiences' faces. It's a small thing, but it's an example of how Cameron innovates with technology but does little interesting with it.

Also, I would argue that the work Peter Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings trilogy pushed film technology much further than Avatar did. The only difference is that Jackson built the technology into the fabric of his film so that it isn't the most noticeably important part, whereas Cameron felt the need to make a movie where the only thing about it worth seeing is the technology.


If Avatar wins Best Picture is will be so LOL bad as to make the Oscars a laughing stock.

The biggest travesty is Fantastic Mr Fox is not going to win anything! Stupid Up.

I hate you a lot sometimes.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 11:43:36 AM
If Avatar wins Best Picture is will be so LOL bad as to make the Oscars a laughing stock.

Sigh, and somewhere someone is saying the same thing about The Hurt Locker. Statements like this aren't helpful in any way and certainly don't add anything to the discussion.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 11:44:42 AM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.

Wow, that's offensive.

No its not, everyone is saying it.  Heck,  Hurt Locker is my #1 movie of the year, but the Academy likes to "make history" (several decades after the actual history has been made).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 11:45:44 AM





The biggest travesty is Fantastic Mr Fox is not going to win anything! Stupid Up.

I hate you a lot sometimes.

Up was fun enough but Fox was so great it's sad it has no chance.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
I'm excited.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 11:50:20 AM
No, it doesn't. As I said, Avatar should be recognized over The Hurt Locker for numerous reasons, the obvious being the accomplishment and mark it has already left on cinema and movie making in general. Aside from pioneering a new form of technology and mostly knocking it out of the park with his first go around, Cameron also crafts a film that makes going to the cinema worthwhile, he delivers an experience. On top of that the film is pretty good on its own, but as a whole it is certainly the nominee most deserving of recognition. Rarely in recent memory has Best Picture meant anything close to being the actual best film released, it's too subjective of a word to have a clearly defined winner. Instead, awarding Avatar, a better film than The Hurt Locker anyhow, recognition as Best Picture because of the entire product, the cultural influence, the technological leaps and bounds, the creativity on display, and the technical prowess, as well as the unlike any other experience one can have at a theater is much more justified than tossing an award to Bigelow for having good editors and making a film that, after the Iraq conflict passes and politics calm down, will be possibly recalled as a footnote in cinema. Plus The Hurt Locker just isn't that great.

Though you may, once again, be trying to make a case that The Hurt Locker is somehow more deserving of an audience than any other film nominated, which is, as I have said and explained before, a completely ludicrous statement backed by flimsy logic.

Also, neither Cameron nro Bigelow deserve Best Director, but if one is to win then it should be Cameron.

Additionally, Clovis is on the mark about FMF, it's a damn shame what's going to happen to that brilliant piece of film-making.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 11:52:31 AM





The biggest travesty is Fantastic Mr Fox is not going to win anything! Stupid Up.

I hate you a lot sometimes.

Up was fun enough but Fox was so great it's sad it has no chance.


That is how I felt with Waltz with Bashir and Sita losing out to WALL-E.  Just rename it the Pixar Category and be done with it.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 11:53:04 AM
the accomplishment and mark it has already left on cinema and movie making in general

This is totally a Clovis8 argument, so I'm sure he'll agree with you.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 11:53:11 AM
The low point has to be best supporting actress. There are no great performances in it all. It's like a whole category of Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: edgar00 on February 02, 2010, 11:53:56 AM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.

Wow, that's offensive.

No its not, everyone is saying it.  Heck,  Hurt Locker is my #1 movie of the year, but the Academy likes to "make history" (several decades after the actual history has been made).

So a lot of people saying something doesn't make the 'something' in question offensive?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 02, 2010, 11:54:16 AM
If Avatar wins Best Picture is will be so LOL bad as to make the Oscars a laughing stock.

The biggest travesty is Fantastic Mr Fox is not going to win anything! Stupid Up.

I know we're good friends because even after saying all this I still like you.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 02, 2010, 11:54:47 AM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.

Wow, that's offensive.

No its not, everyone is saying it.  Heck,  Hurt Locker is my #1 movie of the year, but the Academy likes to "make history" (several decades after the actual history has been made).

Oh okay, you are right.  I'm not offended after all.  I mean, everyone is saying it.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 11:55:16 AM
the accomplishment and mark it has already left on cinema and movie making in general

This is totally a Clovis8 argument, so I'm sure he'll agree with you.

pixote

It is my kind of argument, however, it in no way applies to Avatar which will be roundly forgotten on all best of list and most important film lists 20 years from now. It's legacy will be purely technical and financial. Not artistic.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 11:55:23 AM
The biggest travesty is Fantastic Mr Fox is not going to win anything! Stupid Up.
I hate you a lot sometimes.
Up was fun enough but Fox was so great it's sad it has no chance.

I really think the love for Fantastic Mr.. Fox will be lower when the charm wears off. It's a great film, but it isn't the best animated film of the year. Up is an absolutely magical, emotional ride of a film that I can see living on as a classic. Fantastic Mr. Fox, while excellent, will live on as one of those "Oh man, it's such a great little movie." "Never heard of it." "Oh dude, you have to see it." type of movies.

Then again, last year everyone here was over the moon for Wall-E and I'm the one that had to bring it back to reality. Looking back, do all of you think that it was the best film of the year? I hope not.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 11:55:40 AM
the accomplishment and mark it has already left on cinema and movie making in general

This is totally a Clovis8 argument, so I'm sure he'll agree with you.

pixote

That's true. Though it has already started to leave a mark on the way blockbusters are being made. It has shown that 3-D is a viable box office grab and has made Warner Bros commit to going full on 3-D for the next two Harry Potter films. I am being a bit hyperbolic in my claim there, but it has certainly had an immediate impact on the way films are being made.

The low point has to be best supporting actress. There are no great performances in it all. It's like a whole category of Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny.

Penelope CINECAST!ing Cruz!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 11:57:01 AM
I always think that voting in the Filmspots will make people less likely to essentialize what "the Academy" wants and is doing with their votes, as if they all got together in a room and hashed out the nominees and winners with respect towards public relations, history, ratings, etc.

I'm always wrong.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 02, 2010, 11:57:12 AM
Even Christopher Plummer didn't get a nomination.

Best Supporting Actor, actually. I've never heard of the movie.

Huh.  How about that.

I'll never understand the Lead/Supporting distinction.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 11:58:36 AM
I'm the one that had to bring it back to reality

Hahahahahaha.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 11:59:05 AM
the accomplishment and mark it has already left on cinema and movie making in general

This is totally a Clovis8 argument, so I'm sure he'll agree with you.

pixote

It is my kind of argument, however, it is not way applies to Avatar which will be roundly forgotten on all best of list and most important film lists 20 years from now. It's legacy will be purely technical and financial. Not artistic.

It's so nice to know that I need not worry about the future because I have you here to tell me with authority what will definitively happen. Especially in cinema, I mean, it's not like you've been wrong countless times in the past, nor is it in any way the case that almost every film Cameron has ever made is still remembered and thought of very highly years after their respective releases. I'm so happy that you are so correct on Avatar, so so happy to read that.  ::)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 12:00:10 PM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.

Wow, that's offensive.

No its not, everyone is saying it.  Heck,  Hurt Locker is my #1 movie of the year, but the Academy likes to "make history" (several decades after the actual history has been made).

So a lot of people saying something doesn't make the 'something' in question offensive?

Not when its true.  Its offensive that the Academy considers gender/race/politics etc. when making award decisions, but it shouldn't be offensive to point out that fact.  
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 02, 2010, 12:00:24 PM
I always think that voting in the Filmspots will make people less likely to essentialize what "the Academy" wants and is doing with their votes, as if they all got together in a room and hashed out the nominees and winners with respect towards public relations, history, ratings, etc.

I'm always wrong.

pixote


I've re-read this several times and I still can figure out what you are saying here.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 02, 2010, 12:00:29 PM
That is how I felt with Waltz with Bashir and Sita losing out to WALL-E.  Just rename it the Pixar Category and be done with it.
I really liked Waltz With Bashir and Mr. Fox.  But in general there's a wide gap between the level of quality entertainment Pixar delivers tme after time and the 2nd best animated film of the year.

Let's not forget that Spirited Away and Wallace & Gromit have also won this award.

The Pixar streak will be broken with Cars 2.  I have very little doubt of that.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 02, 2010, 12:02:43 PM
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 12:02:56 PM
Has Wes Anderson committed to a next project yet? I'm way interested to see what he'll do to follow up FMF.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 02, 2010, 12:03:34 PM
Then again, last year everyone here was over the moon for Wall-E and I'm the one that had to bring it back to reality. Looking back, do all of you think that it was the best film of the year?

I thought Milk was the best film of the year.  Wall-E was 2nd.  Waltz With Bashir was 3rd.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 12:03:57 PM
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Likely, it's way trendy to bash those names and with all the pandering to the crowds there could be little risk of associating with such brands that produce so much unwarranted hate.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 12:04:17 PM
That is how I felt with Waltz with Bashir and Sita losing out to WALL-E.  Just rename it the Pixar Category and be done with it.
I really liked Waltz With Bashir and Mr. Fox.  But in general there's a wide gap between the level of quality entertainment Pixar delivers tme after time and the 2nd best animated film of the year.

Let's not forget that Spirited Away and Wallace & Gromit have also won this award.

The Pixar streak will be broken with Cars 2.  I have very little doubt of that.

The first 30 minutes of Up are far superior to anything in Fox, the rest is not even close to Fox.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 12:04:52 PM
I always think that voting in the Filmspots will make people less likely to essentialize what "the Academy" wants and is doing with their votes, as if they all got together in a room and hashed out the nominees and winners with respect towards public relations, history, ratings, etc.

The academy is highly politicized and always has been.  They prove it over and over again every year.  When you have a bunch of people with very similar politics, financial interests, and social outlook, they don't need to gather together in a torchlit basement.    
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 12:05:36 PM
That is how I felt with Waltz with Bashir and Sita losing out to WALL-E.  Just rename it the Pixar Category and be done with it.
I really liked Waltz With Bashir and Mr. Fox.  But in general there's a wide gap between the level of quality entertainment Pixar delivers tme after time and the 2nd best animated film of the year.

Let's not forget that Spirited Away and Wallace & Gromit have also won this award.

The Pixar streak will be broken with Cars 2.  I have very little doubt of that.

The first 30 minutes of Up are far superior to anything in Fox, the rest is not even close to Fox.

That is a fallacy.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 12:05:59 PM
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Maybe, I'm not sure. Usually Miyazaki's name is good enough for consideration alone, and the movie did get positive reviews almost across the board. It's especially shocking that in a year where they actually nominate five films Ponyo didn't make the cut.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 12:06:34 PM
That is how I felt with Waltz with Bashir and Sita losing out to WALL-E.  Just rename it the Pixar Category and be done with it.
I really liked Waltz With Bashir and Mr. Fox.  But in general there's a wide gap between the level of quality entertainment Pixar delivers tme after time and the 2nd best animated film of the year.

Let's not forget that Spirited Away and Wallace & Gromit have also won this award.

The Pixar streak will be broken with Cars 2.  I have very little doubt of that.

Though both those movies won in years with no Pixar. But Pixar has lost twice. Shrek beat Monsters Inc. and the insufferable Happy Feet beat Cars.

Also, I will be waiting to see Cars 2 before I reserve judgment. I have grown to really love Cars due to the wonderful characters and beautiful visuals, and I can definitely see a sequel being good so long as the story is halfway decent and the characters are not screwed up.


I'm the one that had to bring it back to reality
Hahahahahaha.

pixote

I hope you are laughing in acknowledgment.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 02, 2010, 12:07:43 PM
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Maybe, I'm not sure. Usually Miyazaki's name is good enough for consideration alone, and the movie did get positive reviews almost across the board. It's especially shocking that in a year where they actually nominate five films Ponyo didn't make the cut.

It's a bad year for foreign film noms all-around.  Is White Ribbon's cinematography nomination the only one?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 12:10:45 PM
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Maybe, I'm not sure. Usually Miyazaki's name is good enough for consideration alone, and the movie did get positive reviews almost across the board. It's especially shocking that in a year where they actually nominate five films Ponyo didn't make the cut.

It's a bad year for foreign film noms all-around.  Is White Ribbon's cinematography nomination the only one?

I can't recall seeing any others.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 12:11:06 PM
I always think that voting in the Filmspots will make people less likely to essentialize what "the Academy" wants and is doing with their votes, as if they all got together in a room and hashed out the nominees and winners with respect towards public relations, history, ratings, etc.

I'm always wrong.

I've re-read this several times and I still can figure out what you are saying here.

I was thinking, for example, about the idea that there was a concerted effort, by the Academy, to have a slate of Best Picture nominees that offered something for everyone.  I can't imagine that being a concern of any individual voter.  Likewise, I can't imagine a Filmspot voter being like, huh, Gomorrah was just okay, but I'm going to vote for it for Best Picture anyway because it'd be great if we had a foreign language film in the mix this year.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 02, 2010, 12:12:19 PM
Calling it now.  Best director will go to Bigalow for Hurt Locker because she is a woman, and best picture to Avatar because it a crowd pleaser and they want to be relevant.  It should be opposite though, Cameron really moved film technology forward and deserves director nod, Hurt Locker is the better movie though and deserves best picture.

Wow, that's offensive.

No its not, everyone is saying it.  Heck,  Hurt Locker is my #1 movie of the year, but the Academy likes to "make history" (several decades after the actual history has been made).


Your original post, beginning with "Calling it now," makes it sound like it's your own personal view, not  some sort of conventional wisdom.

I don't think "moving technology forward" is sufficient to deserve best director.  The best director has to produce a complete package, and while I really liked Avatar a lot, it is flawed in terms of the plot.  I haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't really comment, but your post makes it sound like Bigelow is completely undeserving and is only receiving some sort of affirmative action.  But if Hurt Locker is a better overall movie, I don't see why Best Director would be undeserved.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 12:12:30 PM
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Maybe, I'm not sure. Usually Miyazaki's name is good enough for consideration alone, and the movie did get positive reviews almost across the board. It's especially shocking that in a year where they actually nominate five films Ponyo didn't make the cut.

It's a bad year for foreign film noms all-around.  Is White Ribbon's cinematography nomination the only one?

You mean is The White Ribbon's cinematography the only cinematography nomination from a foreign film, because Cruz is in the Pedro film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 02, 2010, 12:12:42 PM
Nobody's listed the technicals yet...

Best Achievement in Cinematography
Avatar (2009): Mauro Fiore
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009): Christian Berger
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Bruno Delbonnel
The Hurt Locker (2008): Barry Ackroyd
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Robert Richardson

Best Achievement in Editing
Avatar (2009): Stephen E. Rivkin, John Refoua, James Cameron
District 9 (2009): Julian Clarke
The Hurt Locker (2008): Bob Murawski, Chris Innis
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Sally Menke
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Joe Klotz

Best Achievement in Art Direction
Avatar (2009): Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg, Kim Sinclair
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): David Warren, Anastasia Masaro, Caroline Smith
Nine (2009): John Myhre, Gordon Sim
Sherlock Holmes (2009): Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer
The Young Victoria (2009): Patrice Vermette, Maggie Gray

Best Achievement in Costume Design
Bright Star (2009): Janet Patterson
Coco avant Chanel (2009): Catherine Leterrier
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): Monique Prudhomme
Nine (2009): Colleen Atwood
The Young Victoria (2009): Sandy Powell

Best Achievement in Makeup
Il divo (2008): Aldo Signoretti, Vittorio Sodano
Star Trek (2009): Barney Burman, Mindy Hall, Joel Harlow
The Young Victoria (2009): John Henry Gordon, Jenny Shircore

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Avatar (2009): James Horner
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Alexandre Desplat
The Hurt Locker (2008): Marco Beltrami, Buck Sanders
Sherlock Holmes (2009): Hans Zimmer
Up (2009): Michael Giacchino

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Crazy Heart (2009): T-Bone Burnett, Ryan Bingham("The Weary Kind")
Faubourg 36 (2008): Reinhardt Wagner, Frank Thomas("Loin de Paname")
Nine (2009): Maury Yeston("Take It All")
The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman("Down in New Orleans")
The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman("Almost There")

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Avatar (2009): Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson, Tony Johnson
The Hurt Locker (2008): Paul N.J. Ottosson, Ray Beckett
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti, Mark Ulano
Star Trek (2009): Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson, Peter J. Devlin
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009): Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Geoffrey Patterson

Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Avatar (2009): Christopher Boyes, Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
The Hurt Locker (2008): Paul N.J. Ottosson
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Wylie Stateman
Star Trek (2009): Mark P. Stoeckinger, Alan Rankin
Up (2009): Michael Silvers, Tom Myers

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Avatar (2009): Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham, Andy Jones
District 9 (2009): Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros, Matt Aitken
Star Trek (2009): Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh, Burt Dalton

Best Documentary, Features
Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land (2008): Anders Østergaard, Lise Lense-Møller
The Cove (2009): Nominees to be determined
Food, Inc. (2008): Robert Kenner, Elise Pearlstein
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009): Judith Ehrlich, Rick Goldsmith
Which Way Home (2009): Rebecca Cammisa
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 12:13:55 PM
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Maybe, I'm not sure. Usually Miyazaki's name is good enough for consideration alone, and the movie did get positive reviews almost across the board. It's especially shocking that in a year where they actually nominate five films Ponyo didn't make the cut.

It's a bad year for foreign film noms all-around.  Is White Ribbon's cinematography nomination the only one?

Ponyo is substandard Miyazaki (standard Miyazaki is a very high bar to clear), still it should have been nominated.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 12:14:56 PM
So odd that Miley can't get a song nomination, also odd that the best song from Princess and the Frog wasn't nominated.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 12:15:47 PM
Can I just say once again how much I love Harry Potter being nominated for Cinematography? You all can suck it!


Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Maybe, I'm not sure. Usually Miyazaki's name is good enough for consideration alone, and the movie did get positive reviews almost across the board. It's especially shocking that in a year where they actually nominate five films Ponyo didn't make the cut.

It's a bad year for foreign film noms all-around.  Is White Ribbon's cinematography nomination the only one?

Ponyo is substandard Miyazaki (standard Miyazaki is a very high bar to clear), still it should have been nominated.
Shocked about Ponyo too.  Curse of Cyrus/Jonas?

Maybe, I'm not sure. Usually Miyazaki's name is good enough for consideration alone, and the movie did get positive reviews almost across the board. It's especially shocking that in a year where they actually nominate five films Ponyo didn't make the cut.

It's a bad year for foreign film noms all-around.  Is White Ribbon's cinematography nomination the only one?

Ponyo is substandard Miyazaki (standard Miyazaki is a very high bar to clear), still it should have been nominated.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs should have been there over an empirically bad film like Princess and the Frog, but Up will win anyway and that's all that matters. Though the nominations are good for something: they help to highlight certain films, like Secret of Kells that dropped under the radar. I really want to see that movie now.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 12:17:51 PM
I was SOOO hoping Trannies Too would get zero noms. Oh well, one is ok I guess. I hope it loses though.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: edgar00 on February 02, 2010, 12:18:03 PM
Nice, the Oscar nominated film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. (sound mixing)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: edgar00 on February 02, 2010, 12:20:44 PM
1 nomination for Il Divo. The makeup category. I didn't think it would get any nominations, but the fact that it did, but only 1 and in makeup of all categories has me slightly annoyed.

I thoroughly enjoyed Nine. I wouldn't mind seeing it pick up at least one of the nominations it has.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 12:22:02 PM
Your original post, beginning with "Calling it now," makes it sound like it's your own personal view, not  some sort of conventional wisdom.

I don't think "moving technology forward" is sufficient to deserve best director.  The best director has to produce a complete package, and while I really liked Avatar a lot, it is flawed in terms of the plot.  I haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't really comment, but your post makes it sound like Bigelow is completely undeserving and is only receiving some sort of affirmative action.  But if Hurt Locker is a better overall movie, I don't see why Best Director would be undeserved.

What makes a director deserving of the statue is subjective, I think Cameron is brilliant both as an innovator/pioneer and as a conventional director.  I think the weaknesses of Avatar are entirely due to a bad script, and a good but not great cast that couldn't salvage it.  I never said Bigelow is "completely undeserving" in fact Hurt Locker is the best film of the year.  But she will win atleast partly because of political considerations, as with Avatar winning BP.    
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 12:23:19 PM
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs should have been there over an empirically bad film like Princess and the Frog, but Up will win anyway and that's all that matters. Though the nominations are good for something: they help to highlight certain films, like Secret of Kells that dropped under the radar. I really want to see that movie now.

Could we avoid stuff like this, has no place in the discussion and only invalidates your opinion and makes you look foolish.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 12:23:36 PM
Nice, the Oscar nominated film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. (sound mixing)

I would give it best picture before I would give it a sound award.  That movie raped my ears.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 12:25:31 PM
Nice, the Oscar nominated film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. (sound mixing)

I would give it best picture before I would give it a sound award.  That movie raped my ears.

It is a rare case of a film with no redeeming qualities. If I had to guess I would guess it had the worst catering truck in film history. :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: edgar00 on February 02, 2010, 12:26:08 PM
Nice, the Oscar nominated film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. (sound mixing)

I would give it best picture before I would give it a sound award.  That movie raped my ears.

It is a bit of a strange nomination. I don't doubt that the filmmakers spent many working hours on that movie, but I'd say the end product confusing mish-mash of metal pieces clanking against each other.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 02, 2010, 12:26:49 PM
Renner talks about his nomination (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=26900)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 12:27:04 PM
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs should have been there over an empirically bad film like Princess and the Frog, but Up will win anyway and that's all that matters. Though the nominations are good for something: they help to highlight certain films, like Secret of Kells that dropped under the radar. I really want to see that movie now.

Could we avoid stuff like this, has no place in the discussion and only invalidates your opinion and makes you look foolish.

lol. Everyone takes these things so seriously. Do you really think I meant a statement like that? I'm just pulling a FLY for fun. Princess and the Frog is still pretty bad though.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: edgar00 on February 02, 2010, 12:29:36 PM
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs should have been there over an empirically bad film like Princess and the Frog, but Up will win anyway and that's all that matters. Though the nominations are good for something: they help to highlight certain films, like Secret of Kells that dropped under the radar. I really want to see that movie now.

Could we avoid stuff like this, has no place in the discussion and only invalidates your opinion and makes you look foolish.

lol. Everyone takes these things so seriously. Do you really think I meant a statement like that? I'm just pulling a FLY for fun. Princess and the Frog is still pretty bad though.

I can't speak for the quality of the film since I didn't see it, but man did that film ever come and go! Disney back to 2d animation. A black female character! I don't know anybody who saw it and it isn't even playing anymore. Didn't this come out in mid December or something?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 02, 2010, 12:30:53 PM
The low point has to be best supporting actress. There are no great performances in it all. It's like a whole category of Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny.
I know you didn't like either of the films, and I didn't love them either, but I'd say Mo'Nique and Farmiga are both worthy nominees.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 12:31:18 PM
It's a good film, better than most other animated films from 2009.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 12:32:13 PM
my Summary;

Biggest YAY

Tie

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE:
Carey Mulligan - An Education (Sony Classics)

BEST PICTURE:
Inglourious Basterds (Weinstein Co.)

Biggest Boo

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
Jason Reitman - Up in the Air (Paramount)

Biggest "Where the hell is that movie"

Bright Star is totally absent!

Biggest WTF!

whole supporting actress category (although I have not seen Crazy Heart)

Lock of the night

DIRECTING:
Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker (Summit)

Upset of the night: it could happen

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:
Fantastic Mr. Fox (Fox Searchlight)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 12:35:40 PM
Nice, the Oscar nominated film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. (sound mixing)

I would give it best picture before I would give it a sound award.  That movie raped my ears.

It is a rare case of a film with no redeeming qualities. If I had to guess I would guess it had the worst catering truck in film history. :D

 ;D ;D ;D

It is a bit of a strange nomination. I don't doubt that the filmmakers spent many working hours on that movie, but I'd say the end product confusing mish-mash of metal pieces clanking against each other.

I was never able to separate a component from the overall result.  You could make a sublimely filmed movie of someone taking a dump, but I still wouldn't give it best cinematography.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 12:36:01 PM
The low point has to be best supporting actress. There are no great performances in it all. It's like a whole category of Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny.
I know you didn't like either of the films, and I didn't love them either, but I'd say Mo'Nique and Farmiga are both worthy nominees.

Farmiga is the best one for sure, and I hope she wins (The "meet cute" is one of the best scenes of the whole year imo). Monique was a cartoon in that movie. I dont get the love for her performance at all.

Overall it's just such a meh category.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Jared on February 02, 2010, 12:38:58 PM
I dont get why that Tomei thing is always used as "the blunder" given the academys history in basically every category. I thought she was a lot of fun in that movie. Unlike, say, Whoopi Goldberg who won the same award for what I felt was a downright annoying performance in Ghost. ugh.

I havent seen Precious (dont really care to either...), but I thought both the supporting roles in Up in the Air were superb. Im fine with the category this year.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 02, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
Monique was a cartoon in that movie. I dont get the love for her performance at all.
I think the writing is cartoonish for sure but I think Mo'Nique, to some degree, makes it work. But I definitely see what you're saying, I had mixed feelings about the film in general.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 12:40:49 PM
Huh, didn't even know Up in the Air was an adaptation.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 12:42:09 PM
Huh, didn't even know Up in the Air was an adaptation.

What I learned today: The same author wrote the novel Thumbsucker.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs should have been there over an empirically bad film like Princess and the Frog, but Up will win anyway and that's all that matters. Though the nominations are good for something: they help to highlight certain films, like Secret of Kells that dropped under the radar. I really want to see that movie now.

Could we avoid stuff like this, has no place in the discussion and only invalidates your opinion and makes you look foolish.

lol. Everyone takes these things so seriously. Do you really think I meant a statement like that? I'm just pulling a FLY for fun. Princess and the Frog is still pretty bad though.

I don't find it funny as that type of talk, especially from FLY, is the main thing that I can't stand about these boards right now. If I can't stand it when he does it what makes you think I want it inserted in the middle of a genuine discussion?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 12:48:13 PM
Yeah, all the hyperbole is really getting on my nerves too. So is bashing other Posters, by the way.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 02, 2010, 12:48:58 PM
I dont get why that Tomei thing is always used as "the blunder" given the academys history in basically every category. I thought she was a lot of fun in that movie.
I think it's partly because of the highfalutin nature of the field that year. She beat Judy Davis, Joan Plowright, Vanessa Redgrave, and Miranda Richardson. The 'classy' vote got split and Tomei came up the middle. I of course think it's a blunder because Judy Davis is a genius.  
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 12:49:56 PM
Yeah, all the hyperbole is really getting on my nerves too. So is bashing other Posters, by the way.

It's an awards show. It's all about the hyperbole. That is the whole fun of it. :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 02, 2010, 12:51:13 PM
Huh, didn't even know Up in the Air was an adaptation.
What I learned today: The same author wrote the novel Thumbsucker.
Up in the Air could have used a new agey orthodontist.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on February 02, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
This is a funny thread. Dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Basil on February 02, 2010, 12:55:57 PM
What about the 2009 awards that ARE Filmspots! Let's talk about those.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 12:56:39 PM
What about the 2009 awards that ARE Filmspots! Let's talk about those.

But Lost is on tonight!

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 12:56:56 PM
Yeah, all the hyperbole is really getting on my nerves too. So is bashing other Posters, by the way.

It's an awards show. It's all about the hyperbole. That is the whole fun of it. :D
*sigh*
Oh look, someone just very clearly voiced his discomfort with that kind of talk. Couldn't we at least take note of that?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 02, 2010, 12:57:55 PM
I'm just pulling a FLY for fun. Princess and the Frog is still pretty bad though.

You are incorrect, sir.  And it's not even close.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: philip918 on February 02, 2010, 01:00:35 PM
Really not surprised by any of the nominations, and seeing as it's the Oscars, I'm pretty happy with the noms.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 01:01:38 PM
Really not surprised by any of the nominations, and seeing as it's the Oscars, I'm pretty happy with the noms.

I would agree overall it's not a terrible list.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 01:07:19 PM
What were people (general consensus) expecting to be nominated instead of say, The Blind Side (which I'm anxious to see).  Which Best Picture nominees don't overlap with AFI or whatever other thing has a ten picture field?

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 01:08:33 PM
What were people (general consensus) expecting to be nominated instead of say, The Blind Side (which I'm anxious to see).  Which Best Picture nominees don't overlap with AFI or whatever other thing has a ten picture field?

pixote

The Blind Side is actually a good movie, not best picture by any means but good.

The huge omission in Best Picture is Moon.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 02, 2010, 01:09:48 PM
What were people (general consensus) expecting to be nominated instead of say, The Blind Side (which I'm anxious to see).  Which Best Picture nominees don't overlap with AFI or whatever other thing has a ten picture field?

pixote

Nine? Invictus? A Single Man?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on February 02, 2010, 01:10:43 PM
What were people (general consensus) expecting to be nominated instead of say, The Blind Side (which I'm anxious to see).  Which Best Picture nominees don't overlap with AFI or whatever other thing has a ten picture field?

pixote

The Brothers Bloom, Where the Wild Things Are.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
This is the Golden Globes:

Best Motion Picture, Comedy or Musical
'(500) Days of Summer'
'The Hangover'
'It's Complicated'
'Julie & Julia'
'Nine'

Best Motion Picture, Drama
'Avatar'
'The Hurt Locker'
'Inglourious Basterds'
'Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire'
'Up in the Air'
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 01:11:59 PM
Thank god we didnt see noms for It's Complicated or The Hangover (which I liked).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: jbissell on February 02, 2010, 01:15:10 PM
Then again, last year everyone here was over the moon for Wall-E and I'm the one that had to bring it back to reality. Looking back, do all of you think that it was the best film of the year? I hope not.

It's still my favorite.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 02, 2010, 01:16:50 PM
What were people (general consensus) expecting to be nominated instead of say, The Blind Side (which I'm anxious to see).  Which Best Picture nominees don't overlap with AFI or whatever other thing has a ten picture field?
Some of these didn't have much of a shot at a best pic nomination, but here's the AFI's top ten.

Coraline
The Hangover
The Hurt Locker
The Messenger
Precious
A Serious Man
A Single Man
Sugar
Up
Up in the Air
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on February 02, 2010, 01:20:03 PM
I haven't seen any of the movies that were nominated for Best Actress. I wonder what that says about me?

I try not to get too upset about what didn't get nominated, but there's some ridiculous omissions. :D No Where the Wild Things Are at all? No Michael Stuhlbarg? No Ponyo?

Oh well. Filmspots!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 01:22:36 PM
I have only seen the first two Comedy/Dramas from the GG list but I do wish there would be at least one comedy on the Academy's list.
Or probably I just wish there would be more good comedies.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 01:22:50 PM
I figured that either A Single Man or Crazy Heart would score a Best Pic nomination instead of The Blind Side because it seemed that last year many of the nominees were not great films but three or four were huge actor vehicles, meaning the actors were mostly the only redeeming quality. Though I suppose The Blind Side fits that description, if Sandra is really that good, so it's not overly surprising since there seemed to be a concious effort to stray away from the obvious prestige pic picks.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 01:29:00 PM
I did not see near enough non-English language films this year. It's pathetic.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 02, 2010, 01:32:14 PM
I did not see near enough non-English language films this year. It's pathetic.
Moi aussi. I assume The White Ribbon and 35 Shots of Rum will get Filmspot nominations and I'm looking forward to both of those.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 01:33:26 PM
I've seen enough, though I want to see the four remaining foreign films nominated here, and 35 Shots, so that I can have an informed decision of what the deserving winner is titled.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 01:39:34 PM
I guess I was assuming that ten nominations would be enough to get (500) Days of Summer recognized.  Oh well.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 01:40:37 PM
Let us be thankful that didn't occur. But there's always Spiderman!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: jbissell on February 02, 2010, 01:42:56 PM
I did not see near enough non-English language films this year. It's pathetic.
Moi aussi. I assume The White Ribbon and 35 Shots of Rum will get Filmspot nominations and I'm looking forward to both of those.

Me either, though all the ones I did see are probably in my top 10 or 15.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: philip918 on February 02, 2010, 01:44:24 PM
What were people (general consensus) expecting to be nominated instead of say, The Blind Side (which I'm anxious to see).  Which Best Picture nominees don't overlap with AFI or whatever other thing has a ten picture field?

pixote

All the Best Picture nominees are exactly what I expected other than The Blind Side over Invictus.  

I really don't see how people get so bent out of shape each year when the Academy Awards nominate exactly the type of films they nominate every year.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: THATguy on February 02, 2010, 01:52:52 PM
Philip, you really expected A Serious Man? I'm pleased because I expected it to be "too weird" for the Academy.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on February 02, 2010, 01:53:49 PM
I guess I was assuming that ten nominations would be enough to get (500) Days of Summer recognized.  Oh well.

pixote

Yeah, I figured this and WTWTA would get in over District 9 and The Blind Side.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: CSSCHNEIDER on February 02, 2010, 01:56:25 PM
I guess I was assuming that ten nominations would be enough to get (500) Days of Summer recognized.  Oh well.

pixote

I knew it wouldn't, but I help out hope.  Philip is right, they're pretty much exactly what I thought they would be.  Blind Side getting a Best Picture Nod was surprising and annoying.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: oneaprilday on February 02, 2010, 02:16:38 PM
my Summary;

Biggest "Where the hell is that movie"

Bright Star is totally absent!
Except for costumes. (Which is deserving, if ironic, given the film's main character and how she is patronized for her needlework.) Should have got a cinematography nom and art direction nom, too, at least.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 02:40:31 PM
Reading back in this thread inforces the idea that all Oscar discussion on the internet is like that discussion scene in The Fellowship Of The Ring.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: oneaprilday on February 02, 2010, 02:43:17 PM
Reading back in this thread inforces the idea that all Oscar discussion on the internet is like that discussion scene in The Fellowship Of The Ring.
Are you hearing evil, whispering voices while we all shout our opinions at each other?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 02:44:13 PM
I always think that voting in the Filmspots will make people less likely to essentialize what "the Academy" wants and is doing with their votes, as if they all got together in a room and hashed out the nominees and winners with respect towards public relations, history, ratings, etc.

I'm always wrong.

I've re-read this several times and I still can figure out what you are saying here.

I was thinking, for example, about the idea that there was a concerted effort, by the Academy, to have a slate of Best Picture nominees that offered something for everyone.  I can't imagine that being a concern of any individual voter.  Likewise, I can't imagine a Filmspot voter being like, huh, Gomorrah was just okay, but I'm going to vote for it for Best Picture anyway because it'd be great if we had a foreign language film in the mix this year.

pixote

In other words, the Academy is not an individual entity.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 02:47:16 PM
Reading back in this thread inforces the idea that all Oscar discussion on the internet is like that discussion scene in The Fellowship Of The Ring.
Are you hearing evil, whispering voices while we all shout our opinions at each other?


"...Where The Wild Things Are...Not a single nomination.....Marketing wins these things....booooooo....."
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 03:09:36 PM
I'm still very happy with the move to ten best picture nominees.  I can't wait for the year when one of the five whose director(s) didn't get nominated ends up winning.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: winrit on February 02, 2010, 03:16:42 PM
I didn't really fall head-over-heels in love with any movies this year, so I'm not too heartbroken with the nominations.  There were several performance that grabbed me that I didn't see recognized. I'm a little sad about Sam Rockwell. That seemed like a lock. Oh and Wikus form District 9.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 03:18:44 PM
I'm still very happy with the move to ten best picture nominees.  I can't wait for the year when one of the five whose director(s) didn't get nominated ends up winning.

pixote

That would be nice, but it will never happen.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 02, 2010, 03:19:03 PM
Everyone has their own, unique opinion, so I just skipped reading the last 8 pages.

And let this day, Tuesday, February 2, 2010, be forever known as 1SO's day of rest.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 02, 2010, 03:25:36 PM
I'm still very happy with the move to ten best picture nominees.  I can't wait for the year when one of the five whose director(s) didn't get nominated ends up winning.

That would be nice, but it will never happen.

Films have won before without their directors being nominated, you know?  Additional best picture nominees doesn't make that any more or less likely.  Just cooler.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 02, 2010, 03:26:28 PM
Yeah but in these modern times the two awards go hand in hand, right?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 02, 2010, 03:29:59 PM
I'm still very happy with the move to ten best picture nominees.  I can't wait for the year when one of the five whose director(s) didn't get nominated ends up winning.

That would be nice, but it will never happen.

Films have won before without their directors being nominated, you know?  Additional best picture nominees doesn't make that any more or less likely.  Just cooler.

pixote

The Blind Side is totally gonna win this year.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tequila on February 02, 2010, 03:32:48 PM
Yeah but in these modern times the two awards go hand in hand, right?
True. Driving Miss Daisy in 1989 has been the most recent case and usually directors win too.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: petu on February 02, 2010, 03:33:05 PM
Philip, you really expected A Serious Man? I'm pleased because I expected it to be "too weird" for the Academy.
I was pretty sure that it would get in because it's kind of love/hate film, so it would end up high on many ballots. It's the films which were 6-10 on many ballots, but not in the top5, that didn't get nomination.

The only big suprise for me was The Blind Side. I thought Bullock's probable win would be as much recognition they want to show to that film, but maybe they're trying really hard to be relevant in eyes of mainstream audiences.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 02, 2010, 04:04:01 PM

  I haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't really comment, but your post makes it sound like Bigelow is completely undeserving and is only receiving some sort of affirmative action.  But if Hurt Locker is a better overall movie, I don't see why Best Director would be undeserved.

 I never said Bigelow is "completely undeserving" in fact Hurt Locker is the best film of the year.  But she will win atleast partly because of political considerations, as with Avatar winning BP.    

And I never said that you said that.  Read it again.

And you still don't seem to have a clue that to say it's the best movie of the year but she'll win because of political correctness is demeaning and offensive.

It's not like her pu**y shot the movie.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 04:06:42 PM

It's not like her pu**y shot the movie.


Colleen is the best ever. No contest!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 04:17:38 PM
Bigelow winning (if she does win) being made into a sexist polemic would be ironic considering that her film refuses to exploit the Iraq War is such a way.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: jbissell on February 02, 2010, 04:39:04 PM
It's not like her pu**y shot the movie.

If that were the case, she'd be a lock.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 02, 2010, 04:40:43 PM
That's talent.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Jared on February 02, 2010, 05:53:57 PM
I would hope Bigelow's influence toward the case for female directors is based on the movies she makes, not the awards she wins.

I love movies and enjoy watching the Oscars because I generally think its fun to spend time with the people that are responsible for them. Given how little I care about or agree with who wins however, it saddens me when people talk about these awards as anything beyond a fun little ceremony (especially when considering that votes often do seem to be for political reasons, make up calls, or some other stupid sh_t like that). let the movies themselves change the landscape of cinema, not the awards that are bestowed on them.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 06:04:10 PM
And you still don't seem to have a clue that to say it's the best movie of the year but she'll win because of political correctness is demeaning and offensive.

Sorry if its non-politically correct, but that's just how I see it.     

It's not like her pu**y shot the movie.

If that were the case, she'd be a lock.

Oh please, that don't impress me.  Michael bay has been shooting movies with half his ass for all his life.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: edgar00 on February 02, 2010, 06:05:08 PM

  I haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't really comment, but your post makes it sound like Bigelow is completely undeserving and is only receiving some sort of affirmative action.  But if Hurt Locker is a better overall movie, I don't see why Best Director would be undeserved.

 I never said Bigelow is "completely undeserving" in fact Hurt Locker is the best film of the year.  But she will win atleast partly because of political considerations, as with Avatar winning BP.    


It's not like her pu**y shot the movie.


I'm sure that if that were the case, she'd get a whole lot more than just an Oscar statuette.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 02, 2010, 06:07:32 PM
And you still don't seem to have a clue that to say it's the best movie of the year but she'll win because of political correctness is demeaning and offensive.

Sorry if its non-politically correct, but that's just how I see it.     


If she directed the best movie of the year, which you believe The Hurt Locker was, then she would 100% deserve the best director award if she received it.  Political correctness would have nothing to do with it either way.

Of course, this entire conversation will be hilarious if Quentin Tarantino actually wins....
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 02, 2010, 06:12:12 PM
I'm just telling it like it is.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 06:16:11 PM
QT has no chance of winning. No chance.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 06:17:54 PM
QT has no chance of winning. No chance.

sad but true.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 02, 2010, 06:20:24 PM
I wonder how much the media is going to play up the fact that Bigelow is Cameron's ex-wife.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 06:22:30 PM
And you still don't seem to have a clue that to say it's the best movie of the year but she'll win because of political correctness is demeaning and offensive.

Sorry if its non-politically correct, but that's just how I see it.    


If she directed the best movie of the year, which you believe The Hurt Locker was, then she would 100% deserve the best director award if she received it.  Political correctness would have nothing to do with it either way.

Of course, this entire conversation will be hilarious if Quentin Tarantino actually wins....

All three deserve it.  But if Tarantino wins I will be utterly shocked, he is so unconventional and unique that non of his films will ever win BP and he will never get the director nod.  Best actor on the other hand...  
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 06:22:59 PM
I wonder how much the media is going to play up the fact that Bigelow is Cameron's ex-wife.

I wonder how much the media is going to play up The Hurt Locker. I keep seeing it in headlines but the picture is always Avatar. People need to see The Hurt Locker because people will actually like The Hurt Locker.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 06:25:37 PM
I wonder how much the media is going to play up the fact that Bigelow is Cameron's ex-wife.

I wonder how much the media is going to play up The Hurt Locker. I keep seeing it in headlines but the picture is always Avatar. People need to see The Hurt Locker because people will actually like The Hurt Locker.

As opposed to all the people that are faking their liking Avatar?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 02, 2010, 06:27:03 PM
I wonder how much the media is going to play up the fact that Bigelow is Cameron's ex-wife.

I wonder how much the media is going to play up The Hurt Locker. I keep seeing it in headlines but the picture is always Avatar. People need to see The Hurt Locker because people will actually like The Hurt Locker.

There is a significant population of people that don't like Avatar and they need a catalyst for a backlash. They will rally around Hurt Locker like the Brokeback haters did with Crash (though in this case the Hurt Locker is actually the slightly better movie).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 02, 2010, 06:33:25 PM
There were Brokeback haters? And they rallied around Crash?

Understand, I don't hate Avatar. I just think it's completely undeserving of Best Picture. If it were up to me Inglourious Basterds would win. But that has no chance. The one that has a good chance of winning is The Hurt Locker, and in my opinion it is a far and away better film than Avatar so I'll support that. In fact, I would support all those films nominated over Avatar except for maybe The Blind Side and District 9.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 06:53:58 PM
I wonder how much the media is going to play up the fact that Bigelow is Cameron's ex-wife.

I wonder how much the media is going to play up The Hurt Locker. I keep seeing it in headlines but the picture is always Avatar. People need to see The Hurt Locker because people will actually like The Hurt Locker.

 They will rally around Hurt Locker like the Brokeback haters did with Crash (though in this case the Hurt Locker is actually the slightly better movie).

It seems Na'viphobia reaches even to the deepest areas of the academy.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ferris on February 02, 2010, 06:57:40 PM
I'm optimistic to think there are academy members that don't fit into all the tidy little labels everyone seems to be throwing around here.  That said, they're all idiots for not recognizing the brilliance of Where the Wild Things Are
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 02, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I'm optimistic to think there are academy members that don't fit into all the tidy little labels everyone seems to be throwing around here.  That said, they're all idiots for not recognizing the brilliance of Where the Wild Things Are
WTWTA is #38 on my list of 2009.  Does that make me an idiot?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 02, 2010, 07:00:42 PM
I'm optimistic to think there are academy members that don't fit into all the tidy little labels everyone seems to be throwing around here.  That said, they're all idiots for not recognizing the brilliance of Where the Wild Things Are

Admittedly I'm not good with the prognosticating, but I see WTWTA being one of those movies that isn't heralded in its time but as the years go by it picks up more and more steam and will be viewed as a classic. I could be completely wrong, have been many times in the past, but that's the vibe I get from that picture.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 02, 2010, 07:01:22 PM
I'm optimistic to think there are academy members that don't fit into all the tidy little labels everyone seems to be throwing around here.  That said, they're all idiots for not recognizing the brilliance of Where the Wild Things Are

Admittedly I'm not good with the prognosticating, but I see WTWTA being one of those movies that isn't heralded in its time but as the years go by it picks up more and more steam and will be viewed as a classic. I could be completely wrong, have been many times in the past, but that's the vibe I get from that picture.

Dont worry Ferris, we're ahead of the curve.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on February 02, 2010, 07:02:10 PM
WTWTA is #38 on my list of 2009.  Does that make me an idiot?

No, it's just added evidence. ;)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 02, 2010, 07:07:02 PM
Oscar is tearing us apart.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on February 02, 2010, 07:10:26 PM
(http://i49.tinypic.com/xqcl5y.png)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 02, 2010, 07:58:32 PM

  I haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't really comment, but your post makes it sound like Bigelow is completely undeserving and is only receiving some sort of affirmative action.  But if Hurt Locker is a better overall movie, I don't see why Best Director would be undeserved.

 I never said Bigelow is "completely undeserving" in fact Hurt Locker is the best film of the year.  But she will win atleast partly because of political considerations, as with Avatar winning BP.    

And I never said that you said that.  Read it again.

And you still don't seem to have a clue that to say it's the best movie of the year but she'll win because of political correctness is demeaning and offensive.

It's not like her pu**y shot the movie.


So it was not Bigelow who starred in Chatterbox.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ferris on February 02, 2010, 08:00:28 PM
I'm optimistic to think there are academy members that don't fit into all the tidy little labels everyone seems to be throwing around here.  That said, they're all idiots for not recognizing the brilliance of Where the Wild Things Are
WTWTA is #38 on my list of 2009.  Does that make me an idiot?

awwww.....sorry man.  I was just making a poor attempt at joke - criticizing sweeping generalizations then following them up with my own. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on February 02, 2010, 10:58:53 PM
Hey - so glad to be here at IMDB - normally I hang out at the filmspotting boards...oh wait
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 08:32:34 AM
I'm still waiting to hear why The Hurt Locker is deserving but Avatar is not, except for that one load of crap reason that The Hurt Locker needs a win to get more people to see it. That means Thirst is the most deserving film to win Best Picture, right? Not only was it the best film of last year, but not many people have seen it, so it must deserve to win Best Picture, right?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 03, 2010, 08:35:57 AM
I'm still waiting to hear why The Hurt Locker is deserving but Avatar is not, except for that one load of crap reason that The Hurt Locker needs a win to get more people to see it. That means Thirst is the most deserving film to win Best Picture, right? Not only was it the best film of last year, but not many people have seen it, so it must deserve to win Best Picture, right?

If Thirst was a good movie then yes. But being purely objective, Thirst was not a movie made for the masses and even in film circles it was divisive. But Hurt Locker was unanimously praised. Avatar has all the attention it needs, but The Hurt Locker could stand the test of time if we gave it some sort of motivation. Plus, It's just a better movie then Avatar. We're speaking oscar talk by saying "It needs the press", it's scary for filmspotters. If both were nominated for the filmspots, we'd be saying The Hurt Locker should win because It's the better movie. But not for the oscars.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 08:40:27 AM
So then A Serious Man is the most deserving because it is the better film, objectively, and probably made the least money of all the contenders. Playing politics is pretty pointless to me, the film that deserves recognition and celebration is the one that delivers an unparalleled cinematic experience, not a fancy piece of editing that happens to be topical.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 03, 2010, 08:41:35 AM
From the feminist blog Pandagon:

Why 'Inglourious Basterds' should Win Best Picture...and Why It Won't (http://tinyurl.com/yf48c54)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 03, 2010, 08:48:02 AM
So then A Serious Man is the most deserving because it is the better film, objectively, and probably made the least money of all the contenders. Playing politics is pretty pointless to me, the film that deserves recognition and celebration is the one that delivers an unparalleled cinematic experience, not a fancy piece of editing that happens to be topical.

I happen to Think Hurt Locker is better, but the main reason we're banking on it is because, especially after Bigelow's DFA win, it's Avatar's biggest competitor. A Serious Man does not stand a chance. However, we still have the filmspots. And it stands a chance there.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 08:53:43 AM
So then A Serious Man is the most deserving because it is the better film, objectively, and probably made the least money of all the contenders. Playing politics is pretty pointless to me, the film that deserves recognition and celebration is the one that delivers an unparalleled cinematic experience, not a fancy piece of editing that happens to be topical.

I happen to Think Hurt Locker is better, but the main reason we're banking on it is because, especially after Bigelow's DFA win, it's Avatar's biggest competitor. A Serious Man does not stand a chance. However, we still have the filmspots. And it stands a chance there.

But that still doesn't let me know why, aside from the mostly irrelevant politics behind the situation, it's a more deserving film than Avatar, or any of the other nominees for that matter.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 03, 2010, 08:56:39 AM
So then A Serious Man is the most deserving because it is the better film, objectively, and probably made the least money of all the contenders. Playing politics is pretty pointless to me, the film that deserves recognition and celebration is the one that delivers an unparalleled cinematic experience, not a fancy piece of editing that happens to be topical.

I happen to Think Hurt Locker is better, but the main reason we're banking on it is because, especially after Bigelow's DFA win, it's Avatar's biggest competitor. A Serious Man does not stand a chance. However, we still have the filmspots. And it stands a chance there.

But that still doesn't let me know why, aside from the mostly irrelevant politics behind the situation, it's a more deserving film than Avatar, or any of the other nominees for that matter.

Well then, you're in the wrong thread. (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=6089.0)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 08:59:40 AM
So then A Serious Man is the most deserving because it is the better film, objectively, and probably made the least money of all the contenders. Playing politics is pretty pointless to me, the film that deserves recognition and celebration is the one that delivers an unparalleled cinematic experience, not a fancy piece of editing that happens to be topical.

I happen to Think Hurt Locker is better, but the main reason we're banking on it is because, especially after Bigelow's DFA win, it's Avatar's biggest competitor. A Serious Man does not stand a chance. However, we still have the filmspots. And it stands a chance there.

But that still doesn't let me know why, aside from the mostly irrelevant politics behind the situation, it's a more deserving film than Avatar, or any of the other nominees for that matter.

Well then, you're in the wrong thread. (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=6089.0)

But the Avatar discussion is 21 pages long, so it's generated more talk, which obviously means that is more deserving.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Jared on February 03, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
I'm still waiting to hear why The Hurt Locker is deserving but Avatar is not, except for that one load of crap reason that The Hurt Locker needs a win to get more people to see it. That means Thirst is the most deserving film to win Best Picture, right? Not only was it the best film of last year, but not many people have seen it, so it must deserve to win Best Picture, right?

Trying to apply logic to award show season hurts the brain.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 10:22:10 AM
intrade odds...


(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2010/02/500x_bestpicoddschart.jpg)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 10:25:04 AM
Obvi, I'm pulling for Avatar and Up in the Air.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 03, 2010, 11:40:57 AM
From the feminist blog Pandagon:

Why 'Inglourious Basterds' should Win Best Picture...and Why It Won't (http://tinyurl.com/yf48c54)

It’s arguably the best movie made by an edgy young film director while he’s still edgy and before he’s really old. The Academy Awards love edgy young filmmakers many decades after they stopped making innovative movies.  And I say this as someone who really liked “The Departed”.  But everyone knows Scorsese was winning for his first tier classics made years ago.  This is a chance for the Academy to break the vicious cycle.  Instead of recognizing Tarantino’s genius 20 years from now, when he makes a movie that has his imprint but no innovative feel to it, why not give him the award when he still has the ability to blow an audience away with his genius?  Tarantino’s no spring chicken at 47, so it’s not like Hollywood would be wandering off into the scarily youthful woods by giving him this award.  And for people who’ve seen it, you can firmly say he won it for this year, not for “Pulp Fiction”.  Because it’s probably the better picture.

This is a good case for both why Tarantino should win, and why he has no chance.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 11:43:06 AM
I'll have to see these Scorsese classics, because I find it hard to believe he's capable of crafting something better than The Departed.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 03, 2010, 11:45:00 AM
He has done so plenty of times.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 12:26:59 PM
So then A Serious Man is the most deserving because it is the better film, objectively, and probably made the least money of all the contenders. Playing politics is pretty pointless to me, the film that deserves recognition and celebration is the one that delivers an unparalleled cinematic experience, not a fancy piece of editing that happens to be topical.

I happen to Think Hurt Locker is better, but the main reason we're banking on it is because, especially after Bigelow's DFA win, it's Avatar's biggest competitor. A Serious Man does not stand a chance. However, we still have the filmspots. And it stands a chance there.

But that still doesn't let me know why, aside from the mostly irrelevant politics behind the situation, it's a more deserving film than Avatar, or any of the other nominees for that matter.

There's a fallacy in your statements FLY. Quit assuming that your opinion is the only one. Many people – including most on these boards – think that The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar, so in a match-up of the two many of us are rooting for The Hurt Locker even though it might not be everyone's #1 of the year. In my case I would choose Inglourious Basterds as #1 followed by A Serious Man, Up, and the The Hurt Locker. But those other three have no chance of winning, so my support shifts to The Hurt Locker.

The other point is that in a match-up between The Hurt Locker, which very few people went to see, and Avatar, which everybody and their dog has seen, it would be nice if the lesser seen film won so that more people might see it. This is particularly true of The Hurt Locker because in the view of a lot of people it's a film that would play very well to a wide audience, but it never got that chance theatrically. A Serious Man is an amazing film in my opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that a mass audience would probably not be too hot for it. The Hurt Locker provides just the right amount of pathos and entertainment and suspense to make it a real audience-pleaser.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 01:03:05 PM
If it was a real audience pleaser, it would have had an audience. It was advertised on CINECAST!ing ESPN.

Additionally, as I have said and continue to say, how does any of this make The Hurt Locker more deserving than Avatar? Clearly you are not in agreement that it's the best film, just that it's a better film. Though the notions of those words are completely subjective and have little bearing on the matter. What has The Hurt Locker done to make it more deserving of recognition than Avatar? If it's simply the craft then I suppose that There Will Be Blood was more deserving of Best Picture than No Country for Old Men because from the direction to the score that film is clearly of a superior make. Cameron crafted an entirely new world, plastered on a solid story, broke new ground with the technology used, delivered near flawless action sequences in a blockbuster, a complaint constantly logged against these types of films, gives the audience a one of a kind theatrical experience, and has made a significant cultural impact with the film. Bigelow crafted a fine thrill ride with great action and tension, subverts the idea of a 'war' film by having it mostly exist as a character study, and yielded a fine achievement in editing. You're saying that is more deserving of an award than what Cameron produced? Hardly. So awarding the film this award in spite of all the admirable traits of Avatar simply because there's an inkling of a chance that more films like it will get wider releases in the future is the best course of action? No Country could have played to a large crowd. Slumdog Millionaire could play to a large crowd. Yet we still get the exact same films we would otherwise. So when you use the word deserving when talking about the accomplishments of each film you are way off the mark. In no way is The Hurt Locker more deserving of such an award than Avatar, unless you go on picture quality alone, in which case neither is deserving, correct?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 03, 2010, 01:07:26 PM
How is There Will Be Blood "clearly" of a superior make? You sound like a National Socialist doctor.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on February 03, 2010, 01:08:48 PM
You sound like a National Socialist doctor.

I might have to borrow that. :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 01:10:34 PM


It is not rocket science. Most critics, and most of the people on this board, think THL is a better movie than Avatar therefore it is more deserving than Avatar. Sure most of us have a different BEST film of the year but that has nothing to do with which of these two is better/more deserving.

If you are interested I am willing to wager on THL over Avatar for best picture.

 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 03, 2010, 01:13:33 PM
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 03, 2010, 01:16:16 PM
From the feminist blog Pandagon:

Why 'Inglourious Basterds' should Win Best Picture...and Why It Won't (http://tinyurl.com/yf48c54)

It’s arguably the best movie made by an edgy young film director while he’s still edgy and before he’s really old. The Academy Awards love edgy young filmmakers many decades after they stopped making innovative movies.  And I say this as someone who really liked “The Departed”.  But everyone knows Scorsese was winning for his first tier classics made years ago.  This is a chance for the Academy to break the vicious cycle.  Instead of recognizing Tarantino’s genius 20 years from now, when he makes a movie that has his imprint but no innovative feel to it, why not give him the award when he still has the ability to blow an audience away with his genius?  Tarantino’s no spring chicken at 47, so it’s not like Hollywood would be wandering off into the scarily youthful woods by giving him this award.  And for people who’ve seen it, you can firmly say he won it for this year, not for “Pulp Fiction”.  Because it’s probably the better picture.

Just to clarify, the above quote is from the blogger at Pandagon, not by me, although I agree with it.  I'm just the one who pasted the link here.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 01:18:33 PM
Again. FLY. You are completely disregarding what I said.

I think The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar. The Hurt Locker would be my #4 of the year. Avatar would not make my Top 20. I think it is a better film and so I think it is more deserving of the award than Avatar. I happen to think Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man and Up are all even more deserving, but I'll take what I can get.

And your comments about it not doing well because audiences didn't like it are completely ridiculous. Some targeted marketing on ESPN does not make a successful movie. Particularly for a small movie released in July at the height of Transformania.The marketing and release of the film were completely bungled. It's a film that has had a very enthusiastic response form those who have seen it, the fact that it has done so well on DVD is just an indication that once word of mouth spread and Awards Season factored in, people were more than willing to check it out. Any time I describe A Serious Man to a friend who isn't too into film they seem completely uninterested. When I describe the amazing suspense of The Hurt Locker they ask me if they can borrow it from me. It's not a weird indie film that would alienate 2/3rds of the audience. It just suffered from other unfortunate factors. If it wins Best Picture more people are likely to check it out, and those people will be enthusiastic about it too and they will get others to see it. If A Serious Man won, a bunch of people would watch it and most of them would then dissuade their friends from seeing it.

Also, I never said anything about The Hurt Locker winning being better for the industry because they will give wider releases to smaller films. All I ever said it that it's the one particular film that stands to benefit.

I think The Hurt Locker is more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar because I think it's a better film.It's as simple as that. I don't give two craps about technical accomplishment when it comes right down to it. Is the film a great film? Yes. Is it a deserving film for the Best Picture prize? In my opinion, it is. I also know that it has so much more to gain than Avatar in terms of building its rightful audience by winning Best Picture.


And for the record, No Country made $75 Million domestic and Slumdog made $140 Million, so I really don't get what your point was regarding those films. Those are very good grosses. The Hurt Locker, a  that would say is much more audience-friendly than No Country (though less so than Slumdog) only made $12 Million. That's peanuts. It could have made much more, and now it has a chance to find that audience it was unable to in its theatrical release.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 02:04:53 PM
How is There Will Be Blood "clearly" of a superior make? You sound like a National Socialist doctor.

Easy. The actors give better performances, it's a more layered film, the script is perfectly crafted, the score is both noteworthy and unique while still fitting with the film, and the themes are more fleshed out and various than those in No Country.

Also, FroHam, I get that you consider The Hurt Locker a better film than Avatar. It's not, but I get that. However, you continue to insist that it somehow is more entitled to a market than other films, or that what it can gain from a Best Picture win is of any relevance in how the award should be decided. It seems fairly obvious that no one would contest that Best Picture is always, if ever, awarded to the best film from any given year. Yet when you use the word deserving, a word that implies possessing some worth of merit, it is completely ill placed. The Hurt Locker has done little worthy of merit, especially in regard to Avatar. What more could Avatar have done to make it deserving of the Best Picture Oscar. You can say that The Hurt Locker should win the award, but that is hardly the same as saying that it is more deserving than Avatar. You can say that The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar. It's not true, but you can say that. However, there is nary a film released last year more deserving of the accolades it is primed to receive than Avatar. Hell, in many ways District 9, despite being a pretty terrible film, is more deserving of a victory than The Hurt Locker. That film has a ton of accomplishments worthy of merit, which The Hurt Locker still lacks.

As for the numbers thing, there is an underlying sense in all of your posts, as I mentioned earlier, that The Hurt Locker is somehow entitled to an audience more than any other film. It's not going to be re-released theatrically, so the only impact such a victory would have, aside from DVD sales, would be found in future films. We don't get films like No Country or Slumdog Millionaire on a massive basis because, despite the awards, the Hollywood system is too hard coded to be changed.  Is it so important that The Hurt Locker be seen by as many people as possible? Is this the type of film that can or will spark a film-making revolution? No. It's just a pretty good thrill ride that is mostly forgettable outside of one major scene. You admit that it is going to help this one individual film, it will, by precedent, have no future ramifications on the way the public consumes film, so sacrificing the most deserving film simply so this small piece of fluff can make a bit more money on DVD, a medium that is nearly as adverse to its effect as it is to Avatar's, is that important?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 02:06:13 PM
This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 02:17:52 PM
FLY, in the words of my favourite wrongly-convicted prison inmate, "How can you be so obtuse?"

You consistently take what I am saying out of context and/or put words in my mouth.

I have already said that technical or technological or influential merit is not on my mind. I consider The Hurt Locker to be the better film and so I consider it more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar is. That's it. Quit changing the premise.

And when it comes to numbers, I NEVER said that The Hurt Locker is more "deserving" of an audience than other films. I simply said that The Hurt Locker is a film that actually CAN have a larger audience than it got in theatres. I also never said that it was important for it to be seen by a larger audience. I didn't even imply it. Again. My point was this: The Hurt Locker easily could have had a bigger audience, and winning Best Picture is a way to get more people to notice it now.

And then you continue to twist it around. I only apply my own logic to this. By your opinion The Hurt Locker should not win over Avatar. Obviously then you wouldn't want it to win over Avatar for any reason. I, ME, ONLY ME (in this particular two-person argument) I think that The Hurt Locker is the better choice for Best Picture. I gave my reasons, and obviously if you don't consider it a better film then my second point about finding an audience doesn't work. BUT IT WORKS WITH MY VIEWPOINT. Quit behaving as though yours is the only one that has any merit.



One more point: The Hurt Locker has been very successful on DVD and Blu-ray in both sales and rentals. This can only be because of word of mouth and Awards Season effects. So yes, the Oscars and Best Picture would have a big effect on those market numbers.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 02:25:00 PM
My problem is with your use of the word deserving. I go out of my way to say you should be using a different word, as calling The Hurt Locker more deserving and basing that solely on perceived quality while overlooking the accomplishments of Avatar is problematic and belittles part of what makes Avatar so deserving, as well as places an emphasis on the award being completely about quality, which I believe we both agree is not the case. I can see saying it's a better film. I can see saying it should win over Avatar. I may not agree, but I can understand people believing both of those statements. I do not see the case to be made that it is more deserving of the award than Avatar.

This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

What are we wagering? Also, I want Up in the Air as well, and you can have An Education.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 03, 2010, 02:27:18 PM
Best Picture nominees and their grosses.  I think its kinda funny because the bottom five are the ones I suspect would get nominated under the five nominee system, confirming my suspicion that the 10 nominee thing is a desperate ploy to stay culturally relevant.

Avatar                $601,141,551
Up                          $293,004,164
The Blind Side      $238,142,164
Inglourious Basterds   $120,540,719
District 9              $115,646,235
Up in the Air      $73,474,763
Precious              $45,469,462
The Hurt Locker      $12,671,105
A Serious Man      $9,228,768
An Education      $8,795,228
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 03, 2010, 02:31:30 PM
I think Avatar and Inglourious Basterds would have been in the 5 nominees, then I would say Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker and then one of the following: Precious, An Education and A Serious Man.

Basically when you look at it, I think it's obvious that the 3 that would have never been nominated before are The Blind Side, Up, and District 9. IMO
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 03, 2010, 02:33:43 PM
Best Picture nominees and their grosses.  I think its kinda funny because the bottom five are the ones I suspect would get nominated under the five nominee system, confirming my suspicion that the 10 nominee thing is a desperate ploy to stay culturally relevant.

Avatar                $601,141,551
Up                          $293,004,164
The Blind Side      $238,142,164

Inglourious Basterds   $120,540,719
District 9              $115,646,235
Up in the Air      $73,474,763
Precious              $45,469,462
The Hurt Locker      $12,671,105
A Serious Man      $9,228,768
An Education      $8,795,228

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 02:34:06 PM


This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

What are we wagering? Also, I want Up in the Air as well, and you can have An Education.

Money what else. :D

$20?

I don't want An Education, it has no chance of winning. I'll take THL you take Avatar.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 02:34:31 PM
iKeith! has it right.



This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

What are we wagering? Also, I want Up in the Air as well, and you can have An Education.

Money what else. :D

$20?

I don't want An Education, it has no chance of winning. I'll take THL you take Avatar.

No.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 03, 2010, 02:35:42 PM
How is There Will Be Blood "clearly" of a superior make? You sound like a National Socialist doctor.

Easy. The actors give better performances, it's a more layered film, the script is perfectly crafted, the score is both noteworthy and unique while still fitting with the film, and the themes are more fleshed out and various than those in No Country.


These are all "clearly" weasel words, but this is a pointless argument anyway.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 03, 2010, 02:36:02 PM
you could split Up In the Air & Precious as well.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 03, 2010, 02:36:07 PM
Money what else. :D
$20?

I don't want An Education, it has no chance of winning. I'll take THL you take Avatar.

I wouldn't make that bet if I were you.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 02:36:19 PM
My problem is with your use of the word deserving. I go out of my way to say you should be using a different word, as calling The Hurt Locker more deserving and basing that solely on perceived quality while overlooking the accomplishments of Avatar is problematic and belittles part of what makes Avatar so deserving, as well as places an emphasis on the award being completely about quality, which I believe we both agree is not the case. I can see saying it's a better film. I can see saying it should win over Avatar. I may not agree, but I can understand people believing both of those statements. I do not see the case to be made that it is more deserving of the award than Avatar.

Once again FLY, "How can you be so obtuse."

You were the one to bring in the word "deserving". But I took your bait and put it as simply as I could. The most deserving film for the prize of Best Picture of the Year is the film that I consider the BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR. What film is that? Inglourious Basterds. But considering the fight is going to be between The Hurt Locker and Avatar, I have to choose which of those two I consider the BEST FILM. In that case the BEST PICTURE is The Hurt Locker, and so when given only those two films as options, The Hurt Locker is what I would support as the BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR. I consider it more deserving simply because I consider it a better film.

If you want to have an argument over whether a film should also be given the award based on other merits then we can have that debate, but I can tell you I have already won it. You know how? Because the prize isn't called Best Achievement in Filmmaking Overall. It's called Best Picture, and so it should go to the BEST PICTURE (or in this case, the best picture that actually has a shot.)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 02:37:23 PM
iKeith! has it right.



This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

What are we wagering? Also, I want Up in the Air as well, and you can have An Education.

Money what else. :D

$20?

I don't want An Education, it has no chance of winning. I'll take THL you take Avatar.

No.

So then you are just empty talk?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 03, 2010, 02:38:06 PM
I disagree with all those that say Basterds would get nominated under 5 nominee system.  Too unconventional, they wouldn't feel comfortable nominating it.  Avatar would get the Dark knight treatment since its not Oscar bait.  
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 03, 2010, 02:38:53 PM
It would have been nominated.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 03, 2010, 02:40:46 PM
IB has (in addition to BP) Director, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography & some techs - it was in no matter what.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 03, 2010, 02:42:22 PM
IB has (in addition to BP) Director, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography & some techs - it was in no matter what.

Hmmm...  Didn't notice Tarantino cobble together that many nominations.  I guess you are right.

Still wouldn't wager money against Avatar.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 03, 2010, 02:44:50 PM
IB has (in addition to BP) Director, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography & some techs - it was in no matter what.

Hmmm...  Didn't notice Tarantino cobble together that many nominations.  I guess you are right.

Still wouldn't wager money against Avatar.

yeah - I crossed it off at first in favor of An Education then looked at the total number of nods and switched it up.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 03, 2010, 02:52:28 PM
Understand, I don't hate Avatar. I just think it's completely undeserving of Best Picture.

And then there was this from weeks ago...

Quote
Last night even James Cameron himself seemed genuinely surprised that the awards given to Avatar did not instead go to Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker. I don’t even think The Hurt Locker was the best film of the year, but I do think it’s far better than Avatar and certainly more deserving of a Best Picture win.

I did not bring up the word deserve, it's no bait, it's a legitimate concern.

And that final comment you say it should go to the best picture that has a shot. Which implies, along with the rest of what you had said, that film is The Hurt Locker, right? Admitting that it's already a two horse race despite having ten nominated films, at least three of which you consider to be better, shows an awareness that calling it Best Picture certainly does not mean that it is an award designed to recognize the 'best' picture, or so it would seem that way.

iKeith! has it right.



This argument has no possible end FLY.

Care to wager? I will take THL and you Avatar?

What are we wagering? Also, I want Up in the Air as well, and you can have An Education.

Money what else. :D

$20?

I don't want An Education, it has no chance of winning. I'll take THL you take Avatar.

No.

So then you are just empty talk?

I don't like dealing with online money when I don't have to, Paypal and that stuff is a needless hassle for me and I'm not going to mail something to Canada if I lose, and I don't want any mail if I win. I'm perfectly willing to make gentleman's bets where one of us will have to watch a film for the other person or something, but I'm not in the market of betting money. I'd even be willing to gift something of $20 max from Amazon, but then I have to deal with shipping and conversion rates and stuff, I think, which is also a needless hassle.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 03:03:58 PM

I don't like dealing with online money when I don't have to, Paypal and that stuff is a needless hassle for me and I'm not going to mail something to Canada if I lose, and I don't want any mail if I win. I'm perfectly willing to make gentleman's bets where one of us will have to watch a film for the other person or something, but I'm not in the market of betting money. I'd even be willing to gift something of $20 max from Amazon, but then I have to deal with shipping and conversion rates and stuff, I think, which is also a needless hassle.

Fine we will make a movie dictation bet then, although I would rather lose 20 bucks than watch some horrid Disney movie.  ;D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 03:12:24 PM
Understand, I don't hate Avatar. I just think it's completely undeserving of Best Picture.

And then there was this from weeks ago...

Quote
Last night even James Cameron himself seemed genuinely surprised that the awards given to Avatar did not instead go to Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker. I don’t even think The Hurt Locker was the best film of the year, but I do think it’s far better than Avatar and certainly more deserving of a Best Picture win.

I did not bring up the word deserve, it's no bait, it's a legitimate concern.

And that final comment you say it should go to the best picture that has a shot. Which implies, along with the rest of what you had said, that film is The Hurt Locker, right? Admitting that it's already a two horse race despite having ten nominated films, at least three of which you consider to be better, shows an awareness that calling it Best Picture certainly does not mean that it is an award designed to recognize the 'best' picture, or so it would seem that way.

I still don't change my stance, and in the context of this particular argument you were the one to bring up the definition of the word "deserving".

And what my last comment implies is that the Oscars aren't always right, but I would still like to think that if they are having a race between two films, neither of which I consider the actual best picture, they would choose the film I think is better. Also, this year they are using a different voting mechanism than other years. They'll do it like we do our lists, where we rank each film rather than choosing just one. This means that this year in particular the film that most people actually consider the better film has a good chance of winning. Hopefully most people voting for Best Picture consider The Hurt Locker to be a better film than Avatar too. And with the new voting system Inglourious Basterds actually has a better shot than it normally would because if it pulls a consistent #2 or 3 placing on everyone's lists with a few #1s it is definitely in the running. Then again, knowing Academy voters, they probably have it more around #5.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ses on February 03, 2010, 04:14:03 PM
Can we please move on from this debate, it really seem to be getting nowhere. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 04:20:23 PM
Can we please move on from this debate, it really seem to be getting nowhere. 

Thanks. I'm just trying to knock some sense into FLY. Impossible I guess.

Next topic: Who will win for Best Cinematography? Avatar? I hope not.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 03, 2010, 04:22:55 PM
Can we please move on from this debate, it really seem to be getting nowhere. 

Thanks. I'm just trying to knock some sense into FLY. Impossible I guess.

Next topic: Who will win for Best Cinematography? Avatar? I hope not.

I hope not too. I said it before, I loved what I saw on screen, but not how it was on screen.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ses on February 03, 2010, 04:26:07 PM
From what little I have seen, The White Ribbon looks pretty stunning.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 04:28:18 PM
Next topic: Who will win for Best Cinematography? Avatar? I hope not.

I hope not too. I said it before, I loved what I saw on screen, but not how it was on screen.

That is such a good way of putting it. Production Design over Cinematography.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 03, 2010, 04:32:16 PM
Next topic: Who will win for Best Cinematography? Avatar? I hope not.

I hope not too. I said it before, I loved what I saw on screen, but not how it was on screen.

That is such a good way of putting it. Production Design over Cinematography.

Is CGmotion capture cinematography? ;D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 03, 2010, 04:34:03 PM
The best Art Direction of the year was Two Lovers. For real.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 04:34:13 PM
I would like to see Inglourious Basterds win but it has little chance.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 03, 2010, 04:35:50 PM
From what little I have seen, The White Ribbon looks pretty stunning.
Yep. I haven't seen it either but it looks beautiful from the trailer.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 03, 2010, 04:38:13 PM
I'm really glad HP6 got a nom too, though I doubt it has a chance
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 03, 2010, 04:38:22 PM
From what little I have seen, The White Ribbon looks pretty stunning.
Yep. I haven't seen it either but it looks beautiful from the trailer.

Its beautiful, and the cinematography really fits well with the tone, setting, and story of the film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 03, 2010, 04:39:46 PM
Has anybody seen Burma VJ? I'm really interested in that one.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 04:40:40 PM
I'm really glad HP6 got a nom too

HIGH FIVE!

From what little I have seen, The White Ribbon looks pretty stunning.
Yep. I haven't seen it either but it looks beautiful from the trailer.

Its beautiful, and the cinematography really fits well with the tone, setting, and story of the film.

Indeed. Beautiful.



NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 04:41:39 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 03, 2010, 04:46:11 PM
I don't like complaining about movies I like not getting nominated, but Lance Acord not getting nominated for Cinematography for Where The Wild Things Are seems a little ridiculous. Even though I left it off my ballot for Filmspots(art house picks filled up, was my number 6), it was absolutely one of the best shot films of the year, and it had a chance.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 04:54:36 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 05:11:45 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.

I'll just let that one pass.  ;)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 05:20:07 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.

I'll just let that one pass.  ;)

You have no heart.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: worm@work on February 03, 2010, 05:25:24 PM
Has anybody seen Burma VJ? I'm really interested in that one.

I have and I liked it :) (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=1028.msg281959#msg281959).
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 05:25:55 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.

I'll just let that one pass.  ;)

You have no heart.

I loved the heart part of the movie just not the talking dogs who can fly airplanes :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 05:26:54 PM
That's where you lose me. What could be more awesome than a scene with dogs flying airplanes that pays homage to Star Wars?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 05:28:10 PM
That's where you lose me. What could be more awesome than a scene with dogs flying airplanes that pays homage to Star Wars?

You know I keep my inner child chained up the basement.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 05:29:41 PM
That's where you lose me. What could be more awesome than a scene with dogs flying airplanes that pays homage to Star Wars?

You know I keep my inner child chained up the basement.

How we ever let you write for TheReelists I will never know. Oh wait. lol :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 03, 2010, 05:31:22 PM
That's where you lose me. What could be more awesome than a scene with dogs flying airplanes that pays homage to Star Wars?

You know I keep my inner child chained up the basement.

My boss must do the same. He made fun of me for watching Aladdin and The Lion King on Sunday.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 05:32:07 PM
That's where you lose me. What could be more awesome than a scene with dogs flying airplanes that pays homage to Star Wars?

You know I keep my inner child chained up the basement.

My boss must do the same. He made fun of me for watching Aladdin and The Lion King on Sunday.

What a horrible boss. Does he not know that The Lion King is one of the best films ever made?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 03, 2010, 05:32:27 PM
Has anybody seen Burma VJ? I'm really interested in that one.
I have and I liked it :) (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=1028.msg281959#msg281959).
Nice review, worm, and thanks for the link. I'm definitely going to try to track this one down. A Google search tells me it played at the VIFF and on CBC last fall. I need to get my head in the game.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 03, 2010, 05:35:03 PM
That's where you lose me. What could be more awesome than a scene with dogs flying airplanes that pays homage to Star Wars?

You know I keep my inner child chained up the basement.

My boss must do the same. He made fun of me for watching Aladdin and The Lion King on Sunday.

What a horrible boss. Does he not know that The Lion King is one of the best films ever made?

Well he was telling me how he saw an awesome movie called 12 Rounds, so I doubt he knows that.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: jbissell on February 03, 2010, 05:35:30 PM
From what little I have seen, The White Ribbon looks pretty stunning.
Yep. I haven't seen it either but it looks beautiful from the trailer.

Its beautiful, and the cinematography really fits well with the tone, setting, and story of the film.

Exactly. It's beautifully unsettling.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on February 03, 2010, 05:40:16 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.
He also created Russell because he wasn't too keen on Carl being out there with just Dug and Kevin.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 05:43:54 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.
He also created Russell because he wasn't too keen on Carl being out there with just Dug and Kevin.

Who the hell is Russell?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 05:45:15 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.
He also created Russell because he wasn't too keen on Carl being out there with just Dug and Kevin.

Who the hell is Russell?

The kid, who you probably found annoying, you soulless monster. :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 03, 2010, 05:47:05 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.
He also created Russell because he wasn't too keen on Carl being out there with just Dug and Kevin.

Who the hell is Russell?

He's kind of a major character.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 05:52:25 PM

NEXT TOPIC:

Tom McCarthy getting a nomination for Best Screenplay for his story development on Up. So awesome!

which half did he write?

He was brought on in the beginning to develop the story ideas into a more fully structured narrative.
He also created Russell because he wasn't too keen on Carl being out there with just Dug and Kevin.

Who the hell is Russell?

He's kind of a major character.

I thought the kid was kevin. Ok I am confused...

old guy-carl
kid-?
Dog-dug

There were three main characters other than the bad guy no?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 05:54:00 PM
Kevin is the bird. The original story called for just Carl, Dug and Kevin the bird.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 03, 2010, 05:56:34 PM
Kevin is the bird. The original story called for just Carl, Dug and Kevin the bird.

oh right the bird lol
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 03, 2010, 05:58:20 PM
Kevin is the bird. The original story called for just Carl, Dug and Kevin the bird.

oh right the bird lol

"Kevin's a girl?"
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ferris on February 03, 2010, 07:21:33 PM
intrade odds...


(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2010/02/500x_bestpicoddschart.jpg)

Can someone tell the color blind guy which two are highest on this graph? (oh wait are they in order?)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 03, 2010, 07:23:20 PM
Avatar
Hurt Locker
Basterds
Up in the Air
Precious
Blind Side
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on February 03, 2010, 07:33:23 PM
Can we please move on from this debate, it really seem to be getting nowhere. 

3 dogs chasing their own tails.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 04, 2010, 07:25:57 PM
I just made my 4th bet against Avatar winning best picture. One online, and three against friends. If it wins it's gonna cost me a little over 400! But if it loses I win a little over 600! :D

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 04, 2010, 07:30:10 PM
I still think it will win. For your sake I hope it doesn't though.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on February 04, 2010, 08:57:34 PM
It won't win though, right? I mean I don't even hate it...but come on.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 04, 2010, 09:35:24 PM
Why not, it's easily the most deserving nominee.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 12:27:36 PM
This was too awesome not to post here. On another forum there has been the standard debate about Avatar and its best picture nomination. This post was made in its defense. He is arguing that Avatar wins BP in nearly every year of the Oscars.

Quote
Perhaps you should watch every best picture. I could be slightly wrong about "vast majority" but it [Avatar] clearly wins most of them [best picture oscars]. The earlier you go the greater the discrepancy in effect quality, so you need to have a pretty awesome movie (as far as writing/acting/story go) to beat it.

Watch Sunrise, which I can only assume won in 1929 because of the awesome effects. Cells on top of each other to make it look like there were ghosts, and an interesting choice to put a camera on a swing. Best sound effects for its time. The plot was borderline retarded, but it won. If Avatar shows up in 3d with 10' tall blue people and dragons, it obviously wins.

Something like "The Godfather" has a chance to beat it based purely on acting, but there is no way that "The Greatest Show On Earth" beats it - Charlton Heston or not. "The Sound of Music" has a good chance, but "Around the World in 80 days" does not.

If you hadn't seen this same plot before (Dances With Wolves, or whatever - take your pick) it's clearly not as bad. For a lot of those years it would have been a new idea, so the story itself probably wins some votes. Hell, the acting was better in Avatar than in a lot of the older oscar winners. For a long time actors had no idea how to act for film, and overdid everything so it looked absurd.

Hell, if you release "Transformers" in 1950 it wins hands down, and the quality of the movie has nothing to do with it. The filmies will disagree, saying that "All About Eve" is clearly a better acted movie, but it would be absurd to think that the academy wouldn't vote for the one with effects they can't even begin to understand.

If you change the rules to something like "make Avatar with whatever technology is available 5 years ahead of the year in question" then there are a lot of years where it wouldn't have been released since it would have sucked so bad.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 05, 2010, 01:02:29 PM
This was too awesome not to post here. On another forum there has been the standard debate about Avatar and its best picture nomination. This post was made in its defense. He is arguing that Avatar wins BP in nearly every year of the Oscars.

Quote
Perhaps you should watch every best picture. I could be slightly wrong about "vast majority" but it [Avatar] clearly wins most of them [best picture oscars]. The earlier you go the greater the discrepancy in effect quality, so you need to have a pretty awesome movie (as far as writing/acting/story go) to beat it.

Watch Sunrise, which I can only assume won in 1929 because of the awesome effects. Cells on top of each other to make it look like there were ghosts, and an interesting choice to put a camera on a swing. Best sound effects for its time. The plot was borderline retarded, but it won. If Avatar shows up in 3d with 10' tall blue people and dragons, it obviously wins.

Something like "The Godfather" has a chance to beat it based purely on acting, but there is no way that "The Greatest Show On Earth" beats it - Charlton Heston or not. "The Sound of Music" has a good chance, but "Around the World in 80 days" does not.

If you hadn't seen this same plot before (Dances With Wolves, or whatever - take your pick) it's clearly not as bad. For a lot of those years it would have been a new idea, so the story itself probably wins some votes. Hell, the acting was better in Avatar than in a lot of the older oscar winners. For a long time actors had no idea how to act for film, and overdid everything so it looked absurd.

Hell, if you release "Transformers" in 1950 it wins hands down, and the quality of the movie has nothing to do with it. The filmies will disagree, saying that "All About Eve" is clearly a better acted movie, but it would be absurd to think that the academy wouldn't vote for the one with effects they can't even begin to understand.

If you change the rules to something like "make Avatar with whatever technology is available 5 years ahead of the year in question" then there are a lot of years where it wouldn't have been released since it would have sucked so bad.

This argument fails for a multiple of reasons. Sunrise did not win the BP oscar in 1929, Wings won the '27-'28 BP Oscar (held in '29), The Broadway Melody won the '28-'29 and All Quiet on the Western Front won the '29-'30. Counterpoint 2: Star Wars did not beat Annie Hall despite similar visual advances to that of Avatar (I will be quite happy to list some of the advances). Counterpoint 2.1: 2001 did not even get a nomination (Kubrick did get a Best Director nom) let alone beat Olivier! again 2001 is a visually stunning film. Final point would be if visual impressiveness won out there would be a lot more SciFi films that had won BP, yet there are none. The only time any film not set in the our world has ever won BP is when LOTR won.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 05, 2010, 01:05:44 PM
Actually. Sunrise did win best picture. It was the only year where there were two Best Picture Awards. One for production and one for artistic achievement.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 05, 2010, 01:07:21 PM
I sit corrected, thank you.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 01:14:43 PM
This was too awesome not to post here. On another forum there has been the standard debate about Avatar and its best picture nomination. This post was made in its defense. He is arguing that Avatar wins BP in nearly every year of the Oscars.

Quote
Perhaps you should watch every best picture. I could be slightly wrong about "vast majority" but it [Avatar] clearly wins most of them [best picture oscars]. The earlier you go the greater the discrepancy in effect quality, so you need to have a pretty awesome movie (as far as writing/acting/story go) to beat it.

Watch Sunrise, which I can only assume won in 1929 because of the awesome effects. Cells on top of each other to make it look like there were ghosts, and an interesting choice to put a camera on a swing. Best sound effects for its time. The plot was borderline retarded, but it won. If Avatar shows up in 3d with 10' tall blue people and dragons, it obviously wins.

Something like "The Godfather" has a chance to beat it based purely on acting, but there is no way that "The Greatest Show On Earth" beats it - Charlton Heston or not. "The Sound of Music" has a good chance, but "Around the World in 80 days" does not.

If you hadn't seen this same plot before (Dances With Wolves, or whatever - take your pick) it's clearly not as bad. For a lot of those years it would have been a new idea, so the story itself probably wins some votes. Hell, the acting was better in Avatar than in a lot of the older oscar winners. For a long time actors had no idea how to act for film, and overdid everything so it looked absurd.

Hell, if you release "Transformers" in 1950 it wins hands down, and the quality of the movie has nothing to do with it. The filmies will disagree, saying that "All About Eve" is clearly a better acted movie, but it would be absurd to think that the academy wouldn't vote for the one with effects they can't even begin to understand.

If you change the rules to something like "make Avatar with whatever technology is available 5 years ahead of the year in question" then there are a lot of years where it wouldn't have been released since it would have sucked so bad.

This argument fails for a multiple of reasons. Sunrise did not win the BP oscar in 1929, Wings won the '27-'28 BP Oscar (held in '29), The Broadway Melody won the '28-'29 and All Quiet on the Western Front won the '29-'30. Counterpoint 2: Star Wars did not beat Annie Hall despite similar visual advances to that of Avatar (I will be quite happy to list some of the advances). Counterpoint 2.1: 2001 did not even get a nomination (Kubrick did get a Best Director nom) let alone beat Olivier! again 2001 is a visually stunning film. Final point would be if visual impressiveness won out there would be a lot more SciFi films that had won BP, yet there are none. The only time any film not set in the our world has ever won BP is when LOTR won.

It's epic fail is what makes it so awesome!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 05, 2010, 01:17:01 PM
This was too awesome not to post here. On another forum there has been the standard debate about Avatar and its best picture nomination. This post was made in its defense. He is arguing that Avatar wins BP in nearly every year of the Oscars.

Quote
Perhaps you should watch every best picture. I could be slightly wrong about "vast majority" but it [Avatar] clearly wins most of them [best picture oscars]. The earlier you go the greater the discrepancy in effect quality, so you need to have a pretty awesome movie (as far as writing/acting/story go) to beat it.

Watch Sunrise, which I can only assume won in 1929 because of the awesome effects. Cells on top of each other to make it look like there were ghosts, and an interesting choice to put a camera on a swing. Best sound effects for its time. The plot was borderline retarded, but it won. If Avatar shows up in 3d with 10' tall blue people and dragons, it obviously wins.

Something like "The Godfather" has a chance to beat it based purely on acting, but there is no way that "The Greatest Show On Earth" beats it - Charlton Heston or not. "The Sound of Music" has a good chance, but "Around the World in 80 days" does not.

If you hadn't seen this same plot before (Dances With Wolves, or whatever - take your pick) it's clearly not as bad. For a lot of those years it would have been a new idea, so the story itself probably wins some votes. Hell, the acting was better in Avatar than in a lot of the older oscar winners. For a long time actors had no idea how to act for film, and overdid everything so it looked absurd.

Hell, if you release "Transformers" in 1950 it wins hands down, and the quality of the movie has nothing to do with it. The filmies will disagree, saying that "All About Eve" is clearly a better acted movie, but it would be absurd to think that the academy wouldn't vote for the one with effects they can't even begin to understand.

If you change the rules to something like "make Avatar with whatever technology is available 5 years ahead of the year in question" then there are a lot of years where it wouldn't have been released since it would have sucked so bad.

This argument fails for a multiple of reasons. Sunrise did not win the BP oscar in 1929, Wings won the '27-'28 BP Oscar (held in '29), The Broadway Melody won the '28-'29 and All Quiet on the Western Front won the '29-'30. Counterpoint 2: Star Wars did not beat Annie Hall despite similar visual advances to that of Avatar (I will be quite happy to list some of the advances). Counterpoint 2.1: 2001 did not even get a nomination (Kubrick did get a Best Director nom) let alone beat Olivier! again 2001 is a visually stunning film. Final point would be if visual impressiveness won out there would be a lot more SciFi films that had won BP, yet there are none. The only time any film not set in the our world has ever won BP is when LOTR won.

It's epic fail is what makes it so awesome!

EWE! That's a BINGO!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 05, 2010, 01:29:14 PM
I think you're all dismissing the argument too casually. While the point was not well-made, I think what's being got at is the fact that the Academy members are blinded enough by the amazing leap in technology to give the film Best Picture even though the film itself isn't that great. That's why Avatar would beat all the other contenders every other year. It wows the audience into giving it Best Picture.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 01:51:24 PM
I think you're all dismissing the argument too casually. While the point was not well-made, I think what's being got at is the fact that the Academy members are blinded enough by the amazing leap in technology to give the film Best Picture even though the film itself isn't that great. That's why Avatar would beat all the other contenders every other year. It wows the audience into giving it Best Picture.

But high VFX content is very negatively correlated with best picture winner for the entire history of the Oscars. VFX movies do not win.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 05, 2010, 01:52:45 PM
And that's why many (including me) don't think Avatar will win -- the Academy voters seem very suspicious of movies that "wow" them or that are just a good time.  Star Wars, E.T., Raiders, Starman--all got nominations but didn't win.  Best Picture tends to favor "heavier" movies for lack of a better word.

Also, I think actors are 20% of the voting bloc and a lot of them prefer to be in movies where they mainly act, not do the whole voice/motion capture thing 3 years before they get to see what they were actually doing/acting against.  A future full of Avatar-like movies is a future where one's carefully maintained, surgically perfected facial features aren't front and center, and more seriously, one's acting will most likely not get nominated.

One more thing--there's always talk of a movie's Oscar hype "peaking" too early.  If there is a movie that that is happening to this year, it's Avatar.  It's probably just a bit past the moment when the most people think it's awesome and the best movie ever made and starting down the downslope of backlash/adjustment of initial reaction.  When the front runner peaks early, it's a year that the 2nd or 3rd place movie could have a surge.  And with 10 in the mix, it's going to be harder to predict how things will turn out.  That actually could work in Avatar's favor, since the "anyone but Avatar" votes will be split 9 ways instead of 4.  And there's always the exception that proves the rule, as well--Return of the King is a good example.  It had every bit of the momentum and although there was a little bit of "peaking" discussion, it had all the momentum right down the stretch,to the point where it would have been literally shocking if anything else had won.

Finally, Cameron has his Oscar already.  Titanic cleaned up in 1997*, and other than L.A. Confidential, was probably the most deserving of the Best Picture nominees that year.   Fair or not, there does seem to be a tendency in the Academy to want to distribute the awards to people who haven't won before over those who have.

None of this touches on the previous arguments on the actual quality of the movie, just the politics of Oscar.  I will be very, very surprised if Avatar wins.


*Forgot to add my footnote!  Well, here it is:  Just an observation that '97 was a weak-ass year for Best Picture.  Titanic and L.A. Confidential I'm down with, but the other three were Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty and As Good As It Gets.  Of those, Good Will Hunting was probably the third place movie where in most years it would be in the "smaller movie that could/it's an honor to be nominated" slot.  That The Full Monty got in is a shocker; as for As Good As It Gets--ugh.  I really disliked that movie.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 05, 2010, 02:04:16 PM
Of course we're all overlooking the fact that Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years, and is unlikely to change this year either.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:05:32 PM
Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years

huh? favorite?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 05, 2010, 02:06:19 PM
What I learned Today: There is no possible way of telling whether Avatar is the favorite to win best picture. That way leads to madness. And barfights.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 05, 2010, 02:07:55 PM
Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years

huh? favorite?

2006: The Departed was favored to win, and it won.
2007: No Country was favored to win, and it won.
2008: Slumdog was favored to win, and it won.
2009: Avatar is favored to win, and it will win.

Plus with the grasp at appeasing the common viewer rather than the 'film buff' Avatar's likelihood to win is even great. For what it's worth, David Henrie thinks IB should win with Avatar in second, I believe.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 05, 2010, 02:08:53 PM
I hope An Education wins. What fun that would be.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
What I learned Today: There is no possible way of telling whether Avatar is the favorite to win best picture. That way leads to madness. And barfights.

Of course there's not, but that is precisely what makes the discussion interesting.  ;) (nobody is fighting)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 05, 2010, 02:11:00 PM
(nobody is fighting)

Not yet anyways.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 05, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
I hope An Education wins. What fun that would be.

Replace that with The Blind Side and we'll talk.

After Crazy Heart today I was this close to talking myself into popping in to the theater right next to the one I exited for the showing of The Blind Side that started 10 minutes later, but I imagine Crazy Heart is exactly like The Blind Side, just a little better, so it seemed like a waste of time.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:12:15 PM
Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years

huh? favorite?

2006: The Departed was favored to win, and it won.
2007: No Country was favored to win, and it won.
2008: Slumdog was favored to win, and it won.
2009: Avatar is favored to win, and it will win.

Plus with the grasp at appeasing the common viewer rather than the 'film buff' Avatar's likelihood to win is even great. For what it's worth, David Henrie thinks IB should win with Avatar in second, I believe.

Favored to win by who? betting lines? Critics?

As for betting lines some have avatar ahead of THL others favor THL. I certainly dont think most critics favor Avatar over THL this year.

So I am not sure what you mean by favored?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 05, 2010, 02:17:35 PM
Best Picture has gone to the favorite for the past three years

huh? favorite?

2006: The Departed was favored to win, and it won.
2007: No Country was favored to win, and it won.
2008: Slumdog was favored to win, and it won.
2009: Avatar is favored to win, and it will win.

Plus with the grasp at appeasing the common viewer rather than the 'film buff' Avatar's likelihood to win is even great. For what it's worth, David Henrie thinks IB should win with Avatar in second, I believe.


2006 was a year of weak Best Picture nominees, which combined with the common wisdom of Scorcese being previously "robbed" and overdue to be honored, did pretty much make that one predictable.

2007--everything I saw prediction Best Picture said that it was a toss up between No Country and There Will Be Blood--it was pretty much predicted it would be one of those two, but which one was not obvious.

2008--another weakish year.  The only other movie that had the sweep to be "Best Picture" type movie was Milk.  Benjamin Button was pretty backlashy by the time the Oscars came around and Slumdog had had a slower build of hype.  Frost/Nixon and The Reader were too unknown to be more than "honor to be nominated" picks.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on February 05, 2010, 02:22:34 PM
Colleen, 1997 was weakish, but Good Will Hunting is an amazing film, and is totally better than Titanic.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 05, 2010, 02:25:06 PM
Blood was a close second but a second none-the-less.  Slumdog was definitely the front runner and had a huge head of steam heading into the ceremony - won the BAFTA, Globe, some Grammys, every guild award, and a bunch of critic's prizes.  I'm not sure The Departed was the front runner though - Babel, Sunshine & Iwo Jima were pretty strong contenders.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:29:14 PM
[It] won the BAFTA, Globe, some Grammys, every guild award, and a bunch of critic's prizes.  

Exactly, Avatar has won none of these (except GG) so I dont see why its such a favourite. It's not. If it is a favourite (which I dont believe) it is a very small one at best.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 05, 2010, 02:31:14 PM
[It] won the BAFTA, Globe, some Grammys, every guild award, and a bunch of critic's prizes.  

Exactly, Avatar has won none of these (except GG) so I dont see why its such a favourite. It's not. If it is a favourite (which I dont believe) it is a very small one at best.

didn't say it was... though the oddsmakers seem to think so.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 05, 2010, 02:31:58 PM
oh, I didn't say it was.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on February 05, 2010, 02:32:06 PM
are the BAFTA awards broadcast in the US at all?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:35:14 PM
[It] won the BAFTA, Globe, some Grammys, every guild award, and a bunch of critic's prizes.  

Exactly, Avatar has won none of these (except GG) so I dont see why its such a favourite. It's not. If it is a favourite (which I dont believe) it is a very small one at best.

didn't say it was... though the oddsmakers seem to think so.

I was just using your good point to counter FLY, not you. :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:35:45 PM
are the BAFTA awards broadcast in the US at all?

I think they are on some specialty channels.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 05, 2010, 02:37:58 PM
[It] won the BAFTA, Globe, some Grammys, every guild award, and a bunch of critic's prizes.  

Exactly, Avatar has won none of these (except GG) so I dont see why its such a favourite. It's not. If it is a favourite (which I dont believe) it is a very small one at best.

didn't say it was... though the oddsmakers seem to think so.

I was just using your good point to counter FLY, not you. :D

heh - though according to a lot of prognosticators THL is tops: http://moviecitynews.com/awards/2010/gurus/gurus_100202.html (http://moviecitynews.com/awards/2010/gurus/gurus_100202.html)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:42:41 PM
[It] won the BAFTA, Globe, some Grammys, every guild award, and a bunch of critic's prizes.  

Exactly, Avatar has won none of these (except GG) so I dont see why its such a favourite. It's not. If it is a favourite (which I dont believe) it is a very small one at best.

didn't say it was... though the oddsmakers seem to think so.

I was just using your good point to counter FLY, not you. :D

heh - though according to a lot of prognosticators THL is tops: http://moviecitynews.com/awards/2010/gurus/gurus_100202.html (http://moviecitynews.com/awards/2010/gurus/gurus_100202.html)

nice find and pretty good evidence that the Odds makers are falling for the hype this year and making bad odds.

The thing people need to realize about odds is the initial line is set my some random guy (who may or may not know anything about film or the oscars) then the lines move based on betting. Since Avatar is loved by the masses like few other films then its odds get quickly moved in its favour because all the people who loved it, but know little about the Oscars, put their money on it.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 05, 2010, 02:44:21 PM
Colleen, 1997 was weakish, but Good Will Hunting is an amazing film, and is totally better than Titanic.

I liked Good Will Hunting but didn't love it.  And my point wasn't so much the quality of the particular movies as the "Oscar Best Picture-quality" of them.  Most of the time a more intimate movie like GWH (or The Queen, or The Reader from more recent years) doesn't win.  

The Best Picture is usually some combination of 1) history, 2) spectacle and 3) inspirational plus the "x-factor" of voters feeling obligated toward a particular person who hasn't won before, hasn't won in a long time, or was "robbed" in hindsight in a more deserving year.  It's just the combo that the most voters seem to go for.

 There are exceptions but there is certainly a Best Picture "type" that tends to win more often--Ghandi, The Last Emperor, the lavish 60s musicals, Titanic and Slumdog Millionaire all had that combo.  I was actually very surprised that No Country For Old Men won because it didn't really have any of the three, and TWBB at least had the history on its side.

Sometimes I think the big sweeping ones win so often because so many people who vote in the Academy had some part in making them.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 05, 2010, 02:52:02 PM
The last Oscar broadcast was the lowest rated in History.  For that simple reason Avatar will win BP. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 05, 2010, 02:53:28 PM
While 2007 was close, after 2006 it seemed pretty obvious that the award was going to go to the Coens regardless. All that Fargo love had been bubbling for quite some time, correct? Seems the Coens had a good deal more history on their side than PTA. Besides, isn't the Golden Globe winner, more times than not, especially lately, the same as the Oscar winner? If that's true it already is favored right there.

Plus, of course, there's always this...

The last Oscar broadcast was the lowest rated in History.  For that simple reason Avatar will win BP. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 02:54:23 PM
The last Oscar broadcast was the lowest rated in History.  For that simple reason Avatar will win BP. 

This theory never made any sense to me. You really think the average member of the DGA or SAG give a shit about the ratings of the Oscars?

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 05, 2010, 02:54:56 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 05, 2010, 02:58:30 PM
The last Oscar broadcast was the lowest rated in History.  For that simple reason Avatar will win BP. 

So that assumes that 1) the Oscars are rigged or 2) the Oscar voters vote for strategic purposes of ensuring good ratings for the broadcast.

I'm cynical about there being "types" of movies that get to be BP, but not so cynical as to believe that the votes are rigged.  And I don't believe the voters give a damn about the broadcast.

The Academy's nod to network rating concerns is the expansion of the slate to get more people interested.  They'll still watch to see if their movie will win even if it doesn't.  At least for a year or two.
The other things they'll do are continue to try to speed up the pace of the show and cut out more of the boring segments that make people turn the channel or liven up the segments more likely to be boring.

If one of the main networks stopped carrying the Oscars, another network would pick them up.  And as far as Hollywood itself is concerned, it's their party.  They could go back to being in a big banquet hall with nothing but radio or newsreel (i.e. Youtube clip) coverage and be pretty content.


Frankly, Avatar winning best picture would probably drive as many viewers away as attract new ones.  
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 03:05:05 PM
Here (http://features.metacritic.com/features/2010/the-oscars-how-to-predict-the-best-picture-winner/) is a very interesting article from Metacritic that statistically breaks down everything that can be used to predict the BP winner. They make a very convincing argument it is basically a toss-up between THL and Avatar at this point.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 05, 2010, 03:42:58 PM
Actually. Sunrise did win best picture. It was the only year where there were two Best Picture Awards. One for production and one for artistic achievement.

It was actually Wings that was the effects blockbuster that year though (with its pioneering aerial photography).  Sunrise didn't really innovate anything, it's just great.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on February 05, 2010, 04:02:43 PM
This thread is full of cynicism and the worst kind of film discussion. I don't know what else to say or do.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 05, 2010, 04:04:12 PM
This thread is full of cynicism and the worst kind of film discussion. I don't know what else to say or do.

Ignore it and walk away like I have, you'll be much better for it.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 04:05:40 PM
This thread is full of cynicism and the worst kind of film discussion. I don't know what else to say or do.

There is no cynicism in here at all. Just a discussion of how the oscars work. There is little film discussion either. Nobody is commenting on the quality of either film just the likelihood of it winning.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on February 05, 2010, 04:10:27 PM
This thread is full of cynicism and the worst kind of film discussion. I don't know what else to say or do.

There is no cynicism in here at all. Just a discussion of how the oscars work. There is little film discussion either. Nobody is commenting on the quality of either film just the likelihood of it winning.

Notice how your sentences work together. That's my point exactly.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on February 05, 2010, 04:11:37 PM
The last Oscar broadcast was the lowest rated in History.  For that simple reason Avatar will win BP. 

So that assumes that 1) the Oscars are rigged or 2) the Oscar voters vote for strategic purposes of ensuring good ratings for the broadcast.

I'm cynical about there being "types" of movies that get to be BP, but not so cynical as to believe that the votes are rigged.  And I don't believe the voters give a damn about the broadcast.

The Academy's nod to network rating concerns is the expansion of the slate to get more people interested.  They'll still watch to see if their movie will win even if it doesn't.  At least for a year or two.
The other things they'll do are continue to try to speed up the pace of the show and cut out more of the boring segments that make people turn the channel or liven up the segments more likely to be boring.

If one of the main networks stopped carrying the Oscars, another network would pick them up.  And as far as Hollywood itself is concerned, it's their party.  They could go back to being in a big banquet hall with nothing but radio or newsreel (i.e. Youtube clip) coverage and be pretty content.


Frankly, Avatar winning best picture would probably drive as many viewers away as attract new ones.  

I think you make some very good points. The ratings of the Oscars don't (yet) affect the prestige that comes from winning one. Even if people don't watch the show, they will find out which film won best picture and run to Blockbuster to rent it. I'm a cynic about a lot of things, but I will never believe that the people in the industry care less about the art of the cinema than I do. And I care a great deal.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 04:12:47 PM
This thread is full of cynicism and the worst kind of film discussion. I don't know what else to say or do.

There is no cynicism in here at all. Just a discussion of how the oscars work. There is little film discussion either. Nobody is commenting on the quality of either film just the likelihood of it winning.

Notice how your sentences work together. That's my point exactly.

I have no idea what this means.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 04:14:00 PM


I think you make some very good points. The ratings of the Oscars don't (yet) affect the prestige that comes from winning one. Even if people don't watch the show, they will find out which film won best picture and run to Blockbuster to rent it. I'm a cynic about a lot of things, but I will never believe that the people in the industry care less about the art of the cinema than I do. And I care a great deal.



this is how I see it too Carly. I cant imagine someone who had dedicated their life to making films voting for a film they dont like just so the ratings of the show go up!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on February 05, 2010, 04:54:46 PM
This thread is full of cynicism and the worst kind of film discussion. I don't know what else to say or do.

Ignore it and walk away like I have, you'll be much better for it.

This thread disheartens me.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on February 05, 2010, 04:57:26 PM
I understand that there have been some heated discussions on this thread, but its no worse than what we've seen before. If I can't talk about the Oscars here, where can I?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 05, 2010, 04:58:19 PM
Wait until the Kids Choice Awards happen!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 04:59:57 PM
This thread is full of cynicism and the worst kind of film discussion. I don't know what else to say or do.

Ignore it and walk away like I have, you'll be much better for it.

This thread disheartens me.

I dont know why everyone is getting worked up that a few of us are having a discussion on oscar politics and which films are likely to win.

It seems that everyone who finds the thread offensive is taking it as some kind of insult to Avatar (I assume since it is all Avatar fans that seem to find it offensive).

I know I, and I dont think anyone else, are commenting on the quality of Avatar. We are simply having a debate on if/how it is possible to predict the winners based on past indicators.  

My thinking it will not win has nothing to do with my feelings about the film (which for the record I still like). It is simply my reading of Oscar politics.


I understand that there have been some heated discussions on this thread, but its no worse than what we've seen before. If I can't talk about the Oscars here, where can I?

exactly :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on February 05, 2010, 05:10:29 PM
This has nothing to do with Avatar clovis - I don't care about your thoughts on that. What I find "disheartening" is this thread embodies the change in the level and tone of film criticism here. I may not have the same film knowledge as a lot of you but the reason I stay out of a lot film threads is that lately it mostly consists of blanket statements of quality, derisive comments and grandstanding - the same people shooting the same opinions back and forth, over and over ad nauseum. There is very little discussion and open sharing of ideas.
Maybe I am wrong for this - but I try and find things I like in a film as opposed to what I don't like. It's more challenging in today's world to be inclusive when it seems more and more, everything is polarized and exclusive. To me at least - it's too easy to find things to dislike.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 05:16:15 PM
This has nothing to do with Avatar clovis - I don't care about your thoughts on that. What I find "disheartening" is this thread embodies the change in the level and tone of film criticism here. I may not have the same film knowledge as a lot of you but the reason I stay out of a lot film threads is that lately it mostly consists of blanket statements of quality, derisive comments and grandstanding - the same people shooting the same opinions back and forth, over and over ad nauseum. There is very little discussion and open sharing of ideas.
Maybe I am wrong for this - but I try and find things I like in a film as opposed to what I don't like. It's more challenging in today's world to be inclusive when it seems more and more, everything is polarized and exclusive. To me at least - it's too easy to find things to dislike.

That's my point Martin. We are not saying anything about disliking any film. We are just talking about a films chance of winning. The one has nothing to do with the other. I wish my personal opinion had something to do with who won an Oscar but I certainly dont think it does. :D

As for blanket statements, I agree there is too much of that in general.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 05:21:39 PM
for the record I got skin in the game with $440 bet on the BP winner!  :o
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 05, 2010, 05:24:30 PM
I think you make some very good points. The ratings of the Oscars don't (yet) affect the prestige that comes from winning one. Even if people don't watch the show, they will find out which film won best picture and run to Blockbuster to rent it. I'm a cynic about a lot of things, but I will never believe that the people in the industry care less about the art of the cinema than I do. And I care a great deal.

Absolutely.  I think the only people that care about the shows ratings are the network and the show's producers, and the journalists who cover Hollywood as a business.  ratings are an easy story to write about, same as grosses, same as polls (in another journalistic field filled with the kinds of info no actual people actually care about).

If Avatar wins, it'll be because the Academy members actually think it deserves the Best Picture Oscar.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 05:25:45 PM


If Avatar wins, it'll be because the Academy members actually think it deserves the Best Picture Oscar.

I totally agree.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on February 05, 2010, 05:33:06 PM
My problem comes when we start discussing an art in terms of business. I know movies are business based, but I really don't care about that. I want to talk about the merits of a film instead of how it did at the BO. I want to talk about which film deserves (yes, deserves) an award based on how well made it is rather than how many people will see it because of the award. I want to talk about award shows because they are recognizing my favorite art form and not because the politics of it are interesting.

Give me film or give me death.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on February 05, 2010, 05:34:32 PM
But the politics are interesting!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Junior on February 05, 2010, 05:35:14 PM
Not really. They're a distraction from the art.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 05, 2010, 05:36:34 PM
I think you can have both.  But I'd rather the balance tilt towards art.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 05:36:50 PM
My problem comes when we start discussing an art in terms of business. I know movies are business based, but I really don't care about that. I want to talk about the merits of a film instead of how it did at the BO. I want to talk about which film deserves (yes, deserves) an award based on how well made it is rather than how many people will see it because of the award. I want to talk about award shows because they are recognizing my favorite art form and not because the politics of it are interesting.

Give me film or give me death.

That's totally fair.  I wish awards shows were entirely based on merit but we know they are not. That being said I like the previous post.

If Avatar does win it is going to be annoying as hell, and totally unfair, when the critics start to claim it only won because of its BO, the show ratings, etc.

Most of the threads on the forum discuss film in terms of art. I dont think it's unreasonable that we have one to talk about the business. :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on February 05, 2010, 05:43:17 PM
...don't matter.  :)

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 05:45:51 PM
...don't matter.  :)

pixote

Good point!  :D

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 05, 2010, 05:46:35 PM
Oscar politics don't change from year to year. It's the same conversation every February. It's a perpetually boring conversation.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 05, 2010, 05:47:20 PM
It's a perpetually boring conversation.

Yes. Let's get back to the movies. Please.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 05:50:22 PM
It's a perpetually boring conversation.

Yes. Let's get back to the movies. Please.

Thats fair but who is making you read this thread if you find it boring?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 05, 2010, 05:51:19 PM
It's a perpetually boring conversation.

Yes. Let's get back to the movies. Please.

Thats fair but who is making you read this thread if you find it boring?

I say the same things about my posts!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on February 05, 2010, 05:53:59 PM
It's a perpetually boring conversation.

Yes. Let's get back to the movies. Please.

Thats fair but who is making you read this thread if you find it boring?

pixote.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on February 05, 2010, 05:56:53 PM
It's a perpetually boring conversation.

Yes. Let's get back to the movies. Please.

Thats fair but who is making you read this thread if you find it boring?

I wouldn't have known this thread had turned towards this boring conversation if I hadn't read the thread, duh.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 05, 2010, 05:58:39 PM
It's a perpetually boring conversation.

Yes. Let's get back to the movies. Please.

Thats fair but who is making you read this thread if you find it boring?

I wouldn't have known this thread had turned towards this boring conversation if I hadn't read the thread, duh.

 ;)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 06, 2010, 12:45:42 AM
If people want to talk about "Oscar business" rather than "art", I don't really see the problem with that. I haven't been active in this thread, but not because I find the cynicism disheartening (bit dramatic), but rather because the topic doesn't interest me. It is however a small number of people engaged in this discussion and it wasn't the original purpose of this thread, so while I don't see the problem with it occurring, perhaps everybody can be satisfied if the "jaded-showbiz-Oscar" conversation was moved to a new thread.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 06, 2010, 01:44:22 AM
If people want to talk about "Oscar business" rather than "art", I don't really see the problem with that. I haven't been active in this thread, but not because I find the cynicism disheartening (bit dramatic), but rather because the topic doesn't interest me. It is however a small number of people engaged in this discussion and it wasn't the original purpose of this thread, so while I don't see the problem with it occurring, perhaps everybody can be satisfied if the "jaded-showbiz-Oscar" conversation was moved to a new thread.

actually the thread was started to talk about awards season, and a large part of that is about politics and business.  art on the level that gets awarded by these groups DOES NOT EXIST without this other side.  Its fine if you don't want to be a party to it but is there really something so horribly wrong with discussing it?  I happen to find the business side of film terribly interesting.  Sure the gross may not tell you anything about the quality of the art but it does tell you about us as a culture and without our culture there is no space for the art to exist anyway.  it is inherent in the process and to ignore it just makes no sense to me.  they are equally worthy of discussion.  Junior there are like 8 million threads to talk about the merits of the film, what is so wrong with having a couple that discuss other aspects?  one of the reasons I think Avatar is great is that its getting people off their damned asses and into the theater.  they are remembering what its like to experience the great spectacle of film in its intended setting and then can make an actual judgment on the merits as opposed to the merits of how well the limits of their own pitiful or even plentiful home theater system will allow them to experience it.  this is the reason that i make sure to point out on my annual lists whether or not I saw the film in the theater.  because any discussion of a film intended to be seen this way and not seen this way is inherently flawed.  I love that Avatar is making piles and piles of cash and reminding people of the joy of the movie house.  in the end - i don't care that you don't care.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on February 06, 2010, 04:04:41 AM
What I learned Today: There is no possible way of telling whether Avatar is the favorite to win best picture. That way leads to madness. And barfights.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: CSSCHNEIDER on February 06, 2010, 09:43:04 AM
Sure the gross may not tell you anything about the quality of the art but it does tell you about us as a culture

This. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 06, 2010, 11:40:10 PM
actually the thread was started to talk about awards season, and a large part of that is about politics and business.
In that case, as you were, Filmspotters.  :)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 08, 2010, 10:14:35 AM
additional proof that the academy will never award voice-over performances. (http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/best-voiceover-in-a-car-commercial/?src=twt&twt=thecarpetbagger)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on February 08, 2010, 11:01:24 AM
I think you make some very good points. The ratings of the Oscars don't (yet) affect the prestige that comes from winning one. Even if people don't watch the show, they will find out which film won best picture and run to Blockbuster to rent it. I'm a cynic about a lot of things, but I will never believe that the people in the industry care less about the art of the cinema than I do. And I care a great deal.

I totally agree.  In fact you sum up my feelings about the actual Oscar-cast.  I care who wins but not enough to sit through 3-4 butt-numbing, brain melting hours of the show.  I can do something interesting and find out who won the next morning.  If anything interesting happens (Benigni climbing over seats, Adrien Brody planting a big kiss on Halle Berry etc) it will be in "great Oscar moments" galleries til the end of time (or the internet), not to mention YouTube.

A lot of people are interested in who wins the Oscars without being interested in the show.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 10, 2010, 12:04:47 AM
Apparently they are voting on BP differently this year which, I think, makes The Hurt Locker a virtual lock. They are not just picking their favourite. They have to rank the 10 in order. So I am guessing that THL will get a lot of top 4 votes while Avatar will be getting a number of 8-10 votes.

This vote splitting will sink Avatar I bet.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 10, 2010, 06:27:57 PM
Apparently they are voting on BP differently this year which, I think, makes The Hurt Locker a virtual lock. They are not just picking their favourite. They have to rank the 10 in order. So I am guessing that THL will get a lot of top 4 votes while Avatar will be getting a number of 8-10 votes.

This vote splitting will sink Avatar I bet.

Really?  That beyond dumb.  Why complicate such a simple process?  If presidential candidates were voted on in this manner, we would get third party Presidents every single time...
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 10, 2010, 08:04:36 PM
Apparently they are voting on BP differently this year which, I think, makes The Hurt Locker a virtual lock. They are not just picking their favourite. They have to rank the 10 in order. So I am guessing that THL will get a lot of top 4 votes while Avatar will be getting a number of 8-10 votes.

This vote splitting will sink Avatar I bet.

Really?  That beyond dumb.  Why complicate such a simple process?  If presidential candidates were voted on in this manner, we would get third party Presidents every single time...

I don't see what is wrong with picking the least disliked. Third party Presidents would not be a guarantee.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 10, 2010, 08:54:25 PM
Apparently they are voting on BP differently this year which, I think, makes The Hurt Locker a virtual lock. They are not just picking their favourite. They have to rank the 10 in order. So I am guessing that THL will get a lot of top 4 votes while Avatar will be getting a number of 8-10 votes.

This vote splitting will sink Avatar I bet.

Really?  That beyond dumb.  Why complicate such a simple process?  If presidential candidates were voted on in this manner, we would get third party Presidents every single time...

I don't see what is wrong with picking the least disliked. Third party Presidents would not be a guarantee.

It will result in an advantage for films that were universally liked but not great, as opposed to something more brave and divisive.  In effect it dilutes each individual vote between several films.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 10, 2010, 09:00:24 PM
Apparently they are voting on BP differently this year which, I think, makes The Hurt Locker a virtual lock. They are not just picking their favourite. They have to rank the 10 in order. So I am guessing that THL will get a lot of top 4 votes while Avatar will be getting a number of 8-10 votes.

This vote splitting will sink Avatar I bet.

Really?  That beyond dumb.  Why complicate such a simple process?  If presidential candidates were voted on in this manner, we would get third party Presidents every single time...

I don't see what is wrong with picking the least disliked. Third party Presidents would not be a guarantee.

It will result in an advantage for films that were universally liked but not great, as opposed to something more brave and divisive.  In effect it dilutes each individual vote between several films.

I agree it kills the chances of any divisive film ever winning (not that there was much chance in the old system).

From what I understand it works like this; You rank the 10 films. Then when they votes are scored films are eliminated based on ranks. In the first round the film with the least number of top ranks is eliminated. Then the second and so on until one stands.

So a film that is loved by some and hated by others could never win.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FifthCityMuse on February 10, 2010, 10:41:30 PM
This is the same as the Australian political system. We rank our choices, and like Clovis says, after the first round of counting, the person with the lowest votes is eliminated, and anyone who chose them has their second vote counted. We keep going like that until someone gets 50% +1 of the vote.

That said, our political system is quite different to the US, and quite different to voting for a film in the Oscars. I think it has to be used with this number of films being nominated tho, right? Otherwise a film with 11% of the vote could win the award, which would hardly be suitable.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 10, 2010, 11:00:01 PM
That said, our political system is quite different to the US, and quite different to voting for a film in the Oscars.

The US electoral system on the other hand IS very similar to the old Oscar system. 

1. Everybody gets one vote
2. Votes are gathered and meticulously counted
3. Votes are thrown out
4. Winner is chosen by a secretive and all powerful cabal

Just like the Academy Awards.

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on February 10, 2010, 11:01:05 PM
That said, our political system is quite different to the US, and quite different to voting for a film in the Oscars.

The US electoral system on the other hand IS very similar to the old Oscar system. 

1. Everybody gets one vote
2. Votes are gathered and meticulously counted
3. Votes are thrown out
4. Winner is chosen by a secretive and all powerful cabal

Just like the Academy Awards.



this made me literally LOL. well played.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on February 11, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Apparently they are voting on BP differently this year which, I think, makes The Hurt Locker a virtual lock. They are not just picking their favourite. They have to rank the 10 in order. So I am guessing that THL will get a lot of top 4 votes while Avatar will be getting a number of 8-10 votes.

This vote splitting will sink Avatar I bet.

Really?  That beyond dumb.  Why complicate such a simple process?  If presidential candidates were voted on in this manner, we would get third party Presidents every single time...

I don't see what is wrong with picking the least disliked. Third party Presidents would not be a guarantee.

It will result in an advantage for films that were universally liked but not great, as opposed to something more brave and divisive.  In effect it dilutes each individual vote between several films.

I agree it kills the chances of any divisive film ever winning (not that there was much chance in the old system).

From what I understand it works like this; You rank the 10 films. Then when they votes are scored films are eliminated based on ranks. In the first round the film with the least number of top ranks is eliminated. Then the second and so on until one stands.

So a film that is loved by some and hated by others could never win.

Based on the results in Australian elections a person who is loved by some and hated by others always wins, but that is politics. You are assuming that a divisive film will only get 1's and 10's, unlikely. So something like Antichrist (which did not even get a nom) is likely to get a spread of numbers, just look at how it has been taken on these boards. Even in the first past the post system a divisive film is unlikely to get the most votes, so it probably has a better chance in this system.
What film is that divisive, in recent years nominations?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 22, 2010, 12:39:39 PM
(http://www.businesspundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/infoGRAPHIC.jpg)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 22, 2010, 02:43:07 PM
heh cute
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: philip918 on February 22, 2010, 03:13:03 PM
I'm a little surprised at all the awards and noms the screenplay for the Hurt Locker is getting (It just won the BAFTA).  I know it was written by a journalist with a lot of first-hand experience in Iraq, but seeing as the film is basically five action set pieces stitched together with some character moments I really wonder what the script is like.  It seems to me Bigelow did the heavy lifting making such a strong film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 22, 2010, 03:16:06 PM
I'm a little surprised at all the awards and noms the screenplay for the Hurt Locker is getting (It just won the BAFTA).  I know it was written by a journalist with a lot of first-hand experience in Iraq, but seeing as the film is basically five action set pieces stitched together with some character moments I really wonder what the script is like.  It seems to me Bigelow did the heavy lifting making such a strong film.

from what I gathered from the commentary track, a lot of that stuff was in the script.  the writer is also one of the major producers I believe.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 22, 2010, 04:40:23 PM
I'm a little surprised at all the awards and noms the screenplay for the Hurt Locker is getting (It just won the BAFTA).  I know it was written by a journalist with a lot of first-hand experience in Iraq, but seeing as the film is basically five action set pieces stitched together with some character moments I really wonder what the script is like.  It seems to me Bigelow did the heavy lifting making such a strong film.

I liked the dialogue between the soldiers precisely because it is minimalistic.  You don't have dying soldiers tearfully narrating a letter to their wife or long demagoguery about the politics of the war on terror.  I honestly don't remember a single bad line in that film. I think it deserves the praise it gets.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 22, 2010, 04:54:22 PM
I agree with you there, z, avoiding those cliches is a strength of the film. Where the writing fell short for me was the relationship between Anthony Mackie and Jeremy Renner, which I thought was really uninteresting. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: sdedalus on February 22, 2010, 04:57:00 PM
Yeah, the strength of the script, for me, was in its structure and the writing of the action scenes (and the dialogue in them).  The actual character scenes between the action I wasn't particularly impressed with.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on February 22, 2010, 05:04:01 PM
I agree with you there, z, avoiding those cliches is a strength of the film. Where the writing fell short for me was the relationship between Anthony Mackie and Jeremy Renner, which I thought was really uninteresting. 

I liked their interaction on the battlefield, off the battlefield it was indeed not terribly interesting. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on February 22, 2010, 05:19:18 PM
Yep.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on February 27, 2010, 03:56:46 PM
Anyone hear about this email that was sent around by this Nicolas Chartier guy? (http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/blog/51-email-gaffe-could-hurt-avatars-biggest-competition)

More importantly, the nominees for The Kids' Choice Awards were announced without me knowing (http://www.nick.com/kids-choice-awards/nominees/). I will give a more detailed breakdown within the next couple of days. Just general impressions. Favorite TV Show is tough. Favorite Song, with one exception, is CINECAST!ing STACKED, as is Favorite Female Singer, and Favorite Movie kind of sucks. Surprised that Harry Potter series, once again, doesn't qualify for Favorite Book.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on February 28, 2010, 06:39:21 PM
didn't know these guys existed... interesting how they choose to divvy up their noms:

Visual Effects Society

Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects Driven Feature Motion Picture

2012
Volker Engel, Visual Effects Supervisor
Marc Weigert, Visual Effects Supervisor
Josh Jaggars, Visual Effects Producer

AVATAR
Joe Letteri, Senior Visual Effects Supervisor
Joyce Cox, Overall VFX Producer
Eileen Moran, VFX Producer
Richard Baneham, Animation Supervisor

DISTRICT 9
Dan Kaufman, VFX Supervisor
Stefanie Boose, VFX Producer
James Stewart, Creature Supervisor
Peter Muyzers, On-set VFX Plate Supervisor

STAR TREK
Roger Guyett, Visual Effects Supervisor
Burt Dalton, Special Effects Supervisor
Shari Hanson, Visual Effects Producer
Russell Earl, Visual Effects Supervisor

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
Scott Farrar, Visual Effects Supervisor
John Frazier, Special Effects Supervisor
Scott Benza, Animation Director
Wayne Billheimer, Visual Effects Producer

Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Feature Motion Picture

ANGELS & DEMONS
Barrie Hemsley, VFX Producer
Angus Bickerton, VFX Supervisor
Ryan Cook, VFX Supervisor
Mark Breakspear, VFX Supervisor

THE BOX
Thomas Tannenberger, Visual Effects Supervisor
Olcun Tan, Digital Effects Supervisor
Mark Kolpak, Visual Effects Producer
Peter "Beak" Cvijanovic, Compositing Supervisor

INVICTUS
Michael Owens, VFX Supervisor
Geoff Hancock, VFX Supervisor
Cyndi Ochs, VFX Producer
Dennis Hoffman, Head of Production

THE ROAD
Mark O. Forker, VFX Supervisor
Phillip Moses, VFX Producer
Ed Mendez, Compositing Supervisor
Paul Graff, VFX Supervisor - Crazy Horse Effects

SHERLOCK HOLMES
Jonathan Fawkner, VFX Supervisor
Chas Jarrett, VFX Supervisor
David Vickery, VFX Supervisor
Dan Barrow, VFX Producer

Outstanding Animation in an Animated Feature Motion Picture

9
Jinko Gotoh, Co-Producer
Joe Ksander, Animation Director
Daryl Graham, Supervising Animator
Ken Duncan, Animation Supervisor

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS
Pete Nash, Animation Director
Chris Juen, Co-Producer
Alan Hawkins, Supervising Animator
Mike Ford, CG Supervisor

CORALINE
Henry Selick, Animation Director
Claire Jennings, Animation Producer

ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS
Melvin Tan, Senior Animator
Galen Chu, Supervising Animator
Jeff Gabor, Senior Animator
Anthony Nisi, Animation Production Supervisor

UP
Pete Docter, Director
Jonas Rivera, Producer
Steve May, Supervising Technical Director
Gary Bruins, Effects Supervisor

Best Single Visual Effect of the Year

2012 - Escape from L.A.
Volker Engel, Visual Effects Supervisor
Marc Weigert, Visual Effects Supervisor
Josh R. Jaggars, Visual Effects Producer
Mohen Leo, Visual Effects Supervisor

AVATAR - Quarich's Escape
John Knoll, Visual Effects Supervisor
Jill Brooks, Visual Effects Producer
Frank Losasso Petterson, Simulation Technical Director
Tory Mercer, Compositor

AVATAR- Neytiri Drinking
Joe Letteri, Senior Visual Effects Supervisor
Joyce Cox, Overall VFX Producer
Eileen Moran, VFX Producer
Thelvin Cabezas, Lighting Technical Director

KNOWING - Plane Crash
Andrew Jackson, VFX Supervisor
Camille Cellucci, VFX Producer
Dan Breckwoldt, Lead Compositor
Angelo Sahin, Special Effects Supervisor

TERMINATOR SALVATION - VLA Escape
Charles Gibson, Studio Visual Effects Supervisor
Chantal Feghali, Studio Producer
Ben Snow, Visual Effects Supervisor
Susan Greenhow, Visual Effects Producer

Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture

AVATAR - Neytiri
Joe Letteri, Senior Visual Effects Supervisor
Andrew R. Jones, Animation Director
Jeff Unay, Facial Lead
Zoe Saldana, Actress

DISTRICT 9 - Christopher Johnson
Steve Nichols, Animation Supervisor
Jeremy Mesana, Animation Lead
Vera Zivny, Senior VFX Coordinator
Brett Ineson, Motion Capture Supervisor

G-FORCE - Bucky
Benjamin Cinelli, Senior Character Animator
Dustin Wicke, Lead Cloth and Hair
Peter Tieryas, Character Set-Up Technical Director
Ryan Yee, Animator

WATCHMEN - Doctor Manhattan
Keith Smith, Lead Animator
Kevin Hudson, CG Modeling Supervisor
Victor Schutz, Lead CG Lighting and Compositing Artist
Aaron Campbell, Character Rigger

Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Feature Motion Picture

CORALINE - ‘CORALINE’
Travis Knight, Lead Animator
Trey Thomas, Lead Animator

ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS - Buck
Simon Pegg, Buck
Peter de Seve, Characters designed by

MONSTERS VS. ALIENS - B.O.B.
David Burgess, Head of Character Animation
Scott Cegielski, Effects Lead
Terran Boylan, Character Technical Director
David Weatherly, Animator

UP - Carl - “No Dad Scene”
Ed Asner, Voice of Carl
Ron Zorman, Animator
Brian Tindall, Character Modeling and Articulation Artist
Carmen Ngai, Character Cloth Artist

Outstanding Effects Animation in an Animated Feature Motion Picture

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS
Rob Bredow, VFX Supervisor
Dan Kramer, Digital Effects Supervisor
Matt Hausman, Effects Animation Supervisor
Carl Hooper, Effects Animation Supervisor

CORALINE
John Allan Armstrong, VFX Animator
Richard Kent Burton, Stop Motion Effects Animator
Craig Dowsett, CG Modeler

MONSTERS VS. ALIENS
Amaury Aubel, Effects Lead
Scott Cegielski, Effects Lead
Alain De Hoe, Effects Lead
David Allen, Effects Animator

UP
Jason Johnston, Effects Artist
Alexis Angelidis, Effects Artist
Jon Reisch, Effects Artist
Eric Froemling, Effects Artist

Outstanding Matte Paintings in a Feature Motion Picture

AVATAR - Pandora
Yvonne Muinde, Lead Matte Painter
Brenton Cottman, Lead Matte Painter
Peter Baustaedter, Senior Matte Painter
Jean-Luc Azzis, Senior Compositor

FRANKLYN - Meanwhile City Scapes
Tania Richard, Matte Painter
Christoph Unger, Matte Painter

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
Tania Richard, Matte Painter
David Bassalla, TD
Emily Cobb, 3D Artist

STAR TREK
Brett Northcutt, Digimatte Lead
Shane Roberts, Digimatte
Masahiko Tani, Digimatte
Dan Wheaton, Digimatte

Outstanding Models and Miniatures in a Feature Motion Picture

AVATAR - Samson/Home Tree / Floating Mountains / Ampsuit
Simon Cheung, Senior Modeller
Paul Jenness, Lead Modeller
John Stevenson-Galvin, Senior Modeller
Rainer Zoettl, Senior/Lead Modeller

CORALINE
Deborah Cook, Lead Costume Design Fabricator
Paul Mack, Model Maker
Martin Meunier, Facial Animation Design
Matthew DeLeu, Miniature Lighting Technician

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN - National Air and Space Museum Escape
Ian Hunter, VFX Supervisor
Forest Fischer, Model Crew Chief
Robert Chapin, Digital FX Supervisor
Tony Chen, Model Maker

TERMINATOR SALVATION - Practical Models and Miniatures
Brian Gernand, Creative Director, Model Shops
Geoff Heron, Special FX Supervisor
Nick d'Abo, Model Shop Supervisor
Patrick Sweeney, Director of Photography

Outstanding Created Environment in a Feature Motion Picture

2012 - Los Angeles Destruction
Haarm-Pieter Duiker, CG Supervisor
Marten Larsson, CG Effects Animation Lead
Ryo Sakaguchi, CG Effects Animation Lead
Hanzhi Tang, CG Lighting Supervisor

AVATAR - Floating Mountains
Dan Lemmon, Visual Effects Supervisor
Keith F. Miller, CG Supervisor
Cameron Smith, Lead Compositor
Jessica Cowley, Senior Texture Painter

AVATAR - Jungle / Biolume
Eric Saindon, Visual Effects Supervisor
Shadi Almassizadeh, CG Supervisor
Dan Cox, CG Supervisor
Ula Rademeyer, Lead Texture Painter

AVATAR - Willow Glade
Guy Williams, Visual Effects Supervisor
Thelvin Cabezas, Lighting Technical Director
Daniel Macarin, Lighting Technical Director
Miae Kang, Lead Lighting Technical Director

Outstanding Compositing in a Feature Motion Picture

AVATAR
Erik Winquist, Compositing Supervisor
Robin Hollander, Compositor
Erich Eder, Compositor
Giuseppe Tagliavini, Compositor

AVATAR - End Battle
Eddie Pasquarello, Compositing Supervisor
Beth D'Amato, Digital Paint
Todd Vaziri, Compositor
Jay Cooper, Technical Director

DISTRICT 9
Shervin Shogian, Compositing Supervisor
Hamish Schumacher, Lead Compositor
Janeen Elliott, Senior Compositor
Simon Hughes, Senior Compositor

SHERLOCK HOLMES - Wharf Explosion Sequence
Kate Windibank, Senior Compositor
Jan Adamczyk, Mid Compositor
Sam Osborne, Compositor
Alex Cumming, Junior Compositor
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: philip918 on March 02, 2010, 01:18:32 PM
Slate has a couple nice looks at the Sound Editing and Editing Oscar nominees:

http://slatev.com/video/how-judge-best-editing-oscar/ (http://slatev.com/video/how-judge-best-editing-oscar/)

Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Verite on March 03, 2010, 10:01:04 PM
WTF.  Bright Star (Janet Patterson) wasn't even nominated for Excellence in Period Film for the Costume Designers Guild Awards.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: roujin on March 03, 2010, 10:01:30 PM
HOW DARE THEY
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Verite on March 03, 2010, 10:07:42 PM
HOW DARE THEY

C'mon, man.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on March 03, 2010, 10:46:55 PM
Maybe it was done by a nonguildy. Them guilds are snobs.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 07, 2010, 12:05:01 PM
Razzies


Worst Picture of 2009:

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
(Aka Trannies, Too)
(DREAMWORKS/PARAMOUNT)

Worst Actress of 2009:

Sandra Bullock
ALL ABOUT STEVE

Worst Actor(s) of 2009:

All Three Jonas Brothers
JONAS BROTHERS: THE 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE

Worst Screen Couple:

Sandra Bullock & Bradley Cooper
ALL ABOUT STEVE

Worst Supporting Actress:

Sienna Miller
G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA

Worst Supporting Actor:

Billy Ray Cyrus
HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE

Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel
(Combined Category for 2009):


Land of The Lost
(UNIVERSAL PICTURES)

Worst Director:

Michael Bay
TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (AKA TRANNIES, TOO)

Worst Screenplay:

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
WRITTEN BY EHREN KRUGER & ROBERTO ORCI & ALEX KURTZMAN,
BASED ON HASBRO’S TRANSFORMERS ACTION FIGURES
Special 30th RAZZIE®-versary Awardz

Worst Picture of the Decade:

Battlefield Earth
NOMINATED FOR 10 RAZZIES® / “WINNER” OF 8
(INCLUDING WORST DRAMA OF OUR FIRST 25 YRS)

Worst Actor of the Decade:

Eddie Murphy
NOMINATED FOR 12 “ACHIEVEMENTS” / “WINNER” OF 3 RAZZIES®
ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT,
MEET DAVE, NORBIT, SHOWTIME

Worst Actress of the decade

Paris Hilton
NOMINATED FOR 5 “ACHIEVEMENTS,” “WINNER” OF 4 RAZZIES®
THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE OF WHACKS,
REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA


Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: CSSCHNEIDER on March 07, 2010, 12:06:59 PM
If Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar does that mean she'll be the first person to ever win a RAZZIE and an Oscar?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 07, 2010, 12:08:27 PM
If Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar does that mean she'll be the first person to ever win a RAZZIE and an Oscar?

She is already the only person to even be nominated for both in the same year. As for all time, I am not sure Cuba Gooding Jr must have a razzie too no?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 07, 2010, 12:08:58 PM
If Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar does that mean she'll be the first person to ever win a RAZZIE and an Oscar?

Halle Berry won an Oscar and a Razzie, but Bullock'd be the first to do it in the same year.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 07, 2010, 12:13:45 PM
If Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar does that mean she'll be the first person to ever win a RAZZIE and an Oscar?

Halle Berry won an Oscar and a Razzie, but Bullock'd be the first to do it in the same year.

Oh ya, cant believe I forgot her.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on March 07, 2010, 12:14:38 PM
If Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar does that mean she'll be the first person to ever win a RAZZIE and an Oscar?

She is already the only person to even be nominated for both in the same year. As for all time, I am not sure Cuba Gooding Jr must have a razzie too no?

I remember reading somewhere that she said she would go to the ceremony and accept the award in person if she won.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 07, 2010, 12:16:19 PM
If Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar does that mean she'll be the first person to ever win a RAZZIE and an Oscar?

She is already the only person to even be nominated for both in the same year. As for all time, I am not sure Cuba Gooding Jr must have a razzie too no?

I remember reading somewhere that she said she would go to the ceremony and accept the award in person if she won.

She did...

Raw Video: Bullock Accepts Actress 'Razzie' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYfFEalBe0A#)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on March 07, 2010, 12:25:43 PM
I like that she did that.  Good sport.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 07, 2010, 12:27:49 PM
I like that she did that.  Good sport.

I totally agree. I would go if I ever won one.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: zarodinu on March 07, 2010, 05:01:37 PM
I like that she did that.  Good sport.

I totally agree. I would go if I ever won one.

She should totally bring it to the Academy Awards
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on March 07, 2010, 06:11:14 PM
If Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar does that mean she'll be the first person to ever win a RAZZIE and an Oscar?

In 1998, Helgeland became the first person to win both an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay (for L.A. Confidential) and a Razzie (for The Postman) in the same year. He accepted the Razzie and became only the fourth person in its history to be personally presented with the statuette.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on March 07, 2010, 06:23:06 PM
Il Postino is a great film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on March 07, 2010, 07:09:55 PM
Il Postino is a great film.

I don't know if you meant this as a joke, but in case you didn't, those are two very different movies.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on March 07, 2010, 07:32:15 PM
I know.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Tim on March 07, 2010, 07:58:42 PM
I like that she did that.  Good sport.

I totally agree. I would go if I ever won one.
I'll vote for you ;)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 07, 2010, 08:04:27 PM
I like that she did that.  Good sport.

I totally agree. I would go if I ever won one.
I'll vote for you ;)

Oh man, if I tried to act I would SOOOOOOO win a Razzie.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on March 07, 2010, 11:17:34 PM

Oh man, if I tried to act I would SOOOOOOO win a Razzie.

Whoa, Dream big!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Basil on March 07, 2010, 11:33:54 PM
When Streisand uttered "Well, the time has come," I was certain Lee Daniels would take home the award.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on March 07, 2010, 11:35:44 PM
I loved that Hanks was all business at the end.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on March 07, 2010, 11:37:20 PM
I watched the last three categories in Spanish.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on March 07, 2010, 11:39:23 PM
I watched the last three categories in Spanish.

I wish they were available in breakdance.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: philip918 on March 07, 2010, 11:49:54 PM
When Streisand uttered "Well, the time has come," I was certain Lee Daniels would take home the award.

Yeah, that seemed fairly tactless considering the set up.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Dave the Necrobumper on March 08, 2010, 12:10:32 AM
When Streisand uttered "Well, the time has come," I was certain Lee Daniels would take home the award.

Yeah, that seemed fairly tactless considering the set up.

Why, she had gushed about first female and certainly seemed more keen on first female.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: StarCarly on March 08, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
When Streisand uttered "Well, the time has come," I was certain Lee Daniels would take home the award.

Yeah, that seemed fairly tactless considering the set up.

Well, I knew Lee Daniels wasn't going to win going in. I still think it was weird for her to say it like that.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Corndog on March 08, 2010, 12:14:10 AM
When Streisand uttered "Well, the time has come," I was certain Lee Daniels would take home the award.

Yeah, that seemed fairly tactless considering the set up.

Well, I knew Lee Daniels wasn't going to win going in. I still think it was weird for her to say it like that.

Are we really talking about this? Either way, it didn't matter. Would have been a first for either and the phrase would have been appropriate either way. I don't see how it was tactless or weird.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Basil on March 08, 2010, 12:26:10 AM
For what it's worth, I was totally joking. Well, actually, I guess I was a little confused for about a split-second.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 1SO on March 08, 2010, 01:19:10 AM
Here are 10 of the funniest Oscar tweets. Think of them as notes from the peanut gallery.

"Shhhh. I'm live tweeting from directly under Sandra Bullocks chair." — Rainn Wilson (rainnwilson), actor.

"Charlize Theron would like to thank R. Crumb and my 16-year-old id for designing her outfit tonight." — David Itzkoff (ditzkoff), New York Times reporter.

"Just got lost for a minute, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah ... Zach Effron's (Zac Efron) eyes!" — Rob Corddry (robcorddr), comedian.

"Looks like a Young Victoria sweep." — David Wain (davidwain), comedian.

"Shortest Oscar story in history: ( ! > $ )" — Roger Ebert (ebertchicago), film critic.

"Jeff Bridges is quickly closing in on Matthew McConaughey for `best actor who has become a character from an early movie.'" — Bill Simmons (sportsguy33), ESPN columnist.

"Oscars Fun Fact — Samuel L. Jackson spends 40 percent of his yearly income on Kangol hats ..." — Eric Stangel (EricStangel), "Late Show With David Letterman" writer-producer.

"Oh, Sam Worthington, your glasses make me think you're imperfect and therefore accessible." — Mindy Kaling (mindykaling), actor-writer.

"Oprah's about to tell everyone in the audience there's an Oscar under their seat." — Foster Kamer (weareyourfek), blogger.

"James Cameron is going into his own hurt locker right now." — Paul Scheer (paulscheer), comedian.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on March 08, 2010, 11:46:22 AM
At the time the Oscar nominations were announced, I hadn't yet seen Precious, so I wasn't in a position to say, "Best Editing for Precious?  wtf?!?!??!!!"

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on March 08, 2010, 11:53:59 AM
Although I may not agree with the choice of Avatar for cinematography, I must say it is an encouraging step toward my vindication after last year. ;D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on March 08, 2010, 12:04:59 PM
Although I may not agree with the choice of Avatar for cinematography, I must say it is an encouraging step toward my vindication after last year. ;D

WALL-E!

Avatar winning Best Cinematography, while undeserving, is a step in the right direction when it comes to recognizing films that are nearly 100% CGI. Then again, maybe the Academy is biased because they look at Avatar as a live action film.



Also, is it just me or do you get the feeling that the folks at Pixar will be happiest, not if they win Best Picture, but if they win Best Screenplay? They keep getting nominated there, and to a certain extent winning that award would be a huge signal that Animation is finally being taken seriously.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on March 08, 2010, 12:15:00 PM
Up's screenplay nomination is probably more embarrassing than The Hurt Locker's screenplay win.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: philip918 on March 08, 2010, 12:17:52 PM
I wouldn't go that far, but neither seemed all that great.  Would've loved to see IB take that category.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on March 08, 2010, 12:18:26 PM
A Serious Man, yo!
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Basil on March 08, 2010, 12:18:53 PM
I'm just glad I got to hear Geoffrey Fletcher's voice.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on March 08, 2010, 12:21:41 PM
I'm just glad I got to hear Geoffrey Fletcher's voice.

The time had come.

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Colleen on March 08, 2010, 12:33:17 PM
A Serious Man, yo!

No way.  I agree (but I was rooting for IB a little bit more) but that movie is going to seem way too opaque for most viewers.  There are very few people I would urge to watch that.  Most people would be just WTF? when it ended. 
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 08, 2010, 12:35:25 PM
A Serious Man, yo!

No way.  I agree (but I was rooting for IB a little bit more) but that movie is going to seem way too opaque for most viewers.  There are very few people I would urge to watch that.  Most people would be just WTF? when it ended. 

I totally agree. On my other forum the people are pretty well educated about film (nothing like here though) but I cant get a single person to acknowledge that A serious Man is a great film. They all hate it. :(
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: 'Noke on March 08, 2010, 12:38:37 PM
A Serious Man, yo!

No way.  I agree (but I was rooting for IB a little bit more) but that movie is going to seem way too opaque for most viewers.  There are very few people I would urge to watch that.  Most people would be just WTF? when it ended. 

I totally agree. On my other forum the people are pretty well educated about film (nothing like here though) but I cant get a single person to acknowledge that A serious Man is a great film. They all hate it. :(

What's your other forum?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FroHam X on March 08, 2010, 12:39:47 PM
Up's screenplay nomination is probably more embarrassing than The Hurt Locker's screenplay win.

pixote

FLY? What's so bad about the writing in Up?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: pixote on March 08, 2010, 12:43:49 PM
What's so bad about the writing in Up?
I assume your question is rhetorical, but here (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=1028.msg273041#msg273041).

pixote
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 08, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
A Serious Man, yo!

No way.  I agree (but I was rooting for IB a little bit more) but that movie is going to seem way too opaque for most viewers.  There are very few people I would urge to watch that.  Most people would be just WTF? when it ended. 

I totally agree. On my other forum the people are pretty well educated about film (nothing like here though) but I cant get a single person to acknowledge that A serious Man is a great film. They all hate it. :(

What's your other forum?

It's a poker forum with a subforum about film. It's called 2+2.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on March 08, 2010, 01:19:10 PM
A Serious Man, yo!

No way.  I agree (but I was rooting for IB a little bit more) but that movie is going to seem way too opaque for most viewers.  There are very few people I would urge to watch that.  Most people would be just WTF? when it ended. 

I agree it didn't have much of a shot at actually winning, but of the nominated films it was my first choice. IMO the screenplay is amazing, even if only a small portion of people appreciate it.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on March 08, 2010, 02:26:14 PM
A Serious Man, yo!

I agree. Though I wouldn't have minded seeing IB winning Best Screenplay either, as it was my choice. Haven't seen the final nominee, (The Last Station, right?) but these two screenplays make The Hurt Locker and Up look like a five year old's first narrative by comparison.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 03:11:37 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.

 ::)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 03:32:51 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.

 ::)

Must you be oblique, sir?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Clovis8 on March 08, 2010, 03:34:07 PM
I made a new thread for discussions of the show last night.

http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=7480.0 (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=7480.0)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 03:34:51 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.

 ::)

Must you be oblique, sir?

I hate the argument you are trying to make, I hate it every time you or someone else tries to make it, and I'm not about to stop hating an argument I find to be preposterous.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 03:38:33 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.

 ::)

Must you be oblique, sir?

I hate the argument you are trying to make, I hate it every time you or someone else tries to make it, and I'm not about to stop hating an argument I find to be preposterous.

It wasn't really an argument. I said "It seems", maybe I should have wrote "it feels". Of course, the Academy isn't 10 people in a room and they aren't consciously apologizing. I'm not an idiot.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 03:43:09 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.

 ::)

Must you be oblique, sir?

I hate the argument you are trying to make, I hate it every time you or someone else tries to make it, and I'm not about to stop hating an argument I find to be preposterous.

It wasn't really an argument. I said "It seems", maybe I should have wrote "it feels". Of course, the Academy isn't 10 people in a room and they aren't consciously apologizing. I'm not an idiot.

That's not the argument I'm talking about, I'm talking about the Oscar bait sentiment, or the idea that Oscar bait exists.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 03:52:35 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.

 ::)

Must you be oblique, sir?

I hate the argument you are trying to make, I hate it every time you or someone else tries to make it, and I'm not about to stop hating an argument I find to be preposterous.

It wasn't really an argument. I said "It seems", maybe I should have wrote "it feels". Of course, the Academy isn't 10 people in a room and they aren't consciously apologizing. I'm not an idiot.

That's not the argument I'm talking about, I'm talking about the Oscar bait sentiment, or the idea that Oscar bait exists.

Are you saying that "A Beautiful Mind", "Shakespeare In Love", "The Cider House Rules"(fu*k, almost any Miramax film from this era), "The Hours", "Mystic River"(I actually kind of like this movie, but still) and so on and so forth aren't Oscar-Bait? I'm sorry, but I find your refusal to acknowledge the term (though I respect it) ridiculous. Well-meaning middle-brow drama often made for the late-year period (I wonder why) ruled the Oscars for many, many years. It's absurd not to think so. Which is not to say something like "No Country For Old Men" or "The Departed" didn't have people behind it pushing it incredibly hard for Oscars, but the films themselves are not emblematic of the type of movie that fits the labeling. Thank goodness.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 03:56:37 PM
I like that essentially 3 (great) genre movies have won in the past 4 years. It seems like Oscar is trying to make for all that terrible Oscar-bait that won in the past.

 ::)

Must you be oblique, sir?

I hate the argument you are trying to make, I hate it every time you or someone else tries to make it, and I'm not about to stop hating an argument I find to be preposterous.

It wasn't really an argument. I said "It seems", maybe I should have wrote "it feels". Of course, the Academy isn't 10 people in a room and they aren't consciously apologizing. I'm not an idiot.

That's not the argument I'm talking about, I'm talking about the Oscar bait sentiment, or the idea that Oscar bait exists.

Are you saying that "A Beautiful Mind", "Shakespeare In Love", "The Cider House Rules"(fu*k, almost any Miramax film from this era), "The Hours", "Mystic River"(I actually kind of like this movie, but still) and so on and so forth aren't Oscar-Bait? I'm sorry, but I find your refusal to acknowledge the term (though I respect it) ridiculous. Well-meaning middle-brow drama often made for the late-year period (I wonder why) ruled the Oscars for many, many years. It's absurd not to think so. Which is not to say something like "No Country For Old Men" or "The Departed" didn't have people behind it pushing it incredibly hard for Oscars, but the films themselves are not emblematic of the type of movie that fits the labeling. Thank goodness.

They are movies being made, that's all they are. Every movie that has a chance at the Oscars gets hyped by their studio, the only reason they are considered Oscar-bait is because people have decided that there must be a reason those films won or were pushed for an Oscar and that reason was the never-ending loop of "to win an Oscar." Applying the Oscar bait label to any film does a disservice to the film and to the person making applying the label.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on March 08, 2010, 03:58:40 PM
so does applying any other genre label give you the same reaction?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 04:00:55 PM
so does applying any other genre label give you the same reaction?

Not really. I'm not a fan of genre labels, but I will and do use them myself, because they try to pigeonhole movies into neat little boxes. However, they aren't slanderous against the films in question, saying The Hurt Locker is an action film isn't slamming the film in any way, but saying The Hurt Locker is Oscar bait is in fact slamming the film.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 04:04:10 PM
You seem to think that there haven't been cases where the people behind a movie don't make it for Oscars. Come on now, the existence of Harvey Weinstein disputes this.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 04:08:03 PM
You seem to think that there haven't been cases where the people behind a movie don't make it for Oscars. Come on now, the existence of Harvey Weinstein disputes this.

I don't buy that for a second. A movie can be green-lit for any number of reasons, but at the end of the day a director/writer doesn't sit down and make a movie to appeal to the Oscars, and those are the people I care about. A studio head may put a movie into production thinking it sounds like something that the Oscars would like, but he/she is outside of the creative process and thus someone I could care less about. And in the end the writers/directors are making movies to make movies, because they have an idea they feel they need to share, not because they want to form bait for the Oscars.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Melvil on March 08, 2010, 04:09:34 PM
I haven't put that much thought into it, but there are certainly movies that seem to me like they appeal to the Academy's overall sensibilities for "best of the year" material. My issue with the term Oscar-bait is the negative connotation that it's being made to appeal to the academy. I'm sure that happens, but I think it's an unfair assumption to belittle a film by.

(this post sounded more original before the replies made while typing it. ;))
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on March 08, 2010, 04:12:36 PM
but THL doesn't fit the bill for bait.  i think something like "B-movie" or "Exploitation" came out of quite negative connotations but are still legitimate ways to reference a film.  I also think they're identical, criteria wise, as to what the term "oscar bait" goes after.

also I hate to tell you this but Harvey is very much INSIDE the creative process - he had edited scripts, films hired and fired talent and told directors who they can cast (same with most producers), as are often the agents who package the oscar type films together in the first place.  It gets back to the sacredness of the "art" of filmmaking which really just doesn't exist in Hollywood.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 04:12:50 PM
Either way, the term "Oscar-Bait" is a short hand, like alot of terms, ya know, and it doesn't have to be a pejorative, though it usually is. Like I said, I kind of like Mystic River. It's indicative of a type of movie.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 04:13:48 PM
Either way, the term "Oscar-Bait" is a short hand, like alot of terms, ya know, and it doesn't have to be a pejorative, though it usually is. Like I said, I kind of like Mystic River. It's indicative of a type of movie.

And like I said, I don't think it is.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: mañana on March 08, 2010, 04:14:23 PM
But, Bill, we can agree that 35 Shots of Rum and Fantastic Mr Fox are totally Filmspot bait, right?  :)
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 04:16:17 PM
 It gets back to the sacredness of the "art" of filmmaking which really just doesn't exist in Hollywood.

I don't exactly agree with this, either.

And there seems to be people Weinstein leaves alone, like Tarantino. Though when Weinstein is able to cut a Scorsese film, that does say something.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Bill Thompson on March 08, 2010, 04:16:41 PM
But, Bill, we can agree that 35 Shots of Rum and Fantastic Mr Fox are totally Filmspot bait, right?  :)

Totally  :D
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: ¡Keith! on March 08, 2010, 04:18:45 PM
 It gets back to the sacredness of the "art" of filmmaking which really just doesn't exist in Hollywood.

I don't exactly agree with this, either.

And there seems to be people Weinstein leaves alone, like Tarantino. Though when Weinstein is able to cut a Scorsese film, that does say something.


I've never bought into that as QT likes to self-mythologize, so when he says "it wasn't harvey's decision" (which he's done very often) I tend to doubt the truthiness of the statement.
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: FLYmeatwad on March 08, 2010, 04:20:34 PM
 It gets back to the sacredness of the "art" of filmmaking which really just doesn't exist in Hollywood.

I don't exactly agree with this, either.

And there seems to be people Weinstein leaves alone, like Tarantino. Though when Weinstein is able to cut a Scorsese film, that does say something.


I've never bought into that as QT likes to self-mythologize, so when he says "it wasn't harvey's decision" (which he's done very often) I tend to doubt the truthiness of the statement.

Wasn't the theatrical cut of Inglorious Basterds Harvey's decision? I recall that during the Cannes premiere it received mixed reviews and was a bit, perhaps considerably, longer. Correct?
Title: Re: 2009 Awards That Are Not Filmspots.
Post by: Holly Harry on March 08, 2010, 04:25:10 PM
 It gets back to the sacredness of the "art" of filmmaking which really just doesn't exist in Hollywood.

I don't exactly agree with this, either.

And there seems to be people Weinstein leaves alone, like Tarantino. Though when Weinstein is able to cut a Scorsese film, that does say something.


I've never bought into that as QT likes to self-mythologize, so when he says "it wasn't harvey's decision" (which he's done very often) I tend to doubt the truthiness of the statement.

Wasn't the theatrical cut of Inglorious Basterds Harvey's decision? I recall that during the Cannes premiere it received mixed reviews and was a bit, perhaps considerably, longer. Correct?

Apprently, according to the critics who were at Cannes, the cuts are nearly identical, except for a shot scene added to the film where Fassbender meets the Basterds in a basement. And that was apparently Tarantino's decision. I feel like if Tarantino didn't get his way, he wouldn't be working with Weinstein still after all these years.