The Dark Knight Toy Story, Avatar, and Distric 9 got Oscar noms, but TDK didn't? Why is this?

[Red Mask]

The Dark Knight did get eight Oscar nominations that year. It won TWO for Best Achievement in Sound Editing and a posthumous award for Heath Ledgers performance.

The other nominations were for Art Direction (hack job), Cinematography (now that's a joke), Editing, Makeup (obviously), Sound, and Visual Effects.

Now I thought the Academy learned its lesson after Disney's Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture in 1991. That was just ridiculous. But I guess they still have deep pockets. The last graphic novel film I know to get a best picture nomination was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2002. "Road to Perdition" won an Oscar for Best Cinematography (which is understandable. It was great.)

 

[El Payaso]

im giving my personal opinion on why i believe TDK wasnt worth a best picture nomination.

You said that its flaws were the reason why the Academy didn't nominate it. Not why you didn't nominate it. Therefore you're talking about the Academy's criteria here.

 

[Red Mask]

A good reason why Toy Story 3 got a Best Picture nomination could be the same reason why "Slumdog Millionaire" was nominated. They both reflect a feel good vibe that they felt was present in their American values.

 

[Motown Marvel]

You said that its flaws were the reason why the Academy didn't nominate it. Not why you didn't nominate it. Therefore you're talking about the Academy's criteria here.

i think it shouldnt have been nominated because it's flaws made it unworthy of a nomination. i believe the academy didnt nominate it because its flaws made it unworthy of a nomination.

do you want to pick apart anymore semantics to make this discussion even more pointless?

 

[redfirebird2008]

Cinematography (now that's a joke)

What? TDK's cinematography was great.

 

[El Payaso]

i think it shouldnt have been nominated because it's flaws made it unworthy of a nomination. i believe the academy didnt nominate it because its flaws made it unworthy of a nomination.

And yet they nominated mediocre films such as the one I mentioned, which is not the only one btw. So that's why I state that flaws is not what Academy members have in mind when nominating.

do you want to pick apart anymore semantics to make this discussion even more pointless?

As long as I get feedback it's not pointless.

 

[Motown Marvel]

just because the academy has had flaws in their judgement from time to time doesnt mean their judgement is always flawed. i happen to agree with their judgement of TDK in regards to it's nominations.

 

[Red Mask]

What? TDK's cinematography was great.

Oh yeah. It was shot for IMAX but also reformatted for normal widescreen theaters. Not a great solid approach when compared to its competition: Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and "Changeling". The rest of these films had a much better approach in how it composed its scenes. Their photography was much richer than the sterile approach of The Dark Knight.

 

[baerrtt]

just because the academy has had flaws in their judgement from time to time doesnt mean their judgement is always flawed. i happen to agree with their judgement of TDK in regards to it's nominations.

The Academy snubbed TDK because the majority of older voters don't find movies based on comic book superheroes worthy enough to be Best Picture nominees.

Even if you had actually liked TDK or at least gotten your 'perfect' Batman film they would have still overlooked it.

 

[Red Mask]

And yet the Academy had nominated Disney films like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Toy Story 3" for Best Picture. So whatever those films had, the Dark Knight didn't. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was also based on a Chinese comic book.

 

[The Joker]

TDK so deserved the Oscar for the cinematography. It was fantastic.

 

[Red Mask]

TDK so deserved the Oscar for the cinematography. It was fantastic.

That's funny. t:

 

[baerrtt]

And yet the Academy had nominated Disney films like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Toy Story 3" for Best Picture. So whatever those films had, the Dark Knight didn't. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was also based on a Chinese comic book.

Something they did with reluctance the 1st time ('91 was considered such a piss poor year for mainstream Hollywood product that they had no choice but to think outside the box) and incredibly were criticized for it by some actors especially Sally Field who outright said that animated movies didn't belong in the Best Picture category as it somehow endangered the careers of 'real' actors (yes google it in depth she did actually say that). That was the older contingent of voters I'm talking about at work. If there were dissenting voices, spouting nonsense, about a 'cartoon' being nominated back in '92, and pointedly look how long it took them to nominate another, you don't think that they would have automatically dismissed TDK as a viable BP nominee because it was about Batman and The Joker?

TS3 or UP would NEVER have gotten into the BP field, as excellent as they were, without there being 10 slots.

The source material for Crouching Tiger comes from a series of novels. The comic book adaptation came much later.

 

[Red Mask]

Something they did with reluctance the 1st time ('91 was considered such a piss poor year for mainstream Hollywood product that they had no choice but to think outside the box) and incredibly were criticized for it by some actors especially Sally Field who outright said that animated movies didn't belong in the Best Picture category as it somehow endangered the careers of 'real' actors (yes google it in depth she did actually say that). That was the older contingent of voters I'm talking about at work. If there were dissenting voices, spouting nonsense, about a 'cartoon' being nominated back in '92, and pointedly look how long it took them to nominate another, you don't think that they would have automatically dismissed TDK as a viable BP nominee because it was about Batman and The Joker?

TS3 or UP would NEVER have gotten into the BP field, as excellent as they were, without there being 10 slots.

I think they're right. Japan had a similar dilemna when they were voting for their best films decades ago. At the time it was Miyazaki's "Nausicaa" that made no. 1, a great film indeed. But they wouldn't let an anime be chosen to be the country's best film, so they recognized a live film.

If animated films have advanced far beyond live films, then the human element can no longer be found in real actors. Actors would risk losing more roles in films and only get to voice digital puppets. Fortunately, that year there were enough live films that met their criteria. But I have a feeling more and more overseas films will competing for the Oscar's best picture category. Times are changing, but it's not superhero films that leading the way.

I still think superheroes should be featured more in animated films. An animated Justice League film just makes more sense conceptually.

The source material for Crouching Tiger comes from a series of novels. The comic book adaptation came much later.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Great source material too. They do romance better. The Legend of Condor Hero has a far superior romance than what DC's been cooking up for Superman or Wonder Woman.

 

[El Payaso]

just because the academy has had flaws in their judgement from time to time doesnt mean their judgement is always flawed. i happen to agree with their judgement of TDK in regards to it's nominations.

A judgement that you're merely assuming.

And the Academy has more than enough examples of their poor judgement. I'd say they have had good decisions from time to time.

 

[Motown Marvel]

The Academy snubbed TDK because the majority of older voters don't find movies based on comic book superheroes worthy enough to be Best Picture nominees.

Even if you had actually liked TDK or at least gotten your 'perfect' Batman film they would have still overlooked it.

thats a baseless accusation with zero merit outside of disgruntled fanboy delusions.

A judgement that you're merely assuming.

And the Academy has more than enough examples of their poor judgement. I'd say they have had good decisions from time to time.

its impossible to expect the academy to be perfect. they are going to have their flaws. but their judgements are generally far more appropriate than not. and because of that, i will give them the benefit of the doubt that they judged TDK for the proper reasons. and regardless of the purpose for their judgement, my personal opinion jives with their final verdict.

 

[El Payaso]

its impossible to expect the academy to be perfect. they are going to have their flaws. but their judgements are generally far more appropriate than not. and because of that, i will give them the benefit of the doubt that they judged TDK for the proper reasons. and regardless of the purpose for their judgement, my personal opinion jives with their final verdict.

Yeah, your opinion and the Academy's coincide. Therefore you'd better think they had excellent reasons for their decision.


But they've awarded too much crap and snubbed too much genius (and, according to yourself, they're flawed enough) to deserve any of my respect as valid flaw-filters.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

TDK so deserved the Oscar for the cinematography. It was fantastic.

Yeah, definitely. The shots in IMAX were just breath-taking...glad Pfister won for Inception, although that makes it unlikely he'd win for TDKR, if it's terrific as I think it'll be.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I must defend the cinematography as well. I wasnt a fan of the prevailing yellow in Begins and the overall cinematography, it was just too much yellow and yellow...well, it wouldnt be my color of choice for the color correction/filters. But TDK has a great blue/green night cinematography, especially in the Hong Kong scenes

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There were ten nominations for best picture the year Avatar, District 9 and Toy Story 3. There were only five the year TDK was released.

If there were only five nominations when Avatar and District 9 were considered, they would've never been nominated.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Yeah, your opinion and the Academy's coincide. Therefore you'd better think they had excellent reasons for their decision.


But they've awarded too much crap and snubbed too much genius (and, according to yourself, they're flawed enough) to deserve any of my respect as valid flaw-filters.

i dont think their judgement is justified because it happens to coincide with mine. theres just little reason to believe they came to their judgement for illegitimate reasons.

i didnt say they were flawed enough. i admitted their decisions have been flawed from time to time. as in it would be entirely unrealistic and impossible to expect them to be perfect. but i dont think TDK is one of those times.

 

[ALP]

Never seen District 9 but I liked TDK far more than Avatar.

Loved Toy Story 3.

 

[weezerspider]

haha. Hated that movie.

Seriously though Avatar was nominated because it was James Cameron and with the exception of Return of the King Titanic was the last huge blockbuster that gained critical attention. The Academy has been looking for these kinds of movies.

District 9, Up, Toy Story 3 and Inception wouldn't have been nominated had it not been for the upping of the category. That being said, especially in Toy Story 3's case they are all good movies. Avatar still would have because it was recognized as a potential "game changer" in how movies were made. In retrospect, it wasn't really and that's why it didn't win.

Back in the day the Academy did nominate popular movies, but most big blockbusters suck nowadays.

Honestly the Dark Knight was never good enough to win, nominated sure. But that would have been more of a "high" scenario similar to Avatar. Once the dust settles people aren't THAT captivated by it. 2008 overall was pretty weak. Slumdog Millionaire was not oscar worthy either.

And the oscars to me aren't all that bad. They nominate good movies all the time, they just never give the statues to them. 127 hours, Social Network and Toy Story 3 were all infinitely better movies than the King's Speech.

And the Dark Knight received an oscar for the only part of it that truly deserved it.

What are you smoking? My non-fanboy friends and family talk about TDK in the same respect as my fanboy friends/family....if not more. My Fiance could care less about Batman and she still constantly brings it up when talking about awesome films. TDK was a HUGE Pop Culture hit and it was also extremely well received by critics. Thats what makes a great Film last time. A mixture between great critical praise AND fan praise. TDK had it both in bunches. 25 years from now more people will know of and think of TDK when they hear of "great films of 2008" before they think of Slumdog Millionaire just as people think of Star Wars first when they hear of "great films of 1977" before they think of Annie Hall. EDIT: Also for what its worth, I love Annie Hall more than Star Wars, but Star Wars was the greater achievement in film. I agree with the critics more than a lot of people(I was one for a few years before getting a job that payed more) and I can honestly say I think TDK was easily the best film of 2008. I think they have gotten it right plenty of times (just recently No Country For Old Men, The Departed, The Hurt Locker were all the best pictures of their years respectably), but they dropped the ball big time in 2008.

 

[baerrtt]

thats a baseless accusation with zero merit outside of disgruntled fanboy delusions.



its impossible to expect the academy to be perfect. they are going to have their flaws. but their judgements are generally far more appropriate than not. and because of that, i will give them the benefit of the doubt that they judged TDK for the proper reasons. and regardless of the purpose for their judgement, my personal opinion jives with their final verdict.

Sorry but no it isn't. The WALL STREET JOURNAL prior to the nominations being announced that year spoke to a great number of Academy voters, who remained anonymous of course, about their choices and more than one dismissed TDK not on the grounds of quality but on it being a movie about Batman. I recall one Oscar prediction site flagging it up a a warning to people that it was going to get possibly snubbed but given the PGA/DGA noms no one took it seriously then.

 

[El Payaso]

i dont think their judgement is justified because it happens to coincide with mine. theres just little reason to believe they came to their judgement for illegitimate reasons.

i didnt say they were flawed enough. i admitted their decisions have been flawed from time to time. as in it would be entirely unrealistic and impossible to expect them to be perfect. but i dont think TDK is one of those times.

Again, Oscars have way too many examples of awarding mediocrity over genius. Chaplin, Hitchcock, Kubrick snubbed time after time. That's not "from time to time."

Sorry but no it isn't. The WALL STREET JOURNAL prior to the nominations being announced that year spoke to a great number of Academy voters, who remained anonymous of course, about their choices and more than one dismissed TDK not on the grounds of quality but on it being a movie about Batman. I recall one Oscar prediction site flagging it up a a warning to people that it was going to get possibly snubbed but given the PGA/DGA noms no one took it seriously then.

What? So it's about the genre and not the quality? Shocking. Would have never thought of that.