Open Forum Friday: Why Are People So Outraged by This Year’s Oscar Nominees?
As many of you are no doubt aware, this year’s Academy Award nominees were announced yesterday, and the list of finalists set off a tidal wave of anger and outrage across the internet. The majority of the disagreement seems to stem from the fact that comic book adaptation The Dark Knight did not receive a nod for Best Picture, but there are many other glaring omissions and oversights that people have taken issue with. But is anyone really surprised? Since when has the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ever been known for recognizing movies that appeal to the mainstream populace? What is so different about this year’s list of nominees that it warrants such a violent reaction?
I thought The Wrestler was the best movie of the year, but I didn’t for a second expect it to get a Best Picture nomination. I did think The Dark Knight had a better shot, but in the end, I’m not surprised that it got overlooked either. Let’s face it, there are certain kinds of movies that the Academy honours every year, and it’s not that they are the “best” movies (although many of them are certainly good), it’s just that they have qualities that their members are looking for. We’ve seen time and again that biopics, historical and Holocaust-themed films are always a shoo-in. Just because the Oscars are seen as the highest form of recognition for the motion picture industry, that doesn’t change the fact that they are skewed toward the views of one particular group. It’s not a consensus of critical acclaim, because if I’m not mistaken, members of the Academy are industry professionals, not critics. Now everyone is complaining that this year’s ceremony will be “boring” and “predictable”, and I ask again — how is this any different than the previous years? I understand that people want to see their favourite film get recognized, but without all the constant buzz and fan campaigns that got hopes up, would anyone really be disappointed? Why did you find the Oscar nominations to be such a let down? Did they get anything right? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (33)
I’m most upset that The Reader got in over The Dark Knight. You can see my reactions here: http://thefilmstage.com/2009/01/22/the-reader/
Posted by Jordan Raup on January 23rd, 2009This year finally was able to watch all but two of the nomiated movies in advance and so I could come up with my own list a few days before the official release of the academys list. Thanks Internet, thanks Festivals.
IMO “The Wrestler” still is the best movie of 2008 and this will not change after the ceremony, when “Slumdog” will (hopefully) get the golden guy.
Also for me Heath Ledger is in no way the best supporting actor. Anyone (but Nicholas Cage) could have played the Joker with this great makeup. But of course he will get his posthum statue.
And talking about the best animated feature – well it´s hard to put anything up against WALL-E.
So it will be business as usual. While watching the show I will get angry, I will shed a tear when the DeathList appears and I will laugh at two or three of the scripted jokes. And afterwards I will promise myself never to watch the Academy Awards again, as I did in the last 40 Years.
dia
Posted by theDia on January 23rd, 2009I don’t really care because we all know that an Oscar for “Best Picture” typically means “Most Sappy & Touching Picture That Involves Name Actors and Usually a Historical Setting That You Will Never Watch Again”.
Ok, so I haven’t seen Slumdog yet (and that’s the only one I actually want to see) but to me films are entertainment first! How many people are gonna watch Benjamin Button more than once in a span of years? Now how have already seen The Dark Knight many times this year?
Exactly…we all know who the real winner is!
Posted by Ryan M. on January 23rd, 2009I think you already said what needs to be said. The Academy will never change, so let it go.
Posted by Neil M on January 23rd, 2009ok…i dont care about much of this. I agree with sean…The Wrestler is the best film of year…and im disappointed it didnt get a best pic nom, but i’m not mad.
as far as the geek rage/academy picks certain types of movies thing…Return of the King. I’ll say it again…ahem…RETURN OF THE KING.
If was i to argue in favor of the Dark Knight, an extremely high quality sequel based on a historic and, arguably, important geek property being nominated for best picture…I think all I should have to say is…RETURN OF THE KING.
and if i wanted to argue in favor of the fact that the academy can CHANGE, can move away from its norm and give a statue to a fantasy/sci-fi/superhero film, especially if said film is a sequel, or even worse, THREEQUEL…i think all i should have to say is…RETURN OF THE KING.
I didnt dig TDK that much, and I am not on the suck Nolan’s dick train…but if I had that stance…I think all i have to say is…RETURN OF THE KING.
Posted by Bob The Slob on January 23rd, 2009I don’t get the “outrage” – TDK is nominated for the exact categories it deserves to win. Except maybe ‘original screenplay’ – it should have gotten nominated for that too. As for ‘best film’ and ‘best director’ – I think Nolan’s Memento is a better film and he did a better directing-job on the Prestige, so there.
Posted by Bas on January 23rd, 2009The biggest value, I think to an Academy Award nomination is that it gives well-made films that don’t otherwise have mainstream marketing or appeal exposure to the masses. There are people who set out to see all of the nominees before the ceremony.
I myself will put them on my rental list – except for the ones that are in genres that I don’t care for like period dramas (Atonement) or musicals (Chicago), or if they just have bad word of mouth, despite the Oscar nom/win (The English Patient). Yes the movies nominated are usually of the same variety, but they usually have a token comedy or fantasy thrown in. It usually won’t win, but if it’s the 3rd straight in a trilogy that’s been nominated they’ll throw it a bone (Return of the King).
Straight up action or horror will never be nominated for best picture. I’m not sure I would want them to be either, or else the fimmakers in these genres will take themselves too seriously. Though perhaps that has already begun to happen anyway.
Posted by Mason on January 23rd, 2009I think that it’s self defeating, and a bit delusional, to believe that something will “never change”.
The Oscars were established BECAUSE of the desire of ordinary people to see their favorites nominated and honored.
TDK was an excellent film both intellectually as well as technically and it should have been honored in both categories.
However it was written, directed, and even largely acted by Hollywood outsiders instead of Hollywood’s royalty. Let’s face it, Bale has had several standout performances in movies like American Pyscho and The Machinist – far more than other actors that the Academy has mysteriously nominated like Anne Hathaway and Adrien Brody just to name a few – and he STILL has yet to be recogized by the group because he’s an outsider (maybe he doesn’t go to the right temple or something).
We lowly people may not be able to vote in the Oscar race, however it is ABSOLUTLEY worth our time to protest by refusing to participate in Oscar mania and to honor it by watching it on TV. After all, TV is the biggest revenue generating source for the Oscars and let’s face it the Oscars is a business first and foremost.
Change is an undeniable, unstoppable fact of life. If the Academy resists change – as it appears ready to do – then it will become irrelevant and will eventually be eliminated.
Posted by kaddie on January 23rd, 2009Are the Oscars really for ordinary people? I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure they are by the industry and for the industry.
The only reason they televise it is because ordinary people like to talk about celebrities and see what they’re wearing.
Posted by Sean on January 23rd, 2009Actually kaddie the reason why the Oscars were established were to legitamize the movie business in the face of large moral outcry in the 1920s. The industry wanted to show that movies could be a serious art and were not just decaying the morals of the youth of America.
Posted by TheAllKnowingGod on January 23rd, 2009The Dark Knight is a great movie, Oscar or no Oscar. We’ve seen it in the movie theater, got it on DVD & BluRay, and we can enjoy it for the rest of our lives, every day of the week if we want to. And Sean is right, the Oscars is an industry-thing.
Posted by Bas on January 23rd, 2009Return of the King.
Posted by Bob The Slob on January 23rd, 2009Allknowing, the Oscars were not established to “legitamize the movie business in the face of large moral outcry in the 1920s”.
In fact, the first Best Actor Oscar went to a performance from the movie, “The Way of All Flesh” based on the Samuel Butler novel of the same name. A story that is most definitely NOT a nod to the hypersensitive “moral outcry” that you mention.
The Hays code to which you allude was not implemented in Hollywood until 1930 a full year after the first Oscars were handed out.
Again, the Oscars were created for the fans to help promote Hollywood by honoring its biggest stars and that is reflected in the fact that the first hosts were among Hollywood’s best known personalities at the time (and still known to this day) : Douglas Fairbanks and DeMille. Even the nominees were a who’s who list that movie crazy Americans were very familiar with like Chaplin, Gaynor, and Swanson.
And, of course, the event was covered the next day in most major papers and tabloid columns.
It was, and still remains unless we change it, one of Hollywood’s most successful promotional strategies.
Posted by kaddie on January 23rd, 2009Did TDK deserve best picture? Maybe not, but it should of got a nod, same with The Wrestler and In Bruges.
Posted by Robert(wolf) on January 23rd, 2009Its pretty simple why “people” are outraged. Just look at the demographic of these “people”. These are the same “people” that tried to get TDK at #1 on imbd. They aren’t representative of the general public nor of critics and apparently, nor of Academy voters. I find it pretty easy to ignore them.
Posted by JakeTheFatMan on January 23rd, 2009Jake, “These are the same “people†that tried to get TDK at #1 on imbd. They aren’t representative of the general public nor of critics and apparently, nor of Academy voters. I find it pretty easy to ignore them.”
So what you’re basically saying is that the general public that were responsible – because let’s face it fan boys can only take you so far in terms of revenue generation just ask Paramount about Star Trek – for making TDK the 2nd highest grossing film of all time and the HIGHEST grossing film released within the last 10 years, aren’t “representative” of the general public?!?
LMAO!
Thank you, that piece of twisted logic is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
Posted by kaddie on January 23rd, 2009The Reader sucks, but its annoying watching all this fanboy outrage when I bet 99% of these people haven’t seen at least 2 of the movies up for best picture.
Posted by Goon on January 23rd, 2009I seen every nominee and I can saw the dark knight should been nominated. Benjamin is basically a forest gump with special effect, frost Nixon is basically a ron howard movie trying to win oscar, reader this is the least deserving movie, milk I really love this movie, and deserved nomination, if this wins this is an apology for letting crash win over brokeback mountain. Slumdog I am rooting for it because it deserve to win. And i don’t know why some of you don’t understand why the dark knight should have been nominated it not just because of the money it made, or that critic and people loved it. It because of chris Nolan did to the genre he took a comic book movies and made audience and critic took the genre serious. He made us realize that comic movie don’t have to be an action movie, or campy. Dark knight showed us that it can be a drama, a crime movie. When you wacth this movie you remember it for the confrotation, not for the action. So dark knight should have Been nominated for it achievement in cinema, and no MTV is not a reward. Didn’t oscar used to be about that by actally nominating the best picture of the year. The good old day when people cared for what they used to stand for and why we actaully tune it to wacth.
Posted by ayan on January 24th, 2009“The Oscars were established BECAUSE of the desire of ordinary people to see their favorites nominated and honored.”
Uh… sure you don’t mean the Peoples Choice Awards?
Either way, the way things are today, you’re describing the Peoples Choice Awards, and if we’re going to throw awards at whatever was popular, hope you enjoy winning an award vs. Twilight, High School Musical 3 and Iron Man.
Big acheivement.
Christ.
Posted by Goon on January 24th, 2009@kaddie
If you thought that was humorous, this will get those pubes to sprout:
There is a small group of vocal (as far as anonymous typing on the Internet is vocal) “fanboys†that are far from representative of the general population. The general population are not “outraged†over TDK’s lack of nominations. They are not masturbating in their own feces, decrying that some movie’s nomination in some awards show was interfering with their only source of social identity, interfering with their dysfunctional belief that some movie validates their life.
If you nerds were representative of the general population why aren’t you complaining about Indiana Jones’ lack of Best Picture nomination? A movie enjoyed by much of the general population.
Posted by JakeTheFatMan on January 24th, 2009I think it shows that the Oscars are out of touch. I was going to suggest that the BAFTAs (UK) are a better barometer, but TDK isn’t nominated there either. Mickey Rourke is up for best actor though. TDK was a great movie, but I agree with Mark Kermode; Batman Begins was more enjoyable. TDK was the best film I saw in 2009 (I haven’t yet seen The Wrestler). Lack of an Oscar Nomination for best film doesn’t bother me though. It wouldn’t put it in great company – Chicago, The Departed, Driving Miss Daisy . . .
Posted by Paul Andrews on January 24th, 2009“The general population are not “outraged†over TDK’s lack of nominations. They are not masturbating in their own feces, decrying that some movie’s nomination in some awards show was interfering with their only source of social identity, interfering with their dysfunctional belief that some movie validates their life.”
They’re also not trying to belittle people on the internet to make themselves feel big.
Posted by Alex on January 24th, 2009Go The Wrestler. That movie fucking rules. The rest is INFERIOR!!
Posted by Henrik on January 24th, 2009Film Junk has apparently brainwashed Henrik.
Sean, what is it about The Wrestler that made you think it would not get nominated for a Best Film Oscar? (If I missed this discussion already, please point me to the appropriate post or podcast.) Isn’t The Wrestler a Rocky-type story that would appeal to the Academy? Or is Mickey Rourke not looked upon fondly? Or is Darren Aronofsky a Hollywood outsider?
I haven’t seen The Wrestler or The Dark Knight, so I’ll have to reserve judgment once these movies are relegated to the bargain bin.
I know I have different tastes than you guys because I did not enjoy There Will Be Blood.
Posted by Reed Farrington on January 25th, 2009@reed
“Isn’t The Wrestler a Rocky-type story that would appeal to the Academy?”
Nope, it´s completly the other way around. What makes the Wrestler so great is that it´s a story that feels real. Definatly not a feel good movie, but no depressing experience also.
“Or is Mickey Rourke not looked upon fondly?”
He had some tough times in the last twenty or so years, but at least he got nominated for best actor.
“Or is Darren Aronofsky a Hollywood outsider?”
This comes much closer. Especially after he flipped the finger at the Globes this year. Also his movies aren´t your typical hollywood-food. “Pi”, “Requiem fo a dream”, “The Fountain” or now the “Wrestler” are so much more than just movies for easy consumption. They need the viewer to switch on their brain, not the stuff for big audiences really.
Posted by theDia on January 25th, 2009The Wrestler has the one thing that There Will Be Blood didn’t have: an honest performance.
It’s an awesome movie. That being said, I can’t imagine you getting anything out of it though Reed.
Posted by Henrik on January 25th, 2009I didn’t think it would get nominated because (a) it’s dark and depressing, and (b) it’s about wrestling.
Posted by Sean on January 25th, 2009“I didn’t think it would get nominated because (a) it’s dark and depressing, and (b) it’s about wrestling.
Posted by Sean on January 25th, 2009″
I’m sure “dark and depressing” doesn’t stop movies from being nominated…as for wrestling, is it any worse than any other sport/event?
Posted by Tomas on January 25th, 2009Benjamin Button- Weak Katrina framing device, relies too heavily on special effects/make-up, main actors have had better performances.
Frost/Nixon- More like bore/boring. Just kidding I haven’t seen this yet, but I really enjoyed watching W. this year so we’ll see if it’s better than that. I don’t think Ron Howard will ever be able to top Space Cowboys…
Milk- I haven’t seen it yet, and it seems like it should be alright, but (in my imagination at least) plays into the notion that Oscar nominated films need to have overtly depressing endings
The Reader- Once again I haven’t seen the film yet, and I’m not going to make light of events from World War II, but the Oscars have recognized several films about Nazi’s, WW II era soldiers, etc. It’s well tread ground. I’m pretty sure we have fought some wars before and since that have been pretty gruesome. How about recognizing that academy.
Slum Dog Millionaire- Once again I can’t stand the framing device. I felt like everything in this film was artificially placed to get a specific response fo western audiences. Lachrymal Porn.
Posted by Mane on January 25th, 2009I suppose Million Dollar Baby won in 2004, but in general, it seems like the Academy tends to go with movies that are more uplifting and have happy endings. Can anyone think of other examples that go against this?
And wrestling doesn’t get the same amount of respect as other sports because the outcome is predetermined, and because it’s seen as low brow entertainment.
Posted by Sean on January 25th, 2009It definitely bugs me that the Academy failed to recognize some of this year’s best films like Rachel Getting Married, The Visitor, The Wrestler, and yes, even The Dark Knight, in bigger ways than they did. But it doesn’t surprise me at all, I learned long ago that AMPAS can’t be relied on, and I’m at least greatful that some great performances were nominated, even if they won’t win.
The part that bugs me the most are when I hear friends of mine, casual movie-goers, saying they plan to see the five best picture nominees, even after I tell them that there are way better movies to see and I know they are going to be disappointed, or even if they like them, they still won’t know what they are missing out on.
Posted by Ashley on January 25th, 2009“It’s not a consensus of critical acclaim, because if I’m not mistaken, members of the Academy are industry professionals, not critics.”
Exactly. Which is why people need to stop thinking that this is “an awards show for the ordinary man”. It’s not. Professionals from each category (DPs, art directors, etc) gather together and pick THEIR top nominees. So people need to stop griping about how their movies didn’t get picked. It’s ONE opinion and ONE award out of MANY (just without all the Hollywood glitter of being an “Oscar”) award shows. It’s their opinion for Chrissakes. You don’t have to (and probably won’t) agree with them. In the end it just amounts to the number of Oscar stickers they can slap on a DVD box.
Posted by Falsk on January 26th, 2009in other news, the razzies were spot on this year …
Posted by Joel on January 26th, 2009Leave a Reply