Possible Best Picture Nominees

[Laderlappen]

As said, I have yet to see how "the academy thinks this way and this way only" applies to the below:

Inception
Toy Story 3
Raiders of the Lost Ark (which 'Avengers' has been likened to)
The Silence of the Lambs
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
Fellowship of the Rings
The Two Towers
Return of the King
The Fugitive
Pulp Fiction
The Full Monty
Toosie
Babe (yes, the movie with the pig)
Up
Beauty and the Beast

The only ruse really seems to be that there are rules.

As to Avengers not 'deserving it' - it's gotten greater reviews by critics than some of the other "possible" contenders and many of the nominees in the past years, so critically - it IS a better made film. I'm not talking one's personal opinion here - like or not like it, fine - I'm talking consensus across the board. As to it's genre, well, that's why I re-posted the titles above. The ONLY other superhero film made in recent years that did deserve it was The Dark Knight, and then The Dark Knight Rises. Other than that - Avengers. They've been mostly fan oriented movies, then Nolan followed by Whedon upped the ante. Nolan with a darker take. Whedon with the more classical adventure way (which hasn't been done to this level of quality in a long time). So what's so "undeserving" about it? The fact that it has a higher critic mark than some of these other films and past year nominees or that it's a "superhero" film which WOULD be the equivalent of "it's animated!" "it's a police procedural!" "it's a movie about baseball (believe it or not)!" "it's a pulp action film!" "it's about a talking pig!" So, what exactly sets it apart?

ADDING - "it's a movie about baseball" isn't concerning Moneyball, rather Field Of Dreams since baseball was considered taboo back then for whatever reason.

They do nominate every once and a while movies that arent usually up their alley, but with The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises the quality is not there. Dont get me wrong I enjoyed both films alot, but I would say they are worthy of an oscar nomination. Why arent they you ask? Not because there is anything wrong with them, there are just better movies to pick.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Red hawk, touche, I've listed several reasons why already. Reasons you don't agree with. You've given reasons why not. Reasons that I don't agree with. To me it's- innovative, movie of the year, one of the highest grossing movies of all time, and beloved by critic (that "all for one" which has it rise above in my eyes, it's not often that a movie does this).

As per quality, to those saying it, honestly - answer the is a 2.5 or 4.5 restaurant closer to a 5 star restaurant? It was someone else's metaphor which works against them. Or blindly would you say a film that critics universally give a 7 or a film critics universally give a 9 is better made?

 

[Dr.]

2. The Academy cares even less for box office. It used to matter, now it only helps if it is for a filmmaker they already like. It is why a James Cameron box office hit can get nominated while Nolan's probably won't and why Spielberg never got nominated until he made a Holocaust picture.

Spielberg was nominated for Close Encounters (1977), Raiders (1981) and E.T. (1982) - before finally winning for Schindler’s List (1993).

 

[Project862006]

face it guys if tdk was not nominated no super hero film will ever get nominted

 

[Ultimatehero]

face it guys if tdk was not nominated no super hero film will ever get nominted

After that blunder the list of nominees extended so that the TDK scenario would not happen again. It was a "superhero film with funny people in spandex" that got the academy there.

 

[redhawk23]

Red hawk, touche, I've listed several reasons why already. Reasons you don't agree with. You've given reasons why not. Reasons that I don't agree with. To me it's- innovative, movie of the year, one of the highest grossing movies of all time, and beloved by critic (that "all for one" which has it rise above in my eyes, it's not often that a movie does this).

As per quality, to those saying it, honestly - answer the is a 2.5 or 4.5 restaurant closer to a 5 star restaurant? It was someone else's metaphor which works against them. Or blindly would you say a film that critics universally give a 7 or a film critics universally give a 9 is better made?

You assume that when reviews are given to something like The Avengers and something like Lincoln that they are being reviewed by the same metric.

I'm not just talking about "4.5 out of 5" or whatever but the particular elements that people are looking for in each type of film.

Again you misunderstand the restaurant comparison, the "5 Star" rating system is really only used for certain kinds of restaurants. It doesn't really apply to chain-restaurants. Even if something like TGI Fridays is popular or well reviewed, its not even really being compared to other certain kinds of restaurants.

People were looking for certain things with the Avengers and it followed through, but those aspects aren't what contributes to Oscar votes.

 

[redhawk23]

After that blunder the list of nominees extended so that the TDK scenario would not happen again. It was a "superhero film with funny people in spandex" that got the academy there.

And arguably the aspects that made TDK even conceivable as a nominee are largely lacking in The Avengers.

Whatever the reassesment now, there was a perception then about TDK "transcending its genre". There's none of that with The Avengers. Its popular because it revels in the genre, and all the limitations that come with that.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Yes, each genre is looked at differently. And each genre is reviewed differently. But, each film has the same level of weight and gravitas.

This is really the problem when it comes to films these days... maybe it does come from the audience, I don't know... but I'm of the Nolan, Whedon, Mendes, etc. camp of looking at the blockbuster genre and saying "why can't these be top notch films as well that are better than films of other genres?" A film, after all is said and done, is still a film. Looking at it any other way is absolutely wrong in my eyes, and I'm saying that from a writer's point of view. I would approach any genre the exact same way without saying "oh, scale back it's only a --- kind of film." That's just an excuse in my eyes. Every film should be approached with the same level of gravitas. It's the difference between 'Die Another Day' and 'Skyfall' for example or 'Batman Forever' against Nolan's Batman films. One said hold back - it's just this "a Bond film with zany gadgets" or "a superhero film which are for kids"; the other begged the question "why can't it be just as powerful if not more so?"

Having worked in the industry, I can tell you I'd be fired the next day if I went to them with an action and drama script where the action script was better written and had all the elements that a good action script has while the drama script has a lot of elements of its genre but isn't written nearly as well (but close) and say "this drama script is the better script because it's drama." Are films seen based on their genre? Yes. Is that the only component? No. As someone who had to be a critic - within a top studio - there are certain things from ALL films that you EQUALLY look for. They ARE on the same grounds and it is part of one's job to look at them as being on the same ground. To those who may say script and screen is different - only aesthetic additions are made which further puts them on equal ground. Which is harder to make believable - the unbelievable or the mundane? And sometimes yes the action film is the better made film from the dramatic film.

NOW... if you are looking at Oscar only liking dramas... well, how did Raiders and Babe get nominated then among numerous others?

Whatever the reassesment now, there was a perception then about TDK "transcending its genre". There's none of that with The Avengers. Its popular because it revels in the genre, and all the limitations that come with that.

I present Raiders of the Lost Ark. Sometimes simplicity, and simplicity done well is one of the hardest things to pull off.

How many good dramas are there? How many good simple films are there?

 

[CrypticOne]

1. Argo
2. Lincoln
3. The Master
4. Killing Them Softly
5. The Dark Knight Rises
6. The Grey
7. Django Unchained
8. The Hobbit
9. Looper
10. Skyfall

 

[Evil Twin]

It's well worth remembering that before it came out, The Godfather was regarded as merely a gangster picture based on a trashy best seller. And Casablanca was just another picture in the WB assembly line before it was released. Etc. Saying that there's only been a few popular entertainments that the Academy has nominated over the years is forgetting to take context into the time.

Heck, Gone With the Wind probably was as prepackaged as any Harry Potter film.

Really, you go back to the first Oscars and Wings is the big blockbuster and Sunrise is the art film. Tomorrows classics are often today's genre entertainment. I'd argue that you can just as easily toss in the following Best Picture nominees/winners as examples of popular entertainment films first (pre-1950).

It Happened One Night
The Thin Man
Captain Blood
Top Hat
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
You Can't Take it With You
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Stagecoach
The Wizard of Oz
Rebecca
Foreign Correspondent
The Philadelphia Story
The Maltese Falcon
Suspicion
Heaven Can Wait
Going My Way
Double Indemnity
Gaslight
The Bells of St. Mary's
Spellbound
Miracle on 34th Street

There are plenty others that are arguable.

I think a superhero film will get nominated for Best Picture one day. Forever is a long time. But I doubt it's this year, partly because there's a glut of that type of larger than life entertainment that will split votes between TDKR, The Avengers, Skyfall, The Hobbit, and maybe even The Hunger Games, and partly because there really is no talk anywhere except some geek message boards that the superhero films need a nomination this year.

Frankly, I think Joss Whedon pretty much summed up The Avengers in popular conception when he described it not as a great movie, but a great time at the movies.

 

[Drizzle]

It's late enough in the game for me. Here are my predictions:

1. Les Miserables (could be the winner)
2. Argo
3. Lincoln
4. Silver Linings Playbook
5. Life of Pi
6. Zero Dark Thirty
7. Django Unchained (I'm sensing a repeat of Inglourious Basterds' success)
8. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (out of the blockbusters, this is the likeliest nominee based on Peter Jackson's history with the Academy)
9. The Master
10. Moonrise Kingdom

 

[DACrowe]

Spielberg was nominated for Close Encounters (1977), Raiders (1981) and E.T. (1982) - before finally winning for Schindler’s List (1993).

Er, won.

 

[DACrowe]

And arguably the aspects that made TDK even conceivable as a nominee are largely lacking in The Avengers.

Whatever the reassesment now, there was a perception then about TDK "transcending its genre". There's none of that with The Avengers. Its popular because it revels in the genre, and all the limitations that come with that.

Well said. Albeit, I do not think there is any reassessment on the previous Nolan film except in the pickiness of the fan community on the Internet and the like.

 

[jmc]

And arguably the aspects that made TDK even conceivable as a nominee are largely lacking in The Avengers.

Whatever the reassesment now, there was a perception then about TDK "transcending its genre". There's none of that with The Avengers. Its popular because it revels in the genre, and all the limitations that come with that.

Avengers feet are firmly planted within the genre. In fact it's the purest superhero film ever made. 100% unashamed of being what it is.

 

[redhawk23]

^ Precisely and it works on that level, I appreciate it what it does. But it doesn't do anything more than that. It is squarely a comic book movie, and inherits some of the issue and baggage that come with it. I love the film because it doesn't try to hide behind snark and "meta" attitude to try and lampshade those problems. It is entirely sincere.

Tonally it is pretty much perfect, but it has some story telling issues, my problems on that front I've mentioned before. Furthermore, it's MacGuffin (the tesseract) simply isn't as enigmatic as something like the Ark of the Covenant, the search for it is nowhere near as engaging or cinematic (typing on some computers to lock onto it's radiation signature vs. The sun shining through an Egyptian jewel, creating a laser that highlights a position in an ancient hidden maproom). I found the chitauri to be pretty underwhelming and faceless and generic as well. The giant worm things as well just fit too squarely with a lot of the cg action movie designs we've gotten over the past few years.

There is a place for "blockbuster" type, crowd pleasing films in the discussion of great films. I just don't agree that the Avengers quite qualifies. The film is very enjoyable, has good characters and a lot of heart, but personally I don't feel it reaches the overall quality as a film as something like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

[redhawk23]

Yes, each genre is looked at differently. And each genre is reviewed differently. But, each film has the same level of weight and gravitas.

This is really the problem when it comes to films these days... maybe it does come from the audience, I don't know... but I'm of the Nolan, Whedon, Mendes, etc. camp of looking at the blockbuster genre and saying "why can't these be top notch films as well that are better than films of other genres?" A film, after all is said and done, is still a film. Looking at it any other way is absolutely wrong in my eyes, and I'm saying that from a writer's point of view. I would approach any genre the exact same way without saying "oh, scale back it's only a --- kind of film." That's just an excuse in my eyes. Every film should be approached with the same level of gravitas. It's the difference between 'Die Another Day' and 'Skyfall' for example or 'Batman Forever' against Nolan's Batman films. One said hold back - it's just this "a Bond film with zany gadgets" or "a superhero film which are for kids"; the other begged the question "why can't it be just as powerful if not more so?"

Having worked in the industry, I can tell you I'd be fired the next day if I went to them with an action and drama script where the action script was better written and had all the elements that a good action script has while the drama script has a lot of elements of its genre but isn't written nearly as well (but close) and say "this drama script is the better script because it's drama." Are films seen based on their genre? Yes. Is that the only component? No. As someone who had to be a critic - within a top studio - there are certain things from ALL films that you EQUALLY look for. They ARE on the same grounds and it is part of one's job to look at them as being on the same ground. To those who may say script and screen is different - only aesthetic additions are made which further puts them on equal ground. Which is harder to make believable - the unbelievable or the mundane? And sometimes yes the action film is the better made film from the dramatic film.

NOW... if you are looking at Oscar only liking dramas... well, how did Raiders and Babe get nominated then among numerous others?



I present Raiders of the Lost Ark. Sometimes simplicity, and simplicity done well is one of the hardest things to pull off.

How many good dramas are there? How many good simple films are there?

You assume that they are entirely successful.

 

[jmc]

The other thing in regards to Raiders was that there was nothing else like it at the time. We get like 3-4 superhero films a year now, we're over saturated as is.

 

[baerrtt]

As pointed out earlier Academy history pretty tells us that at one point they had no problem nominating big box office hits for the Best Picture prize and more than often allowing them to win...whether they deserved it or not. CLEOPATRA (1963) that year's top grossing movie for example got a Best Picture nomination despite not one positive review whilst LOVE STORY 1970's top grosser got a Best Pic nom despite, outside of Ebert, being widely lambasted by critics on it's release.

As I stated 3 years ago on this forum when TDK failed to score a nomination for the top award this has nothing to do with quality or the belief that today's blockbusters are 'simplistic' (an overused criticism) but simple bias. Since the 80s the much older contingent of that organisation have expressed their discontent at how the big hits of the year more and more seem tailored for '13-15 year old boys'(another overused term) and reside within the sci-fi, action, animated and comedy genres...genres they don't overall take seriously. Hell I remember during the year ROTK won Clint Eastwood, who had MYSTIC RIVER in the race, was accused of trying to get votes from older voters bemoaning the special effects movies which some took as a jab at the LOTR trilogy. BACK TO THE FUTURE was the best reviewed movie of 1985 whilst TOY STORY was the best reviewed movie of 1995 and yet both movies were excluded for a Best Picture lineup that featured films reviewed and quite frankly today remembered less favourably then they were. If TDKR, SKYFALL and THE AVENGERS fail to crack the 10 over more baity pictures with less critical enthusiasm this will be at play again.

 

[QBComics]

The other thing in regards to Raiders was that there was nothing else like it at the time. We get like 3-4 superhero films a year now, we're over saturated as is.

That and Raiders is perfect.

 

[DDS]

1. Les Miserables
2. Argo
3. Lincoln
4. Zero Dark Thirty
5. Life of Pi
6. Silver Linings Playbook
7. Moonrise Kingdom
8. Django Unchained
9. The Master
10. The Hobbit

I'm predicting a three way battle between Les Miz, Argo, and Lincoln for BP, with Les Miz possibly in the lead (can't wait to see that). Zero Dark Thirty, I think, would be the major dark horse.

And I don't think TDKR will be nominated. Snowball's chance in hell, regardless of TDK's snub.

 

[Marvin]

Les Mis has this so won it's not even funny.

 

[DDS]

Les Mis has this so won it's not even funny.

I looked at some of the early screening reactions, the hype is pretty incredible. Hugh Jackman could even challenge Lewis' Lincoln for Best Actor according to some reports, although I personally think Lewis has that one in the bag. But who knows...

 

[PatrioticCowboy]

Django Unchained
Zero Dark Thirty
Argo
Lincoln
Life of Pi
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Amour
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Les Miserables