And the Nominees Are...

[itf cho]

Look, man. You're a good person. I know you from Escapecraft. But what you just said is so horrible and putrid that I can hardly bear to read it again. Let's dissect it, shall we?

Most of this post is argumentum ad populum, which is that just because quite a few people like it, that instantly means it's good. This is not so.

Lil Wayne went platinum, which means that many people paid Cash Money (pun!) to listen to his music; does this instantly mean he is a good rapper?
Twilight has made millions, which means many people thought that Twilight looked so good, they purchased it; does this mean it is a good series?
Avatar is the best selling movie of all time, which means that billions of people payed money to see it; does this make it the best movie of all time?
No. Of course not, that's silly. So why, without even having seen either movie, do you declare The Expendables to be an inherently better film?
Certainly it was a niche audience movie, but I find that the meaning of film is to make a film that is good, not to make a buck or two. Perhaps those who made the Expendables were marketing geniuses, but were they artistic geniuses?

Although I do admit that perhaps Moviebob is overdoing it a bit. (he is)

P.S. Ben Hur? Why Ben Hur?

Well... actually the initial thrust of my original post has been lost. It's not that Expendables is better Scott Pilgrim. Like I said, I didn't bother to see either -- incidentally, it was Bob's review of Scott Pilgrim that convinced me not to bother to see it.

The Expendables only really enter into it, because Bob spent a lot of his review of that movie lambasting the viewing public that chose to see it, instead of Pilgrim. That doesn't make it a better film - just a more popular one.

But my original post was simply to say... Bob, it's a new year now. Seriously, it's time to give up the whining about Scott Pilgrim.

 

[Littaly]

Question. Is it generally accepted that they had out awards to actors and directors based partially on everything they've done as opposed to just the movie their nominated for? Also, is it supposed to be that way or is it an unwritten rule?

 

[justnotcricket]

I'm glad to see The Illusionist up for nomination. That was one fascinating film. =) I doubt it will win, but it's nice that it gets a nod all the same.

As for the TRON debacle, although I have yet to see the film, I am surprised (given its nature) that it didn't get pegged for *anything* in the music/FX/costume line.

 

[SpaceSpork]

But my original post was simply to say... Bob, it's a new year now. Seriously, it's time to give up the whining about Scott Pilgrim.

Guess I must have misread your post, sorry. I think we can all agree that the whole Scott Pilgrim thing has gone at least a tad too far.

 

[sosolidshoe]

Watching Bob deriding The King's Speech, one of the most credible, entertaining, evocative dramas of the last decade, while simultaneously bemoaning the lack of recognition for Scott Pilgrim, is actually pretty sad.

Also, could somebody please explain to me what it is about The Social Network that is award-worthy, other than it being about Facebook, and thus "cool" via some kind of moronic social-alchemy? It's a story about idiots and arseholes, and it's boring as hell to watch.

Credible, sure. Entertaining, I suppose, if you're into that sort of thing. But evocative? That movie was the most bland, uninspired Oscar Bait film of 2010.

Also, the reason The Social Network is award worthy is because of its complex human emotions. What you percieve to be "idiots and arseholes" were actually real human characters with depth up the ass.

Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.

Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me

 

[bojac6]

I am literally stunned that Tron Legacy got precisely zero nominations. It's just ludicrous.

Actually, it got one nomination, for sound editing. I don't see why this is so ludicrous anyways. Besides decent special effects what category should it be nominated in?

None of the actors really stood out, the screen play was pretty sloppy, the direction was terrible (tons of quick cuts and close ups, give me a light cycle fight with a wide angle where you can see all the action) and the movie itself was moderately entertaining.


EDIT: It did deserve a soundtrack nomination. That I am upset about.

 

[EvilYoshi]

The only movie I saw this year was 'The Fighter,' and I wish that Melissa Leo would win over that Amy Adams. I thought Melissa Leo did a much better job as the ruthless mother than Amy did as the hot, headstrong, and kinda formulaic girl-friend. Amy had almost no important scenes, all she did was prance around in a see-through bra. Melissa on the other hand had her job cut out for her. She had to strike a balance between being a cold-hearted and yet very human and redeemable character that we simply cannot file under bad or good. Her character was much more dynamic as she had to show exploitative vicarious ambition as well as tender motherly love. She and Bale form what can be considered the antagonist of the story so she has a negativity associated with her performance. However I find that to be the interesting part about her character.

 

[tomtom94]

I must say I'm surprised, following the hatred Bob received for naming it as one of his three films of the year only a month ago, at the support Scott Pilgrim's receiving.
(And delighted too, cause I love it, it was just never going to win an Oscar)

Frankly there are several potential surprises this year but the main categories are pretty easy to call.

 

[RTR]

Isn't it about time for a director of a Pixar movie to get a nomination for it? If there's one word that can best describe the majority of Pixar's films, it's this: whiplash.
The movies are all about rapid changes in tone and atmosphere: one minute you're laughing, then you're crying, then you're on the edge of your seat. In the wrong hands, that could be disastrous. And with the exception of Cars, Pixar has always done it right.

 

[Tupolev]

Yeah, I didn't think Tron: Legacy was all that incredible of a film as a whole, but I agree that it probably deserves an oscar for costuming, and Daft Punk possibly deserves a nomination for score; personally, I'm not the biggest fan of that score, but I get where people are coming from.

I really hope How to Train your Dragon gets score, though. John Powell's work for it is just mind-blowingly good.

 

[person427]

Hey, you didn't mention the best part! The Expendables doesn't have a single nomination!

 

[the clockmaker]

Go animal kingdom, the best Australian film for years.

Based on the true story of the slaying of two police officers.

Gives an insight into the corruption of the armed offenders squad...

Has a special guest appearence by Zara Garde-Wilson?

Brilliant acting and script?

Somebody?

bloody yanks

 

[Dimitriov]

Sorry chief but, to me, the story of a man compelled against his will to take a leadership position out of a sense of duty, and overcoming great personal issues to do so, is a more human and emotive story than a few arsehole businessmen and college students having a wank over a pile of money and congratulating themselves on how amazing they are, which is what TSN amounted to.

Why is it that any film which does well in Oscar nominations, but isn't a rank outsider in terms of genre, or full of unknown actors, is treated as if that fact alone has an impact on how good it is? Load of hipster bollocks, if you ask me

I am glad that I am not the only one who feels this way. That is pretty much my exact problem with "the social network."

Oh great some arse made more money than the Vatican and continues to do so by selling peoples privacy in an inventive way. And now he has a movie lauding him for it. Yay.

The King's Speech was a fantastic movie, very human and quite moving.

 

[Muertos]

Lauding? The social network did everything but laud Mark Zuckerberg. He's portrayed as a know-it-all asshole who finds it impossible to relate to other people.

 

[Dimitriov]

Lauding? The social network did everything but laud Mark Zuckerberg. He's portrayed as a know-it-all asshole who finds it impossible to relate to other people.

Isn't that the goal to which we all aspire?

Okay fair enough. I didn't make that last point very well.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Edgar Wright should've gotten a nom for Director and at the very least Scott Pilgrim should have gotten a nom for Special Effects or Art Direction. Nolan also keeps getting snubbed for some bizarre reason despite him getting commendations from the Director's Guild THREE FUCKING TIMES (though considering how the Academy voters love pretentiousness, I suppose Nolan is too lacking in that category). I will go as far to say that Inception and Scott Pilgrim are JUST as good as True Grit, The Fighter, and The Social Network, if not better.

As for the King's Speech, it's director shouldn't even be nominated. There are TONS of directors who could've done that job and probably done it better. The King's Speech is the very example of an Oscar Bait film like Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Milk, An Education, and Up in the Air. All of them are straightforward narratives taking place in the "real world" whose quality hinges on their actors' performances. Criminy, we need some young blood in voting.

 

[Dectilon]

"Sadder still, fans of the duo are thus denied the fun of explaining to their bewildered family/friends/coworkers why the Power Rangers were sitting in the audience at the Oscars."

That may literally be why they weren't nominated.

 

[hexFrank202]

I'm glad you agree with me on the soundtrack! Daft Punk has been my favorite band for as long as I've liked music. Having them be in a big hollywood movie was FANTASTIC, but being shut out of the most obvious award is just a shit-cherry on top of an otherwise delicious sunday.

But not being nominated for best effects? Now, they're just trying to be stupid. Alice in Wonderland got nominated instead? That movie looked like ass. Oh sure, it has all the cool and "spooky" and "quirky" designs and stuff, but when you really take a step back and look at the big picture, there's nothing original or immersive about that movie's look. I haven't seen all of his movies yet, but so far, I can say that Tim Burton is not--and has never been--a good filmmaker.

 

[SturmDolch]

I was a bit disappointed about no Daft Punk and no Tron: Legacy for visual effects. But it was to be expected, I guess.

I'm super excited that Black Swan is getting all of these nominations, though. I would love it if it won best picture, but that seems extremely unlikely. Everyone writing articles like yours doesn't even mention the movie, except for best actress.

I thought it was one of, if not the best film I have ever seen. It's perfect in every way. It's original, it's captivating, it's extremely well acted, everything has a purpose without being pretentious (even the "lesbian sex scene"), and I haven't gone a day without thinking about it at least once since I saw it exactly one week ago.