Comments on: Commentary Track: The Power of Snub

By: Tenika

Tenika — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:15:24 +0000

I think if people knew how oscars ballots and nominations come about any way then they wouldn't be so upset. I think I read somewhere that it literally is like 60 people who get to choose the oscar nominations. Once I found that out it became less painful seeing a film or actor/actress I like get "snubbed".

By: Derek

Derek — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:02:43 +0000

The academy is elitist. Way more often than not, they turn a blind eye to mainstream films and they end up failing to see magnificent works of art (ie..Wall-E, Dark Knight). They are more inclined to go the "Arthouse" route, and many of them are seemingly of the belief that popular mainstream films can never be art.

By: Heath

Heath — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:58:07 +0000

Watch the academy give some lame excuse the day after the Oscars as to why the ratings tanked, again. They will cite several reasons and they will NOT admit that the exclusion of The Dark Knight and Wall-E had a lot to do with it. Many voters clearly dismissed TDK and Wall-E as "too mainstream", and it was reported that many of the members DO lean towards "indie arthouse films" because that is what's "chic" and "upper crust" and what not. The voters fail to recognize that there are instances wherein a "mainstream blockbuster film" is also an exemplary work of art, and this year had 2 of them.

By: Trent

Trent — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:51:05 +0000

The Academy should just Man up and admit that their inherent biases is what kept TDK and Wall-E away from Best Picture. I'm not saying all voters are biased, but It's pretty much certain that many of them are. I believe that while many did pencil in TDK and Wall-E into their nomination ballots, I believe that even MORE of them left them COMPLETELY OFF their ballot. The reason is simple and it is NOT because both are not good enough. The reasons are one is a comic-book film and the other is a cartoon. TDK and Wall-E are the rare combination of a film that blends both high art and blockbuster pedigree, and both films will undoubtedly be far FAR more remembered years down the road than any of these "prestige films" that are up for the major awards.

By: _Christopher_M

_Christopher_M — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:14:36 +0000

yes those movies are average compared to films like The Hurt Locker, Let The Right On In, Happy Go-Lucky and Gomorrah…the ones nominated are good but didn't exactly earn those nominations based on performances…they just happened to be on a short list of English made movies that had advertising budgets…I wish they had pulled more performances from foreign films, because a lot more talented international actors were ignored again this year…I feel a lot of the award aimed films this year were dry and just run of the mill dramas….

I was just shocked that a film like Dark Knight which had better reviews than many of the nominated films along with more effort/detail put into it , still got snubbed…while a film like Titanic can get so many more award considerations

By: Da Pecke

Da Pecke — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 07:23:25 +0000

[continue] TDK was by far more than a blockbuster summer movie. And if it doesn't desserve to a shot at the ultimate prize, then why did they bother with Titanic, Juno, and Lord of the Rings to even begin with? Why was those stupid flicks nominated, but not The Dark Knight?Why did Angelina Jolie get an oscar nod when Changeling had 49% on Rotten Tomatoes? The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was too prententious, yet it got a nod only because of Brad Pitt's popularity with the media. The Reader had 60% on Rotten Tomatoes.In the next six months, which one of those 5 nominees will be remembered? Niether. For this year only, they could have made the smart move and nominate the best film of the year. But instead, they choose to be the liberal politcal pricks that they usually are, and went the same road. Pathetic.

By: Da Pecke

Da Pecke — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 07:22:47 +0000

Yes, it's a comic book movie. But not your orrdinary comic book movie. It's movies like TDK that only comes once in a life time. While other comic book movies(and remakes as well) are being rushed and released just to earn a quick buck, TDK is a little symbols that shows us that there's hope in hollywood that movies can be as good as they once were. That there are movie like Pulp Fiction, GoodFellas, Jaws, Star Wars that still exist to this day.Reasons why nobody is going to the movies now a day? because movies suck now a days. I'm not saying that they [the academy] should take away the art, but to be fair to a "really good" mainstream movie like TDK.

By: daniel

daniel — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:51:53 +0000

love!
i love huey lewis and his news. its even better when accompanied by patrick bateman axing up jared leto.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:22:30 +0000

You don't need money, don't take fame
Don't need no credit card to ride this train
It's strong and it's sudden and it's cruel sometimes
But it might just save your life
That's the power of…

By: Mikey

Mikey — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:13:11 +0000

lol Christopher_M thought Frost/Nixon, Rachel Getting Married, and Revolutionary Road were…average? wtf? Anyways, I agree with you Josh.

By: _Christopher_M

_Christopher_M — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:33:52 +0000

Frost/Nixon is better than the Dark Knight, really? I've watched both and I have to disagree…F.N. was slow paced and over dramatized (to an annoying extreme)…I personally thought it was the worst performance from Sam Rockwell…which is odd since I'm his biggest fan…Frank L.'s performance is pretty much everything we've seen before with the many many actors playing Nixon……I understand how this could have won a lot of Tony's..But it would be like if Mama Mia! got nominated over a very creative and genre inspiring masterpiece…this was a movie based on a play that was based on interview tapes that already existed…there really isn't as much creativity involved as there is creating a whole city, characters and situations that never existed…sorry but these movies based on actual events or people is kind of a cop-out….sorry but Dark Knight at the very least should have been nominated for either Best Picture or Adapted Screenplay….A lot of these movies nominated were average at best including Rachel Getting Married and Revolutionary Road…where Happy-Go-Lucky and Gomorrah get snubbed it's very sad to see….

By: Omek

Omek — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:09:12 +0000

I see where you're coming from too, Josh. But, I'm going to have to go with Nicholas and Jim on this one. TDK was popular, but that doesn't make it non-Oscar worthy. Does it make the Academy look elitist? Hell yes it does. The very least they could have done is give it a nomination. And doesn't it make the award category a little more exciting when you don't know who's going to win? I thought that was the fun of award shows. Well, go figure.

TCCOBB or Frost/Nixon were definitely not as good.

I'm just saying, we should just boycott this year and not watch it. Will low ratings really matter to them? Probably not, but at least they'd get the message.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:16:00 +0000

I understand your point of view on the article and certainly we are perhaps griping over something silly. The true heart of the matter is, we backed a movie that is deserving of praise. Who is going to remember The Reader 10 years down the line? A movie should not be punished because it is not popular, it should be admired because it took chances on what a comic book movie can be without selling out to either the art crowd or the mainstream public. We don't want the Academy to award Spiderman 5 if it is not worthy of Best Picture. If you feel that TDK is not a great movie that is your opinion, but bear in mind you are in the minority. At least a dozen critics put it on their best lists so we are not off the mark. I remember an Academy that favored true creative talent over pure Oscar bait. The Godfather was not an art house movie, nor was Forrest Gump or several others, hell, Silence of the Lambs is not their typical kind of pick either. As a matter of fact, can anyone list the times the Oscars were given out to other genres besides drama? You can argue that we are of two different tastes but you cannot argue with facts. The Academy used to take risks and nominate films that deserved praise, now it has become who campaigns enough (Harvey Weinstein) rather than who deserves it (The Dark Knight).

By: Sun

Sun — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:09:00 +0000

You make a fairly good point with this, and I agree with almost everything. However, There Will Be Blood was not released by me, and neither, unfortunately, will Milk, Frost/Nixon, or The Reader be released by me. Not everybody in America lives by an enormous theater that carries all the new releases.

By: Nevernude

Nevernude — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:42:42 +0000

I agree with everything Jim Rohner said. The Academy is flawed, but it would have been decent of them to at least Christopher Nolan. Perhaps his work is overshawed by Ledger's legacy or the blockbuster status of the movie, however, he did a great directing job, made great decisions, and the guy's previous work is astonishing. So far, not a single misstep in his filmography. Say what you will about Insomnia, but i personally think it was brilliant.
I dont begrudge the Academy anything, they are free to make their decisions and nominations etc etc…but their decision-making sticks of the decisions of a certain former president of the USA…