I'm annoyed, actually, because Bob mirrors the general vibe I've been getting from all corners:
* The Dark Knight got snubbed.
* A nomination would bring more cred to superhero movies.
I'm annoyed because I disagree with both of these premises.
The Dark Knight did not get snubbed because they generally nominate good movies and Dark Knight is terrible. I hated, hated, hated, hated that movie. Even just from an objective standpoint it has inconsistent aesthetics, lackluster photography, and a script that is not a movie script but a season of a television series condensed into a feature-length film. This last bit is the most damning since it muddies the narrative and keeps it from achieving whatever impact it might have had. The plot is an overcomplicated web of subplots that no doubt took a great deal of work to put together, but I feel it was a wasted effort because the resulting experience is just so dull. Also, I don't think Christian Bale could act like a paper bag, much less act his way out of one.
Now, I may be forced to admit that most of my complaints about the movie, which I won't bother going into because it seems like everyone else loved the damned movie because... I'm the only one immune to whatever they put in the drinking water, I guess. But most of my complaints could be seen as mostly a matter of taste. Where I can make a more solid objective argument is on the second point, the idea of such recognition bringing... respect to the superhero genre.
I disagree with this because the Nolan Batman movies are not superhero movies. Or they try very hard to not be superhero movies. The film seem ashamed of what little of the genre that manages to get into them. Gone are the bright colors, stunning visual, sense of fantasy that is what superheroes are.
If I were to compare, I think these movies are like the 2004 film Troy which had all of the myth sucked out of it in an attempt to show "what really happened" or for some kind of "realism" aesthetic. So Achilles is no longer immortal because he was dipped in the River Styx as an infant. He's just a really good fighter. Imagine if they made a movie about King Arthur where Excalibur was not a magic sword and Merlin was just a wise man with no supernatural powers (Actually, they did do this with the 2004's King Arthur). Imagine if they did the same thing with Lord of the Rings.
What I mean by all of this is that Dark Knight is a super hero movie that is ashamed of its roots and as such tries very hard to distance itself from the things that make the super hero genre what it is. So it would not bring any respect or whatever to the superhero genre, because the film itself does not respect the genre at all and tries very hard to be something else.
As such, I'm glad Dark Knight was not nominated for Best Picture. Not only would I likely snap and go all Lee Harvey Oswald listening to all the nerds crowing about it like they had anything to do with it, but it would mean that this would be the only kind of superhero movie they would make. As such, I guess I get to look forward to a bunch of superhero movies that are ashamed to be superhero movies thanks to Dark Knight's box office success, anyway. For my money, Iron Man was a better film although still not perfect as it wasn't a superhero movie, either. It was just a movie with a superhero in it, but at least it wasn't ashamed of it.