Dark Knight deserved to win best picture. in 2008 let alone be nominated. Richard Roeper had Dark Knight as his best picture.
Dodgers, Lakers, Raiders.
Fok Jelle Naiers
They`re = contraction of they are
There = used to describe location
Their = pronoun used to describe belonging
Should've = contraction of should have
Should of = makes no sense at all
I have no issue with The Hurt Locker beating Avatar. Avatar was god awful.
But what about District 9? Nominated, but no win.
Les Miserables > you
Les Miserables looks awful.
Avatar was an awful movie.
That's all I got...
Hurt Locker sucked. So did Avatar. Inglourious Basterds was the film that got robbed that year. But, to your overall point -- films get overlooked all the time.
As a general rule, action movies, sci fi movies, comedies, horror movies, and things like that tend to get looked down on, whereas a lot of crappy dramas will get nominated.
Now, I think that The Dark Knight Rises, the Avengers, and Avatar are all terrible movies. But they're not more terrible than Crash - a movie that won best picture, or The Hurt Locker - a movie that also won best picture.
But they are worse than films that did not win best picture like Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction, The Big Lebowski (which wasn't even nominated), 2001: A Space Odyssey (which also was not nominated), etc.
Basically, if you want to make a list of movies that got robbed by not winning Best Picture, the list does not start with Avatar and the Avengers.
You have to adjust for ticket price when talking about "the most popular film of all time."Originally Posted by ebbs
If you don't adjust for ticket price inflation, you get a list that is unfairly weighted for more recent films.
Last edited by gcoll; 12-15-2012 at 04:33 PM.
I didn't see Hurt Locker, but I did see Avatar and I hated it. I didn't even really want to see it in the first place. I saw people drooling all over it (especially on here) that I thought I would have an open mind and go check it out. It sucked.
And how are you seriously hating on Crash. Its completely unlike any other movie. The acting was great, and the storyline of "It's a small world" wasn't exaggerated or forced.
If you think that along with the Batman movies and the Avengers are "terrible" movies than Im curious what movies you think aren't.
You just sound like a complete hater of anything "mainstream"
And most really amazing movies aren't given respect until many years later, just look at Fight Club and American Psycho.
Completely unlike any other movie? It's essentially a "mainstream" version of Magnolia, and Magnolia came out six years earlier and was six times a better film. Other films very similar to Crash? 11:14 was almost exactly like Crash except it was more comical, and it came out two years earlier. 21 Grams. "It's a small world" concept, 2 years earlier, done better. Traffic is to drugs as Crash is to a car crash. Done better, five years earlier. Amores Perros, five years earlier. Done better. Short Cuts, 12 years earlier. Done better. Completely unlike any other movie? That is the most absurd, outlandish and misinformed statement I've heard on here in a long, long time. Not to mention that its message against racism is poorly conceived in that the film perpetuates every negative stereotype there is. If you think that what this film did was good towards stopping racism, you're misinformed. In fact, by perpetuating stereotypes, the film is, in effect, promoting continued racism in a way.And how are you seriously hating on Crash. Its completely unlike any other movie. The acting was great, and the storyline of "It's a small world" wasn't exaggerated or forced.
Movie. Film. I happened to love TDKR and The Avengers, but good films they are not. TDKR suffers from some TERRIBLE pacing and some TERRIBLE dialogue. And that's coming from one of the biggest Christopher Nolan fans there is. I love his directing style, but I literally mute the dialogue between Batman and Bane in their final fight. "Did you come here to watch Gotham burn?" "No, I came here to stop you." That's awful. That's cringe-worthy. And there are several large plot holes in TDKR. Yes, it was made well. There are many GREAT aspects of TDKR, but it is not a complete film. As far as The Avengers? You know that when you sacrifice any sense of traditional cinematography just to show off elaborate set pieces, you're not trying to take yourself seriously in legitimate film award ceremonies. The acting was great, and it was a fun ride, but it did nothing extremely artistic and nothing noteworthy or imaginative in the arena of film.If you think that along with the Batman movies and the Avengers are "terrible" movies than Im curious what movies you think aren't.
That wasn't aimed at me, but I'll respond to it anyway. Is it possible that you just don't know what you're talking about? That came across as rude, but I didn't mean it in a rude way. I don't agree with the guy you quoted. I don't think TDKR or The Avengers are by any means terrible movies. Avatar... Eh, but that's beside the point. I don't think they're terrible movies, and I very much enjoyed all three when they first came out. But are they great movies? No, not by any means. And that brings me back to the question of whether or not you know what you're talking about. There is more to judging films than whether or not you enjoy them. There are hundreds of technical, stylistic and artistic things that go into making a film. That's why there are degrees available for people to study film. And I'm not just saying there are degrees available for people to make films, no. I'm talking about degrees merely in the STUDY of film. There are scores of scholarly articles, essays and novels written about film, and it goes much more in-depth than whether or not you liked a certain character or enjoyed the plot.You just sound like a complete hater of anything "mainstream"
And I'm sure if you asked them, James Cameron, Joss Whedon and Christopher Nolan would each freely admit that Avatar, Avengers and TDKR were not their best films at all. They might have been the most enjoyable to some people, but they are not their best, and they are not better than other likely nominees this year.
This works both ways.And most really amazing movies aren't given respect until many years later, just look at Fight Club and American Psycho.
I honestly think the academy has a bias against movies that were incredibly successful financially. They're a bunch of hipsters, they don't want to acknowledge what we all saw, they want to let us know that are opinions aren't good enough and if something is popular that means it's overrated. Here's how I look at the Oscars using 2011 as an example. From that year in movies we will remember the Social Network first, Inception second and The King's Speech third. I've seen the King's Speech and it is a fine movie, but it is not as good or as important to society as The Social Network was. The Social Network should have won that Oscar. That's how I think Oscars should be handled. What will we remember from that year in cinema? If there is a truly great smaller movie than I'm happy to give it the Oscar. But look at 2008. Slumdog was obviously a great movie, but the Dark Knight was just as good and when we think of 2008 in terms of cinema we'll think of the Dark Knight first. Nobody still talks about Slumdog, plenty of people still think of the Dark Knight. It meant more to us.
We're better than you
And we know it
We're better than you
And we know it