The 82nd Academy Awards & STAR TREK

I think the difference is that "Pan's Labyrinth" is one of the few excellent foreign-language films that did well in the U.S. and still were not nominated (e.g. "Life is Beautiful" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"). "Pan's Labyrinth" is especially noted as an omission because it was also nominated for Best Original Screenplay, which is an even harder category for foreign language films to crack.

 

Variety Article - "Will sci-fi find Oscar?"
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118012467.html?categoryid=3842&cs=1

 

Eh? All three of those films were nominated for Best Foreign Film, and the latter two won. I thought that's what the Foreign Film Oscar was for.

Sigh, there is the rub, ain't it? Sci-fi here is synonymous, justly to an extent, with blockbuster comic movies. It's certainly a comparison the new Trek consciously invites; but sci-fi is also a field with brilliant and wonderful Moon-type films, though I can't think of any films with Duncan Jones-esque direction, Clint Mansell-ish scoring and Sam Rockwell-like performances to name-drop off the top of my head. Kevin Spacey.

 

Hold on. Sorry, I confused myself for a second.

I was trying to say that unlike "Life is Beautiful" and "Crouching Tiger," which were both nominated in both Foreign Language Film AND Best Picture, "Pan's Labyrinth," which was expected to be nominated because of its critical reception and its Best Screenplay nomination, was not.

There is a huge distinction between the Best Foreign Language Film category and the Best Picture category, just like there is between Best Animated Film and Best Picture. That's why movies can be nominated in both categories in both those cases.

 

I'd always preferred to believe it came down to wanting to honour non-English language films seperately and the awards were mostly just geared towards recognizing the best in Hollywood rather than in general, because the alternative (yes, folks, best film every year really is American except when it's British) is just too stupid to contemplate.

That is likely my naivete. Regardless, considering Pan's Labyrinth didn't win the foreign oscar, the snub does admittedly make sense (and losing to The Lives of Others is nothing to be ashamed about, either.)

 

The Foreign Language category is a little trickier than that.

You could have a movie that is 100% in a foreign-language, but if it was produced by the United States, it can't get nominated in the Foreign Language category. And until just recently, a France-produced film that is all in Chinese couldn't get nominated either since the language in the film had to be an official language of the submitting country.

In other words, this category has so many rules and requirements that it ends up disqualifying a lot of films that would seemingly make sense.

 

Oh, that stuff I have a problem with. But I don't see how it's related to any criticism as to the other point of the award. I'd like to consider it in the manner I defined it above, misguided or no. (They haven't changed that rule, eh? 2001's Hindi-language The Warrior was disqualified from being a British submission on that basis, which is a pity as it's fairly good.)

 

They changed it in 2006 or so.

 

The Academy just released the films in contention for the Academy Award for Visual Effects:

Angels & Demons
Avatar
Coraline
Disney’s A Christmas Carol
District 9
G-Force
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Sherlock Holmes
Star Trek
Terminator Salvation
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2012
Watchmen
Where the Wild Things Are

The list will be narrowed down to seven in January, and then from that shortened list, the three nominees will emerge.

Avatar is a given for one of the three slots. The other two will probably be 2012 and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but hopefully Star Trek can boot one of the latter two out.

 

I'm calling this for Avatar, either way, which is more like stating the obvious than showing any real signs of prognostication.

The film has been aired to a small audience, and reviews have already come in.

On the SFX:

And these are from reviews panning the movie.

That said, Avatar generally is getting good reviews (18 to 3 as of this post), so it may steal Trek's thunder as the crowd-pleasing sci-fi choice for Best Picture also. Time, subsequent reviews, and box office will tell, of course.

 

I had the misfortune of seeing 2012 a few days ago.
There is nothing award or even nomination worthy about its Visual Effects, which at many points were amazingly bad for such a movie with such a budget.

If Avatar is actually as good as the trailer & reviews suggest it should win easily. Let's hope for a Trek nomination at least, though I somehow doubt it.

 

Yeah, Avatar is a shoo-in to win.

Here's another review from Variety:

 

The only review I've read from someone actually seeing the film said the story is weak and gave it 2-1/2 stars.

AP Review: Effects wow but story limps in "Avatar"

 

As opposed to the reviews written by someone who hadn't seen the film?

Anyhoo, even here we find:

So I remain confident in my 'prognostication'. (My next prognosis: Sun to rise tomorrow morning.)

There is a little criticism:

...but that seems to me to be about the film and the performances lacking soul rather than finding fault with the technology, though I may be reading this wrong.

 

There are tons of reviews. They just had a critics screening this week. These links collect a lot of the reception.

Critics eat crow on 'Avatar' across the web
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...sts/critics-eat-crow-on-avatar-across-the-web

Avatar rocks the Oscar race, but can it win it all?
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...ar-rocks-the-oscar-race-but-can-it-win-it-all

Golden Globes ready to go gaga for 'Avatar'
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...sts/golden-globes-ready-to-go-gaga-for-avatar

 

With 23 reviews in at Rottentomatoes, it's getting a lukewarm 83%. There must be something wrong with it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

 

I wouldn't call 19 out of 23 reviews being positive "lukewarm."

 

I want to visit the planet where 83% is lukewarm.

That is a reaction I'd define as 'mostly positive.' It may not be overwhelmingly positive (say, 90%+, which is what Star Trek wound up getting) but it ain't bad.

It's certainly better than more than a few previous Best Picture winners. And the numbers will naturally shift - up or down, who can say? - when it reaches general release and more critics get to weigh in.

 

I think 83% is lukewarm, especially considering the hype. On an educational grading scale, 83% is a B- in some schools and a C in others.

Star Trek has 95% at rottentomatoes. That's an A or A-.

 

I guess an 83% is bad for graduate school, but that's a weird scale to use for movies.

In any case, it's at 84% now. What would you consider positive?