Possible Best Picture Nominees

[redhawk23]

Avengers not getting nominated wouldn't have to do with unfair Academy bias. Comic book films often have certain similar problems and Avengers is very much caught in many of the same traps. For one thing, it has the exact same 3rd act (stop the spinny thing/bomb/portal!) as every other comic film, the same problem I have with TDKR. It is simply tiresome.

 

[redhawk23]

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.

That's a list of what, 12 films contrary to their normal tastes in 80 years? The fact that it is so limited actually argues against your point.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It is YOUR opinion that it is tiresome, and I accept that, but it is NOT the consensus.

Also yes, it does because everyone's basically acting like it's impossible whereas I'm saying it's possible or probable which that list does show.

Also, I'd say A LOT of the past nominations are films that caught on with audiences more. Films back then were both widely liked by the audience and by the critics in the past it seemed in opposed to how it is now a' days. Wiki past academy awards, 80s and 90s - it just seems like something changed along the way with a lot of films themselves sadly.

 

[redhawk23]

I was just saying that the whole "Just a Comic Book movie" criticism often sticks because it is true, even the best of comicbook films tend to lean on the same narrative crutches, not that other films don't drag out old cliches, but with the number of comic films we get every year, it becomes quite obvious.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It is obvious, but yet again that's never held the academy back since - as you said - other films have their own formulas.

Most films are like math. It's the same old story. But the truly gifted writers are able to add in the right numbers and formulas to make it fresh and feel original even if it isn't.

 

[Project862006]

imo life of pi and silver lining playbook will be the darkhorses to win best picture

 

[redhawk23]

It is obvious, but yet again that's never held the academy back since - as you said - other films have their own formulas.

Most films are like math. It's the same old story. But the truly gifted writers are able to add in the right numbers and formulas to make it fresh and feel original even if it isn't.

The stop-the-spinny-thing-on-the-roof formula isn't as well respected the biopic formula however.

 

[Ultimatehero]

There's a stop the shiny thing on the roof formula?... (serious question lol)

To me Avengers is the classic: bad guy is unleashed, heroes deal with the plan and conflict, heroes must defeat the villain.

Or SKYFALL mentioned:

Spoiler

TDK and SKYFALL: Heroes encounter villain, captured villain further hatches his plot, hero must stop the villain's true plan.

Unsure what biopic formula has to do with romantic comedy formula, procedural formula, regular film with an antagonist formula, the Capraesque formula, etc. Also I find it rather odd that you mention biopic because that's the one genre that usually doesn't have a formula because they're usually told in a much different way depending on what one wants to tell - is it somebody's rise and fall from power, is it just somebody's rise with conflicts along the way, is it about a certain event in that person's life, is it just a series of events that cumulate and lead into one another, etc. They're given more leeway, I think, since we all know how the story ends and the intrigue is seeing how it got there. However the biopic formula can extend to imaginary films as well, this isn't usually the case - thinking 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' 'Forest Gump' and 'Bicentential Man' (to go far far far "out there").

 

[redhawk23]

The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, and the amazing Spiderman, as well as many others over the years, have the same 3rd act as the first X-men film. At least TDKR put it in the back of a truck, I guess.


And the deal with biopics is that regardless of the wide variety of life stories and specific events that have been adapted into films, the stories are twisted to fit into just a few formulas. Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox story was a parody of many biopic tropes, not just Walk The Line.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Huh, okay - now I get what you mean by "silvery thingy"... that's not only in superhero movies though but in almost every genre. I'd call it the "detonator" or "race against time" final conflict. For example, in 'Jersey Girl' Ben Affleck's character needs to race through traffic and get around certain obstacles in his way to get to his daughter's dance recital. Although there was no 'end of the world' scenario there, you could say it was on a more personal scale. Given of those examples - one was a bomb, another was a portal opening, and the last two were mutation trigger devices.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah and who exactly wanted Jersey Girl to be nominated for Best Picture?

And again these films have the added fact that they have that same plot device, but with people in tights and come out mere weeks apart quite often.

Look, The Avengers does what it does and does it very well. It is generally agreed that is better than most of the other blockbuster type movies we got this year or in the past few years.

It is certainly not junkfood, but let's not jump the gun and start calling TGI Fridays a 5 star restaurant, you know what I mean?

 

[Ultimatehero]

The point: Films in EVERY genre, even those under nomination, have used some form of ticking plot device whether in its finale or within the construct of the film itself. Granted, Jersey Girl wasn't a great film - but that says nothing of the device, just Jersey Girl - it was an example of other forms this age-old technique can take to easily show how many times you've seen it. Basically, it's a device as old as time. So saying "it shouldn't be nominated because it has a ticking plot device" makes as much sense as saying that a film shouldn't be nominated because it includes a "romantic sub plot." It says nothing about the whole, just what 'ingredients' were used which have existed long before film. Talking clay tablets and oral tradition level old here.

And again, The Avengers has gotten better reviews than other films brought up as possible nominees this year and nominees in the past. So, yes, I'd say it's safe to say in comparison to some of the films nominated in the past and some of the possible contenders this year - it IS a five star restaurant when lined up with those. A film is a film. You might go into that five star restaurant looking at a menu. Lets call the selections on this menu different types of films. Now no one is going to eat the same dish. Many have their preferences as of which dish they want. But they are all high caliber entrees that beat out similar entrees in lesser restaurants. And the academy has shown this in the past and I have provided ample evidence already of this. And if it's "it's too bizarre!".... well a movie about a talking pig got nominated. I take the 'Babe defense.'

Saying food critics give a restaurant a 2.5/5, then another restaurant a 4.5/5 - which one would you call closer to a five star restaurant?

 

[flickchick85]

imo life of pi and silver lining playbook will be the darkhorses to win best picture

Ha, I'm seeing that very double feature on Wednesday. That said, Silver Linings Playbook is no dark horse. It had many crying "frontrunner" as soon as it hit Toronto in September.

 

[hammerhedd11]

The point: Films in EVERY genre, even those under nomination, have used some form of ticking plot device whether in its finale or within the construct of the film itself. Granted, Jersey Girl wasn't a great film - but that says nothing of the device, just Jersey Girl - it was an example of other forms this age-old technique can take to easily show how many times you've seen it. Basically, it's a device as old as time. So saying "it shouldn't be nominated because it has a ticking plot device" makes as much sense as saying that a film shouldn't be nominated because it includes a "romantic sub plot." It says nothing about the whole, just what 'ingredients' were used which have existed long before film. Talking clay tablets and oral tradition level old here.

And again, The Avengers has gotten better reviews than other films brought up as possible nominees this year and nominees in the past. So, yes, I'd say it's safe to say in comparison to some of the films nominated in the past and some of the possible contenders this year - it IS a five star restaurant when lined up with those. A film is a film. You might go into that five star restaurant looking at a menu. Lets call the selections on this menu different types of films. Now no one is going to eat the same dish. Many have their preferences as of which dish they want. But they are all high caliber entrees that beat out similar entrees in lesser restaurants. And the academy has shown this in the past and I have provided ample evidence already of this. And if it's "it's too bizarre!".... well a movie about a talking pig got nominated. I take the 'Babe defense.'

Saying food critics give a restaurant a 2.5/5, then another restaurant a 4.5/5 - which one would you call closer to a five star restaurant?

You keep the ignoring the fact that there HAVE been many blockbuster films in the past that have been critically acclaimed, moreso than many past Best Picture nominess, yet failed to get any awards attention. Yes, you point to the fact that it has (very few times) happened, but what gives you the idea that it will for Avengers? You've given no proof other than "lots of people including critics liked it" which has never been the deciding factor.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I have already given my answer and I'll once again stress it's ingenuity. Bringing a cinematic universe together is no easy feat and it is the first of its kind. BASICALLY (adding) it's an award to MARVEL as a whole for changing the way we look at the inter-connectivity of film and soon television in a way that has never been attempted before or achieved. Add to THAT the response that it has gotten and that it won't look like it's selling out due to it being favored critically as well (therefore it is a genuinely "five-star film").

Now, I ask of you, can you think of a reason why it's - as you're seemingly stressing - impossible when it has happened in the past?

You seem to be hard pressed on insisting that it's not, yet I'm still waiting for a reason to 'why not.'

1) If it's the quality of the film, answer the 2.5 or 4.5 question above.

2) If it's the genre, look at the list - you can say it's rare, but you can't say it's impossible anymore. Unless name why those rare exceptions and not this.

3) If you say it's not political - well, that's kind of true - it's sociological. And I ask you to weigh the number of nominated films that are political to those that are not.

4) If you say it doesn't have an emotional message, well look at what Agent Coulson's death means beyond just a character you like dying and to what his character in the film represents and "sociologically" what that means/says about the world that we live in today.

So, where is it - where is the "deciding factor" that it won't be? Since you seem to be implying that there is one...

 

[hammerhedd11]

The Academy has never been known to reward innovation.

I never said it was impossible- just extremely unlikely. As much as I enjoyed The Avengers it's just not the type of film that'll get awards. True, critics enjoyed it too, but that's not indicative whatsoever for its chances. Star Trek (2009), Iron Man, The Dark Knight, The Bourne Films, Mission Impossible 4, all had similar RT scores. Why didn't they get nominated?

Avengers is a light, summer movie. A well made one, but a summer movie about superheroes none the less. Your continued fawning over the cinematic universe does not make its chances any more likely. It's something that hasn't been pulled off before, but how exactly is that an indicator of a nomination? I don't know where you get this idea that the academy likes to nominate everything that does something different. Also, a shared superhero film universe is not exactly something I see academy members even knowing about let alone giving two s**ts about. It's just not that impressive of an idea to get awards for.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Innovation still sets it a mark above other blockbusters.

It does seem like you've been going for impossible, otherwise you'd of let it go by now. I'm tired of it, and at this point I'm just replying. A light summer movie could be the same words to describe Raiders of the Lost Ark which was nominated. A movie about a talking pig was nominated, so I'm still lost as to why the academy would nominate a talking pig movie and ban a movie for wearing spandex - I call it the 'Babe' defense. The cinematic universe sets it apart from other blockbusters in that it's a much harder accomplishment. I never said it was a set indicator, I'm saying it's possible and taking how much you like saying it's not as meaning you think it's impossible. I'd say with the last sentences, you'd be scratching your head years prior asking "how can a talking pig movie get nominated?!"

... yep, I love the 'babe' defense lol.

As I said, the first person to come up with something to prove "alright it's impossible," fine I'll say you're right - it would never happen. Hell, it might not. I'm just arguing that it's possible and why it's possible rather than impossible. So WHOEVER can answer in a concrete why it would never happen before pigs can fly - go at it - until that point in time, however, I don't know how it's nearly impossible when the past says otherwise. Nor do I understand the anger about spandex when talking pigs can be nominated.

I kind of feel like the lawyer in 'Miracle on 34th Street' right now lol. Because all I'm doing is stating why it's possible rather than impossible, which is a lot easier of a thing to do lol. So how can't it be so?

 

[hammerhedd11]

Innovation still sets it a mark above other blockbusters.

It does seem like you've been going for impossible, otherwise you'd of let it go by now. A light summer movie could be the same words to describe Raiders of the Lost Ark. A movie about a talking pig was nominated, so I'm still lost as to why the academy would nominate a talking pig movie and ban a movie for wearing spandex - I call the 'Babe' defense. The cinematic universe sets it apart from other blockbusters in that it's a much harder accomplishment. I never set it was a set indicator, I'm saying it's possible and taking how much you like saying it's not as meaning you think it's impossible. I'd say with the last sentences, you'd be scratching your head years prior asking "how can a talking pig movie get nominated?!"

... yep, I love the 'babe' defense lol.

Ok, let's go past this bulls**t defense that "well Babe was nominated so why can't Avengers?" That's not an answer. Saying it's happened to other "not-likely" candidates does not all of a sudden qualify this as a shoo-in.

You over-emphasize this "innovation". This "innovation" was that they didn't f**k up this movie. That's it. They successfully put together a bunch of superheroes together and boy, it could've really sucked, but it didn't. This "innovation" you speak of is simply, "they made a good movie." Star Trek (2009) had a large ensemble cast and a better RT score than The Avengers. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol had a team element, and much better than most blockbusters, also had a better RT score. The Dark Knight, made an epic, dark, crime saga with important social themes with Batman. Higher RT score. Pretty darn innovative, yeah?

You continue to dodge my, and others questions. Besides a good showing by critics, the amazing innovation of being a good movie, and the fact that Babe exists, can you give me any reason that this movie will be nominated. By that logic 21 Jump Street could be nominated. And don't say Raiders of the Lost Ark. THIS movie.

 

[Ultimatehero]

And I've never said it was a shoo-in, all I said was it's possible. You say the academy hates spandex, well what says that they hate spandex? I've never heard them say that they hate spandex. And if they can accept the light-heartedness of a talking pig, I surely do not know why they would have a problem with spandex. (My 'babe' defense, is kinda like the 'God' defense of "how can you know something exists if you can't see it?")

That's overly simplifying it, it was a six-movie plan in the making. Could it have back fired? Yes. Did it? No. It unified things. A large ensemble cast really isn't something that's difficult. And 'team-element' again isn't hard to pull off. Having a concrete story that continues over a course of six films is much harder to pull off. And, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the film industry who would say "Star Trek was just as difficult a feat as Marvel's Phase One of films." And the academy has noted it snubbed The Dark Knight and the very next year the number of films nominated increased, so thank you for noting that they don't hate spandex.

I already have. Innovative as a whole, number one movie of the year, loved among critics. This is not saying it's a shoo-in, this is why I'm saying it's possible.

You seem very hard pressed for me to say why it will, yet you are avoiding answering why it won't. You seem hyped up on them hating spandex, that it's rare, and will yet not say what makes those rare instances happen and why that won't happen again.

I am saying it's possible, as said - it's a much easier thing to do - I could argue pigs flying over the moon as being possible and win that argument with the 'God' defense. Yet, it's not as easy to say something is nearly impossible.

So, what is the determining factor that says that rare occurrence will not happen?

And as I've said, any solid response, I'll happily admit to being wrong - yet I'm still waiting on one other than "it's rare" which only says that it's "rare" rather than nearly impossible. Once again - any solid response, I'll happily admit to being wrong. Yet there isn't one. Plus, I actually think it's kind of funny that you sound really pissed just at the notion that I believe it has a chance due to the factors I listed. It's just one person's opinion dude - not a civil war. Pun not intended.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I already have. Innovative as a whole, number one movie of the year, loved among critics. This is not saying it's a shoo-in, this is why I'm saying it's possible.

You seem very hard pressed for me to say why it will, yet you are avoiding answering why it won't. You seem hyped up on them hating spandex, that it's rare, and will yet not say what makes those rare instances happen and why that won't happen again.

I am saying it's possible, as said - it's a much easier thing to do - I could argue pigs flying over the moon as being possible and win that argument with the 'God' defense. Yet, it's not as easy to say something is nearly impossible.

So, what is the determining factor that says that rare occurrence will not happen?

And as I've said, any solid response, I'll happily admit to being wrong - yet I'm still waiting on one other than "it's rare" which only says that it's "rare" rather than nearly impossible. Once again - any solid response, I'll happily admit to being wrong. Yet there isn't one. Plus, I actually think it's kind of funny that you sound really pissed just at the notion that I believe it has a chance due to the factors I listed. It's just one person's opinion dude - not a civil war. Pun not intended.

I've given you multiple reasons why it won't. So have many others in this thread. You will not admit to being wrong because your whole argument rests on "it's possible". You might as well say Babe has a chance this year. Who knows? It's possible. Remember that movie, Babe? You know it got nominated that one year, and from then on I said, "man this really opens the path for The Avengers down the road."

 

[Man in the Suit]

so, what is the determining factor that says that rare occurrence will not happen?

And as i've said, any solid response, i'll happily admit to being wrong - yet i'm still waiting on one other than "it's rare" which only says that it's "rare" rather than nearly impossible. Once again - any solid response, i'll happily admit to being wrong. yet there isn't one.

Because it's The Avengers.

 

[bullets]

They should of never brought the nominations up to ten instead of five.

 

[redhawk23]

Is it back to being permanently 10? Because I liked the idea of having anywhere between 10 and five depending how the voting went rather than limiting it to just 5 or having to nominate weaker films just to fill the quota of 10.

 

[redhawk23]

The point: Films in EVERY genre, even those under nomination, have used some form of ticking plot device whether in its finale or within the construct of the film itself. Granted, Jersey Girl wasn't a great film - but that says nothing of the device, just Jersey Girl - it was an example of other forms this age-old technique can take to easily show how many times you've seen it. Basically, it's a device as old as time. So saying "it shouldn't be nominated because it has a ticking plot device" makes as much sense as saying that a film shouldn't be nominated because it includes a "romantic sub plot." It says nothing about the whole, just what 'ingredients' were used which have existed long before film. Talking clay tablets and oral tradition level old here.

And again, The Avengers has gotten better reviews than other films brought up as possible nominees this year and nominees in the past. So, yes, I'd say it's safe to say in comparison to some of the films nominated in the past and some of the possible contenders this year - it IS a five star restaurant when lined up with those. A film is a film. You might go into that five star restaurant looking at a menu. Lets call the selections on this menu different types of films. Now no one is going to eat the same dish. Many have their preferences as of which dish they want. But they are all high caliber entrees that beat out similar entrees in lesser restaurants. And the academy has shown this in the past and I have provided ample evidence already of this. And if it's "it's too bizarre!".... well a movie about a talking pig got nominated. I take the 'Babe defense.'

Saying food critics give a restaurant a 2.5/5, then another restaurant a 4.5/5 - which one would you call closer to a five star restaurant?

I don't think you understand the expression "5 star restaurant." 20 million Americans can list TGI Fridays as their favorite restaurant but that doesn't make it a "5 star restaurant."

Furthermore The Avengers can make a billion dollars but that doesn't speak much to certain aspects of quality. Other than just being an awesome way to pass the time, what is the point of The Avengers?

But hey, I've already been told off for discussing specific films in this thread.

On with the lists.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Is it back to being permanently 10? Because I liked the idea of having anywhere between 10 and five depending how the voting went rather than limiting it to just 5 or having to nominate weaker films just to fill the quota of 10.

I'm pretty sure it's still between five and ten.