Oscar Nominations are out

[Jeff Lebowski]

So you're saying believeability/reality ought to be considered when it comes to honoring movie instead of it's artistic merits?

Not "instead of". Perhaps "in addition to".

More specifically, I find highly unrealistic comic book movies to be entertaining but I have a tough time taking them too seriously.

[frank ryan]

i'm going to see slumdog millionare tonight. i'll you peeps what i think of it. but i love danny boyle's work

[Flystripper]

i'm going to see slumdog millionare tonight. i'll you peeps what i think of it. but i love danny boyle's work

I really enjoyed it.

[RockyBalboa]

Not "instead of". Perhaps "in addition to".

More specifically, I find highly unrealistic comic book movies to be entertaining but I have a tough time taking them too seriously.

Most movies based upon a comic book character,,well yeah I get that but....
of the 5 movies nominated can you say they are darker in tone than TDK was?

[SteelBlue]

The Dark Knight has some serious issues:

#3 It's based on a comic book, and Hollywood likes making money off comics, but they don't respect them, they just pimp them out.

This is exactly right. I think many of us here feel the same way. As Leb said, these films can be entertaining but it's tough to take a comic book movie seriously.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Most movies based upon a comic book character,,well yeah I get that but....
of the 5 movies nominated can you say they are darker in tone than TDK was?

I haven't seen any of them yet, but I plan to. I am always about six months beyond the times on stuff like this.

I don't think my argument has anything to do with "darker in tone", i.e. "darker in tone" does not always equate to quality.

I guess when it comes to what I would classify as "best-picture caliber quality" I am partial to a well-done drama like American Beauty or Million Dollar Baby. Or a good historical drama like Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan.

[RockyBalboa]

I haven't seen any of them yet, but I plan to. I am always about six months beyond the times on stuff like this.

I don't think my argument has anything to do with "darker in tone", i.e. "darker in tone" does not always equate to quality.

I guess when it comes to what I would classify as "best-picture caliber quality" I am partial to a well-done drama like American Beauty or Million Dollar Baby. Or a good historical drama like Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan.

Okay but wouldn't darker in tone counteract the "not taking it seriously" thing?

And TDK was very much a well done drama/action flick.

So...the reasoning I'm hearing from people is that it's because it's a movie based on a comic book character....and my reaction is simply..."If it's very well done....then so what?"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Okay but wouldn't darker in tone counteract the "not taking it seriously" thing?

But that's part of the irony. He were have this dark, tragic tale in Dark Knight, but at the same time the main character is talking in that ridiculous voice and wearing that goofy outfit that would blend in perfectly with the trick-or-treaters on Halloween. I guess for me there is a limit to which a comic book movie can be taken seriously.

But hey, that's just me. My son thinks it is the greatest movie ever and he saw it many times. Including the premier night.

[TripletDaddy]

My personal opinion was that TDK was an entertaining movie, but not extremely well done.

The dilaogue was insipid, which is appropriate for a comic book movie. The memorable quotes are all 1-liners delivered by the Joker. And by "all," I mean maybe 2 or 3 things he said. Yes, the pencil gag was good. Was there any other lines that stood out?

The acting was average: Batman's annoying voice, Gyllenhaal's delivery, etc. Besides Ledger, did anyone else even deliver a noteworthy performance, above and beyond any other average movie? I would also throw in the obvious casting error in choosing Gyllenhaal.

It was CGI driven. This in and of itself isn't a deal killer. But it seems that when the CGI is not for historical accuracy, then the movie ceases to be a serious movie and becomes more of a teen flick. One notable exception would be LOTR, although that Best Pic nod was obviously a capitulation to all the awards and BO it had done in total.

Chracter development: Harvey Two Face goes evil because his girlfriend dies? Hmm....

Suspension of disbelief: again, Oscar doesn't usually favor movies wherein suspension of disbelief is required for the entire movie. Exceptions to this are rare, but do exist.

There is a reason why these comic book/teen flicks do not win Oscars. They are not deserving of such. See also, comedies.

Doesn't mean these movies are not fun to watch.

[Brian]

on believeability: i agree, esp. re: benjamin button.
a 17 yr. old getting it on w/ a 50 year old?
sheesh

[RockyBalboa]

It was CGI driven. This in and of itself isn't a deal killer. But it seems that when the CGI is not for historical accuracy, then the movie ceases to be a serious movie and becomes more of a teen flick. One notable exception would be LOTR, although that Best Pic nod was obviously a capitulation to all the awards and BO it had done in total.

The Dark Knight was CGI driven?

Most of the movie had very little computer animation effects in it,,,especially compared to the majority of comic book and sci-fi movies.

[TripletDaddy]

The Dark Knight was CGI driven?

Most of the movie had very little computer animation effects in it,,,especially compared to the majority of comic book and sci-fi movies.

well, a few that come to mind.....the explosions, the buildings on fire, the car chase scenes, the scene of batman speeding towards the Joker in the street, the shots where batman is using the cell phone to eavesdrop, many of the shots of 2-Face after his accident...all of these use computer generated effects.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The Dark Knight was CGI driven?

Most of the movie had very little computer animation effects in it,,,especially compared to the majority of comic book and sci-fi movies.

Rocky is right, DDD. They went to great lengths to avoid CGI in the production of this film.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/h...?currentPage=1

Yowza. Your credibility just took a big hit. AND YOU ARE THE KING OF POP CULTURE!

[TripletDaddy]

Rocky is right, DDD. They went to great lengths to avoid CGI in the production of this film.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/h...?currentPage=1

Yowza. Your credibility just took a big hit. AND YOU ARE THE KING OF POP CULTURE!

Interesting article, but that only addresses a few scenes. The article itself actually admits to using CGI.

I dont think the article addressed any of the scenes I mentioned above. It seemed to focus on one or two scenes only.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting article, but that only addresses a few scenes. The article itself actually admits to using CGI.

I dont think the article addressed any of the scenes I mentioned above. It seemed to focus on one or two scenes only.

Come on. You said:

It was CGI driven.

Admitting to using "a little CGI" is a far cry from "CGI driven".

It's OK to whiff one now and then. We all do it.