The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I know most of you don't care about Awards shows, and I really don't either, in terms of the justice of it all.  However, it's undeniable that these shows end up justifying movie decisions in later years.  So, movies get greenlit from this process.  It's also a stage to highlight good films and give people a chance to go back and watch.  And it works.

So, I do put weight in the Awards, so it bothers me at some of the stuff that gets nominated and other things that don't.  I find that the Academy will find a movie it likes and then hitch its wagon to it for many awards that don't really apply.  The fact that best director and best picture are almost always the same is evidence of that.

This year, I see some things sticking out which to me, are nuts.

I don't know if any of you have seen the King's Speech.  It's a good movie.  But, it's not a GREAT, GREAT movie like people are heralding.  I don't put it in this year's elite films, but whatever.  If people love it, that's fine, and it's deserving of a best picture nomination.  What I don't like is how it's getting piggy-backed into other categories where it has no business.  The movie is adequately directed at best.  But I actually think it is flawed on that level and the story drags because of directorial choices.  It also has a few awkward shots that I commented on after I saw it.  There is nothing particularly special about the direction of the film, yet it's nominated for best director.  It's nuts.  Another example is Helena Bonham Carter, who is barely in the film, is nominated for best supporting actor.  WTF?  She's in the background of a few shots.

At the same time, I look at a film like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.  You may not like the movie (I loved it), but it's undeniable that editing and direction DRIVE that film.  Yet it was nominated for neither.

I also see categories for things like cinematography (which is what happens in the camera lens) and see that Avatar, I believe, won for it last year, despite almost being entirely done with computers and not in the camera.  It just seems like the people who are voting are picking movies they like in a category, rather than the specific achievements in that category.

No different than all-star balloting in baseball, or some other sports.

I agree completely, and have sort of discounted the meaningfulness of these awards for that very reason. So many great movies with exceptional (cinematography/lighting/visual effects/art direction) that get ignored just so popular-but-undeserving movies can get extra awards.

btw...I just watched Scott Pilgrim vs. the World on PPV this past weekend, and absolutely loved it, despite coming into it with a little bit of a "I don't like Michael Cera" chip on my shoulder.

Cinematography is defined as the art or technique of motion picture photography.

James Cameron helped develop an entiremely new camera just for that film.  It was a special 3D camera.  Essentially he created a new technique for motion picture photography.  I don't see why that shouldn't be considered for nomination or a win for that matter in cinematography.

I am an admitted awards show junkie.  It annoys me that with the Oscars,  there are films nominated that are only in "limited release" so they can qualify.  I realize they do this so they can then market the wide release as "Academy Award Nominated/Winner", but it takes a lot of the fun out of it when I have not even heard of some films.  I don't even try to see them anymore because it's impossible.

Secondary rant -
Remember when every song nominated was a huge hit on the radio?  Whatever happened with that?  The songs nominated now usually suck swamp water if I have even heard them.  If I have heard of them, they were most likely from a Disney film. 

PS to Sunstroke: I do plan on seeing "The Kings Speech" before the Oscars.  I hope my expectations are not to high, because I have not heard a bad thing about it.

Fair enough.  I liked Avatar plenty.  I think it should've won best picture that year.  However, from what I understood, it wasn't technically cinematography in the "Avatar" scenes.  The 3D camera was used in the regular scenes, but those weren't the spectacular part.  The stuff that Cameron had was for facial tracking.  ...amazing technology, but that is a visual effects category, not cinematography, in my opinion.