|
Post by moocow on Mar 1, 2012 17:11:42 GMT -5
You are a ing idiot. As someone else mentioned, the dark knight. I personally LOVED the Dark Knight. The film made easily 10 times more money than Milk. But yet Milk won best picture that year. How is that possible? Again I ask what is the voting based on? You had the Dark Knight which made, and still is making MILLIONS of dollars vs Milk which might have made 1 million dollars. And yet Dark Knight wasnt even nominated??!? Um, yeah that makes alot of sense..... This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. So what you're saying is movies like Breaking Dawn, Transformers, Hangover, Pirates of the Caribbean and Fast Five should be nominated for an oscar because they made a lot of money?
|
|
|
Post by Noza on Mar 1, 2012 19:03:39 GMT -5
You are a ing idiot. Why is that? Im just stating facts. The best picture this year was a huge step backwards in the film industry. You do realize they make films in color now right? Oh and they also have sound, so how a film that uses 100 year old technology wins best picture is insane. Maybe next year's best picture award will go to an actual picture painted on a canvas. Also isnt the artist french? It shouldnt even have been in the best picture catagory. It should have been in the best foreign film catagory. That's the whole point of even having a best foreign film catagory, to award movies not made in America. So I stand by my theory that unless you're old, white, and a snob you wont agree with who gets awarded. The proof is in this thread. KillScene brings up an excellent point. The Harry potter guy worked his but off to create characters from makeup, yet someone who applied a little lipstick, blush, and eyeshadow won. Where is the reasoning to that award? Based on what do you get an award? OR As someone else mentioned, the dark knight. I personally LOVED the Dark Knight. The film made easily 10 times more money than Milk. But yet Milk won best picture that year. How is that possible? Again I ask what is the voting based on? You had the Dark Knight which made, and still is making MILLIONS of dollars vs Milk which might have made 1 million dollars. And yet Dark Knight wasnt even nominated??!? Um, yeah that makes alot of sense..... See? The oscars are a great show to watch. But as far as movies they "claim" are the best that is very questionable. I literally do not understand you. I am 18 years old, and I agree with virtually every award given out at the Oscars this year. And what the are you talking about? Just because The Dark Knight made a lot of money, does, in no way, mean it shoudl have been nominated for an Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Mar 1, 2012 20:52:14 GMT -5
One of my biggest gripes is things have to play in LA and New York to qualify for awards. There is so many youtube short films that blow every one of the ones in the academy awards away and are far more well known. Hopefully one day the old outdated ways of qualifying for awards changes
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 8, 2024 5:15:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2012 21:42:33 GMT -5
You are a ing idiot. Why is that? Im just stating facts. The best picture this year was a huge step backwards in the film industry. You do realize they make films in color now right? Oh and they also have sound, so how a film that uses 100 year old technology wins best picture is insane. Maybe next year's best picture award will go to an actual picture painted on a canvas. Also isnt the artist french? It shouldnt even have been in the best picture catagory. It should have been in the best foreign film catagory. That's the whole point of even having a best foreign film catagory, to award movies not made in America. So I stand by my theory that unless you're old, white, and a snob you wont agree with who gets awarded. The proof is in this thread. KillScene brings up an excellent point. The Harry potter guy worked his but off to create characters from makeup, yet someone who applied a little lipstick, blush, and eyeshadow won. Where is the reasoning to that award? Based on what do you get an award? OR As someone else mentioned, the dark knight. I personally LOVED the Dark Knight. The film made easily 10 times more money than Milk. But yet Milk won best picture that year. How is that possible? Again I ask what is the voting based on? You had the Dark Knight which made, and still is making MILLIONS of dollars vs Milk which might have made 1 million dollars. And yet Dark Knight wasnt even nominated??!? Um, yeah that makes alot of sense..... See? The oscars are a great show to watch. But as far as movies they "claim" are the best that is very questionable. Milk didn't even win best picture in 2009. Get your facts straight before you try to put together a legitimate argument. And who cares if a movie makes an ass load of money? Yes, I agree that The Dark Knight was better than Milk, but comparing the two is ing dumb. And I'm sure you haven't even see Milk, or The Artist for that matter, so your argument is completely invalid. Try again, and have a nice day.
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Mar 1, 2012 21:47:46 GMT -5
You are a ing idiot. As someone else mentioned, the dark knight. I personally LOVED the Dark Knight. The film made easily 10 times more money than Milk. But yet Milk won best picture that year. How is that possible? Again I ask what is the voting based on? You had the Dark Knight which made, and still is making MILLIONS of dollars vs Milk which might have made 1 million dollars. And yet Dark Knight wasnt even nominated??!? Um, yeah that makes alot of sense..... . This is the greatest post i've read on these boards. I learn so much useless trivia, like Milk won the best picture.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Mar 1, 2012 22:23:38 GMT -5
Why is that? Im just stating facts. The best picture this year was a huge step backwards in the film industry. You do realize they make films in color now right? Oh and they also have sound, so how a film that uses 100 year old technology wins best picture is insane. Maybe next year's best picture award will go to an actual picture painted on a canvas. Also isnt the artist french? It shouldnt even have been in the best picture catagory. It should have been in the best foreign film catagory. That's the whole point of even having a best foreign film catagory, to award movies not made in America. So I stand by my theory that unless you're old, white, and a snob you wont agree with who gets awarded. The proof is in this thread. KillScene brings up an excellent point. The Harry potter guy worked his but off to create characters from makeup, yet someone who applied a little lipstick, blush, and eyeshadow won. Where is the reasoning to that award? Based on what do you get an award? OR As someone else mentioned, the dark knight. I personally LOVED the Dark Knight. The film made easily 10 times more money than Milk. But yet Milk won best picture that year. How is that possible? Again I ask what is the voting based on? You had the Dark Knight which made, and still is making MILLIONS of dollars vs Milk which might have made 1 million dollars. And yet Dark Knight wasnt even nominated??!? Um, yeah that makes alot of sense..... See? The oscars are a great show to watch. But as far as movies they "claim" are the best that is very questionable. Milk didn't even win best picture in 2009. Get your facts straight before you try to put together a legitimate argument. And who cares if a movie makes an ass load of money? Yes, I agree that The Dark Knight was better than Milk, but comparing the two is ing dumb. And I'm sure you haven't even see Milk, or The Artist for that matter, so your argument is completely invalid. Try again, and have a nice day. I KNEW people would immediatly say that a film that makes money doesnt equal an award worthy film. But see I look at it this way. If a movie makes an assload of money it is because it's a great film. Box office = tickets sold = people in theater to watch the movie = word of mouth = great film. Had Milk been as great of a movie as the Academy claims it was it would have made a lot more money. I look at it as, if a movie is great people will flock to see it.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Mar 2, 2012 2:19:11 GMT -5
Movies that make lots of money do not deserve to be nominated for that aspect alone. The same goes that films that did not make much money should not be discounted to be nominated if they were truly great. The Dark Knight overall was critically loved [94% and 91% from top critics at Rotten Tomatoes], well received by audiences [96% at Rotten Tomatoes], and financially successful with $533.3 million at the box office. IMO it should have gotten the nomination for sure because it basically was universally liked. Here's my source btw: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/Best Picture Nominees at 81st Annual Academy Awards: *“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Ceán Chaffin, Producers *“Frost/Nixon” Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Eric Fellner, Producers *“Milk” Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, Producers *“The Reader” Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti and Redmond Morris, Producers *“Slumdog Millionaire” Christian Colson, Producer I think either Frost/Nixon or The Reader could have been bumped out by The Dark Knight and it would have been better. I still think Slumdog Millionaire would have won and I wouldn't really have a problem with that TDK's Best Picture snub sucked and I think it made the 10 [now could be less] rule for Best Picture come about. Sadly it didn't get to benefit however we'll see if at least 5% of the Academy voters will love The Dark Night Rises come next year's Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Mar 2, 2012 4:13:03 GMT -5
Movies that make lots of money do not deserve to be nominated for that aspect alone. The same goes that films that did not make much money should not be discounted to be nominated if they were truly great. The Dark Knight overall was critically loved [94% and 91% from top critics at Rotten Tomatoes], well received by audiences [96% at Rotten Tomatoes], and financially successful with $533.3 million at the box office. IMO it should have gotten the nomination for sure because it basically was universally liked. Here's my source btw: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/Best Picture Nominees at 81st Annual Academy Awards: *“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Ceán Chaffin, Producers *“Frost/Nixon” Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Eric Fellner, Producers *“Milk” Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, Producers *“The Reader” Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti and Redmond Morris, Producers *“Slumdog Millionaire” Christian Colson, Producer I think either Frost/Nixon or The Reader could have been bumped out by The Dark Knight and it would have been better. I still think Slumdog Millionaire would have won and I wouldn't really have a problem with that TDK's Best Picture snub sucked and I think it made the 10 [now could be less] rule for Best Picture come about. Sadly it didn't get to benefit however we'll see if at least 5% of the Academy voters will love The Dark Night Rises come next year's Oscars. What the is "The Reader"?? I watched the Oscars that year and don't even slightly remember it.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Pizza on Mar 2, 2012 4:41:30 GMT -5
One of my biggest gripes is things have to play in LA and New York to qualify for awards. There is so many youtube short films that blow every one of the ones in the academy awards away and are far more well known. Hopefully one day the old outdated ways of qualifying for awards changes You can also qualify by winning an award at a film festival, so there are other ways. I see where you're coming from, but you just seem kinda angry that they don't like the things you like. Making narrative film is a lot of work and most of these people have been doing what they do for decades. The Oscars are about traditional feature-length, studio films. Youtube and Vimeo are great launching pads for creative work, just not the type of work the Oscars are all about. As a young filmmaker whose primary method of distribution and promotion is via internet, I have no problem with the Oscars. They are what they are.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Mar 2, 2012 5:21:53 GMT -5
Movies that make lots of money do not deserve to be nominated for that aspect alone. The same goes that films that did not make much money should not be discounted to be nominated if they were truly great. The Dark Knight overall was critically loved [94% and 91% from top critics at Rotten Tomatoes], well received by audiences [96% at Rotten Tomatoes], and financially successful with $533.3 million at the box office. IMO it should have gotten the nomination for sure because it basically was universally liked. Here's my source btw: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/Best Picture Nominees at 81st Annual Academy Awards: *“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Ceán Chaffin, Producers *“Frost/Nixon” Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Eric Fellner, Producers *“Milk” Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, Producers *“The Reader” Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti and Redmond Morris, Producers *“Slumdog Millionaire” Christian Colson, Producer I think either Frost/Nixon or The Reader could have been bumped out by The Dark Knight and it would have been better. I still think Slumdog Millionaire would have won and I wouldn't really have a problem with that TDK's Best Picture snub sucked and I think it made the 10 [now could be less] rule for Best Picture come about. Sadly it didn't get to benefit however we'll see if at least 5% of the Academy voters will love The Dark Night Rises come next year's Oscars. What the is "The Reader"?? I watched the Oscars that year and don't even slightly remember it. LOL It was a film with Kate Winslet [she won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role in the film] that is about a woman who is on trial for being a Nazi or something like that. It goes back and fourth when she was younger and when in present time when she was old and on trial. I saw it and it was okay I just didn't like it much and I felt Meryl or Angelina should have won the Oscar that year. I understand Kate was overdue but so was Meryl at the time [she got her 3rd though so whatever..].
|
|
|
Post by Noza on Mar 2, 2012 5:52:07 GMT -5
HAHAHA, this guy....
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 2, 2012 9:55:27 GMT -5
There is no such thing as an expert on subjective content. End of story imo. The Underdog fetish the Academy has taken on is growing tiresome as well. Oh, and stop using Academy Award categories as lifetime achievement awards. Just because someone is ing old and nominated doesn't mean they were the best in their category. Not saying they can't be, but evaluate the performance, not the variables surrounding the performance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 8, 2024 5:15:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2012 23:17:26 GMT -5
Milk didn't even win best picture in 2009. Get your facts straight before you try to put together a legitimate argument. And who cares if a movie makes an ass load of money? Yes, I agree that The Dark Knight was better than Milk, but comparing the two is ing dumb. And I'm sure you haven't even see Milk, or The Artist for that matter, so your argument is completely invalid. Try again, and have a nice day. I KNEW people would immediatly say that a film that makes money doesnt equal an award worthy film. But see I look at it this way. If a movie makes an assload of money it is because it's a great film. Box office = tickets sold = people in theater to watch the movie = word of mouth = great film. Had Milk been as great of a movie as the Academy claims it was it would have made a lot more money. I look at it as, if a movie is great people will flock to see it. You've really outdone yourself this time. This is easily the dumbest post I've ever seen on this forum. So you're saying Transformers should be nominated for best picture? What about Twilight? Just because a money makes a billion dollars at the box office does not make it an Oscar worthy film. The reason why films like Milk or The Artist don't fare well at the box office is because they are typically independent films and have a very limited release. Please, read up on the subject next time you decide to argue. The amount of stupidity in each of your posts within this thread is beyond ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Mar 2, 2012 23:47:37 GMT -5
I KNEW people would immediatly say that a film that makes money doesnt equal an award worthy film. But see I look at it this way. If a movie makes an assload of money it is because it's a great film. Box office = tickets sold = people in theater to watch the movie = word of mouth = great film. Had Milk been as great of a movie as the Academy claims it was it would have made a lot more money. I look at it as, if a movie is great people will flock to see it. You've really outdone yourself this time. This is easily the dumbest post I've ever seen on this forum. So you're saying Transformers should be nominated for best picture? What about Twilight? Just because a money makes a billion dollars at the box office does not make it an Oscar worthy film. The reason why films like Milk or The Artist don't fare well at the box office is because they are typically independent films and have a very limited release. Please, read up on the subject next time you decide to argue. The amount of stupidity in each of your posts within this thread is beyond ridiculous. Movies like Milk and the Artist dont fare well in theaters mainly cause they suck, IMHO. See just as you think the Dark Knight stinks I think those movies stink.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 8, 2024 5:15:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2012 23:53:11 GMT -5
You've really outdone yourself this time. This is easily the dumbest post I've ever seen on this forum. So you're saying Transformers should be nominated for best picture? What about Twilight? Just because a money makes a billion dollars at the box office does not make it an Oscar worthy film. The reason why films like Milk or The Artist don't fare well at the box office is because they are typically independent films and have a very limited release. Please, read up on the subject next time you decide to argue. The amount of stupidity in each of your posts within this thread is beyond ridiculous. Movies like Milk and the Artist dont fare well in theaters mainly cause they suck, IMHO. See just as you think the Dark Knight stinks I think those movies stink. What the are you talking about? If you actually read my posts, I obviously stated that I thought The Dark Knight was a better film than Milk. And once again, quality has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how much money it makes. Going by your logic, every ing Paranormal Activity movie would have won best picture, same goes for Transformers, Star Wars (even though I personally loved them all), Twilight, etc. I swear, arguing with you is like yelling at a brick wall. You are so close minded!
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Mar 3, 2012 0:22:03 GMT -5
Star Wars SHOULD have won picture of the year, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 8, 2024 5:15:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2012 0:22:52 GMT -5
Star Wars SHOULD have won picture of the year, though. Which one are we talking?
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Mar 3, 2012 0:24:22 GMT -5
Star Wars SHOULD have won picture of the year, though. Which one are we talking? The original. I understand since George dropped from the guild he couldnt qualify for the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Mar 3, 2012 12:10:55 GMT -5
Movies like Milk and the Artist dont fare well in theaters mainly cause they suck, IMHO. See just as you think the Dark Knight stinks I think those movies stink. What the are you talking about? If you actually read my posts, I obviously stated that I thought The Dark Knight was a better film than Milk. And once again, quality has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how much money it makes. Going by your logic, every ing Paranormal Activity movie would have won best picture, same goes for Transformers, Star Wars (even though I personally loved them all), Twilight, etc. I swear, arguing with you is like yelling at a brick wall. You are so close minded! I never said that making lots of money should get you the award, im just saying that when lots of people go see a film it should be taken more into consideration than a lesser known film. Im saying box office should be a factor when trying to calculate which film was best of the year. My main gripe is the Artist, I dont get how that film won. First off it isnt american, that should have eliminated it from best picture and put it in the best foriegn film catagory. Second off it is a movie id expect to see from 1911 not 2011. Silent? Black and White? You do know they have speakers and color now right? That's why I said it's like picking an actual painting to win pest picture. Things should move foward and not leap backwards, when talking about awards. You wouldnt award a car Best safe vehicle of the year if it didnt have bumpers, seatbelts, sideview mirrors, and break lights would you? It just seems to me like boreing movies that are about real people. Like Milk, Kings Speech, Iron Lady, and so on. Who do these movies appeal to? Film buffs, old people, history buffs,and people related to the main character. Where as a movie like Dark Knight which was written from nothing but a comic book character appeals to a massive audience, makes tons of cash, and gets snubbed by the awards. Do you see what im trying to say? What are the factors taken into consideration when picking awards nominees and winners? The truth is there are no factors, it's all just decided by a group of old snobby white guys. So if they hated Dark Knight cause it was too loud and too many young people were in the theater they didnt pick it to win. Target Audience is 50 and up crowd + Boring movie + possible famous actor = Best (insert prize here) nominee.
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Mar 3, 2012 13:18:46 GMT -5
Dark Knight was snubbed. It was a huge hit and it was an incredibly well made movie with good acting, score, editing, effects. It just had everything. The only thing that was a bit of a technical wreck was the chase scene, so much continuity errors but its so fast paced hardly anyone saw how badly put together it was.
|
|