Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN
Who cares about past Oscar noms, they have nothing to do with MoS. Again, it's a selling point for the film more then anything at this point. It could potentially mean something big with good writing and direction, or it may mean we're disappointed in the end... It's potential, not a certainty about the film's overall quality. And other then Shannon, Crowe, RDJ and Kingsley, the cast is pretty much a wash imo. Talking about raw acting talent here, not oscar noms.
Look at TDKR last summer, how many people were certain it would be the best film of the summer only to be dissappointed? How many people thought it would be the biggest hit of the year? Many people loved it of course, but many who thought they would, didn't. I was on the flip side of that. So we wait and see, nothing is a certanty. Particularily that it will be better then IM3. And even that will be subjective beyond one of the films being absolutely terrible.
I'm not trying to "act" like it means nothing, I don't put as much faith in a Chris Nolan producing and story credit like I do in a directing one. But I am expecting the film to be a huge success and have stated as much in the MoS forums. It's my most anticipated film this summer. I'm just not swept up in all the hype to the degree that you appear to be.
The reason Oscar Noms are a selling point is because they almost always come with a great deal of acting skill, and this holds true in the cases for this film. The fact that they haven't been used to sell the film shows us that they aren't selling points for the film, they are only a shorthand to communicate the excessive acting talent involved, and the consistency with which they deliver. Russel Crowe is probably going to do a great job, it's not just possible it's likely. So it's not potential, it's likely. This holds true for Shannon, Fishburne, Costner, Lane and Adams as well. Us being disappointed is the minority report, not an equally likely outcome.
I'm sure many people are and were certain of many things, but I don't take votes as logic. If you call that logic hype because where I see 'hmm, Nolan always makes great stories, this will probably be the same' you see 'faith in Nolan' - I'm okay with that. Perhaps it's best you keep your expectations down.
Also... I'm not quite sure TDKR wasn't the best film of the summer. Certainly it didn't win the box office, and it wasn't *even remotely* as much fun as Avengers. But as a film... it had a few foibles like Bruce's magical recovery, and it slowed down way too much at one point... but it mostly just failed to be as good as TDK. Avengers, while I certainly liked it more, and looked forward to it more, has some pretty sizeable plot holes and inconsistencies, and without a love for the characters, everyone's story thread but Iron Man and Hulk's fell a little flat. I think when people say "X was best because I liked it more" I don't think that's actually dealing with the quality of a film. I think there are objective standards of storytelling and visualization that can be applied... and this is what good critics do... that go beyond that subjectivity. In fact, a really good critic can say 'you know what, this was a horrible movie, but if you like this sort of thing, it's a lot of fun, so go see it.' That's how you know they understand the difference between a subjective and an objective film review.