The first one directed by Tim Burton - the one I'm talking about - wasn't that campy at all. I remember when it first came out people were saying how dark the movie was when compared to the tv series and the Dark Knight was much, much darker.
The original with Michael Keaton was darker than the TV series but not to the degree that the last couple of films had been. It's a shame IMO that Keaton didn't stay with the role. At the time of its release most people were only familiar with the TV series, only us comic book geeks really knew Batman's history. By comparison this generation that flocked to see The Dark Knight really only knows Batman from the earlier movies.
I haven't seen the other movies so I really can't say Ledger didn't act better than the others but there's no denying his death had something to do with his popularity.
But both Batman from 1989 and the recent movies are influenced by Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. It's just that after the success of other grittier movies in the recent history that the latest incarnation is darker. Batman from 1989 was the first real summer blockbuster movies and led to the environment where movies like Dark Knight could be made.
I mean in after it's initial run in 1989, it was the 6th highest grossing movies of all time. 20 years later it's now 45th alltime in revenue. I think people just remember the cheesy Batman's with the Governator, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Jim Carrey, etc. and forget how innovative the original one was.
I think we agree about the first movie except for the fact that it ushered in a new era of 'darkness.' The films that have since surpassed it in sales have by no means been 'dark' movies. The Sixth Sense and The Passions of Christ are probably 'dark.' Others include Titanic, all the new Stars Wars, all Spiderman, all Lord of the Rings. all Shrek, and all The Pirates of the Caribbean.
Comparing Nicholson and Ledger is a stretch as well. The first couple of Batman movies seemd to mimic the campy feel of the TV series whereas The Dark Knight took a much more serious role. If Ledger was still alive he would never attain the same status of Nicholson.
I also think saying Ledger would never have achieved the success of Nicholson is a stretch as well. I mean Ledger died at 28, Nicholson didn't get his first break out role until he was 32 in Easy Rider.
Besides Nicholson wrote the awful movie, Head, that starred the Monkees before he ever got famous. It's amazing he had a career after that.
How many crappy roles did Ledger portray before TDK? Again I don't watch a lot of movies but I think the only other with any aclaim was Brokeback Mountain. Not sure how many statues Jack has(3 Oscars, 7 Golden Golbes and a Grammy) but he's starred in more great movies than maybe any other actor. Of course he's been in bad films too but there's no arguing against, Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, The Shining, A Few Good Men,Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets, and many cameo and smaller appearances. Heath had a long way to go to match Jack, I mean I think Jack is the apex of actors and it's kind of hard to surpass the summit.
There's nothing to say that had he lived Ledger wouldn't have had the kind of career that Nicholson has had. Ledger made some small movies but he also was in better known ones like A Knight's Tale and ones with big star casts like The Patriot (Mel Gibson). He got good reviews for Casanova even if it wasn't a big moneymaker. And did you see Brokeback Mountain? He was Ennis and that movie is one of the best depictions of an impossible love affair I've ever seen. I really don't see how you can compare the careers of a young actor starting out with a veteran like Jack Nicholson.
But both Batman from 1989 and the recent movies are influenced by Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. It's just that after the success of other grittier movies in the recent history that the latest incarnation is darker. Batman from 1989 was the first real summer blockbuster movies and led to the environment where movies like Dark Knight could be made.
I mean in after it's initial run in 1989, it was the 6th highest grossing movies of all time. 20 years later it's now 45th alltime in revenue. I think people just remember the cheesy Batman's with the Governator, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Jim Carrey, etc. and forget how innovative the original one was.
I think we agree about the first movie except for the fact that it ushered in a new era of 'darkness.' The films that have since surpassed it in sales have by no means been 'dark' movies. The Sixth Sense and The Passions of Christ are probably 'dark.' Others include Titanic, all the new Stars Wars, all Spiderman, all Lord of the Rings. all Shrek, and all The Pirates of the Caribbean.
I didn't mean all the movies that were dark were blockbusters, but would Seven, Pulp Fiction, Usual Suspects, Shawshank Redemption, Reservoir Dogs, etc. have been made in the early 90's if Batman didn't do as well in the Box Office?
The thing is you'll never know. At the same age as Ledger, Nicholson was still doing one off guest spots on the Andy Griffin Show and Dr. Kildare. You have to factor in that Ledger was off to a better start than Nicholson and was also in Monster's Ball and I'm Not There which earned critical reveiw and nominations when they came out.
Jack Nicholson since the late 80's is a shell of himself and just plays himself anymore in movies. He had a good 20 year run, but not the greatest actor ever. I would say DeNiro was better than him and they're contemporaries.
Comparing Nicholson and Ledger is a stretch as well. The first couple of Batman movies seemd to mimic the campy feel of the TV series whereas The Dark Knight took a much more serious role. If Ledger was still alive he would never attain the same status of Nicholson.
I also think saying Ledger would never have achieved the success of Nicholson is a stretch as well. I mean Ledger died at 28, Nicholson didn't get his first break out role until he was 32 in Easy Rider.
Besides Nicholson wrote the awful movie, Head, that starred the Monkees before he ever got famous. It's amazing he had a career after that.
How many crappy roles did Ledger portray before TDK? Again I don't watch a lot of movies but I think the only other with any aclaim was Brokeback Mountain. Not sure how many statues Jack has(3 Oscars, 7 Golden Golbes and a Grammy) but he's starred in more great movies than maybe any other actor. Of course he's been in bad films too but there's no arguing against, Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, The Shining, A Few Good Men,Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets, and many cameo and smaller appearances. Heath had a long way to go to match Jack, I mean I think Jack is the apex of actors and it's kind of hard to surpass the summit.
That means nothing. That's why I hate the Grammys... the awards should be for one person's work, not their body of work. It's a crock of shit that Bob Dylan won a grammy for Time Out of Mind but not for Blonde on Blonde, or that Scorcese wins for Departed and not Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, etc. Likewise, it's bullshit to knock Heath Ledger for his early work before he broke out of his teen idol constraints. There is no arguing with the quality of his acting in the years before his death... he was a far better actor than you'd think from A Knight's Tale (though even I'd argue there that he managed to elevate one of the worst film ideas ever into something stupidly entertaining) or 10 Things I Hate About You.
So don't tell me Heath doesn't deserve to win the Oscar because he's not Jack Nicholson. First of all, Jack wasn't nominated this year and second, it's irrelevant what Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger did prior to this year. What counts is what Heath Ledger did with his role as the Joker this year. That's also why I don't think you can say Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves it just because he's a better actor (not that that's what people here are necessarily saying). I agree that he is, but what counts is what each actor brought to their role. You can say Hoffman was more impressive in doubt than Ledger was in Dark Knight, but you can't say Ledger didn't deserve it just because, generally speaking, Hoffman or Nicholson is a better actor.
That means nothing. That's why I hate the Grammys... the awards should be for one person's work, not their body of work. It's a crock of shit that Bob Dylan won a grammy for Time Out of Mind but not for Blonde on Blonde, or that Scorcese wins for Departed and not Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, etc. Likewise, it's bullshit to knock Heath Ledger for his early work before he broke out of his teen idol constraints. There is no arguing with the quality of his acting in the years before his death... he was a far better actor than you'd think from A Knight's Tale (though even I'd argue there that he managed to elevate one of the worst film ideas ever into something stupidly entertaining) or 10 Things I Hate About You.
So don't tell me Heath doesn't deserve to win the Oscar because he's not Jack Nicholson. First of all, Jack wasn't nominated this year and second, it's irrelevant what Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger did prior to this year. What counts is what Heath Ledger did with his role as the Joker this year. That's also why I don't think you can say Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves it just because he's a better actor (not that that's what people here are necessarily saying). I agree that he is, but what counts is what each actor brought to their role. You can say Hoffman was more impressive in doubt than Ledger was in Dark Knight, but you can't say Ledger didn't deserve it just because, generally speaking, Hoffman or Nicholson is a better actor.
I agree.
And not to get off the Batman topic, I still think the biggest crime of the Oscars was that "In Bruges" did not win.
...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
And not to get off the Batman topic, I still think the biggest crime of the Oscars was that "In Bruges" did not win.
:evil: bunch of fuckheads! :evil:
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
And not to get off the Batman topic, I still think the biggest crime of the Oscars was that "In Bruges" did not win.
I was pulling for that one too, even though I have mixed feelings about it. The first hour and a half were excellent, but it seemed to lose focus at the end.
I couldnt read all of that - but ill go back to the original post
I think for starters Heath Ledger definitely deserves his oscar and honestly the only one that i was really hoping would happen... his perfomance was mindblowing for me - sensational. I cant get over how awesome it was. As i said in the other thread, chills all over.
I also think that Milk was a fantastic movie, I think Sean Penn was absolutely amazing in it, his role reminded me of the sensational acting of Dustin Hoffman in rain man, Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind and the likes. I was just... wow!
Anyway I enjoyed the Oscars this year, good fun. Also I dont think Winslet is over-rated, I havent seen her role in the Reader but I am guessing its amazing.
Anyhow - well done Heath and Sean - amazing - I hope Slumdog is as amazing as it is said to be otherwise I will be upset that Milk didnt get it - although i think the Dark Knight didnt get the credit it should have because it was such a pop classic... such is life!
I couldnt read all of that - but ill go back to the original post
I think for starters Heath Ledger definitely deserves his oscar and honestly the only one that i was really hoping would happen... his perfomance was mindblowing for me - sensational. I cant get over how awesome it was. As i said in the other thread, chills all over.
I also think that Milk was a fantastic movie, I think Sean Penn was absolutely amazing in it, his role reminded me of the sensational acting of Dustin Hoffman in rain man, Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind and the likes. I was just... wow!
Anyway I enjoyed the Oscars this year, good fun. Also I dont think Winslet is over-rated, I havent seen her role in the Reader but I am guessing its amazing.
Anyhow - well done Heath and Sean - amazing - I hope Slumdog is as amazing as it is said to be otherwise I will be upset that Milk didnt get it - although i think the Dark Knight didnt get the credit it should have because it was such a pop classic... such is life!
I have got to think Penn won based more on the character he was playing. Almost a protest win...if you will.
The Dark Knight was a visual masterpiece, but it didn't do much for me otherwise. Ledger was good for the 30 minutes he was in the movie.
Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
what a load of shite... I've said most of these opinions elsewhere but gonna gel them into one post so as not to derail any other threads.
Anyway, it looks like this season we should all be wearing wedding dresses and straps are a sin. That's all I got from the fashion side of things.
Heath only won because he's dead... that Oscar belongs to Phillip Seymour Hoffman and I'm sure he knows it.
Milk was a great story made primarily so those involved could win oscars... it reeked of desperately wanting oscars at times.
Slumdog was simply a GOOD movie... rachel getting married, doubt and even gran torino were better.
Kate Winslet??? Seriously???? Meryl Streep put in the performance of her life... Anne Hathaway would melt anyone to TEARS with her portrayal... and they give it to one of the most overrated actresses of our generation??? :roll:
Urgh... I'm pissed off... did In Bruges win at least???
hahahahahaa!! I said the same thing about Ledger, and Streep. I was mighty pleased by Penelope Cruz' win however, and I thought her dress was gorgeous. but then, I get a bit crush-wet from the thought of Penelope...god how I love the black eyed beauties...hahahaha
IF YOU WANT A PLATE OF MY BEEF SWELLINGTON, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE COVERCHARGE.
wow. you guys are pretty passionate about this stuff.
my thoughts.
-Meryl Streep has won two Oscars- one for lead actress and one for supporting
-I think Kate Winslet won because she had TWO amazing performances this year. I havent seen The Reader, but I did see Revolutionary Road and she was extraordinary.
-I havent seen Milk. Sean Penn's voice in the movie sounds too much like his voice in I Am Sam. I didnt think I could get past that impression, so I didnt watch it. He may have been great in it. Fine.
-Even if Mickey Rourke was fantastic in The Wrestler, I think the Academy voters may have been worried that this movie was a fluke, and that he would just drop out of sight again. He is going to need another outstanding performance for people to actually believe that he is really "back".
-I think it is easier for voters to give relative newcomers Oscars for supporting roles, because they want to see what else the actor/actress has in them. Which is why Anne Hathaway didn't really have a shot...which is why Heath Ledger didnt win for Brokeback Mountain. He probably would have been a contender for his Dark Knight role even if he were alive, so I think it was right to give him the Oscar for it.
-I thought it was odd that only 3 songs were nominated for best song.
-I was THRILLED that Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture. It was definitely my favorite movie of the year. Unlike all the other movies in the category, it didnt seem like it was made specifically to win awards. It just wanted to be made. I laughed, I cried, I cheered....that's a good movie. If Benjamin Button would have won, I would never have watched another Academy Awards show ever.
-I was THRILLED that Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture. It was definitely my favorite movie of the year. Unlike all the other movies in the category, it didnt seem like it was made specifically to win awards. It just wanted to be made. I laughed, I cried, I cheered....that's a good movie. If Benjamin Button would have won, I would never have watched another Academy Awards show ever.
I completely agree. It was the least pretentious and most genuinely enjoyable movie-going experience of the year. I felt the same way about Once last year.
I agree for the most part except for Winslet. Her performance in "The Reader" was phenomenal as well as in "Reservation Road." Meryl Streep ALWAYS puts on the performance of a lifetime. Hell, she shines in even the worst movies (Death Becomes Her, She-Devil). Any other year I would've said she flat out deserved it, but Kate deserved it just a bit more this year. Penn is the same way. The guy just blows away in any role he's in and it was no different in his portrayal of Milk, but I'm sorry. The Academy got it wrong this year. Rourke deserved it more. Just my opinion.
I haven't actually seen either of Kates performances this year so I probably shouldn't really comment. Streep should have BAGS of oscars by this stage have you seen Rachel getting married though? Anne Hathaway surprised me by being absolutely FANTASTIC.
Sorry. I am late to respond to this, but no, unfortunately, I have yet to see "Rachel Getting Married," but I really want to. The things I've heard about Hathaway's acting job in that movie is nothing short of amazing. I understand about being upset about certain movies/actors winning the Academy Award. I wasn't happy last year when "No Country" won. Not that I didn't like it. I thought it was the second best movie of the year just behind "There Will Be Blood." Either way, the Academy finds a way every year to disappoint me in one way or another, and I'm growing used to it by now. The thing I keep reminding myself is that the Oscar is an industry award and, therefore, more of a popularity award rather than a critical award.
We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.--Bill Hicks
I agree for the most part except for Winslet. Her performance in "The Reader" was phenomenal as well as in "Reservation Road." Meryl Streep ALWAYS puts on the performance of a lifetime. Hell, she shines in even the worst movies (Death Becomes Her, She-Devil). Any other year I would've said she flat out deserved it, but Kate deserved it just a bit more this year. Penn is the same way. The guy just blows away in any role he's in and it was no different in his portrayal of Milk, but I'm sorry. The Academy got it wrong this year. Rourke deserved it more. Just my opinion.
I haven't actually seen either of Kates performances this year so I probably shouldn't really comment. Streep should have BAGS of oscars by this stage have you seen Rachel getting married though? Anne Hathaway surprised me by being absolutely FANTASTIC.
Sorry. I am late to respond to this, but no, unfortunately, I have yet to see "Rachel Getting Married," but I really want to. The things I've heard about Hathaway's acting job in that movie is nothing short of amazing. I understand about being upset about certain movies/actors winning the Academy Award. I wasn't happy last year when "No Country" won. Not that I didn't like it. I thought it was the second best movie of the year just behind "There Will Be Blood." Either way, the Academy finds a way every year to disappoint me in one way or another, and I'm growing used to it by now. The thing I keep reminding myself is that the Oscar is an industry award and, therefore, more of a popularity award rather than a critical award.
If that was true, Dark Knight would have won best picture... it was hands down the most popular movie of last year.
I know we all have our favorites, but just because yours doesn't win doesn't mean the academy isn't generally picking based on quality rather than popularity. For every person that thinks There Will Be Blood was the best movie, there were 2 that say No Country... it's subjective. Them disagreeing with what YOU think was the best movie doesn't affect its credibility.
If that was true, Dark Knight would have won best picture... it was hands down the most popular movie of last year.
I know we all have our favorites, but just because yours doesn't win doesn't mean the academy isn't generally picking based on quality rather than popularity. For every person that thinks There Will Be Blood was the best movie, there were 2 that say No Country... it's subjective. Them disagreeing with what YOU think was the best movie doesn't affect its credibility.
Not necessarily. While I agree that the "Dark Knight" was the most popular movie of the summer, it wasn't the most popular movie at the end of the year (not enough to deserve a nomination) and that's the difference. It was definitely a favorite, but come the end of the year it was a different story. The Academy does tend to choose those movies that are released at the end of the year and eschew those released earlier, and that generally includes performances as well. I think that does call into question the credibility of the Academy at least a little bit.
We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.--Bill Hicks
If that was true, Dark Knight would have won best picture... it was hands down the most popular movie of last year.
I know we all have our favorites, but just because yours doesn't win doesn't mean the academy isn't generally picking based on quality rather than popularity. For every person that thinks There Will Be Blood was the best movie, there were 2 that say No Country... it's subjective. Them disagreeing with what YOU think was the best movie doesn't affect its credibility.
Not necessarily. While I agree that the "Dark Knight" was the most popular movie of the summer, it wasn't the most popular movie at the end of the year (not enough to deserve a nomination) and that's the difference. It was definitely a favorite, but come the end of the year it was a different story. The Academy does tend to choose those movies that are released at the end of the year and eschew those released earlier, and that generally includes performances as well. I think that does call into question the credibility of the Academy at least a little bit.
I don't think that's true... studios save their "critic friendly" movies for this time of year. So it's difficult to gauge what's causing what. Summer is for blockbusters, winter is for the award plays.
If that was true, Dark Knight would have won best picture... it was hands down the most popular movie of last year.
I know we all have our favorites, but just because yours doesn't win doesn't mean the academy isn't generally picking based on quality rather than popularity. For every person that thinks There Will Be Blood was the best movie, there were 2 that say No Country... it's subjective. Them disagreeing with what YOU think was the best movie doesn't affect its credibility.
Not necessarily. While I agree that the "Dark Knight" was the most popular movie of the summer, it wasn't the most popular movie at the end of the year (not enough to deserve a nomination) and that's the difference. It was definitely a favorite, but come the end of the year it was a different story. The Academy does tend to choose those movies that are released at the end of the year and eschew those released earlier, and that generally includes performances as well. I think that does call into question the credibility of the Academy at least a little bit.
I don't think that's true... studios save their "critic friendly" movies for this time of year. So it's difficult to gauge what's causing what. Summer is for blockbusters, winter is for the award plays.
Agreed. However, I still say this isn't always the case, and that certain films get the shaft b/c they are released earlier than the rest. I understand that there are times where it comes down to whatever's freshest in our minds, but that alone makes my case that calls the Academy into question. That excuse takes the objectivity away completely. For an awards ceremony that bills itself as choosing THE "Best Picture" of the year, it certainly brings up a lot of questions and a lot to be desired.
Of course, arguing this point reminds me of arguing about the validity of the BCS or who should win the Heisman. This type of bias is seen everywhere you look and is the real reason why the media loves this type of stuff.
We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.--Bill Hicks
How did life of pi win all of those awards but not best picture? it was clearly the best film of the year!
You didn't see it did you?
Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
How did life of pi win all of those awards but not best picture? it was clearly the best film of the year!
You didn't see it did you?
i saw 8/9 of the noms (minus les miz)
Well then we clearly disagree because Life of Pi was best picture like Avatar wasn't. Lots of CGI magic, but a very meh movie
Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
Well then we clearly disagree because Life of Pi was best picture like Avatar wasn't. Lots of CGI magic, but a very meh movie
CGI was the best part of the film...ive never seen creativity like that EVER. what a work of art, a masterpiece! plus, the story was amazing. it was cast away on steroids.
Well then we clearly disagree because Life of Pi was best picture like Avatar wasn't. Lots of CGI magic, but a very meh movie
CGI was the best part of the film...ive never seen creativity like that EVER. what a work of art, a masterpiece! plus, the story was amazing. it was cast away on steroids.
[/quote]
I thought Pi blew away all the others too.
tsk, another year and I wasnt even nominated for anything. When will the academy learn?
Well then we clearly disagree because Life of Pi was best picture like Avatar wasn't. Lots of CGI magic, but a very meh movie
CGI was the best part of the film...ive never seen creativity like that EVER. what a work of art, a masterpiece! plus, the story was amazing. it was cast away on steroids.
I thought Pi blew away all the others too.
tsk, another year and I wasnt even nominated for anything. When will the academy learn?[/quote][/quote][/quote]
Comments
I didn't mean all the movies that were dark were blockbusters, but would Seven, Pulp Fiction, Usual Suspects, Shawshank Redemption, Reservoir Dogs, etc. have been made in the early 90's if Batman didn't do as well in the Box Office?
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
That means nothing. That's why I hate the Grammys... the awards should be for one person's work, not their body of work. It's a crock of shit that Bob Dylan won a grammy for Time Out of Mind but not for Blonde on Blonde, or that Scorcese wins for Departed and not Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, etc. Likewise, it's bullshit to knock Heath Ledger for his early work before he broke out of his teen idol constraints. There is no arguing with the quality of his acting in the years before his death... he was a far better actor than you'd think from A Knight's Tale (though even I'd argue there that he managed to elevate one of the worst film ideas ever into something stupidly entertaining) or 10 Things I Hate About You.
So don't tell me Heath doesn't deserve to win the Oscar because he's not Jack Nicholson. First of all, Jack wasn't nominated this year and second, it's irrelevant what Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger did prior to this year. What counts is what Heath Ledger did with his role as the Joker this year. That's also why I don't think you can say Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves it just because he's a better actor (not that that's what people here are necessarily saying). I agree that he is, but what counts is what each actor brought to their role. You can say Hoffman was more impressive in doubt than Ledger was in Dark Knight, but you can't say Ledger didn't deserve it just because, generally speaking, Hoffman or Nicholson is a better actor.
I agree.
And not to get off the Batman topic, I still think the biggest crime of the Oscars was that "In Bruges" did not win.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I was pulling for that one too, even though I have mixed feelings about it. The first hour and a half were excellent, but it seemed to lose focus at the end.
I think for starters Heath Ledger definitely deserves his oscar and honestly the only one that i was really hoping would happen... his perfomance was mindblowing for me - sensational. I cant get over how awesome it was. As i said in the other thread, chills all over.
I also think that Milk was a fantastic movie, I think Sean Penn was absolutely amazing in it, his role reminded me of the sensational acting of Dustin Hoffman in rain man, Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind and the likes. I was just... wow!
Anyway I enjoyed the Oscars this year, good fun. Also I dont think Winslet is over-rated, I havent seen her role in the Reader but I am guessing its amazing.
Anyhow - well done Heath and Sean - amazing - I hope Slumdog is as amazing as it is said to be otherwise I will be upset that Milk didnt get it - although i think the Dark Knight didnt get the credit it should have because it was such a pop classic... such is life!
I have got to think Penn won based more on the character he was playing. Almost a protest win...if you will.
The Dark Knight was a visual masterpiece, but it didn't do much for me otherwise. Ledger was good for the 30 minutes he was in the movie.
my thoughts.
-Meryl Streep has won two Oscars- one for lead actress and one for supporting
-I think Kate Winslet won because she had TWO amazing performances this year. I havent seen The Reader, but I did see Revolutionary Road and she was extraordinary.
-I havent seen Milk. Sean Penn's voice in the movie sounds too much like his voice in I Am Sam. I didnt think I could get past that impression, so I didnt watch it. He may have been great in it. Fine.
-Even if Mickey Rourke was fantastic in The Wrestler, I think the Academy voters may have been worried that this movie was a fluke, and that he would just drop out of sight again. He is going to need another outstanding performance for people to actually believe that he is really "back".
-I think it is easier for voters to give relative newcomers Oscars for supporting roles, because they want to see what else the actor/actress has in them. Which is why Anne Hathaway didn't really have a shot...which is why Heath Ledger didnt win for Brokeback Mountain. He probably would have been a contender for his Dark Knight role even if he were alive, so I think it was right to give him the Oscar for it.
-I thought it was odd that only 3 songs were nominated for best song.
-I was THRILLED that Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture. It was definitely my favorite movie of the year. Unlike all the other movies in the category, it didnt seem like it was made specifically to win awards. It just wanted to be made. I laughed, I cried, I cheered....that's a good movie. If Benjamin Button would have won, I would never have watched another Academy Awards show ever.
I completely agree. It was the least pretentious and most genuinely enjoyable movie-going experience of the year. I felt the same way about Once last year.
Sorry. I am late to respond to this, but no, unfortunately, I have yet to see "Rachel Getting Married," but I really want to. The things I've heard about Hathaway's acting job in that movie is nothing short of amazing. I understand about being upset about certain movies/actors winning the Academy Award. I wasn't happy last year when "No Country" won. Not that I didn't like it. I thought it was the second best movie of the year just behind "There Will Be Blood." Either way, the Academy finds a way every year to disappoint me in one way or another, and I'm growing used to it by now. The thing I keep reminding myself is that the Oscar is an industry award and, therefore, more of a popularity award rather than a critical award.
If that was true, Dark Knight would have won best picture... it was hands down the most popular movie of last year.
I know we all have our favorites, but just because yours doesn't win doesn't mean the academy isn't generally picking based on quality rather than popularity. For every person that thinks There Will Be Blood was the best movie, there were 2 that say No Country... it's subjective. Them disagreeing with what YOU think was the best movie doesn't affect its credibility.
Not necessarily. While I agree that the "Dark Knight" was the most popular movie of the summer, it wasn't the most popular movie at the end of the year (not enough to deserve a nomination) and that's the difference. It was definitely a favorite, but come the end of the year it was a different story. The Academy does tend to choose those movies that are released at the end of the year and eschew those released earlier, and that generally includes performances as well. I think that does call into question the credibility of the Academy at least a little bit.
I don't think that's true... studios save their "critic friendly" movies for this time of year. So it's difficult to gauge what's causing what. Summer is for blockbusters, winter is for the award plays.
Agreed. However, I still say this isn't always the case, and that certain films get the shaft b/c they are released earlier than the rest. I understand that there are times where it comes down to whatever's freshest in our minds, but that alone makes my case that calls the Academy into question. That excuse takes the objectivity away completely. For an awards ceremony that bills itself as choosing THE "Best Picture" of the year, it certainly brings up a lot of questions and a lot to be desired.
Of course, arguing this point reminds me of arguing about the validity of the BCS or who should win the Heisman. This type of bias is seen everywhere you look and is the real reason why the media loves this type of stuff.
You didn't see it did you?
i saw 8/9 of the noms (minus les miz)
Well then we clearly disagree because Life of Pi was best picture like Avatar wasn't. Lots of CGI magic, but a very meh movie
For the record, I would've been equally annoyed with a republican appearance. It just didn't 'fit' with the whole evening overall.
CGI was the best part of the film...ive never seen creativity like that EVER. what a work of art, a masterpiece! plus, the story was amazing. it was cast away on steroids.
I thought Pi blew away all the others too.
tsk, another year and I wasnt even nominated for anything. When will the academy learn?
I thought Pi blew away all the others too.
tsk, another year and I wasnt even nominated for anything. When will the academy learn?[/quote][/quote][/quote]
snubbed again for the best nut category?
ooh, I dunno, lots of competition in that department.