Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Starbreaker, Jan 10, 2013.
It was humanist enough for their tastes, but I'll bet the compex plot threw them off.
Probably a mix of low crititcal enthusiasm (64% on RT) and poor box office performace.
The Academy have shown time and time again that they are a bunch of simple-minded fools who think that slow, depressing, and tedious are what make a great movie. Anything colorful, whimsical, or entertaining is not worth a look. Cloud Atlas didn't get nominated because they are too stupid for it. It's as simple as that. It's why unremarkable films like The King's Speech can win Best Picture, but a wildly entertaining and original film like Inception can be passed over.
THE KING'S SPEECH may have benefited from Harvey Weinstein's extraordinary clout with the Academy. So may have DJANGO. The film's nominated for Best Pic, though Tarantino isn't. Weinstein's involvement, plus releasing the film in December, may be the biggest factors here. Bear in mind, no spaghetti western has ever been nominated before....
I don't think Argo nor Les Miserables deserved best picture nominations. And although I'm waiting to be convinced when I see Django Unchained, it does seem unlikely Tarantino has suddenly become a good film maker.
I didn't believe Argo even while I was sitting in the theater, forget any pesky questions coming to mind while walking through the theater lobby. The drunken eagle cam in Les Miserables was disconcerting, not artful. Frankly, Kathryn Bigelow as near as I can tell was the designated anti-James Cameron/Avatar vote by people who preferred Mark Boal's subtext to Cameron's. So I can't agree that there is anything peculiar about directorial shut outs for Affleck, Bigelow and Hooper.
I've already forgotten if Skyfall got any nominations. A movie so unremarkable for anything good but box office deserved to be forgotten.
Sally Field is actually a lead actress but apparently the politics of campaigning require mislabeling. This is a shame I imagine, since it seems likely that a flashy song performance by Anne Hathaway will be favored over a genuinely accomplished role.
The rule of thumb these days with the Oscars is find out which film was produced by Harvey Weinstein and that is the winner.
The best picture field has been weakened by the split in the best director noms, which may give Lincoln a shot but won't be surprised if Silver Linings Playbook gets the prize. It did get a lot of important noms. Life of Pi will probably sweep the technical awards including SFX.
But... I'm the Batman.
A wacky idea: you don't think Affleck got snubbed by the directing wing of the Academy because of that crack in ARGO about how "you can teach a monkey to direct"?
One would like to think that folks would not be that thin-skinned, but . . . .
^ Who knows? Maybe they were skittish about not nominating Bigelow either, and didn't want the guy's Middle East thriller to get a nom hers didn't. Or maybe they figured that, with a script like that, the movie practically directs itself.
There were four reasonably big-name directors in contention this year who didn't get nominated (Affleck and Bigelow, who seemed like sure things, and Hooper and Tarantino, who were gunning for the fifth slot). I would imagine the balloting for the last few spots was probably incredibly tight.
Den of Geek speculates on why Cloud Atlas got shafted.
Is there really anything to speculate about there? It was poorly received overall, and didn't make that much money, so there was no reason to think it would get any attention from AMPAS. None of the critics organizations, SAG, HFPA, etc. did.
Box office doesn't matter when it comes to the Oscars.
Just look at how many major categories The Dark Knight was nominated for...
Not only that but the fact that Cloud Atlas didn't get nominated for any of technical awards is ridiculous no matter the so-called poor performance. If nothing else, make-up, special effects, and film editing all deserved recognition. I honestly can't think of any film this year more deserving of the Best Make-Up Oscar than Cloud Atlas and yet it doesn't even get nominated.
I agree. And while makeup was second to none, the editing was even better!
Yes it does.
I didn't say it was the only thing that mattered. There are three paths to Oscar nominations:
1. Be a big financial success (preferably in a genre Oscar likes, but if you're sufficiently big, even if you aren't, i.e., Avatar).
2. Be a big critical success.
3. Be both of those things at once (ideal!).
Or, just have Harvey Weinstein running your campaign.
But Cloud Atlas was none of those things. Oscar voters go for their favourite movies, for the most part.
Tarantino disappointed by Leonardo Dicaprio Snub,
I didn't think he had enough screen time for a supporting nomination.
As for Christoph Waltz, he clearly stole the show. I hope he wins.
Judi Dench got an supportin' Oscar nomination and win for a role that took up about three minutes of screentime, or something. Basically, she was in one scene at the end of a long movie, and walked away with an Oscar.
^^^Anne Hathaway got an Oscar nomination for "acting" a character who is hated by everyone at her factory although only the foreman had any sort of reason; got fired; didn't try to get another job apparently; cut her hair; turned a trick; promptly died of sin; came back from heaven to sing in a chorus. She's already won a Golden Globe, and is apparently the front runner for best supporting actress. The song was pretty good for a non-professional singer. But I don't think anyone can plausibly say she did great acting, bringing a character to life.
We're shown the city is full of desperately poor people. That she couldn't get another job in that climate is a rather obvious inference, given how she's reduced to selling off precious items.
Numerous people are plausibly saying that, including critics who were otherwise lukewarm on the film in question.
Separate names with a comma.