Was "The Dark Knight is not nominated for Best Picture" a surprise in 2009 ?

[LvtLeeTDK]

It was nominated for tons of pre-Oscar awards: BFCA, PGA, DGA, WGA, SAGA,… Which means it was a real contender and received huge buzz for award season, but later still snubbed by the Academy.

Was The Dark Knight snubbed a surprise and pissed off many people or it was completely anticipated ?

 

[DA_Champion]

The Academy looks down on blockbusters, or at least it does in the past few years. Blockbusters did a lot better in the 1970s and 1980s.

There were two snubs in 2008: Dark Knight and Wall-E. The award for BP went to Slumdog Millionaire, which hasn't aged well and is now widely dismissed as poverty porn.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

Not really. I think a bigger thing than that the Academy doesn't favor big action movies is that TDK isn't as tightly written as best picture nominated movies often tend to be, there's some real sloppiness in there. That feels like it's more relevant because, while it's still true, we have a relatively recent big action film share the Oscar record.

The whole thing became big because first you of course have a bunch of dedicated fans, and then you had the tragedy of Ledger which was the biggest entertainment category story of that year. That caused a huge focus on TDK and likely helped the win for Ledger himself as well.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Not to me. I loved the film (still do) and thought it deserved a nomination, but in reality I knew it wasn't the type of film likely to get one.

 

[DACrowe]

It was nominated for tons of pre-Oscar awards: BFCA, PGA, DGA, WGA, SAGA,… Which means it was a real contender and received huge buzz for award season, but later still snubbed by the Academy.

Was The Dark Knight snubbed a surprise and pissed off many people or it was completely anticipated ?

Yes it was a surprise. Some anticipated it not getting nominated because it was a "superhero movie" but the PGA, DGA, SAG, and WGA all made it seem likely. And no one expected The Reader--a so-so Holocaust drama starring Kate Winslet and (tellingly) produced by Harvey Weinstein that received subpar reviews (in the 60s on Rotten Tomatoes)--to sneak in at the fifth slot.

To put it another way, there is a reason the next year the Academy changed it from five nominations to ten nominees: the backlash from snubbing The Dark Knight.

 

[DA_Champion]

Yes it was a surprise. Some anticipated it not getting nominated because it was a "superhero movie" but the PGA, DGA, SAG, and WGA all made it seem likely. And no one expected The Reader--a so-so Holocaust drama starring Kate Winslet and (tellingly) produced by Harvey Weinstein that received subpar reviews (in the 60s on Rotten Tomatoes)--to sneak in at the fifth slot.

To put it another way, there is a reason the next year the Academy changed it from five nominations to ten nominees: the backlash from snubbing The Dark Knight.

Which 21st century CBMs would you say were deserving of academy award nominations in the major categories?

 

[Boom]

It was one of the five highest reviewed films of 2008, it was the highest grossing film of 2008, it received nominations from the DGA, WGA, and PGA.

It should have been nominated.

 

[FunkMiller]

Yes, it should have been nominated. The academy realised this, that’s why the nominations were put up to 10 from 5 the following year.

It’s widely accepted as being one of the academy’s biggest errors of the last few decades. If the snub did anything though, it proved that more blockbusters should be considered, if they’re good enough.

From interviews, you get the impression the Nolans could give two ****s about the Oscars anyway, thankfully. This is good, because they’re essentially an exercise in self aggrandising, backslapping ******** that surrendered any actual value a good twenty years ago.

 

[DACrowe]

Which 21st century CBMs would you say were deserving of academy award nominations in the major categories?

Personally, the only one that came close to getting a major nomination it did not receive is The Dark Knight. But if I could nominate a few more out of preference?

The Dark Knight: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, maybe Best Actor (I'd have to go back and see how competitive the year was, I just remember Sean Penn deservedly winning for Milk).

Logan: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (then again Michael Stuhlbarg should have been nominated for Call Me by Your Name so it's a tough year), maybe Best Actor.

Spider-Man 2: Best Adapted Screenplay, I want to say Raimi for Best Director, because I think his work was better than Taylor Hacker and Mike Leigh who were both nominated, but that just tells me the Academy probably missed some great choices that year who were better than Raimi too.

The Dark Knight Rises: I'm tempted to say Best Picture, because it sure as hell was better than the film version of Les Miserables (and I LOVE the show), but you know I could make that argument for Flight, The Master, Seven Psychopaths, and even arguably Skyfall that year, so... I'd also be amused if Tom Hardy received a Best Supporting Actor nomination... but I honestly can't say he is better than the five who got nominated, so probably not.


For major awards that's about it. But I'll throw in Michelle Pfeiffer for Best Supporting Actress in 1992 for Batman Returns. That was a phenomenal performance, even if I don't really think it was Catwoman or Oscar-y.

 

[Mjölnir]

Yes it was a surprise. Some anticipated it not getting nominated because it was a "superhero movie" but the PGA, DGA, SAG, and WGA all made it seem likely. And no one expected The Reader--a so-so Holocaust drama starring Kate Winslet and (tellingly) produced by Harvey Weinstein that received subpar reviews (in the 60s on Rotten Tomatoes)--to sneak in at the fifth slot.

To put it another way, there is a reason the next year the Academy changed it from five nominations to ten nominees: the backlash from snubbing The Dark Knight.

The extension of nominees just seems like another example of the Academy trying to ride on popularity so more people will pay attention. It seems irrelevant to nominate more than 5 since the rest certainly aren't going to win the award, so it's just a play to the gallery without having to change anything relevant. Some people seemed to have swallowed that bait whole though.

Not that it matters much since awards don't really mean anything anyway.

 

[DA_Champion]

Personally, the only one that came close to getting a major nomination it did not receive is The Dark Knight. But if I could nominate a few more out of preference?

The Dark Knight: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, maybe Best Actor (I'd have to go back and see how competitive the year was, I just remember Sean Penn deservedly winning for Milk).

Logan: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (then again Michael Stuhlbarg should have been nominated for Call Me by Your Name so it's a tough year), maybe Best Actor.

Spider-Man 2: Best Adapted Screenplay, I want to say Raimi for Best Director, because I think his work was better than Taylor Hacker and Mike Leigh who were both nominated, but that just tells me the Academy probably missed some great choices that year who were better than Raimi too.

The Dark Knight Rises: I'm tempted to say Best Picture, because it sure as hell was better than the film version of Les Miserables (and I LOVE the show), but you know I could make that argument for Flight, The Master, Seven Psychopaths, and even arguably Skyfall that year, so... I'd also be amused if Tom Hardy received a Best Supporting Actor nomination... but I honestly can't say he is better than the five who got nominated, so probably not.


For major awards that's about it. But I'll throw in Michelle Pfeiffer for Best Supporting Actress in 1992 for Batman Returns. That was a phenomenal performance, even if I don't really think it was Catwoman or Oscar-y.

Michelle Pfeiffer for Catwoman is a credible choice.

Deadpool might have been valid last year, as the academy likes movies that are about movies.

 

[DACrowe]

The extension of nominees just seems like another example of the Academy trying to ride on popularity so more people will pay attention. It seems irrelevant to nominate more than 5 since the rest certainly aren't going to win the award, so it's just a play to the gallery without having to change anything relevant. Some people seemed to have swallowed that bait whole though.

Not that it matters much since awards don't really mean anything anyway.

Maybe, but times are changing. Logan has a Best Screenplay nomination (in a category limited to five) and the Best Picture frontrunner is now a genre movie inspired by B-horror movies, The Shape of Water, and one of the other major contenders is Get Out. In the height of Weinstein's Oscar Campaign Years (which includes 2008), there certainly weren't movies like those, or Lady Bird, competing, and filmmakers like Jordan Peele, Greta Gerwig, del Toro, and even Christopher Nolan getting nominations for Best Director. Those are all firsts for them, as well.

 

[DACrowe]

Michelle Pfeiffer for Catwoman is a credible choice.

Deadpool might have been valid last year, as the academy likes movies that are about movies.

I like Deadpool, but as entertaining as it was, it really wasn't a "great" movie to me. Or... let's put it this way, it is not one I had in my top 10 in 2016, so I'm not shocked the Academy didn't either.

 

[Mjölnir]

Maybe, but times are changing. Logan has a Best Screenplay nomination (in a category limited to five) and the Best Picture frontrunner is now a genre movie inspired by B-horror movies, The Shape of Water, and one of the other major contenders is Get Out. In the height of Weinstein's Oscar Campaign Years (which includes 2008), there certainly weren't movies like those, or Lady Bird, competing, and filmmakers like Jordan Peele, Greta Gerwig, del Toro, and even Christopher Nolan getting nominations for Best Director. Those are all firsts for them, as well.

My point wasn't that CBM's, or other genres rare for the awards, can't be nominated when there's only five nominated, I just think it's pointless "fanservice" to increase the number of nominees. The "Oscars so white" thing also clearly affected the Academy as another example, although it's perhaps a bit more serious of a subject.

Logan is an example, but it's a bit funny that I think it was stronger in another of the big categories (best supporting actor) than it was in the category in which it was nominated. I haven't seen all the nominees in either category yet though so I can't really say anything in relation to the competition. The best supporting actor category does seem stacked.

 

[DACrowe]

My point wasn't that CBM's, or other genres rare for the awards, can't be nominated when there's only five nominated, I just think it's pointless "fanservice" to increase the number of nominees. The "Oscars so white" thing also clearly affected the Academy as another example, although it's perhaps a bit more serious of a subject.

Logan is an example, but it's a bit funny that I think it was stronger in another of the big categories (best supporting actor) than it was in the category in which it was nominated. I haven't seen all the nominees in either category yet though so I can't really say anything in relation to the competition. The best supporting actor category does seem stacked.

I know what you mean, and it certainly was treated that way in 2009 (the year when Avatar and District 9 were nominated, and strangely the rather average one of the two became a frontrunner!). But I think it was the first step in what appears to be a decade long change. Many people argue the Academy changed in 1998 when Harvey Weinstein mastered the perfect Oscar "campaign" (or bribe?) and Shakespeare in Love ridiculously beat Saving Private Ryan.

I feel like in retrospect, we see that era reach its "peak" when in 2010, Weinstein's The King's Speech (a very good movie to be fair) was absurdly crowned as superior in all categories to arguably better movies. It had just reached peak Oscar bait. In between was The Dark Knight/Reader fiasco that led to 10 nominees. But that was the first major step to breaking away from that modern sensibility. In the 10 years since, we've drifted. And after #OscarsSoWhite the Academy "retired" voters who haven't worked in 10 years and were never nominated for anything themselves and brought in a bunch of young blood.

I think Moonlight beating La La Land (though I actually prefer La La) was the sign of a new way of thinking. And now we're getting movies like Get Out, Lady Bird, Dunkirk, and Shape of Water dominating the Oscar conversation, while films like The Post (which is very good) are going even overlooked. And yes, Logan sneaks into Best Adapted Screenplay in this scenario.

I think in 10 years what we consider an "Oscar movie" will be very, very different. It might be closer to the '90s when movies like Titanic, Braveheart, and Ghost could win major awards. And that is good news for superhero movies that are good enough to compete. And I agree Patrick Stewart was Logan's best asset, but Supporting Actor was stacked. I'd love to see him in there, but after Michael Stuhlbarg.

 

[jmc]

All the signs pointed to a likely nomination, if memory serves right all the Oscar pundits had the number 5 slot going to either TDK or Wall-E. And then The Reader came out of nowhere.