Best Picture 2008 - New and Improved

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Crim122

I am sure they have been played around you if you actually looked when they were released and what not. They dont promote good movies one TV so you actually have to search when it comes to "oscar bait" films.

I look plenty. I check the movie times every week as I go often. You can look at the box office totals of those movies and see that they havent played in most areas. The oscars are the biggest anti-popularity contest and scam in Hollywood. Why do .000000001% of America decide what is the best movie?

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

I have only seen 6 of the movies, I vote Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

[Crim122]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I look plenty. I check the movie times every week as I go often. You can look at the box office totals of those movies and see that they havent played in most areas. The oscars are the biggest anti-popularity contest and scam in Hollywood. Why do .000000001% of America decide what is the best movie?

Because if most Americans decided one what should win Oscars it would be the MTV awards not the Oscars. The Oscars is more about how well a movie is made, not how well it entertains....but some people are entertained by well made films.

[thedarkangel1975]

a lot of best picture are usually limited release

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Crim122

Because if most Americans decided one what should win Oscars it would be the MTV awards not the Oscars. The Oscars is more about how well a movie is made, not how well it entertains....but some people are entertained by well made films.

How can a movie considered to be "well made" if it doesnt entertain. Using your example above, Saw, was extremely well made. The story was great. It was edited well, done well, acted well. Given the story that movie was trying to tell, it was done perfectly. So shouldnt that have been given consideration under your argument? Again, if a painting is made and submitted for judging, and only 5 people out of 10,000 think it is the best, but they are the only judges, does that really make it the best.

[Crim122]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

How can a movie considered to be "well made" if it doesnt entertain. Using your example above, Saw, was extremely well made. The story was great. It was edited well, done well, acted well. Given the story that movie was trying to tell, it was done perfectly. So shouldnt that have been given consideration under your argument? Again, if a painting is made and submitted for judging, and only 5 people out of 10,000 think it is the best, but they are the only judges, does that really make it the best.

Not going to go on Saw because I dont like it at all, but we will use There Will Be Blood...more people find that movie to be a boring waste of film than a great movie (from my personal experience). But its said to be one of the best American films in recent decades.

If I had 10,000 people tell me that Bangkok Dangerous was a great film, and 5 tell me it down right sucked I would still go with the 5 people...that is if I had seen the trailer.

Same with The Blair Witch, I dont know ONE person IRL that thinks that movie is even decent, and that is the reason I rented it...I rented a movie because everyone I know told me it sucked...and it ends up being my favorite horror movie LOL.

[thedarkangel1975]

There Will Be Blood was OK at best. That movie was shot beautifully and cinematography is awesome. The beginning of the story starts off great then movie drags until the derrick fire and the ending was great. The problem I had watching the movie I felt like I was the editor of reality show and I was seeing everything. Stuff that should have been edited out.

As for Saw the series is a good horror franchise. I would not call the movies the best, but they are better then the average slasher films.

The Blair Witch sucked. It looked like a wedding in the woods. People scared of sticks. There is a good reason that cast and film makers have never done anything substainal since then.

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

Originally Posted by Crim122

Because if most Americans decided one what should win Oscars it would be the MTV awards not the Oscars. The Oscars is more about how well a movie is made, not how well it entertains....but some people are entertained by well made films.

+1

SAW was awful

[Crim122]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

The Blair Witch sucked. It looked like a wedding in the woods. People scared of sticks. There is a good reason that cast and film makers have never done anything substainal since then.

except its the most realistic horror film since John Carpenters Halloween (imo), if anyone gets lost in the woods for that long and shit like that happens at night you are going to be terrified...if I did not know TBWP was fake I would have sworn it was real.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Crim122

Not going to go on Saw because I dont like it at all, but we will use There Will Be Blood...more people find that movie to be a boring waste of film than a great movie (from my personal experience). But its said to be one of the best American films in recent decades.

If I had 10,000 people tell me that Bangkok Dangerous was a great film, and 5 tell me it down right sucked I would still go with the 5 people...that is if I had seen the trailer.

Same with The Blair Witch, I dont know ONE person IRL that thinks that movie is even decent, and that is the reason I rented it...I rented a movie because everyone I know told me it sucked...and it ends up being my favorite horror movie LOL.

Your making my point. There will be blood. You said it yourself, most people found the movie to be boring. But it is said to be one of the best movies in recent decades....by who? One critic? two? Why does that movie get Oscar consideration, yet a movie like Iron Man, popcorn flick or not, was well done and nearly universally liked and appreciated and gets no love? It is a stupid system. The oscars and the BCS system in college football make a perfect couple.

[thedarkangel1975]

I disagree. They had a book and it would have told them to follow the river. A river will lead to civilation not in a circle they were walking in. The beginning of The Descent was more realistic to me. Not the part with the creatures, but trapped in the cave and the claustrophobia.

[thedarkangel1975]

Anyways I disagree that the best picture should be a big money winner. WHat if you made a movie al la Clerks. It was limited release, low budget, and people that did get to see it loved all the aspects. Then the sequel to Twlight comes out and makes 10 times what you did, their film is not as good but since tween girls hormones are acting up the revenue the movie generates warrants that movie best picture, how would you feel?
I am not saying every best picture is the best and everyone should like it. people have different tastes and opinions.

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

Critics you may not always agree with them but its what they get paid to do.

I loved There Will Be Blood and thought Iron Man was alright but not oscar worthy. Although I thought Crash was awful and should not have won for best picture.

[thedarkangel1975]

I liked Crash. It wasn't awful, but I think the field was weak that year. I don't think Titanic should have won best picture though. it was good but not great.

[Kaiju]

Personally I think The Dark Knight should win. Just considering everything that was in that film, how everything was made so well and how everything came together, I believe it should win. Of course it won't win, but that's what my vote goes to. I still wanna see Slumdog Millionare though.

[anomynous]

The Wrestler by far................

Then TDK

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

Slumdog was a good move but I dont think it should win
TDK was a great movie but I dont think it should win either
Curious Case of Benjamin Button great movie and I think is should win

Frank should win for Frost/Nixon he did great


I still want to see

The Wrestler
Revolutionary Road
Doubt

[Secretagentnumber6]

I actually just saW Benjamin Button, and I had to vote for it. I live in a small city though so most of the others will not make it here any time soon. TDK will likely not even be nominated for best picture, academy voters will just not do it, and in my opinion I would not either. Great Movie yes, oscar contender for best picture likely not. Crazier things have happened though and if I am wrong then so be it, just my opinion.

[toef]

Originally Posted by Secretagentnumber6

I actually just saW Benjamin Button, and I had to vote for it. I live in a small city though so most of the others will not make it here any time soon. TDK will likely not even be nominated for best picture, academy voters will just not do it, and in my opinion I would not either. Great Movie yes, oscar contender for best picture likely not. Crazier things have happened though and if I am wrong then so be it, just my opinion.

I agree. I'm thinking maybe the poll was just interpreted as an open poll for what people thought was the best movie of the year, whereas I meant to imply it was a poll to predict what the Academy will pick next month.

I'm not knocking TDK at all, and thought it was a great movie, but I'm surprised at how far ahead it is in the poll. This suggests to me that people were/are voting for their personal favorites, rather than predicting what will win the Oscar, which is fine.

I voted for Benjamin Button. Did I like TDK more? Probably. Will I watch TDK more over the next 100 years of my life? Probably. Will the Academy give TDK the Oscar for BP over Benjamin Button? Doubt it.

But, like you said, crazy things can happen, and if the Academy pulls out that surprise, so be it. I won't complain.

[masoud90]

Just because a movie is not 'entertaining' to the majority of the audience, does not mean it does not entertain. There Will Be Blood was very entertaining to ME.

The .000000000001% of the American population that chooses these movies (which is about 2000+ members of the academy) are people who have established themselves within the entertainment industry for decades...People who have put their everything into these movies...and certainly people who watch every movie that comes out each year and MANY movies that average Americans do not watch.

I for one watch many of the movies that are mainstream, and also those who have been critically acclaimed. I have also watched and am watching a great deal of older films. Now by older films I am not talking about those movies that everyone has watched at least once, but movies that most people have not heard about.

These movies that get picked are well made; that means that all the aspects of the film are fantastic; cinematography, acting, lighting, costumes, writing, score.

Films like SAW may be entertaining, but they do not have what it takes to win big film awards. The reason is because films with intellectual themes are those that become winners at the awards. Films that will take multiple viewings to appreciate. SAW was entertaining, but everything was spelled out for you. Art is something that you have to see not by what's given to you, but what the 'hidden' message is. There doesn't need to be a mystery as always, but films that will play with your emotions. Films like ATONEMENT do that very well because they engage in your personal feelings...while films like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN play with your mind in psychological ways - how some characters never evolve - and what the turn of events really mean. Unfortunately, SAW does not have that.

But if you bring up other horror movies, The Exorcist, those aspects are present.

Also, most Oscar films are shown at art house cinemas rather than regular movie theatres. They might not be close to your home, but that's the only way to see them.

And also, Slumdog Millionaire is wide release.