Why are all the bad films Oscar nominated?

[cormacd12]

Click and Norbit were both nominated for Best Make-up.

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

Hm. Seeing as your examples are films that many people thoughroughly enjoyed, can I have examples of good films that have gone overlooked this year?

 

[Trivun]

Can we have examples of bad films?

The wrestler Not seen, but apparently good according to people I've spoken to.
The curious case of Benjamin Button Really want to see.
Milk Not interested in but apparently good.
The visitor Never heard of.
Frost/Nixon Not seen but am desperate to.
Slumdog millionaire Seen, was absolutely brilliant.
The Changling Not seen but want to.
The Reader Seen, actually pretty damn good.

This could go on for a long time.

Your opinion and mine obviously differ, but most people I've spoken to think all of those are great films. The Oscar nomination people know what they're talking about. Believe me.

 

[Holydevil]

Can we have examples of bad films?

The wrestler
The curious case of Benjamin Button
Milk
The visitor
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog millionaire
Changling
The reader

This could go on for a long time.

You of course doing what any reasonable and level minded person does and posts his opinions on these having watched all of them. I consider myself a cinephile (or cinemaniac at least) and i haven't gotten round to watching all of these films.

You may not like these films, but the Academy does not necessarily choose "the best films" based on how much they enjoyed it.

You may not have liked Slumdog Millionaire, but to not recognize Danny Boyle's directorial skills defies the point of the awards. He won best director because it was the best directed film of the year. That's just the start of the argument.

Also, check you posts, you defeat yourself at the start when you state that Batman Begins, starring Heath Ledger as The Joker, was the last good film to be nominated.

 

[Holydevil]

Perhaps the question you should be asking is why to great films (and the people involved) get omitted, that's the real issue.

 

[Skreeee]

Can we have examples of bad films?

The wrestler
The curious case of Benjamin Button
Milk
The visitor
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog millionaire
Changling
The reader

This could go on for a long time.

Based on your list, I'd have to ask what movies that come out the same year deserved to be nominated in lieu of these? And are you specifically looking at the Best Picture Award, or all of them?

Yes, Dark Knight was generally well done, but the fact that Ledger's performance was so good (and, as you yourself said, was what made the whole film) doesn't mean it deserves a Best Picture nomination/win. That's what the Best Performance By An Actor/Supporting Actor (or however it's actually named) award is for. If I remember correctly, Ledger won the supporting actor award.

 

[XJ-0461]

Ahh, there is the qualifier. It's your opinion.

Seriously, this. What you think is a good film may differ from what others believe makes a good film. Just ignore what the critics say if you personally enjoyed the film.

 

[MBFCPresident]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)

Fargo is awesome, so screw you.

Fargo sucks, so screw you!

 

[MBFCPresident]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)

Fargo is awesome, so screw you.

Fargo sucks, so screw you!

You have a Michael Bay avatar, so your opinion does not matter to me.

If you'd read my post, the message I was trying to get across was that everyone has an opinion, and they're all equally worthless.

 

[MBFCPresident]

Also, your opinion matters even less to me.

 

[BonsaiK]

Fargo is brilliant. No Country For Old Men is also brilliant. If you ask me they're the only two really good films the Coen brothers have ever made, I can't stand most of their others.

Milk is a great film. Haven't seen the others on the list.

The Academy Awards do succumb to "politics" from time to time (Liz Taylor scored a Best Actress award for Butterfield 8 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUtterfield_8 ) which is a rubbish film, arguably because the Academy decided it was time to recognise her after not nominating her in many superior films in the past) and also remember a lot of the awards are for "technical" stuff and don't necessarily guarantee a good movie (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_(1963_film) ) but generally I would say that this year's picks seem pretty sensible.

 

[lukemdizzle]

Can we have examples of bad films?

The wrestler
The curious case of Benjamin Button
Milk
The visitor
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog millionaire
Changling
The reader

This could go on for a long time.

those were all really good (benjamin button was ok but not bad)

 

[lukemdizzle]

Here's an example:

No Country for Old Men

It was a piece of shit.

.... really?

 

[electric_warrior]

I realise posting a thread like this some people are going to post some films that have won oscars and are good films, i am expecting Forest Gump to be one of them but lets face it, a lot are bad, really bad and the most recent film to be nominated and was actually good in my opinion was Batman Begins and that was down to Ledgers fantastic Joker performance.

Forrest Gump? its a perfectly nice film , but it beat Shawshank redemption to practically every gong and everyone knows that shawshank should have won. the most prominant terrible film that won big was shakespeare in love which actually beat saving private ryan to best picture (but thankfully not best director), in fact that year was just awful because every oscar was poorly awarded; best actor went to roberto begnini not Ed Norton or Ian McKellen, best actress went to gwyneth paltrow not to Emily watson, best supporting actress went to judi dench not lyn redgrave and obviously the best picture award was wrong.

recently there haven't been many howlers, Slumdog deserved the win, so did Winslet Ledger and cruz (even if mickey should have beaten Sean penn, sean penn was still excellent), last year was generally good and no country deserved the win. recently its only been crash that really did not deserve the win over Brokeback.

the oversight of foreign films is terrible (notably the lives of others, pan's labyrinth, city of god and practically everything by ingmar bergman and akira kurosawa). although I do concede that they often miss people out then reward them for lesser films to rectify their mistakes, notably paul newman, al pacino and liz taylor.

generally, however, the academy did use to get it right a lot of the time, it's just the awful mistakes that stick in everyone's mind like dances with wolves, shakespeare in love, crash, bravehaert etc. they did, as demonstrated, get it wrong a lot in the 90's but it seems they're changing their ways with a string of deserving oscars being awarded in the last few years.

 

[devildog1170]

Can we have examples of bad films?

The wrestler
The curious case of Benjamin Button
Milk
The visitor
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog millionaire
Changling
The reader

This could go on for a long time.[/quote]

wow, you have no taste

 

[RebelRising]

It depends mostly on these following factors:

-Star power
-Box office
-Length
-Stories that are either overdone or boring
-Cultural relevancy

Of course, I'm generalizing, but that's generally the pattern I've seen in the Oscars. If you can get stars like Brad Pitt or Kate Winslet in Benjamin Button or The Reader, then you've got a solid ticket for an Academy Award.

That being said, however, I really liked Slumdog Millionaire, and I want to see Milk. Obviously, a lot of these films are deserving of the Awards, just as much as a bunch of other, better films are overlooked. Again, this all really comes down to opinion with us.