• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Trek's chances at best picture just increased?

Yeah...I don't think Tolkien counts, because it's a literary classic. The Academy eats that stuff up naturally. It's no hard sell.
 
No. Politics. Please.

Take that where it belongs (which ain't here.)
While I understand the desire to keep politics out of the forums, and think the phrase "liberal nutjobs" may have crossed the line, I think it's fair in a thread about Trek's Oscar chances to point out the fact that the Academy does in fact like to nominate films that have a liberal political message. Films that either have conservative messages, or no message at all, are less likely to be nominated.
 
No. Politics. Please.

Take that where it belongs (which ain't here.)
While I understand the desire to keep politics out of the forums, and think the phrase "liberal nutjobs" may have crossed the line, I think it's fair in a thread about Trek's Oscar chances to point out the fact that the Academy does in fact like to nominate films that have a liberal political message. Films that either have conservative messages, or no message at all, are less likely to be nominated.
Then surely, there must be a way to say so without it coming off as having either a political agenda to advance or an intent to troll?

If something with a political aspect does touch upon the movie or upon the story told by the movie, then I have no problem with it being discussed here as such, but I have been asking for a long time that U.S. partisan politics in particular be kept to forums oriented to such topics (i.e., TNZ.) Finger-pointing at "liberal nutjobs" (or at any other similarly-charged political epithet/subgroup) falls well outside the purview of this forum and I would like it to stay outside; we've got enough divisive issues here already, what with canon/continuity, alternate timelines, ship length, Captain April and tubes in Engineering, without party politics getting into the mix, too.
 
Even with 10 nominees, I don't think that Star Trek will be nominated. Summer blockbusters just don't seem to be what the academy looks at for "Best Picture". It would be nice to see a nomination, but after the big academy pictures and the top artsy indy flicks that most people have never heard of make the list, there probably won't be much room for Trek.
 
I just want all the actors to be invited to the Awards event, so I can watch them walk down the red carpet in their best suits and gowns.
 
Reason for star trek nomination

- Well made movie that's ratings are nearly on par with slum dog millionaire (on both RT and IMDB)

- Increase in available slots.

Reason against:

- It won't make it.

?
 
Very interesting; thanks! A few non-technical, non-musical entries:

1968
* Oscars
Best Actor (Cliff Robertson) : Charly
1977
* Nominations
Best Picture : Star Wars
Best Director (George Lucas) : Star Wars
Best Director (Steven Speilberg) : Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Best Supporting Actor (Alec Guinness) : Star Wars
Best Supporting Actress (Melinda Dillon) : Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Screenplay (written directly for the screen) : Star Wars
1978
* Nominations
Best Actor (Laurence Olivier) : The Boys from Brazil
1984
* Nominations
Best Actor (Jeff Bridges) : Starman
1985
* Oscars
Best Supporting Actor (Don Ameche) : Cocoon
1986
* Nominations
Best Actress (Sigourney Weaver) : Aliens
1995
* Nominations
Best Supporting Actor (Brad Pitt) : Twelve Monkeys

You missed E.T.'s Best Picture nomination from 1982.
 
^'cos it's sci fi.

But it's that exactly WHY the Academy has decided to have ten nominations instead of just five? To open up the possible field of contenders to movies more like Dark Night than The Piano?

That's not an argument for or against Trek getting a nomination or an award, just an observation.
 
Reason for star trek nomination

- Well made movie that's ratings are nearly on par with slum dog millionaire (on both RT and IMDB)

- Increase in available slots.

Reason against:

- It won't make it.

?

it's sci fi. that's the biggest reason.
 
Very interesting; thanks! A few non-technical, non-musical entries:

1968
* Oscars
Best Actor (Cliff Robertson) : Charly
1977
* Nominations
Best Picture : Star Wars
Best Director (George Lucas) : Star Wars
Best Director (Steven Speilberg) : Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Best Supporting Actor (Alec Guinness) : Star Wars
Best Supporting Actress (Melinda Dillon) : Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Screenplay (written directly for the screen) : Star Wars
1978
* Nominations
Best Actor (Laurence Olivier) : The Boys from Brazil
1984
* Nominations
Best Actor (Jeff Bridges) : Starman
1985
* Oscars
Best Supporting Actor (Don Ameche) : Cocoon
1986
* Nominations
Best Actress (Sigourney Weaver) : Aliens
1995
* Nominations
Best Supporting Actor (Brad Pitt) : Twelve Monkeys

You missed E.T.'s Best Picture nomination from 1982.

yep. and Gandhi won that one. 11 Oscars.
 
^'cos it's sci fi.

But it's that exactly WHY the Academy has decided to have ten nominations instead of just five? To open up the possible field of contenders to movies more like Dark Night than The Piano?

That's not an argument for or against Trek getting a nomination or an award, just an observation.

look, if that's the reason, I'm all for it. if Trek gets nominated, I'll sit through all seventeen hours of the frickin' show!
 
My basic argument, which some here may not like, is not that Trek won't get nominated because the Academy is too elitist and anti-SF -- which they are -- but that it doesn't deserve to get nominated. Trek is just not Oscar material. It's entertaining and it's made alot of money, but is it any particularly great work of art? Not hardly.
 
My basic argument, which some here may not like, is not that Trek won't get nominated because the Academy is too elitist and anti-SF -- which they are -- but that it doesn't deserve to get nominated. Trek is just not Oscar material. It's entertaining and it's made alot of money, but is it any particularly great work of art? Not hardly.
Look upthread for the Rotten Tomatoes comparison with Slumdog Millionaire; that's what your opponents' basic argument is. Star Trek with 92% Fresh could expect to get a nomination.
 
Yeah, a nomination in and of itself isn't an indicator of winning anyways. Lots of TV shows get nominations for Emmys simply to pad out the ballot.
 
Look upthread for the Rotten Tomatoes comparison with Slumdog Millionaire; that's what your opponents' basic argument is. Star Trek with 92% Fresh could expect to get a nomination.
Oh, I understand, but just because the critics represented at Rotten Tomatoes like the film doesn't necessarily mean they think it's Oscar-worthy and, even if they do, I don't have to agree. Heck, there are many films that have actually won the Best Picture Oscar that I don't think were Oscar-worthy. *shrug*

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean any of this as a criticism of the current film. I think it's a great movie. I loved it. I'm anxiously awaiting the sequel. But I just think that an Oscar for Best Picture should denote something more than a good summer blockbuster. I think it should be something that rises above the typical film and distinguishes itself in some artistic way. In the sci-fi genre, 2001: A Space Odyssey did that. So did Alien.

Star Trek did not. It is more akin to Aliens in my mind. An excellently enjoyable film. But nothing exceptional in the annals of filmmaking. A People's Choice Award? Sure. But an Oscar? No.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top