Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought Wall-E was easily Pixar's worst yet. The story just didn't grab me, especially once they made it to the Axalon.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I thought Wall-E was easily Pixar's worst yet. The story just didn't grab me, especially once they made it to the Axalon.

Did you not see Cars? It wasn't very good, by Pixar standards anyway.

I wouldn't say worst. Cars war pretty bad for pixar film.

Anung Un Rama wrote:You don't watch a lot of tv H., do you? Or listen to the radio?

What's that got to do with anything?

BYE

I liked Cars better than Wall-E, though it's my 4-year-old's favorite movie so I've likely seen cars over 9000 times at this point. I like theDoc Hollywood story, cheeseball as it may be.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And sometimes something is popular because it's actually good.

BYE

In your post you gave the box office gross of the Dark Knight, as if that alone was proof of it's quality. If sales alone were a good enough indicator, then 40K would be the best miniatures ruleset ever. I was pointing out other factors are often at play.

Frazzled wrote:I think we're talking movies.

WallE was popular because it was GOOD. Dark Knight was popular because it was GOOD. Now I generally like smaller movies as well, but dissing of popular movies because they are popular successes is off the mark.

Nothing for In Bruges?

Who dissed popular movies? And yeah, In Bruges was stiffed. But it had a lot of things going against it when it comes to Oscars success. It wasn't American. It was very off-beat. It was a genre film. It was a comedy.

dietrich wrote:The problem is that the Academy seems to think that the masses are unwashed and dumb, and only go to movies because of dumb gags like crotch-shots and nudity. Hence, any movies that makes money must be nothing but crotch-shots and nudity. And profanity too.

Did you see above where I posted the box office takes of the winners of best film? You have to go back a long time to find a box office flop that took home best picture. The Academy has plenty of bias, but there's no bias against box office.

Mickey Rourke was robbed though.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Mickey Rourke was robbed though.

He was excellent. Sean Penn was also excellent. Frank Langella was better than either of them, and I don't think I've seen a film since Capote where one performance was so utterly engrossing.

But at the end of the day Penn was in a biopic, played a gay character and got killed. That's Oscar gold.

Frank Langella? Michael Sheen was better than him in the same film. He sounded more like Jimmy Stewart than Nixon.

I also agree the Mickey Rourke more than deserved that Oscar for Best Actor.

And even if Crash was the lowest grossing Oscar-winner in recent History, it was also one of the most deserving Oscar-winners of all time. Though it was not robbed by the Academy, it was definitely robbed by the general public. A truly great work of interwoven storytelling that actually manages to have multiple morals within the same brilliant story. The actors that played their roles even agreed to take a lower salary to be able to finish the movie on it's given budget, and while that's by no means a huge change, it's a step forward. This is one verdict that I absolutely agree with. It's actually one of the few Oscar-winning movies that remained among my favorites after the fact. Honestly, when's the last time anyone actually watch No Country for Old Men? Exactly. I still watch Crash from time to time, which really says something about it.

And I honestly thought that Wall-E was among the best Pixar movies...until it got to the second half of the movie. It kind of went downhill from there. It actually reminds me of Fallout, in some strange, funny way. Maybe it's the post-apocalyptic world. Maybe it's even the music. Even so, I really liked the first half of it a lot. Until it got into the moral story of 'Don't be gluttonous or wasteful'. But oh well. I guess they felt it needed something more, sadly.

I guess one could ask if the Golden Daemons matter as well.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I still watch Crash from time to time, which really says something about it.

It does, it says you like the movie. The bad, bad movie. Racism is bad? OMG WHO KNEW. I watched No Country For Old Men again not that long either.

Chrysaor686 wrote:And even if Crash was the lowest grossing Oscar-winner in recent History, it was also one of the most deserving Oscar-winners of all time. Though it was not robbed by the Academy, it was definitely robbed by the general public. A truly great work of interwoven storytelling that actually manages to have multiple morals within the same brilliant story. The actors that played their roles even agreed to take a lower salary to be able to finish the movie on it's given budget, and while that's by no means a huge change, it's a step forward. This is one verdict that I absolutely agree with. It's actually one of the few Oscar-winning movies that remained among my favorites after the fact. Honestly, when's the last time anyone actually watch No Country for Old Men? Exactly. I still watch Crash from time to time, which really says something about it.

Really, you got a lot out of Crash? It was certainly earnest, but I didn't see anything in there that was particularly insightful. To each their own, I guess, but it has to be remembered that Crash was up against Brokeback Mountain, and that was a truly great movie, and with that had massive cultural impact. Ten years from now which film do you think will be remembered?

And yeah, I've seen No Country for Old Men three or four times now. It's a film that improves with every viewing, as preconceived notions are dropped and you start seeing how everything played out exactly as the film said it would. You start seeing the amount of thought put into every character, and how the worldview of each interacts with the others. For instance, watching the first time you can end up thinking that the key moment that determined everything was Moss’ decision to take the money, or his refusal to give it to Chigurh, or Sheriff Bell’s decision to decision to walk away from the crime… those were all pre-determined by the sorts of characters they were. The key moment that created everything that followed was when Woody Harrelson’s character, Wells, is out manoeuvred by Chigurh, that’s the coin flip that determines everything that follows. All the violence that follows comes from that moment. It’s one of countless observations that can be made about the movie, because it is a stunningly good movie that rewards with every viewing. We can argue about the Oscars again and again, but I’ll say one thing, people should watch No Country 3, 4 or more times. It’s just that good.

Ahtman wrote:It does, it says you like the movie. The bad, bad movie. Racism is bad? OMG WHO KNEW. I watched No Country For Old Men again not that long either.

Hahah, 'Racism is bad' is a pretty broad way to look at it, don't you think? It's not so much about how racism is bad as it is about redemption for negative actions, with race as a driving factor. Though the interwoven plot requires quite a bit of suspension of disbelief, it is very well written. I don't know how anyone could deny that. And, well, I guess I'm just a sucker for ridiculously selfless acts of redemption. I just don't see how you could see Crash as a truly terrible movie.

sebster wrote:Really, you got a lot out of Crash? It was certainly earnest, but I didn't see anything in there that was particularly insightful. To each their own, I guess, but it has to be remembered that Crash was up against Brokeback Mountain, and that was a truly great movie, and with that had massive cultural impact. Ten years from now which film do you think will be remembered?

Yes, I really did get a lot out of Crash. It's not philosophically deep, and it doesn't really explore things we don't already know, but in my opinion it was so well written and chock full of serious irony and intricately woven character interaction that it didn't have to be.

Of course, Brokeback Mountain will be remembered long after Crash is dead and gone. But not for it's merits as an actual movie. Brokeback Mountain was a fairly simple tale of infidelity that didn't really do anything new, except for to put a massive spin on the whole thing by making it into a gay love affair. Brokeback Mountain will not be remembered for it's merits as a movie (In terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, etc., it was fairly average, if not slightly above average). It will be remembered for it's shock value, and willingness to push the envelope, for being one of the very first 'openly gay' movies. I fail to see it being cited in any other way.

Okay, maybe the shot at No Country for Old Men was a bit unfair (as it was a great movie), but you get what I'm saying. A lot of Oscar Winners tend to be pretty 'flavor of the month', that eventually end up falling out of favor instead of standing the test of time.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It does, it says you like the movie. The bad, bad movie. Racism is bad? OMG WHO KNEW. I watched No Country For Old Men again not that long either.

Hahah, 'Racism is bad' is a pretty broad way to look at it, don't you think? It's not so much about how racism is bad as it is about redemption for negative actions, with race as a driving factor.

I'm just messing with you. I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I do think it was overrated.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Yes, I really did get a lot out of Crash. It's not philosophically deep, and it doesn't really explore things we don't already know, but in my opinion it was so well written and chock full of serious irony and intricately woven character interaction that it didn't have to be.

I’d agree that a lot of the characters were well acted. I just got a little annoyed with the speechifying that crops up in movies that have big messages. But then I love lots of movies full of unnatural language, so I can’t really cite that as an objective flaw.

Of course, Brokeback Mountain will be remembered long after Crash is dead and gone. But not for it's merits as an actual movie. Brokeback Mountain was a fairly simple tale of infidelity that didn't really do anything new, except for to put a massive spin on the whole thing by making it into a gay love affair. Brokeback Mountain will not be remembered for it's merits as a movie (In terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, etc., it was fairly average, if not slightly above average). It will be remembered for it's shock value, and willingness to push the envelope, for being one of the very first 'openly gay' movies. I fail to see it being cited in any other way.

Ooh, lordy no. There was so much going in that film beyond an illicit love affair. Larry McMurty, the writer, described the theme of the movie as ‘life ain’t for sissies’, and he was talking entirely about the cowardice of Ledger’s character, who was never man enough to own up to loving Gyllenhaal’s character. The main story was of two lives wasted because Ledger’s character wouldn’t man up and be with the one he loved. And for all that, there’s so many small, perfect moments throughout the movie. Near the end Ledger goes to Gyllenhaal’s family home, meets his mother, who says awkwardly, but with conviction ‘he’d want you to have this’ and hands over Ledger’s jacket, that Gyllenhaal had taken after their first tryst. There in that one moment you see a mother that couldn’t really understand her son’s homosexuality but loved him anyway because he was her son. It’s incredible to have so much pathos and character with a two minute part.

It also wasn’t one of the first openly gay movies, not even the first to taste Oscar success. Before that you’d had Philadelphia and Boys Don’t Cry (I think technically transgendered, not gay, but it did have two girls as a couple). I think Midnight Cowboy might have had it as a theme in the 70s, but I haven’t seen the movie. Brokeback Mountain was just a particularly great film about homosexuality.

Okay, maybe the shot at No Country for Old Men was a bit unfair (as it was a great movie), but you get what I'm saying. A lot of Oscar Winners tend to be pretty 'flavor of the month', that eventually end up falling out of favor instead of standing the test of time.

I definitely agree with you there. Remember The English Patient. For a month before and after Oscars it was one of the greatest movies of all time, then nothing. No-one has mentioned it ever since.

sebster wrote:


And yeah, I've seen No Country for Old Men three or four times now. It's a film that improves with every viewing, as preconceived notions are dropped and you start seeing how everything played out exactly as the film said it would.

I've been meaning to pick it up on DVD. I saw it in theaters and loved it and now you've sold me on seeing it a few more times. I've actually watched Their Will Be Blood four times this month. Daniel Day-Lewis earned his Oscar for that one.

Anung Un Rama wrote:I wouldn't say worst. Cars war pretty bad for pixar film.

I fell asleep during Cars. That was ok-the kids stole my wallet and left me in a dumpster-you darn hooligan kids. On the positive Talladega nights came out shortly thereafter, and all was right in the world.

Has a comedy ever won an Oscar? How about a horror movie or anything sci fi?

sebster wrote:

But at the end of the day Penn was in a biopic, played a gay character and got killed. That's Oscar gold.

And thats why the Oscars are el Lamo for, well anything. To quote Platoon "It politics man. Its all politics."

Ahtman wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:Benjamin button.

What a useless premise for a movie. What does that 'gimmick' have to do with anything?

Did you see the movie or just a trailer/summation?

I see and OWN enough movies to know that this is a rehash of the same love/drama/life story that is pushed out year after year....this time the guy ages in reverse, its the hook to make you say "oh thats interesting" other than that I'm betting the movie is Forrest Gump.

....or am I completely wrong?

Frazzled wrote:Has a comedy ever won an Oscar? How about a horror movie or anything sci fi?

Annie Hall won in the 70s. That's about it. Considering how many comedies have been not only funny, but also really insightful, it's a pretty big discrepancy. Sci-fi could arguably be treated worse, although I'm not what should have won. 2001 definitely, and Alien and I can't think of anything else, maybe Alien 2. Bladerunner would have been the first edit with the silly ending, so that shouldn't have been.

Frazzled wrote:And thats why the Oscars are el Lamo for, well anything. To quote Platoon "It politics man. Its all politics."

They've got their bias and their politics behind the scenes, but most times I see folk complaining about what should have won I normally side with the Academy.

Benjamin button has a lot of similarities with Gump (the same writer too), and I have to say I thought Button was an okay movie, but not one of them big Oscar bait movies that you expect to bag 13 nominations. I prefer Gump, but it should not have beaten out Pulp fiction or shawshank redemption that year.

Frazzled wrote:
Has a comedy ever won an Oscar? How about a horror movie or anything sci fi?

A lot of sci-fi has won the technical oscar categories (sound, visual effects that sort of thing) as for the main Best Picture prize:

Not sci-fi, but this little fantasy film called Return of the King won Best Picture in 2003, Arguably 2002 winner Chicago is a (black) comedy. Or Annie Hall in 1977.

In acting we have the man, Jack Nicholson winning in 97 for As Good as it Gets (comedy), or Julie Andrews a Mary Poppins (back in 64, comedy)

As for supporting players, well, Heath Ledger won for a sci-fi movie just this past ceremony, Cuba Gooding Jr won for Jerry Maguire (comedy, 96), Jack Palance for City Slickers (comedy, 91), Kevin Kline in Fish Called Wanda (comedy, 88) John Gielgud won for Arthur back in 81 (yet another comedy) On the distaff side we have Marisa Tomei's win for my cousin Vinny (comedy, 92) or for a Horrow win there's Ruth Gordon winning for Rosemary's Baby way back in 1968.

And of course, most of the winners of Best animated Feature have been comedies.

so to answer Frazz's original question. yes, but not very many.

Dark Knight's not Sci Fi, but thanks for the overall review.

Well, I figure Dark Knight was borderline, but I figured it may not be sci fi but it is 'genre' and that's close enough for me.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:Benjamin button.

What a useless premise for a movie. What does that 'gimmick' have to do with anything?

Did you see the movie or just a trailer/summation?

I see and OWN enough movies to know that this is a rehash of the same love/drama/life story that is pushed out year after year....this time the guy ages in reverse, its the hook to make you say "oh thats interesting" other than that I'm betting the movie is Forrest Gump.

....or am I completely wrong?

Coming from David Fincher, 7seven, Fight Club, Zodiac, it'd be really odd to expect a cliched love story. In fact, the film is about death more than anything else, how we view it's different forms, how we accept it's inevitability. The film does move through a few of histories big moments, but it isn't anywhere near as strong an issue as it was in Forrest Gump.

That said, I didn't think it was that great a film. I can see why it was nominated, but I'm glad it didn't win.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:so to answer Frazz's original question. yes, but not very many.

Well, Chicago is a musical more than anything else, so that doesn't count. And yeah, neglected genres typically have a lot more success in awards other than Best Film, but the question about best film. I think the only one really is Annie Hall.

The question was about winning an Oscar, not specifically Best Picture.

Plus I think Annie Hall sucks, but I know it's because I find Woody Allen as funny as testicular cancer.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:The question was about winning an Oscar, not specifically Best Picture.

Plus I think Annie Hall sucks, but I know it's because I find Woody Allen as funny as testicular cancer.

Reading it again, it could be interpreted either way. Looking at it your way, then yeah sci-fi picks up lots of technical awards. And comedy does better in the performance and script categories. Juno won for script last year.

I like Annie Hall. This whole thread seems to be about people saying how they hate movies I like. Oh well.

I would proffer that sci/comedy/horror doesn't win much for the big ones - Best Movies, best actor/actress. I don't know the rest as I've never ever ever watched an awards show.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:You don't watch a lot of tv H., do you? Or listen to the radio?

What's that got to do with anything?

H.B.M.C. wrote:And sometimes something is popular because it's actually good.

I was refering to the quote above. In Germany, there is so much on TV, like our version of American Idol or all those talk/reality shows who just stay on the air because they have so high quotes. The most bought "Newspaper" in Germany isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. What I'm saying is, sometimes something is unbelievable popular and still just plain bad.

sebster wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Mickey Rourke was robbed though.

He was excellent. Sean Penn was also excellent. Frank Langella was better than either of them, and I don't think I've seen a film since Capote where one performance was so utterly engrossing.

But at the end of the day Penn was in a biopic, played a gay character and got killed. That's Oscar gold.

But that just should not be a criteria. It's like "the reader" gets nominated because it's about Nazi warcrimes. Pure Oscar bait.

Chrysaor686 wrote:And I honestly thought that Wall-E was among the best Pixar movies...until it got to the second half of the movie. It kind of went downhill from there. It actually reminds me of Fallout, in some strange, funny way. Maybe it's the post-apocalyptic world. Maybe it's even the music. Even so, I really liked the first half of it a lot. Until it got into the moral story of 'Don't be gluttonous or wasteful'. But oh well. I guess they felt it needed something more, sadly.

I didn't mind the part about how humanity changed at all. All Pixar movies had (as most "kids movies" have anyway) some kind of "message". Ratatouille was about eating healthy, enjoy the fruits of your own work amd the old "you can do it" message. Finding Nemo was about growing out of yourself, to be brave and stuff like that.
My problem with cars is, that it failed to deliver the message. It was so, what's the word, shoehorned in? Granted, Wall-E wasn't that subtle either, but in Cars it was just plain bad. Especially since it's a Pixar movie.