The Dark Knight The Oscar Push!

[namtaB]

I'm still stinging from TDK's snub. What bothers me is that the Oscars have become all about campaigning. That's how Harvey Weinstein was able to sneak The Reader into the Best Picture race, knocking out The Dark Knight, and how was was able to shove Winselt into the best actress race when she should have been there for Revolutionary Road.

LOL you guys crack me up. If that's true then TDK should have been a lock since WB spent a lot of time and energy pushing Dark Knight for Best Picture even going so far as to re-release it in theaters. WB campaigned their nuts off for TDK including hitching it onto the Ledger for Supporting Actor movement that's been brewing since his death.

You guys read things from the NY Post of all places and conclude that Weinstein's machinations somehow unfairly bumped TDK from a Best Picture nomination. Here's a novel thought, maybe the Academy just didn't like TDK? Some of you guys just can't stand the fact that certain people just don't feel the same way about TDK as you do. I thought it was a great film but no way does it deserve a BP nomination. But rather than accept this reality its spun into things like "boo hoo Weinstein is a meany", "the Oscars suck", "they are going to do so bad this year", "Its all about campaiging", "The Academy is out of touch", etc. etc. etc.

 

[Silverglade]

Best Picture, whatever, But Christopher Nolan should have been nominated for Best Director. He does not have to WIN. but a nod is MORE than unbelievably earned. He directed TDK with no second unit. And incorporated the IMAX camera into a feature film. I mean c'mon.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I thought it was a great film but no way does it deserve a BP nomination.

I would love for you to prove that The Reader, Frost/Nixon, Ben Button, Slumdog, and Milk were worthy but TDK was not. I actually agree with your idea that TDK is pretty good but not worthy of a nomination. What I disagree with, however, is the notion that the five films selected are any more worthy than TDK. I don't think any of them are as good as TDK. So if I feel TDK is not worthy of a nomination, and I do feel it wasn't worthy of one, then what does that say about the 5 that were nominated? Just about the only contender that I felt was truly worthy of a nomination is The Wrestler. It's been a rather weak year for quality movies to say the least.

My argument against TDK getting nominated has always been that Batman Begins wasn't nominated so why should TDK be nominated? BB was every bit as good as TDK to me. I'm probably not alone in thinking TDK did not beat its predecessor in the quality department.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

I would love for you to prove that The Reader, Frost/Nixon, Ben Button, Slumdog, and Milk were worthy but TDK was not. I actually agree with your idea that TDK is pretty good but not worthy of a nomination. What I disagree with, however, is the notion that the five films selected are any more worthy than TDK. I don't think any of them are as good as TDK. So if I feel TDK is not worthy of a nomination, and I do feel it wasn't worthy of one, then what does that say about the 5 that were nominated? Just about the only contender that I felt was truly worthy of a nomination is The Wrestler. It's been a rather weak year for quality movies to say the least.

My argument against TDK getting nominated has always been that Batman Begins wasn't nominated so why should TDK be nominated? BB was every bit as good as TDK to me. I'm probably not alone in thinking TDK did not beat its predecessor in the quality department.

And Juno,Ghost,Crash,Michael Clayton,Babel,Capote,Ray,Seabiscuit etc,etc are?

What constitutes a nomination worthy picture by your oppinion then?

And to namtaB,don't be ridiculous,TDK is the second highest grossing movie ever,it has 9/10 on imdb from 350,000 votes and it has 94% with 8,5 average on rotten tomatoes...all of which are better than the five nominated movies....so yes,the academy IS out of touch.The same thing can be said about Wall-E and the whole ''oh it's animated=it's for kids'' nonsense...it's 10 freakin times more mature than The Reader and Button that's for sure.

Techinically TDK is near perfect,the story is deep,complex,emotional,asks a lot of moral and philosophical questions and the acting is superb.

If that is not a nomination worthy movie then enlighten me please.

 

[jmc]

The Nolan snub is definitely more annoying than the film getting snubbed. Oh well though. He'll get his due eventually, whether it be from the awards scene or simply from millions of people admiring his work. Hitchcock and Kubrick never won the Best Director Oscar but they are considered two of the best filmmakers ever. Nolan doesn't really pander with typical ''Oscar-bait'' style movies. Aronofsky doesn't either. But I think the two of them will continue making great movies and continue gaining a lot of respect around the world, regardless of whether the Academy chooses to acknowledge their ability or not.

That is the bigger kick in the guts, I think most can live without the Best Picture nod, but the snubbing of Nolan is just downright appalling, here's a young director who knows how to tell a story and show it in a unique style, and has done so for all his films, who took a character who was a laughing stock and gave him his balls back, who created one of the biggest movie experiences of all time, who had the vision to gamble with IMAX technology, who single handedly reinvented a genre that was quickly becoming a joke, and yet come Feb 22 he'll still be sitting at the children's table.

 

[redfirebird2008]

And Juno,Ghost,Crash,Michael Clayton,Babel,Capote,Ray,Seabiscuit etc,etc are?

What constitutes a nomination worthy picture by your oppinion then?

And to namtaB,don't be ridiculous,TDK is the second highest grossing movie ever,it has 9/10 on imdb from 350,000 votes and it has 94% with 8,5 average on rotten tomatoes...all of which are better than the five nominated movies....so yes,the academy IS out of touch.The same thing can be said about Wall-E and the whole ''oh it's animated=it's for kids'' nonsense...it's 10 freakin times more mature than The Reader and Button that's for sure.

Techinically TDK is near perfect,the story is deep,complex,emotional,asks a lot of moral and philosophical questions and the acting is superb.

If that is not a nomination worthy movie then enlighten me please.

What constitutes a nomination-worthy film to me? City of God, not Slumdog Millionaire. Forrest Gump, not Benjamin Button. Schindler's List, not The Reader. Need I go on? My point is generally that if I'm not blown away by something, I tend to think it's not worthy of an Academy Award.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

What constitutes a nomination-worthy film to me? City of God, not Slumdog Millionaire. Forrest Gump, not Benjamin Button. Schindler's List, not The Reader. Need I go on? My point is generally that if I'm not blown away by something, I tend to think it's not worthy of an Academy Award.

Yes but we are talking nominations here,not winners...i'm not arguing that TDK should/should have win/won,i'm saying it deserved a nomination.

Going by history there are 50 movies that deserved that nomination less,far less ground-breaking movies,far worse acted movies,movies that are forgotten by now.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

BTW i just watched Gran Torino....how in hell is Brad Pitt nominated in front of Clint Eastwood is beyond me.

Another great movie(except for the Korean kid) which was basically ignored.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Yes but we are talking nominations here,not winners...i'm not arguing that TDK should/should have win/won,i'm saying it deserved a nomination.

Going by history there are 50 movies that deserved that nomination less,far less ground-breaking movies,far worse acted movies,movies that are forgotten by now.

Well I mean even for a nomination, I expect top notch stuff. And there really wasn't much of that this year IMHO, with the exception of The Wrestler. I will say this, however. Crash was a flat-out bad movie. I just hope the winner is at least a good one. I thought 4 of the 5 movies nominated were at least good. One of them I thought was average/mediocre. Ironically enough, I thought Frost/Nixon was the best, but I'm a bit of a political junkie so it was very interesting to watch for me.

 

[Crook]

Out of curiosity, why don't you think a good argument could be made in favor of Slumdog winning Best Song?

Because I thought Springsteen's song for Wrestler was by far the best of the bunch, and that wasn't even nominated.

But seriously, all three LOTR films were nominated for Best Picture and the third one actually won it. Are any of those films better than TDK, an ambitious, genre-bending epic?

As Oscar-caliber films, yes I do find them all to be better than TDK. However, I do find TDK to be better in the replayability and movie-going experience.

Even if Best Picture was too much to ask, Nolan seriously was robbed of a Best Director nomination, and that's the sad thing about it all. A man that worked so how and did so much and actually changed the medium of film forever with his revolutionary use of IMAX cameras. A man that took a concept that was laughable 10 years ago and churned out a crime epic that was appreciated by both adults and children all around the world, with a scope that is unrivaled by any of the other Best Pic nominees .

I'll agree Nolan deserved it, but moreso for the IMAX and genre-elevating movie. I just can't count the popularity into that, because we all know the massive audience was lured in the hype caused by Ledger's death + drug scandal + performance of a lifetime + The Joker. It became much more than just a Batman film, it really was THE movie event to see.

There were a lot of great movies this year,The Wrestler,The Visitor,Frozen River,Wall-E,Let The Right One In etc... movies that i woudnt have been angry at all if they were nominated in front of TDK.

So it's not about blind fanboy-ism at all...i'm a movie lover first,so i want to see the best movies winning the awards not the movies which made people feel good...the number one liberal crap factor which makes Slumdog the frontrunner.

Lol, what exactly is wrong with a movie that resonates in that fashion? I've already explained my position of not wanting to like this movie, and *I* came out actually supporting it for Best Picture.

The movie won the costumes guilds and the best ensemble...costumes???what costumes please?

For someone that's a fan of film, you don't think that's a stupid question? What "costumes"? You do realize that term isn't literal, don't you? Anything worn in that movie can be categorized as costuming. Every aspect of the visual aesthetic is chosen by the director or someone under him. The actors don't just go into their own closets and film what they wear.

And objectivelly:Christian Bale,Heath Ledger,Garry Oldman,Michael Caine,Morgan Freeman,Aaron Eckhart,Eric Roberts or some unknown amateur actors whom you can find in the dictionary under the word mediocre?

In terms of individual performance, Ledger, Oldman, and Eckhart were very impressive. But as an ensemble, I did find Slumdog's to be better. Everyone was on point, had their job, and were all generally good (especially the child actors). In TDK I found it to be heavily one-sided.

That's where the problem is...people are voting for it just because...with their hearts not with their minds and that's not the way it should be done....at least not if they want to have relevant award shows.

I don't even know what to say to this. Film is an art form, and you're critiquing how it "moves people's hearts" as a critique? It's not all about cerebral impulse. Not one bit.

 

[jmc]

Looking at this years nominations I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that the best five movies of this just happened to be released within the last three months. The Wrestler? WALL-E? TDK? Hell even something like Rachel Getting Married.

 

[[A]]

^ didn't get your post

 

[Kargo Warrior]

''For someone that's a fan of film, you don't think that's a stupid question? What "costumes"? You do realize that term isn't literal, don't you? Anything worn in that movie can be categorized as costuming. Every aspect of the visual aesthetic is chosen by the director or someone under him. The actors don't just go into their own closets and film what they wear.''

That's the point...they were wearing average clothes for a lack of better term...if ANY movie not named Slumdog had ''costumes'' like that it woudnt have won anything.

You wanna tell me that Slumdog had better costumes/clothes than Sex and The City,The Wrestler and Mamma Mia with a straight face?

Come on man.

 

[Crook]

Looking at this years nominations I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that the best five movies of this just happened to be released within the last three months. The Wrestler? WALL-E? TDK? Hell even something like Rachel Getting Married.

It's Oscar season. Studios always save their "best" films for that period.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It's Oscar season. Studios always save their "best" films for that period.

Which explains why Zodiac (a) wasn't released in the fall, and (b) didn't get a single nomination at the Oscars. Yeah, what a craptastic movie that was.

 

[Crook]

That's the point...they were wearing average clothes for a lack of better term...if ANY movie not named Slumdog had ''costumes'' like that it woudnt have won anything.

You wanna tell me that Slumdog had better costumes/clothes than Sex and The City,The Wrestler and Mamma Mia with a straight face?

Come on man.

I absolutely will tell you that with a straight face. Those films you mentioned didn't have anything special that this audience hasn't seen much before.

Slumdog's? Completely atypical. A major praise for the film was how every aspect of it's direction made you feel like you were in this completely different area (from America). The setting and costuming greatly contributed to this.

Which explains why Zodiac (a) wasn't released in the fall, and (b) didn't get a single nomination at the Oscars. Yeah, what a craptastic movie that was.

Roll your eyes at the studio and Academy, neither of those were my decisions.

 

[namtaB]

And Juno,Ghost,Crash,Michael Clayton,Babel,Capote,Ray,Seabiscuit etc,etc are?

What constitutes a nomination worthy picture by your oppinion then?

And to namtaB,don't be ridiculous,TDK is the second highest grossing movie ever,it has 9/10 on imdb from 350,000 votes and it has 94% with 8,5 average on rotten tomatoes...all of which are better than the five nominated movies....so yes,the academy IS out of touch.The same thing can be said about Wall-E and the whole ''oh it's animated=it's for kids'' nonsense...it's 10 freakin times more mature than The Reader and Button that's for sure.

Techinically TDK is near perfect,the story is deep,complex,emotional,asks a lot of moral and philosophical questions and the acting is superb.

If that is not a nomination worthy movie then enlighten me please.

All those things are indicative of a popular film but not indicative of an Oscar worthy film. I liken TDK to Kennedy. Kennedy barely won the election against Nixon but he was immensely popular b/c of his youth, energy, class, etc. Even to this day he's fondly remembered. But his foreign policy was abysmal and his domestic policies had negative ramifications that extended well into the 70s. In other words he was a popular figure but he was far from being a great President.

TDK is a hodgepodge of various things. Its got action, morality, emotion, etc. But it never fully immerses itself into any of these areas. Don't get me wrong, its a great hodgepodge and combines all these elements wonderfully but it examines each of them without committing to any of them. This is why its so popular. There's something for everyone in this film. Its also why its not an Oscar contender.

I do think Nolan was robbed for Best Director. Since only an Oscar quality director can make a hodgepodge that good.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Roll your eyes at the studio and Academy, neither of those were my decisions.

My point is they practically ignore plenty of great movies that come out much earlier in the year. They ignore those films primarily due to release date. If it's not a big summer blockbuster and it doesn't come out in the fall, it gets ignored no matter how good it is.

 

[StylishHokie21]

My point is they practically ignore plenty of great movies that come out much earlier in the year. They ignore those films primarily due to release date. If it's not a big summer blockbuster and it doesn't come out in the fall, it gets ignored no matter how good it is.

It's a shame.It just baffles me that Gary Oldman hasn't been nominated yet.

 

[Crook]

My point is they practically ignore plenty of great movies that come out much earlier in the year. They ignore those films primarily due to release date. If it's not a big summer blockbuster and it doesn't come out in the fall, it gets ignored no matter how good it is.

Well there is a logical reason for it. The ballots are handed in January, yes? Something that comes out in Spring of the previous year is gonna be hard to remember. It'd have to be some unforgettable film to be recognized for that long when you're doing nominations.

Critics and academy members watch tons of films each year. It's hard to keep up with them all. Come awards season, they're used to the fact that the nominees are almost always within the Oscar-bait months. So they're focused on that.

The only reason something like TDK was even in the race, was because it became such a mega-hit, that the critics couldn't help but recognize it's presence. Something as low-key as Zodiac is easily gonna be lost up in the mix when it's that far out from other contenders.

 

[Anita18]

TDK is a hodgepodge of various things. Its got action, morality, emotion, etc. But it never fully immerses itself into any of these areas. Don't get me wrong, its a great hodgepodge and combines all these elements wonderfully but it examines each of them without committing to any of them. This is why its so popular. There's something for everyone in this film. Its also why its not an Oscar contender.

I dunno, I found TDK's commitment to chaos/order, corruption, and image to be pretty deep. Way deeper than The Reader's examination of the post-Holocaust fallout (I was supposed to feel sorry for Hanna Schmidt because she was illiterate? Really?) or Slumdog's examination of destiny. At least Slumdog had its incredibly powerful and tactile examination of poverty on its side.

Let's face it. The Oscars have a "formula." Both TDK and Wall-E's genres did not fit that formula. That's the only reason that neither were nominated for Best Picture.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Well there is a logical reason for it. The ballots are handed in January, yes? Something that comes out in Spring of the previous year is gonna be hard to remember. It'd have to be some unforgettable film to be recognized for that long when you're doing nominations.

Critics and academy members watch tons of films each year. It's hard to keep up with them all. Come awards season, they're used to the fact that the nominees are almost always within the Oscar-bait months. So they're focused on that.

The only reason something like TDK was even in the race, was because it became such a mega-hit, that the critics couldn't help but recognize it's presence. Something as low-key as Zodiac is easily gonna be lost up in the mix when it's that far out from other contenders.

Actually TDK was a hit with critics before it was a hit with the public, seeing as the critics got to see it before we did and the rave reviews were pouring in around 2-3 weeks before its release. I think what you meant with your line of thought is that the Academy (industry workers, NOT critics) were forced to take a look at TDK because of how big its box office was. This is true, though it was the combination of critical acclaim and box office, not JUST box office, that gave it some pretty good recognition from the Academy.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

All those things are indicative of a popular film but not indicative of an Oscar worthy film. I liken TDK to Kennedy. Kennedy barely won the election against Nixon but he was immensely popular b/c of his youth, energy, class, etc. Even to this day he's fondly remembered. But his foreign policy was abysmal and his domestic policies had negative ramifications that extended well into the 70s. In other words he was a popular figure but he was far from being a great President.

TDK is a hodgepodge of various things. Its got action, morality, emotion, etc. But it never fully immerses itself into any of these areas. Don't get me wrong, its a great hodgepodge and combines all these elements wonderfully but it examines each of them without committing to any of them. This is why its so popular. There's something for everyone in this film. Its also why its not an Oscar contender.

I do think Nolan was robbed for Best Director. Since only an Oscar quality director can make a hodgepodge that good.

Great reviews are sign of great popularity??

My discussion with you stops there.

 

[Anita18]

Critics and academy members watch tons of films each year. It's hard to keep up with them all. Come awards season, they're used to the fact that the nominees are almost always within the Oscar-bait months. So they're focused on that.

No they don't. They're too busy making their own films to be watching other people's films. That's why studios have relegated to sending out DVD screeners for them, because that's the only way a lot of the Academy members will ever see the movies.

I think it's a detriment for judging certain technical things like cinematography and sound, but....that's the way it's done.

Someone like The Envelope's source "Deep Vote" didn't even bother to see all of the Oscar hopefuls before the nominations came out. The comments on that article were hilarious - he was like, "I'm fairly surprised Rachel Getting Married didn't get a BP nom" and the commenters replied, "That's because people like you didn't see it, doofus!"

 

[Crook]

Actually TDK was a hit with critics before it was a hit with the public, seeing as the critics got to see it before we did and the rave reviews were pouring in around 2-3 weeks before its release. I think what you meant with your line of thought is that the Academy (industry workers, NOT critics) were forced to take a look at TDK because of how big its box office was. This is true, though it was the combination of critical acclaim and box office, not JUST box office, that gave it some pretty good recognition from the Academy.

I know it was a hit with the critics. I'm referring to the film's recognizability at Awards season. TDK was like half a year out from everyone else, but because of the huge fan-campaign and mainstream success, it was hard for anyone to forget that little ol' comic book film that came out in the summer.

Zodiac did not have that luxury.

No they don't. They're too busy making their own films to be watching other people's films. That's why studios have relegated to sending out DVD screeners for them, because that's the only way a lot of the Academy members will ever see the movies.

I think it's a detriment for judging certain technical things like cinematography and sound, but....that's the way it's done.

Someone like The Envelope's source "Deep Vote" didn't even bother to see all of the Oscar hopefuls before the nominations came out. The comments on that article were hilarious - he was like, "I'm fairly surprised Rachel Getting Married didn't get a BP nom" and the commenters replied, "That's because people like you didn't see it, doofus!"

I see. I was under the impression that despite busy schedules, everyone frees up during Oscar season to get into a "catch-up" process.