Log In · Register

 
Academy Awards-which film should win?, for Best Picture?
goth-nina
post Jan 27 2009, 03:38 PM
Post #1


don't call me shirley.
****

Group: Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Oct 2008
Member No: 689,028



Here are the nominees:

-Slumdog Millionaire
-Frost/Nixon
-The Reader
-The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
-Milk


I saw every movie online & in theaters, & my vote will go to Slumdog. Yes, they really deserve it. Not out of pity, the screenplay was just incredible. I'd be devastated if it was based on a true story. ermm.gif

I saw Benjamin Button, it was nice, but not Oscar worthy. Milk made me cry, Sean Penn is just talented. Frost/Nixon was pretty awesome too, i enjoyed it. & The Reader was excellent, but i don't know why everyone's making such a huge deal of Winslet's performance huh.gif . The story & plot was beautiful, but her acting isn't what they all awarding. She was AMAZING in Titanic though aniwink.gif . OH! I also saw Doubt, which i was suprised it wasn't nominated in this catergory. All these movies were very good, but Slumdog deserves it. thumbsup.gif
 
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 23)
hi-C
post Jan 27 2009, 03:41 PM
Post #2


Amberific.
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,913
Joined: Jul 2004
Member No: 29,772



I haven't seen any of the nominated movies (sad, I know), but I think it'll go to Milk or Benjamin Button. Do you really think Slumdog deserves it?
 
Joanne
post Jan 27 2009, 03:52 PM
Post #3



*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 7,155
Joined: Feb 2005
Member No: 95,404



I've only watched The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and even though I enjoyed it, I didn't think it's good enough to deserve the award for Best Feature Film. I'm hoping to see Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, and Milk soon.
 
berrypop90
post Jan 27 2009, 06:25 PM
Post #4


Jooleeah <3
*****

Group: Official Designer
Posts: 687
Joined: Jun 2008
Member No: 662,481



Slumdog's gonna win(but I fell in love with Benjamin Button).
 
shanaynay
post Jan 27 2009, 06:41 PM
Post #5


Has a PhD in horribleness
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 866
Joined: Sep 2008
Member No: 686,301



I'd vote Frost/Nixon >_>
 
NoSex
post Jan 27 2009, 06:51 PM
Post #6


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



what a terribly uninteresting list... 2008 was not a good year for the academy.
in either case, i'll only be happy as long as slumdog millionaire does not win. milk winning would, at least, be a gesture of repentance for the homophobic bullshit that went down with crash vs. brokeback. the academy is a piece of shit commercial & conservative machine anyways.



p.s. that let the right one in isn't even nominated for best foreign feature is such a sadness.
p.p.s. hopefully man on wire will win best documentary feature.
p.p.p.s. hopefully the dark knight will win nothing. god, what a trash bag. if they have to win anything, just give the dead man the award and let's get over it, f*ck.
 
fainaru
post Jan 27 2009, 06:57 PM
Post #7


gazette.cassis
****

Group: Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Dec 2004
Member No: 73,433



I only saw Slumdog out of the five, so I will hold my judgements for when I see the rest of them .. one day :P

But I liked Slumdog lots. The kids did such a great job acting, and go brown pride :)
 
superstitious
post Jan 27 2009, 07:10 PM
Post #8


Tick tock, Bill
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 8,764
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,948



QUOTE(shanaynay @ Jan 27 2009, 05:41 PM) *
I'd vote Frost/Nixon >_>

Yeah, from this list, that would be my vote as well.
 
legit02quit
post Jan 27 2009, 08:02 PM
Post #9


Member
**

Group: Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Jan 2009
Member No: 711,502



I would say either Benjamin Button or Slumdog Millionaire is gonna win.

 
Gigi
post Jan 27 2009, 08:11 PM
Post #10


in a matter of time
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 7,151
Joined: Aug 2005
Member No: 191,357



I've only seen Slumdog Millionaire and it was thoroughly entertaining. Don't know if it really "lives up" to Academy standards though. I mean...with that ending...what geezer in their right mind would let that through? XD.gif jk

Will watch the others soon (hopefully).
 
Rachel
post Jan 28 2009, 01:37 PM
Post #11


i've never wanted anything rationale.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 8,449
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 19,045



Oh Gigi, I looooved the Bollywood ending. Definitely LOL'ed!


Gah, this year sucks for the Academy. All good movies were either ignored or pushed into stupid categories. Cannot believe Dark Knight got so many nominations. THE MOVIE WASN'T THAT GOOOOOD.


On topic though, I think best picture will probably go to Milk or Button. Academy is hardcore sucking Bradgelinas dick this year.
 
dosomethin888
post Jan 28 2009, 03:04 PM
Post #12


Senior Member
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Jul 2008
Member No: 663,413



Gran Torino. Why the hell is it not up for best picture?
 
hi-C
post Jan 28 2009, 03:15 PM
Post #13


Amberific.
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,913
Joined: Jul 2004
Member No: 29,772



^ Because it wasn't good? Or because those others were better? Clint Eastwood does not an instant Academy nominee make.
 
Tung
post Jan 28 2009, 03:18 PM
Post #14


٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 14,309
Joined: Nov 2004
Member No: 65,593



^ Stupid. Gran Torino was way better than 3 of the movies on that list.

My vote goes to Slumdog Millionaire though.
 
hypnotique
post Jan 28 2009, 04:06 PM
Post #15


Live long and prosper.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 5,525
Joined: Nov 2006
Member No: 478,024



QUOTE
p.p.p.s. hopefully the dark knight will win nothing. god, what a trash bag. if they have to win anything, just give the dead man the award and let's get over it, f*ck.


I think i might love you.

THE DARK KNIGHT SUCKED COCK AND HEATH I AM CONVINCED WAS NOT A GOOD JOKER.

there i f*cking said it.As a big batman comic book fan i did not care much for his portrayal of the joker. jack did it better.
 
Joanne
post Feb 23 2009, 12:03 AM
Post #16



*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 7,155
Joined: Feb 2005
Member No: 95,404



YES.
 
hi-C
post Feb 23 2009, 12:16 AM
Post #17


Amberific.
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,913
Joined: Jul 2004
Member No: 29,772



Part of me wanted Slumdog to win because I love Dev Patel from his days in Skins and the other part of me wanted Milk to win to make up for the Brokeback Mountain shaft. I was pleased with the result.
 
Joanne
post Feb 23 2009, 12:21 AM
Post #18



*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 7,155
Joined: Feb 2005
Member No: 95,404



^ I was actually really surprised Sean Penn won Best Leading Actor... I was so sure it would be Mickey Rourke because I had heard so many good things about his performance.

Man, I've really got to go watch Milk.


And Carrie, I want to reply to all your Twitter updates LOL
 
hi-C
post Feb 23 2009, 12:32 AM
Post #19


Amberific.
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,913
Joined: Jul 2004
Member No: 29,772



^ Then do ittttttt. I love getting @replies!

I thought it was going to go to Rourke too, but the Oscars tend to have their causes and this year's was apparently gay marriage. But I've heard nothing but good things about both of their performances, so in either case the award would've been well earned.

I too need to watch Milk, if only for Emile Hirsch and James Franco.
 
AngryBaby
post Feb 23 2009, 02:32 AM
Post #20


L!ckitySplit
*******

Group: Member
Posts: 4,325
Joined: Apr 2005
Member No: 129,329



QUOTE(NoSex @ Jan 27 2009, 07:51 PM) *
what a terribly uninteresting list... 2008 was not a good year for the academy.
in either case, i'll only be happy as long as slumdog millionaire does not win. milk winning would, at least, be a gesture of repentance for the homophobic bullshit that went down with crash vs. brokeback. the academy is a piece of shit commercial & conservative machine anyways.
p.s. that let the right one in isn't even nominated for best foreign feature is such a sadness.
p.p.s. hopefully man on wire will win best documentary feature.
p.p.p.s. hopefully the dark knight will win nothing. god, what a trash bag. if they have to win anything, just give the dead man the award and let's get over it, f*ck.



you know your not as unique as you think you are.

actually your image fits your opinion very well. your like a generic avatar for the vast army of "beatnicks" who think its cool to hate anything mainstream.

hey it may not be true.....but you're doing a damn good interpretation of it. and you've been doing so....for YEARS.
 
mipadi
post Feb 23 2009, 11:26 AM
Post #21


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,648
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



I was a bit disappointed with Slumdog winning Best Picture, but at least all the nominees were reasonable this year. It's nothing like 1998, when Shakespeare in f*cking Love won Best Picture. sick.gif That, and Titanic the year before, were what made me realize the Oscars meant shit anyway...
 
KilluhErick
post Feb 23 2009, 11:43 AM
Post #22


cαиdчмαи™
***

Group: Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Feb 2009
Member No: 713,621



i realy liked all of them so idk ....
 
NoSex
post Feb 23 2009, 01:35 PM
Post #23


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(AngryBaby @ Feb 23 2009, 01:32 AM) *
you know your not as unique as you think you are.


thank you for your fresh & alternative angle, yawn.

QUOTE(AngryBaby @ Feb 23 2009, 01:32 AM) *
actually your image fits your opinion very well. your like a generic avatar for the vast army of "beatnicks" who think its cool to hate anything mainstream.


i like plenty of things that tons of other people like - things that are "mainstream" & popular (gossip girl, pineapple express, the violent femmes, etc.). further, & most importantly, i like things that i like & i don't like things that i don't like. it's true that i'm highly critical, however... i am not superficial. i don't dislike anything merely because it is popular (i may have my doubts or suspicions, but i must always see something for myself). i like or dislike things based on that thing's own specific merits, my articulation of my taste is usually characteristic of this (i.e. full of detail & example).

the mainstream is popular for a reason... usually, it is designed to be thoughtless, digestible, deceivingly clever, cliche, & non-subversive. i like my art subversive, thoughtful, indigestible, witless, etc. my tastes are often in opposition with what makes mainstream entertainment enjoyable to the masses... this is simply a matter of my personal sentiment & character.

QUOTE(AngryBaby @ Feb 23 2009, 01:32 AM) *
hey it may not be true.....but you're doing a damn good interpretation of it. and you've been doing so....for YEARS.


even in your quote i hail two tremendously popular films (man on wire & let the right one in). just because i lampoon two others (slumdog millionaire & the dark knight) you seem to take issue. but, it's sort of contrary: you're just cherry picking. or, worse, you're just reacting because you enjoyed those particular films...?

in either case, my feelings are genuine. i don't mean to look "cool" by not liking movies. if that were my intent don't you think i would go somewhere where people thought it looks "cool" to not like the dark knight? you know, as opposed to a place that characterizes america's ass sucking (as per usual)?
 
mipadi
post Feb 25 2009, 02:52 PM
Post #24


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,648
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(NoSex @ Feb 23 2009, 01:35 PM) *
the mainstream is popular for a reason... usually, it is designed to be thoughtless, digestible, deceivingly clever, cliche, & non-subversive. i like my art subversive, thoughtful, indigestible, witless, etc. my tastes are often in opposition with what makes mainstream entertainment enjoyable to the masses... this is simply a matter of my personal sentiment & character.


Do you see it possible, or even necessary, to change this facet of mainstream media?

I thought of this post today while I was reading a collection of one- and two-act plays written by Tennessee Williams in the 70s and early 80s. Williams is, of course, lauded for plays like The Glass Menagerie, but after the 50s he won very few awards. His later, shorter works are fascinating, since he experimented much more with his ideas, and pushed the limits of theater. But, as I noted, his work was so "out there" than critics often didn't even know how to understand his later plays; and while it represents some of his best work, he got little recognition for it.

It made me think a lot about my own writing. True art is written more for oneself than an audience, but as a writer, I do like to feel that the common person can understand my work, if only so my message is heard. But obviously, plays, novels, and films that go "against the grain" are often lost in the swarm of mainstream media that is more palatable to the masses. This really raises two questions in my mind: How can you wean people off of "stereotypical" media that doesn't really make people think; and more importantly, since "good" art is generally written for the artist and not an audience, does it even matter if an artist's work is well-received by the masses?
 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: