What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
69 Comments
- danielbook, on 10/28/2008, -9/+76Wait a second.. movies that people actually watched and liked might win the Oscars? That's unheard of!
- TheLakeTroll, on 10/28/2008, -6/+67Maybe because Wall-E and The Dark Knight deserve it.
- dezweber, on 10/28/2008, -2/+23If we keep in mind that the Oscars are as much a capitalist venture as anything else, it would be no surprise at all that the moneymakers would have a place in nominations, at least. Everyone wants their favorite to win and will more likely watch the ceremony if their favorite is nominated, which translates into more $$ from sponsors...
- doiveo, on 10/28/2008, -7/+28Stands to reason. If you want good films, follow Cannes and TIFF.
- winstonsmith303, on 10/28/2008, -2/+22GOOD! I'm tired of these films coming in at the last minute, being released five seconds before the Oscar ceremonies start and stealing the shows. God forbid the Oscars be in some way relavent to today's society. I'm not saying I think High School Musical 3 should win an Oscar but I don't think that great performances like Heath Ledger's in the Dark Knight should be overlooked simply because it was a blockbuster that came out in the summer.
- phogasmic, on 10/28/2008, -3/+23They should, Batman and Wall-E were two of the best pics of the year. They should not be discriminated against just because they are tent pole releases.
- EvoIII8, on 10/28/2008, -0/+14Lol. I know. That would have NEVER made sense to me before you brought this up.
- Zedian, on 10/28/2008, -1/+11Agreed although admittedly this years' biggest financial stories at the box office like TDK, Wall-E and Iron Man actually earned it by being REALLY good movies.
- deweyhewson, on 10/28/2008, -0/+10The Oscars should not be a popularity contest.
If a lot of people did like an artistically great film then that is a positive bonus, but should not be the criteria for selecting Oscar winners.
That being said, Dark Knight and WALL-E were excellent films, and I have no personal problem with their nominations. - feezus, on 10/28/2008, -0/+8Look up the sales figures for Epic Movie and Disaster Movie then watch them, if you can stomach it. Try to tell me that sales numbers should be indicitive of the quality of a film.
The Shawshank Redemption did awful on the big screen. - binarymelon, on 10/28/2008, -1/+7Normal oscar contenders aren't that intelligent to begin with. They're just dramatic. The oscars are just for movies that aren't exciting enough to pull in a big box office and not intelligent enough to considered good by the "indie" crowd.
- DiggyWiggy, on 10/28/2008, -2/+6This just in: The Oscars suck and are a constant disappoint, and are likely to get even worse over time. In other news, 2008 may now be known as "The Year of ***** Movies."
- haydesigner, on 10/28/2008, -0/+4Even beyond caring if the Grammys are watchable, the wards themselves are meaningless precisely because it is solely about sales and marketing. I mean, just look at how many Grammys Mariah Carey has one fer cryin' out loud! You absolutely can not tell me that there are not 100+ better, more deserving musicians out there for each one she has.
(she has received five Grammy Awards and a total of thirty-three(!!) nominations)
If the Oscars truly go the way of the Grammy, then it will be sad indeed - tomg025, on 10/28/2008, -2/+6while i am a little surprised that iron man is in the mix, i do think that wall-e is one of the best movies i have ever seen and i do think that ledger gave a great, incredible, legendary performance. but those are the only two blockbusters in recent memory that i can think of that should even be considered for oscars.
- DrMilkdad, on 10/28/2008, -3/+7Lets not forget this years instant classic epic masterpiece Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D!
That's what I've been telling the scientific community for YEARS!!!! - UtahApocalyse, on 10/28/2008, -1/+4See this is a double edged sword to me.... On one side I agree with this, The "Best Movie" should be the movie that most people find the best. Not just a group of film critics or insiders. On the other side though it should not be based only on the box office. As we all know some people watch some very bad movies.... ALOT. If they can strike a good balance between the two sides it definately could reinvent the Oscars. I for one have not watched in years as they never have the movies I love. Seems when it comes to critics, and awards..... If it wins I will hate it. The failures most the time are my favorites.
- cle2105, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3Didn't people watch and like The Departed and Return of the King? They both did very well at the box office
- timothycrash01, on 10/28/2008, -2/+5Ya - like Titanic, Gladiator, Rocky, Braveheart, Forest Gump, Platoon, Gone with the Wind, Sound of Music, Shindler's List, Silience of the Lambs, The English Patient, The Godfather, Shakespeare in Love weren't popular. Lol. All HUGELY popular films that won Best Picture.
For the most part, Best Picture winners are the most popular films of each year - or at least in the top 5. Yes there are exceptions, occasionally.
The misconception that the Academy Awards are about unpopular art films that only critics like is a load of *****. But if you're wondering why American Pie didn't get a nomination, well, there's another reason.
Actually, I'd like to see better, less popular films have a shot more often. But then, the ratings would fall drastically for the Awards show. - roctimo, on 10/28/2008, -1/+4"I don't get it, was that sarcasm, or were you really implying that the mindless dribble that people watch deserves oscars?."
Buried for your elitist *****. You're one of those idiots that thinks anything that's popular can't be good, and that anything that's under the radar can't be bad. There's a VERY good reason why a lot of stuff stays under the radar. Namely, limited appeal, and also sheer crappiness.
There's a lot to be said for creating something that touches lots of people. For instance, a robot Michael Jackson. But I digress. - Oogler, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2I agree and it's important to note that Dick Cook is not pushing the HSM3 or Chihuahua properties as contenders alongside Wall-E.
- camaroz06, on 10/28/2008, -1/+3Wall-E, IMHO, was one of the best films this year. It was very well told, very different with the little dialog, and had so much emotion coming from animated robots at the same time. Great movie!
Still have to see Dark Knight though, should be great as well. - DifferentAngle, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2Instead, we should should have the Oscars be about who can make the most elitist, misunderstood movie possible.
For instance, "Crash" winning an Oscar is ridiculous. - inchrnt, on 10/28/2008, -2/+4So, the people who control film and television created an awards ceremony for themselves and used that same media to convince us all that "Oscars" were some great achievement and not just another way for them to market their product?
Why do I care again? - slickrick2k1, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2dont digg him down. nickfartzone has lots of great opinions for you
- jmpeagle, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2Oscars is just the movie industry giving itself a pat on the back...why should you expect so much from it?
- dark3lf, on 10/28/2008, -1/+3I never really understood why a movie designed to be entertaining and a crowd-pleaser makes it less worthy of recognition than something considered more high-brow. When you go back to the days of old theater, Shakespeare and the like gave just as much attention to bawdy jokes and mindless action as they did to dramatic and thought-provoking scenes.
I don't have much doubt that Romeo and Juliet done today would be received as a mindless romance and action film by critical audiences. - tomg025, on 10/28/2008, -1/+3If The dark knight or Wall-E get a best picture nomination it will be because they were both exceptional films, nothing more.
couldn't agree more - dejanigma, on 10/28/2008, -1/+3Hasn't it always been this way? It's never been about quality, only money. Obviously if you wanted high quality films you would never go to a movie theater.
- mathcreative, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1Please stick to the topic, or you"ll just be buried again.
- inchrnt, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure how you get that from my comment.
In my opinion, the Oscars are nothing more than Hollywood narcissism and product marketing. The notion of good or bad is irrelevent when the event is designed to sell product, sell personality, and sell the business itself.
Also, the notion that box office success is an accurate measurement of the quality of the art is totally ridiculous and further proves my point. - sindex, on 10/28/2008, -2/+3The Dark Knight was a great film. Ledger did very well. Oscar-worthy? Meh.... I'm not so sure. A nomination would be nice to see, if only for the nod to a man who could have developed into a world-class actor.
- Oogler, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1And the Heisman(sp?), Stanley Cup or World Series Trophies aren't the same thing? And don't give me that voting vs. competition argument. They're all out to toot their horns as who is the best to increase profits. Period. And anyway, what is wrong with promoting the best of your industry to make more money?!? I thought this was a capitalist society!
- deweyhewson, on 10/28/2008, -2/+3A lot of people hate on the Oscars for the reason you just stated, but what they are really saying is a spin-off of the old "You're just an intellectual elitist. My uninformed opinion is just as valid as your educated one!"
Do you see High School Musical or Beverly Hills Chihuahua up for Oscars? No? Of course not, because they are mindless drivel.
If the Oscars serve to increase popularity of actual good films then that is a good thing. There will naturally be politics involved in the Oscars, but it doesn't mean they are a sham. - cle2105, on 10/28/2008, -3/+4But if becomes entirely driven by box-office, it will be as predictable and boring as the Grammys and no one will watch
- PennFarmer, on 10/28/2008, -1/+2Are you implying that only movies that no one watches are Oscar worthy? Is this some sort of victim awards show?
"Oh, poor me. No one watched me. Please give me an award since I made no money".
What a crock. I'm no movie buff/critic/fanatic, but leaving a movie out of contention for Best Picture just because a lot of people watched it seems kind of backwards to me. I didn't see Iron Man, but TDK was hardly mindless dribble (besides which, I think you wanted "drivel" which makes more sense in context) - mbraynard, on 10/28/2008, -1/+2That's kind of where you are wrong.
Winning an Oscar has a small amount of cache with some folks on the rental market. But the award is given by a tiny club of people with an out-of-mainstream taste in movies.
So let them have their little club and give their little awards and make their little speaches.
Really, who cares. Americans in general can read reviews and learn from friends on what is good or isn't when they decide what to Netflix.
I've been burned repeatedly by getting a movie just for the Oscar award it won. I'd really rather trust the Netflix recommendation engine or a good friend. - dezweber, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1I think that a lot of people would argue that the Academy Awards have, indeed, gone that way already. I mean, seriously? Titanic? As Good As it Gets is a much better film on so many levels...
- PennFarmer, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1I don't think anyone is trying to say that money made should be the only indicator. What we are saying is that large sales numbers do not imply that a movie is bad either (inverse of your statement). In fact, I believe most of us (although I can only honestly speak for myself) would be happy if money made were not a factor at all. Whether the movie does well at the box office or not should have no bearing on whether it is worth an Oscar.
Epic and Disaster Movies were an Epic Disaster and no one here is suggesting they should get an Oscar. The Dark Knight on the other hand was a dark and intelligent and very well done movie that should not be discounted because many people went to see it. And The Shawshank Redemption was a great movie. - soundz714, on 10/28/2008, -1/+2It will be a CRIME if Wall E does not get a Best Picture nomination!!!
- paulvq, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1Neither was Batman Begins...
- Oogler, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1If you owned stock in Viacom, Disney or Time Warner you wouldn't.
- PennFarmer, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1Agreed, and I am not suggesting that it does. I thought that TDK was a masterfully done movie and definitely deserves to be placed into contention.
My premise is not that just because a movie made money it should be in the running, but that it should not be taken out of contention for having done well at the box office. If the awards are going to mean anything artistically they have to have some sort of real merit to them besides making money. I think that whether the movie did well or not should have no bearing on its Oscar worthiness. - Armadeon, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1If Heath Ledger doesn't win a posthumous Oscar for playing The Joker, then I will officially lose all remaining respect for the Academy Awards.
- mathcreative, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1I critic should review a movie, then look at the popularity. If the popularity doesn't seem to match is review, he should at least one more time review the movie. They should at least try to understand why a movie is more or less popular. But not judge the movie off of why it's more or less popular. It should be judged by why and by what they think of it too. But the why parts important.
- PennFarmer, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1@Furious - What is your difficulty? I didn't say I knew nothing, simply that I don't spend a bulk of my time with movie matters. Movies are neither my job nor my hobby. As such, I probably represent the majority of American moviegoers.
You need to settle down. Maybe find a hobby yourself. Work out some aggression issues. Get a new user name that doesn't tempt you to go off all the time. - reed311, on 10/28/2008, -6/+6Let's hope this trend doesn't continue. Films like the Dark Knight, while decent films, cannot hold a candle to the real Oscar contenders.
- mmx2000, on 10/28/2008, -1/+1It should not be based at all on the box office. But that does not mean a fantastic movie and oscar nominee CAN'T have a good box office. I don't see why they have to be either mutually exclusive or all-inclusive.
Heath Ledger gave a fantastic performance... and made a lot of money (for T.D.K.). Whether or not the money was there, he still gave a great performance! - inactive, on 10/28/2008, -1/+1So you're saying that we shouldn't expect many good movies coming out in the next couple months.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -1/+1While I'll agree Wall-E was a very entertaining movie, The Dark Knight was merely an average movie.
Wall-E gets credit purely for being a fun, engaging film. It even had to get through the 'kids movie' personification.
The Dark Knight is an average movie featuring an actor to overdosed on drugs. They could have swapped Ledger with Bale and people still would have considered it Oscar worthy. It's all emotion stemming from situations outside of the movie, making it's selection a joke. -
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
