Oscars

Poncier

Solat13 wrote:

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.

You didn't like "Head"?

Horos

Solat13 wrote:

Horos wrote:

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 think you mean the sequels.

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.

LK208973

Heineken Helen wrote:

I haven't actually seen either of Kates performances this year so I probably shouldn't really comment.

Oh I see and yet you know she didn't deserve to win? Unbelievable.......and this idea that Slumdog is not deserving is utter nonsense as well..I saw the flick in November before the hype and without any expectations and it blew me away..It is a magical film on a multitude of levels..

Heineken Helen

LK208973 wrote:

Oh I see and yet you know she didn't deserve to win? Unbelievable.......and this idea that Slumdog is not deserving is utter nonsense as well..I saw the flick in November before the hype and without any expectations and it blew me away..It is a magical film on a multitude of levels..

Yep, I know she didn't deserve to win... I'm psychic like that

That's WHY I said I never saw her films.

I saw slumdog with very few expectations... I was expecting a decent storyline and that was about it. I thought it was GOOD... it certainly didn't blow me away and I didn't find it magical... but that's just my OPINION :? just as it being 'magical' is YOUR opinion. The magic faraway tree by Enid Blyton is magical IMO... slumdog is not IMO.

Horos

Solat13 wrote:

Horos wrote:

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.

Lizard

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I really liked the way the actor awards were presented. I think it was a nice way to really honor all of the nominees, rather than just focusing on the winner.

At first I thought so too but then it was so much ass-kissing it was nauseating!!

and this morning I heard that Slumdog was supposed to go straight to DVD!! Not positive that is true but interesting. I LIKED that movie!!

LK208973

Heineken Helen wrote:

Yep, I know she didn't deserve to win... I'm psychic like that

That's WHY I said I never saw her films.

No, in your initial post you asked Winslet, seriously??? How can you question/belittle her performance without seeing the film..either of them actually, lol..just saying, watch the fucking movie if you wish to debate it, otherwise don't waste my/our time ..

Solat13

Horos wrote:

Solat13 wrote:

I think you mean the sequels.

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.

Heineken Helen

LK208973 wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Yep, I know she didn't deserve to win... I'm psychic like that

That's WHY I said I never saw her films.

No, in your initial post you asked Winslet, seriously??? How can you question/belittle her performance without seeing the film..either of them actually, lol..just saying, watch the fucking movie if you wish to debate it, otherwise don't waste my/our time ..

I never debated Kate after my initial statement... simply said I hadn't seen her so can't comment on whether she was better than Meryl or Anne... just that I've never enjoyed a film of hers and think she's overrated as an actress in general... maybe these two latest films will prove me wrong but I'd really rather not sit through another Winslet film to be honest :oops:

Solat13

Horos wrote:

Solat13 wrote:

Horos wrote:

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.

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.

Horos

Solat13 wrote:

Horos wrote:

Solat13 wrote:

I think you mean the sequels.

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.

Who Princess

Horos wrote:

Solat13 wrote:

Horos wrote:

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.

Solat13

Horos wrote:

Solat13 wrote:

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?

Horos

Solat13 wrote:

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.

I also forgot about Redford and Newman

soulsinging

Horos wrote:

Solat13 wrote:

Horos wrote:

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.

pjsteelerfan

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen

pjsteelerfan wrote:

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.

:evil: bunch of fuckheads! :evil:

soulsinging

pjsteelerfan wrote:

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.

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.

swede

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!

stickfig13

swede wrote:

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.