Oscar Nominations Announced - Page 3

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-04-2010, 02:21 PM

This argument doesn't hold up to Titanic winning best picture.
Avatar would have been nominated every year because it sold shit loads of tickets. That's pretty much the most important way to get nominated.

Magus · 02-04-2010, 02:28 PM

Titanic notwithstanding, Avatar wouldn't have been nominated for best picture in some other years but it would've been nominated for something else, because the Oscar committee has to make sure to jack off everybody they can at least a little bit, you know, to keep anybody from getting mad. They look at ticket sales and if it's really high they nominate it for something. I can't really explain Titanic other than I think most people actually thought that movie was dramatic instead of just two hours of idiocy until you got to the good part where the boat broke in half and people went falling and slamming and spinning into the propellers. And then there were still two hours left.

Oh, and Titanic was also 4 hours long, maybe that was why it won. Return of the King also won, it was also 4 hours long (although much better than Titanic, that was for sure), but also not what I'd call an "Oscar" movie.

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-04-2010, 02:32 PM

The Academy does tend to like long movies because length=quality obviously. Though by that scale Empire should have won basically everything.

Magus · 02-04-2010, 02:44 PM

It didn't have a plot or characters, though. You can't give the Empire State Building an awards statue. It also exhibited pretty poor editing--hours 4 through 6 were really just totally uncalled for.

Personally, I think Waterworld should've won if they're going to nominate Avatar now. Waterworld was also three hours long and way better than Avatar. It also had Dennis Hopper with an eye patch. They should retroactively go back and give it best picture and then I'll accept this Avatar nomination thing.

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-04-2010, 02:48 PM

The Empire state building could have won Best Actor at least. Better than Roy Harrison in my fair lady anyway.
And waterworld didn't do that well at the box-office so it can't be best picture, clearly.

Magus · 02-04-2010, 02:55 PM

Moon probably should've been nominated for something, heck, it was apparently more important than the Hurt Locker which never even came out in theaters around here, but they played Moon for a week, I was pretty amazed I got the chance to watch it. At least two people bought tickets to it, I know that for a fact, because there was another guy in there also watching it when I saw it.

Aerozord · 02-04-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

It didn't have a plot or characters, though. You can't give the Empire State Building an awards statue. It also exhibited pretty poor editing--hours 4 through 6 were really just totally uncalled for.

Personally, I think Waterworld should've won if they're going to nominate Avatar now. Waterworld was also three hours long and way better than Avatar. It also had Dennis Hopper with an eye patch. They should retroactively go back and give it best picture and then I'll accept this Avatar nomination thing.

you thought Warerworld was good?

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-04-2010, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

Moon probably should've been nominated for something, heck, it was apparently more important than the Hurt Locker which never even came out in theaters around here, but they played Moon for a week, I was pretty amazed I got the chance to watch it. At least two people bought tickets to it, I know that for a fact, because there was another guy in there also watching it when I saw it.

Moon was pretty terrible but I've ranted about on here before. I will admit it is better than all the other movies on here- except maybe the Hurt locker which I haven't seen but sounds atrocious.

Magus · 02-04-2010, 04:03 PM

Moon was kind of boring, actually. The plot wasn't too original either. It just seemed more like an Oscar type movie than Avatar.

What's the cut-off for movies each year, anyway? I have a hard time remembering if a movie I saw this last year (2009) should be on this year's Oscar nominations or if it should've been on 2008 or something.

Kerensky287 · 02-04-2010, 04:17 PM

I went into Avatar thinking it was going to be a pretty bad movie and now it's one of my favourites.

When I saw it on the Best Picture list I thought, wow, guaranteed win. Then I looked down and saw Inglourious Basterds and I could not make a decision between them. I mean, IB is a goddamn masterpiece, but Avatar... well, it had the feel of one of those "cult favourite" movies with an unfortunately low budget, BUT THE BUDGET WAS REALLY HIGH!

I mean, yeah, Avatar was basically Pocahontas in Space, but I didn't like Pocahontas and this one was done really, really well.

02-04-2010, 02:28 PM	#22
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Titanic notwithstanding, Avatar wouldn't have been nominated for best picture in some other years but it would've been nominated for something else, because the Oscar committee has to make sure to jack off everybody they can at least a little bit, you know, to keep anybody from getting mad. They look at ticket sales and if it's really high they nominate it for something. I can't really explain Titanic other than I think most people actually thought that movie was dramatic instead of just two hours of idiocy until you got to the good part where the boat broke in half and people went falling and slamming and spinning into the propellers. And then there were still two hours left. Oh, and Titanic was also 4 hours long, maybe that was why it won. Return of the King also won, it was also 4 hours long (although much better than Titanic, that was for sure), but also not what I'd call an "Oscar" movie. __________________ The Valiant Review

02-04-2010, 02:44 PM	#24
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	It didn't have a plot or characters, though. You can't give the Empire State Building an awards statue. It also exhibited pretty poor editing--hours 4 through 6 were really just totally uncalled for. Personally, I think Waterworld should've won if they're going to nominate Avatar now. Waterworld was also three hours long and way better than Avatar. It also had Dennis Hopper with an eye patch. They should retroactively go back and give it best picture and then I'll accept this Avatar nomination thing. __________________ The Valiant Review

02-04-2010, 02:55 PM	#26
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Moon probably should've been nominated for something, heck, it was apparently more important than the Hurt Locker which never even came out in theaters around here, but they played Moon for a week, I was pretty amazed I got the chance to watch it. At least two people bought tickets to it, I know that for a fact, because there was another guy in there also watching it when I saw it. __________________ The Valiant Review

02-04-2010, 04:03 PM	#29
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Moon was kind of boring, actually. The plot wasn't too original either. It just seemed more like an Oscar type movie than Avatar. What's the cut-off for movies each year, anyway? I have a hard time remembering if a movie I saw this last year (2009) should be on this year's Oscar nominations or if it should've been on 2008 or something. __________________ The Valiant Review

02-04-2010, 02:21 PM	#21
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	This argument doesn't hold up to Titanic winning best picture. Avatar would have been nominated every year because it sold shit loads of tickets. That's pretty much the most important way to get nominated.

02-04-2010, 02:32 PM	#23
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	The Academy does tend to like long movies because length=quality obviously. Though by that scale Empire should have won basically everything.

02-04-2010, 02:48 PM	#25
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	The Empire state building could have won Best Actor at least. Better than Roy Harrison in my fair lady anyway. And waterworld didn't do that well at the box-office so it can't be best picture, clearly.

02-04-2010, 04:17 PM	#30
Kerensky287 Just That Good Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,426	I went into Avatar thinking it was going to be a pretty bad movie and now it's one of my favourites. When I saw it on the Best Picture list I thought, wow, guaranteed win. Then I looked down and saw Inglourious Basterds and I could not make a decision between them. I mean, IB is a goddamn masterpiece, but Avatar... well, it had the feel of one of those "cult favourite" movies with an unfortunately low budget, BUT THE BUDGET WAS REALLY HIGH! I mean, yeah, Avatar was basically Pocahontas in Space, but I didn't like Pocahontas and this one was done really, really well.