The Dark Knight Can The Dark Knight win an Oscar

[mclay18]

TDK will NOT be considered for "best original score" for a number of reasons:

1) Hans Zimmer doesn't submit his scores to be nominated anymore (he already won one for "The Lion King").
2) Most of the score reuses more than 11 minutes of score from Batman Begins (it's a rule that movie sequel scores that get nominated have less than 11 minutes of reused themes/score from previous films a la TTT from LOTR).
3) The Academy automatically disqualifies co-written scores from two or more composers, or something to that effect.

I can see TDK being nominated in the technical categories, i.e. cinematography, sound and sound editing. The visual effects work in TDK is a bit shaky, such as the scene where the Batpod turns around after toppling over the truck and some of the aerial scenes. I do think Ledger is a lock-in for a best-supporting actor nomination, as it's one that has everybody talking.

It's a long shot for best picture, best director and best adapted screenplay for TDK. I would love to see that happen, though.

 

[CristiMAN]

After "Shakespeare in Love" and "Chicago" won the big oscar... Why not? I dont believe it... But neither did when Return Of The King made the clean sweep... That was big step for thr Academy. This might be one of those years: this is the best oportunity to oscarize a genre... The musical with Chicago, the Western with Unforgiven, the lame with Shakespeare, the fantasy adventure with Return Of The King, and so on... This might, just might, be the year of Superhero Comic Book film. Let's face it: the genre wont have a better chance in another 100 years... Even with another batfilm in the horizon, but at this point we dont even known if Nolan is returning... We can only dream...

 

[SPIDERMAN117]

Maybe..........If you introduce a little anarcy

 

[Hole Shot]

It has a LONG shot at a nomination for best director and a slim-to-none chance to being nominated for best picture (thought it deserves it)

This comment is really starting get on my nerves. We don't know our ass**** from elbow if it has a shot at the major awards. Everyone is just assuming that it's going to get written off because it's a superhero movie. No superhero movie has ever been worthy of being nominated for the prestigious awards so no on can say how the Academy will look at it. But we don't know that they've nominated far more childish popcorn flicks than TDK.

 

[DACrowe]

This is a movie that strikes me as one that could get nominated for best picture or best director, but not both. The Academy has a history of being snobby and when it comes to franchise films (with notable exceptions) they will tend to nominate it for one and not the latter. Since Nolan's technique and slight-of-hand filmmaking is so prevalent in the piece, I kind of feel like they'll give him the nomination in that department.

I think it deserves best picture, but they want something that fits to their criteria for an Oscar film. I know Lord of the Rings did it, but LOTR was much more Oscar-friendly. They generally want large emotion and certain types of scenes that appeal to the Academy's sense of releavency with either a political statement or high emotional drama. The stranger movies either get snubbed (ask Tim Burton how Sweeney Todd and Ed Wood did) or at least don't win. How long did it take a Martin Scorcese movie to win best picture?

I didn't say it wouldn't happen, but it is slim. My guess is the Academy would be much more comfortable giving a direction nomination to Nolan because his direction really was flawless. And technically speaking if you're best picture, you must have had the best direction and vice versa. But it is the Academy's way to usually split the nominations and winner. This last year while the Coens did very, very well notice there was a difference in director and picture nominations. Where was The Divingbell and Butterfly under Best Picture and where was Joe Wright under Best Director?

They usually go with the more "Oscar-friendly" movie in the picture nomination and the more unique for Academy-recognition in the director seat. Then again TDK was such a huge hit, maybe they'd think it would give their show some revived popularity and ratings boost if they nominated it for best picture. I dunno. But as I said the place they are most likely to recognize its achievements are in screenplay, cinematography, visual effects (if Bourne can get nominated and Golden Compass win), maybe editing and of course best supporting actor.

I also would love to see Eckhart (or even Oldman) nominated for best supporting actor alongside Heath, but I doubt that. Generally speaking actors in this sort of movie (mainstream fantasy) don't get nominated, it is just Heath is so extraordinary that he demands attention. And when that happens the less raved supporting performances, even if they are amazing, usually get ignored. Javier Bardem was flat out amazing in No Country for Old Men, but so was Josh Brolin (and I didn't even care for that movie). But they are going to nominate the best one and usually ignore the other. I thought Sam Rockwell gave excellent supporting and captivating work in Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but Casey Affleck was amazing--only one was nominated, especially when there was so much great work last year and not even all of the great ones were nominated (where was Paul Dano from There Will Be Blood, for example?).

So as Ledger is a lock for nomination, I just think that will (unfairly) disqualify Eckhart from even being considered. Then again both Catherine Zeta Jones and Queen Latifah were nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Chicago, even though Jones was the clear favorite to win (which she did). But that goes back to what is Oscar-friendly (a studio-produced musical that has oscar-bait all over it and save for Jones, Oscar-darling leads who are mediocre singers that look good), whereas just as good, if not better, musicals made this decade were either mostly snubbed (Sweeney Todd) or shut out (Moulin Rouge) because they were "different."

 

[JediFeaz87]

I'm going to say that this movie has every shot at earning some of the big time nominations come January. Why? It all goes back to 2001 when The Lord of the Rings set the precedent for fantasy films getting nominated for Best Picture. Then in 2003 the Academy awarded The Return of the King 11 Oscars. Five years later the stage is set for the comic book genre to have a go at the Oscars.

The Dark Knight has a good chance at the major nominations thanks to a poor ratings performance posted by the Academy last year when No Country For Old Men won for Best Picture. Aside from Juno, the other nominees for Best Picture were not seen by the general audience and helped contribute to the lower ratings. In fact, this past Oscar ceremony was the lowest rated Oscar broadcast since the rating system first appeared on the scene. The ratings for the Oscars have been dropping steadily since 2004 when Return of the King won it all. The Academy needs a movie that the public has seen. It doesn't necessarily have to win, they just have to nominate it.

Now, seeing how much money this film as made and will make (it's set to finish with over $500 Million in the U.S. alone) the buzz for this movie won't be forgotten anytime soon. Also the buzz on Heath Ledger's performance alone will be able to keep this in Academy voters' minds come December when the movie season ends. Most of the Academy voters are actors and they'll keep Ledger's performance in mind when they start sending in their ballots. I have no doubt that the Screen Actors Guild will remember this film come awards time.

 

[Hole Shot]

Generally speaking actors in this sort of movie (mainstream fantasy) don't get nominated,

You mean like Ian McKlellan, Alec Guiness or Johnny Depp?

Seriously stop generalizing and making excuses as to why TDK won't get Oscar consideration. As long as there aren't five arguably better films it will get every nomination it deserves.



Moulin Rouge was nominated for Best Picture and Sweeney Todd wasn't that great outside of Burton fandom.

 

[Hole Shot]

I'm going to say that this movie has every shot at earning some of the big time nominations come January. Why? It all goes back to 2001 when The Lord of the Rings set the precedent for fantasy films getting nominated for Best Picture.

You guys do realize that Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark and ET were nominated for Best Picture, right?

The original Dr. Dolittle was a best picture nom and so was the Excorcist. How about Wizard of Oz? a children's film. Beauty and the Beast - a f'ing cartoon! OR HOW ABOUT BABE?!?! A movie about a friggin TALKING PIGLET!!!

All I'm trying to say is that the Academy doesn't have some high standard level of maturity and intellect required to get a best picture nomination. If the movie is deserving, it can get nominated regardless of its target audience or its financial intentions.

 

[DACrowe]

You mean like Ian McKlellan, Alec Guiness or Johnny Depp?

Seriously stop generalizing and making excuses as to why TDK won't get Oscar consideration. As long as there aren't five arguably better films it will get every nomination it deserves.



Moulin Rouge was nominated for Best Picture and Sweeney Todd wasn't that great outside of Burton fandom.

Yeah like McKellen, Guiness and Depp. You know who was also great in Star Wars? Harrison Ford as Han Solo. You know who else was great in LOTR's later movies? Andery Serkis and Sean Astin (albeit those were different years, still). Were any of them nominated? No.

I said Ledger is a lock for nomination and that is a rarity and since they very rarely ever give two actors from the same film a nomination in the same category (I listed several examples) there is no way in hell they are going to do it for this kind of movie. While Eckhart is arguably worthy of a nomination (we haven't seen the heavy competition yet), Ledger is the more deserving and only one will probably get nominated.

Moulin Rouge was shut out (hence me using those words) and if I recall won few if any Oscars and even though it was nominated for best picture, the "weirdness" of it required it only get one of the big two. Baz Luhrman wasn't nominated for best director (hm, sounds familiar?), despite being incredibly deserving for that film. Chicago was Oscar bait and sweeped the following year. See the difference?

As for Sweeney Todd. Well you called the best movie of last year "not that good," so sucks to be as close-minded as you, I guess.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. I never said it wasn't going to get nominated for best picture. As you pointed out there have been exceptions. Albeit I'd say movies like Raiders, Star Wars and Wizard of Oz were far more groundbreaking for cinema than TDK. Still, you have a good point and I agree. I simply said it was a long shot and that it will either get picture or director, not both. Was George Lucas nominated for Star Wars, for example?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i would like to see TDK win some oscars or at least get nominated but to be honest im happy with just enjoying the film for what it is. a few awards wont make me love it more or less, its my favourite film ever (well at least tied) so i'm happy with that.

 

[CFE]

It can...the question is whether or not it will...

CFE

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Was George Lucas nominated for Star Wars, for example?

Actually, he was. For both Director and Screenplay.

 

[DACrowe]

Well I'm eating some crow on that comment.

Still, it is just my prediction, but I don't think TDK will be nominated for both. I do think it will be nominated for adapted screenplay for sure, though.

 

[The Shape]

My thoughts are as follows:

If LOTR: ROTK can win 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, The Dark Knight should absolutely be nominated and should be a big contender for the major categories. I'm talking Supporting Actor, Writing, Cinematography, Make-up, Sound Editing, Visual Effects, Director, and Best Picture.

Now, that's only 8, but if an overrated LOTR movie can rake in 11 awards, then TDK definitely warrants consideration for the categories I mentioned. The Dark Knight is a great cinematic acheivement that deserves to be recognized. It certainly stands among some of the greatest films of all time, and at the end of the day, it should be rewarded with the greatest honor in the movie business.

 

[byte19]

overrated?!? must have been forced to read it as a kid huh?

 

[Hamill-Joker]

The Academy Awards in recent years has been losing ratings.

What better way to regain those ratings than by nominating a movie that everyone has seen?

TV shows are driven by ratings, without high ratings they lose sponsorship and priority in TV schedulings. Which is something The Academy doesn't want.

So, you create interest for your show by nominating the biggest movie of the year for several awards, including a post humus nomination for Ledger.

It would create plenty of hype and interest for the next Awards ceremony.

 

[jmc]

The Academy Awards in recent years has been losing ratings.

What better way to regain those ratings than by nominating a movie that everyone has seen?

TV shows are driven by ratings, without high ratings they lose sponsorship and priority in TV schedulings. Which is something The Academy doesn't want.

So, you create interest for your show by nominating the biggest movie of the year for several awards, including a post humus nomination for Ledger.

It would create plenty of hype and interest for the next Awards ceremony.

In the Academy's defence I think it gets unfairly criticized for their snubbing of mainstream films, the ironic thing being that most people who do criticize them for ignoring mainstream film haven't seen the so called 'no-name' films that do get nominated. It's not up to them to just go with what's popular, it's up to the studios to produced quality mainstream films or at the least give the so called 'no-name' films more mainstream style promotion. Usually every 4-5 years a mainstream film pops up that stands up above the rest and generally gets nominations, next year will be The Dark Knight.

 

[In a Pickle]

overrated?!? must have been forced to read it as a kid huh?

The LOTR movies are very overrated. They are good, sure...but Peter Jackson was the problem with those movies.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

There are too many problems with this film that Oscar worthy movies don't let pass. Gamble, for example, was awful and a drag on the film. Christian Bale's bat voice was atrocious and often hard to understand. Also, while the action was fast paced and fun, the climax involving "bat sonar" was both unnecessary and silly (and apparently Nolan agrees because the shooting script doesn't even have the scene in it). On top of it it has some scene that are convoluted and probably could've been removed or rewritten. To compare this to the likes of The Departed, No Country for Old Men, the Godfather or even Oscar snubs like Star Wars: A New Hope and There Will Be Blood just pains me every time I read people say that stuff.

The movie is good, in fact I liked it a lot, but it's far from an Oscar worthy film. It's fun, pop-based film whose message is easily digestible and understood and not overly complex or too deep for the average movie goer: in other words, the perfect summer blockbuster. Unfortunately the only nomination I could see is for "Best supporting actor", and I still doubt it, and I also think it should go to Gary Oldman (who, really, for me was the unsung best part of that movie). Heath Ledger's performance of the Joker lacked some of the over the top qualities I felt it needed, and at times it even felt very reserved, a quality I don't assign his character. However, that said, he's still my third favorite actor in the film behind Oldman and Eckhart, and it's a strong three.

It's just that in the end this will probably go down as the most overrated good film in history. It's popularity is due in large part to the death of it's villain, and probably half of it's ticket sales are too. I remember the first night it opened seeing several hundred ladies in the theater and overhearing their rousing discussions about the late actor. Not that I mind that, but in retrospect I doubt this movie could have made the money it made without Heath, or gained the popularity. Unfortunately, an untimely death doesn't make you the greatest, it just makes you seem great for however long that death stays in the public conscious.

 

[Ziggyman]

I haven't read through all these posts...But...ORIGINAL SCORE...I'm pretty much sold that it will win!

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I haven't read through all these posts...But...ORIGINAL SCORE...I'm pretty much sold that it will win!

Didn't Zimmer say he wasn't accepting nominations anymore. I thought he did.

 

[Ziggyman]

Didn't Zimmer say he wasn't accepting nominations anymore. I thought he did.

Oh...For real...Aww, that's a pity...He definitely should be nominated though...

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Oh...For real...Aww, that's a pity...He definitely should be nominated though...

Well, that's kinda hard to say, and this is all very speculative. Oscar season isn't even upon us. Juno, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, etc...all came out towards the end of the year and were the major Oscar contenders. Every year a great comic movie comes out (Batman Begins, Spider-Man 1 and 2, X2: X-Men United all come to mind) there is this rabid fanboy response to say "will this get any Oscars" and every year it comes back a resounding "no". Honestly, as good as I thought it was, there is no reason for me to think it will be different. Heath is dead, sure, but who is going to die between then and now. By January we'll be in a new year and some new death, new movie and new wave of Oscar contenders most likely will have eclipsed this film entirely.

 

[magicangel1989]

Heath Ledger will most likely get a nomination. But i am pretty sure the Dark Knight will win for all the major and minor tech awards and probably art direction, make up, cinematography and costume design.

Although, i am hoping that Chris Nolan will at least get nominated for best director.