Anyone think it was a crime "The Dark Knight" didn't get a Best Picture nomination?

[3peet]

Best Picture for 2008: " The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ," "Frost/Nixon," "Milk," " The Reader ," " Slumdog Millionaire ."

Now I've seen Milk and Slumdog Millionaire. Both were decent films. But how in the world did the 2nd largest grossing movie behind Titanic not even get a nomination?? If it was because of violence, thats horseshit because I know director Christopher Nolan went out of his way to avoid blood during the kill scenes of the movie (save for the open wounds of Two Face). Didn't the movie Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan both earn best picture awards? Twice as bloody as the Dark Knight.

I don't understand how the Academy ignored this movie for nominations other than Best Supporting Actor.

 

[onemwtheone]

Yes, it was a crime - someone should be arrested.

When the "Bush is Batman" analogies came out, this movie was toast at the oscars.

 

[CHOPTALK]

Slumdog Millionaire was awesome.

Maybe the first time they ever got it right.

 

[3peet]

well lemme make this clear fellas. I'm not talking about winning the whole enchillada. I'm just talking about getting a mention. I agree Slumdog or even Milk should win it all.

 

[Stocks]

Well usually the movies that win or nominated are shit anyway or to be fair just not my type of movies.

As far as Batman goes I thought it was an ok movie nothing super about it, just because a movie makes a lot of money does'nt always mean its a great movie.

 

[Biggamer3]

Dont know how the Reader got nominated when the reviews for it was awful.

It has a 60% fresh rating on rottentomatoes for gods sake.

Actually thought The Wrestler should go before Batman

 

[Biggamer3]

The Crime was not even nominating Bruce Springsteens awesome song for the Wrestler because of a fucking technicality

 

[gtc08]

how can all these movies that came out a month ago be in the discussion. wouldnt they be in it for 2010?

slumdog millionaire came out like a week and than it won all these awards.

i dont get how it works.

 

[maxdemo]

Wall E & Dark Knight got hosed

 

[3peet]

how can all these movies that came out a month ago be in the discussion. wouldnt they be in it for 2010?

slumdog millionaire came out like a week and than it won all these awards.

i dont get how it works.

I think it was one of those foreign films that was just shown around the festivals last year, then made it tot he big time after the momentum it gained.

 

[WorldNumberOne]

the only reason i'll watch " the reader " is for multiple looks at kate winslet's ....

 

[Biggamer3]

how can all these movies that came out a month ago be in the discussion. wouldnt they be in it for 2010?

slumdog millionaire came out like a week and than it won all these awards.

i dont get how it works.

I believe until December 31 is the cutoff for Academy entry.

Studios like to release their "award caliber" films in later months to remain fresh in critics minds.

Films like Gran Torino come out in limited release in December just to get a shot at that years Oscars, then open nationwide in January

 

[maxdemo]

how can all these movies that came out a month ago be in the discussion. wouldnt they be in it for 2010?

slumdog millionaire came out like a week and than it won all these awards.

i dont get how it works.

Oscar nomination process is messed up weirdness....

http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117998897.html?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1

"For example, there are 375 voting members in the directors branch. The accountants take that 375 number and divide it by six — i.e., the number of eventual nominees (five) plus one. The division yields the number 62 — and then you add one, so that’s 63. (There’s a reason for adding these ones, but don’t worry about it.)

"The accountants then take all 375 director ballots and go through only the first choices, putting each helmer-contender into his/her own stack. When a contender hits 63 first-place votes, he has enough for a nomination.

"Anyone who voted for this director gets his ballot set aside, and none of the voter’s other choices is tallied. The reason is to make sure that every voice is heard."

The fact that you nominate five directors means zilch. And if a director racks up plenty of votes from the 2-5 position, but doesn't get a first slot, he doesn't get the nomination.

This also explains why you never hear anyone talking numbers about the Oscar nomination voting because there aren't any hard numbers.

• A film or individual needs at least one first-place vote. If every single voter puts a film as his second choice, but nobody puts it first, it will not get a nomination.
• This is not a “weighted ballot.” Some systems give different points for different slots -- 10 points for first place, eight for second place, etc. -- but this isn’t that system.
• You may make five terrific choices in those five slots, but only one of them will be counted.
• It doesn’t help your candidate if you fill out only one line, or fill the same name/title in all five slots.
• PWC accountants do not penalize you for spelling mistakes or bad penmanship. But if you offer confusing information -- voting for Meryl Streep in “The Queen,” for example -- that vote is thrown out. It takes about a dozen PWC accountants to tally up the nominations. Acad exec director Bruce Davis admitted with a laugh, “We use a system more complicated than anybody else’s.”

For more details on preferential voting, or “single transferable voting” as it’s sometimes called, go to Variety.com/ballots and check out the Jan. 14, 2004 Daily Variety article “Oscar ballots made (sorta) easy.”
More than one option

• (Co) Daily Variety Filmography, Year, Role
• (Co) Daily Variety

After that, you may fully understand this. But probably not

 

[rnorris1]

A crime?

Too bad The Rx doesn't give awards for over dramatic post threads.

Isn't the fact that you loved a movie enough? Do you have to live vicariously through red carpets and awards?

 

[just_me_sam]

Maybe I'll be in the minority here but I really don't believe that the movie was all that good.... more hype than anything. I seriously thought that the movie lacked direction... almost seemed like 2 movies in one (Batman vs. Joker and Batman vs. Two-Face).

Heath Ledger's performance was the only redeeming quality about this movie in my opinion.


Sam


ps. Oh and Batman's voice..... just dreadful.

 

[Mindware]

you don't know much about movies if you think it's a crime that Dark Knight should've been nominated for BP. Great, fun movie no doubt, but a movie like Iron Man was just as much fun and a great movie to watch like DK. Do you think it's a crime that Iron Man didn't get nominated? Heath Ledger being nominated and recognized for his performance as Joker is enough for DK. You might think that the films that are usually nominated for BP are boring overrated pieces of garbage compared to a fun pop corn flick like DK, but that's how the Oscar's been and will be in the future. No chance in hell a movie like DK ever gets nominated for BP

 

[Akillies]

mainstream popular movies dont have much chance with the academy, especially ones about comic book characters. Same reason i think slumdog has no chance of winning, even though i heard it is the current favorite.

 

[3peet]

mainstream popular movies dont have much chance with the academy, especially ones about comic book characters. Same reason i think slumdog has no chance of winning, even though i heard it is the current favorite.

Didn't Titanic, Forrest Gump, or even Gladiator win those awards??

 

[CapNCash]

i thought dark knight was weak and contrived, and if that guy didnt die he wouldnt have been nominated

 

[NES]

Yep, that movie was about as cheesy as Mission Impossible 3 or The Transporter 3, no way was it deserving of a best picture nomination.