Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

[Blzer]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Ehh, I would consider it a classic.

Let me rephrase what I was saying before by saying whatever opinion I had of TDK when I first watched it has not changed in the slightest, and I still see the movie exactly as I had before. IMO the only problem with the movie now is they could have gone with the 35mm print used for non-IMAX theaters on their Blu-ray, because I still can't get over the glaring issues in that department. Other than that, I still get chills watching this movie and it still retains that "WOW!" factor (you don't want to know how many times I've seen it now).

[Beantown]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

To be quite frank, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not viewing the movie in an objective fashion, or they simply lack a proper understanding of cinema.

Or has, and this may come as a shocker, a different opinion about the movie and/or what makes a movie 'classic' in their mind.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Well let's have some perspective. Around the time when Dark Night was about to be released, the hype around it was perhaps amongst the most any movie has ever seen in the history of cinema (I recall you sporting TDK related avatars for months leading up to the premiere).

The film was marketed extremely well prior to its release, probably the best any movie has been marketed. Not to mention Batman Begins built a strong grassroots fanbase when it was released. The hype was expected.

The ridiculous budget, different approach to well known franchise, cutting edge special effects, the death and acting of Heath Ledger created a perfect storm of publicity that few could avoid. Upon seeing the movie, an inordinate amount of people professed it a classic, the greatest movie of the year, Heath Ledger should win an oscar, etc etc. The ability to see the film objectively almost did not exist, and an inordinate amount of people let the hype shape their perspective on the entire thing (read TDK impression thread for perspective).

How can you see a film objectively? It is an art form, there is no objectivity in there - everything is subjective. Its not like looking at financial statements where there are clear answers and solutions. You don't like the movie, thats great for you, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with you and those that don't share your view point "don't know anything about cinema." That's making a mighty high claim for yourself. I loathed Transformers 2 - a ton of people enjoyed it. Does that make them idiots for that? Not necessarily. They see a different value in it than I did. I don't agree with them, but I'm not going to continue to blast the film and its fans for my personal pleasure.

The only thing that was ever an issue was Ledger's death. The IMAXX was awesome, but the sole focus of every person's experience was fueled by Ledger's death. There was no talk about budget. No talk about whatever cutting edge special effects there were.

Flash forward to now, fewer and fewer people have the same enthusiasm, and many have settled back and recognized it as a great action film and perhaps the best Batman movie of all time, but certainly not a masterpiece or classic. To be quite frank, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not viewing the movie in an objective fashion, or they simply lack a proper understanding of cinema.

Doesn't this happen with essentially every movie made? When it is first release there is a well of support/hatred and eventually things tend to die down and perhaps even out. I don't see how this is a specific mark against TDK. Practically everybody has seen it by now, so all the fans championing people to go see it would be rather redundant. Simply because the fans aren't still making enthusiastic claims that it is a great/classic film doesn't mean their feelings have changed.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

The film was marketed extremely well prior to its release, probably the best any movie has been marketed. Not to mention Batman Begins built a strong grassroots fanbase when it was released. The hype was expected.

How can you see a film objectively? It is an art form, there is no objectivity in there - everything is subjective. Its not like looking at financial statements where there are clear answers and solutions. You don't like the movie, thats great for you, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with you and those that don't share your view point "don't know anything about cinema." That's making a mighty high claim for yourself. I loathed Transformers 2 - a ton of people enjoyed it. Does that make them idiots for that? Not necessarily. They see a different value in it than I did. I don't agree with them, but I'm not going to continue to blast the film and its fans for my personal pleasure.

The only thing that was ever an issue was Ledger's death. The IMAXX was awesome, but the sole focus of every person's experience was fueled by Ledger's death. There was no talk about budget. No talk about whatever cutting edge special effects there were.

Doesn't this happen with essentially every movie made? When it is first release there is a well of support/hatred and eventually things tend to die down and perhaps even out. I don't see how this is a specific mark against TDK. Practically everybody has seen it by now, so all the fans championing people to go see it would be rather redundant. Simply because the fans aren't still making enthusiastic claims that it is a great/classic film doesn't mean their feelings have changed.

Where did I say I didn't like the movie. Everytime I mention the movie I've said it is a good action film and probably the best Batman of all time. You yourself just said drinking the Koolaid example would be saying Ep 1 of Star Wars was classic. Sort of contradicts your entire second paragraph about objectivity, the whole concept that everyone's opinion is equally as valid and who is anyone to look down on someone elses opinion. The truth is, when people make ridiculous statements as in your example, they simply have a bad opinion that cannot be taken seriously. Such is how I feel about people claiming the Dark Night is a classic film.

Your last paragraph is flat out wrong. A high percentage of people were swept away by the hype and dubbed it movie of the year and a classic. Now alot of those people are saying it's good but not wonderful. That is the definition of people's whose opinions have changed. They were swept away and drank the koolaid only to come back down to earth. The people who still feel that way simply are wrong for one of those two aforementioned reasons I posted before. Quite frankly, your serious affection for Christian Bale and actors like him combined with how much you hyped up the movie before it's release makes me seriously question your objectivity in this discussion. I mean I've praised the movie in everyone of my posts, and you're telling me I didn't like it. Just because I think the idea of it being a classic film is ridiculous doesn't mean I don't think it was a good film. Try not to have a blinding bias when reading my posts on this issue.

[jmood88]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Who are all these people you're talking about?

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Who are all these people you're talking about?

Many americans. For an OS specific exaple, Read the comments in the Dark Night thread the first few weeks it was in theaters and then read comments concerning the movie months and now years later. You go from classic, movie of the year, oscar worthy to very good, great film but overhyped and not a classic (in this very thread, we have a few of those with only Blzer saying it is a classic). Alot of people have fell back down to earth. The people who feel it is a classic are now in the minority.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Your last paragraph is flat out wrong. A high percentage of people were swept away by the hype and dubbed it movie of the year and a classic. Now alot of those people are saying it's good but not wonderful. That is the definition of people's whose opinions have changed. They were swept away and drank the koolaid only to come back down to earth. The people who still feel that way simply are wrong for one of those two aforementioned reasons I posted before. Quite frankly, your serious affection for Christian Bale and actors like him combined with how much you hyped up the movie before it's release makes me seriously question your objectivity in this discussion. I mean I've praised the movie in everyone of my posts, and you're telling me I didn't like it. Just because I think the idea of it being a classic film is ridiculous doesn't mean I don't think it was a good film. Try not to have a blinding bias when reading my posts on this issue.

LOL, flat out wrong? I never said that nobody changed their thoughts on the film. To think that people have the same opinions on anything as the first time they experienced is a ridiculous assumption. And again, this happens with a lot of movies - it isn't simply a rare phenomenon that happened with TDK. Just because the support isn't as grand as it once was, doesn't make people's claims that the movie is still a classic any less valid.

I'm not sure where you're getting the my "serious" affection for Christian Bale. The man is a great actor, but that doesn't mean I hold the guy up on a pedestal. Simply because I was a fan of his prior to TDK/Batman Begins makes my opinion of the movie less valid how? I could understand if I was running around the boards when Terminator Salvation came out and saying Bale had done an Oscar worthy performance, but I'm not that biased towards him.

And again, you're thinking very highly of yourself and your taste in cinema to objectively say that people's opinions are wrong. Disagreement is all good, but to simply reject somebody else's opinion as "wrong" is a little bit more biased than me being a Christian Bale fan.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

LOL, flat out wrong? I never said that nobody changed their thoughts on the film. To think that people have the same opinions on anything as the first time they experienced is a ridiculous assumption. And again, this happens with a lot of movies - it isn't simply a rare phenomenon that happened with TDK. Just because the support isn't as grand as it once was, doesn't make people's claims that the movie is still a classic any less valid.

I'm not sure where you're getting the my "serious" affection for Christian Bale. The man is a great actor, but that doesn't mean I hold the guy up on a pedestal. Simply because I was a fan of his prior to TDK/Batman Begins makes my opinion of the movie less valid how? I could understand if I was running around the boards when Terminator Salvation came out and saying Bale had done an Oscar worthy performance, but I'm not that biased towards him.

And again, you're thinking very highly of yourself and your taste in cinema to objectively say that people's opinions are wrong. Disagreement is all good, but to simply reject somebody else's opinion as "wrong" is a little bit more biased than me being a Christian Bale fan.

Hate to tell you, but people's thoughts of anything once they get over the honeymoon period are generally more precise and accurate (Madden forums anyone). The fluctuation in opinion actually happens with a lot of movies because most movies aren't classic, and with time their flaws and what they do amazingly is met with the proper perspective and hindsight. It doesn't however happen nearly as much for movies that are classic. If a movie is that good it will stand the test of time. A great number of people won't say Terminator 2 is a classic and then say it was good but not historic months and years later. Such a thing is happening with TDK because the truth of the matter is The Dark Night is not the amazing/classic movie many hyped it up to be upon its release.

My taste on the Dark Night reflects an increasing majority. When I say someone else's comments are wrong it is obviously my opinion and thus implied, saying In my opinion would thus be redundant. You are saying I disliked the movie when I have praised it way more than you have in this thread. How can I take your remarks to my posts seriously when you misconstrue something that bad? You are either seeing what you want to see or are overlooking alot of things I am saying for whatever reason.

You yourself have implied opinions can be overlooked with your Star Wars comment. As with your example, when someone says something ridiculous, I strongly believe their opinion to be way off, sorry. It just so happens I find the notion of the TDK as a classic film off on many levels. Guess what, that's my opinion.

[CMH]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Flash forward to now, fewer and fewer people have the same enthusiasm, and many have settled back and recognized it as a great action film and perhaps the best Batman movie of all time, but certainly not a masterpiece or classic. To be quite frank, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not viewing the movie in an objective fashion, or they simply lack a proper understanding of cinema.

Isn't this the case for all movies?

Avatar will fall in this category soon enough.

Look at Titanic. I don't know how old you are, but when that movie was out, people were screaming about how amazing it was. People claimed that no movie could ever match its production. Everyone wanted to see it, see it again, and own it to watch it a million more times.

(Everyone is hypothetical, but it's being used in the same way you use everyone/people. I'm sure we understand the semantics of it).

Today, you can ask a lot of people about Titanic and many will deny they even cared about it.

It's how it always goes. It's why I didn't want to jump on the Avatar wagon. I realize it was aesthetically amazing, but I didn't want hype to ruin my opinion of it.

Also, I'm almost positive that most of the people in this thread defending The Dark Knight are not saying it should have won Best Picture. They are saying it should have been nominated. I think that it's a much tougher thing to argue against. A movie of that production value, with an actor that many regarded having had the best performance of a fan-favorite villain, backed by the directing and writing of two of the most notable filmmakers in our era, is a film that deserved a nomination.

It didn't get one and the argument is why did Avatar get what The Dark Knight did not despite the fact that Avatar is being nominated for all the reasons The Dark Knight was not nominated.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Isn't this the case for all movies?

Avatar will fall in this category soon enough.

Look at Titanic. I don't know how old you are, but when that movie was out, people were screaming about how amazing it was. People claimed that no movie could ever match its production. Everyone wanted to see it, see it again, and own it to watch it a million more times.

(Everyone is hypothetical, but it's being used in the same way you use everyone/people. I'm sure we understand the semantics of it).

Today, you can ask a lot of people about Titanic and many will deny they even cared about it.

It's how it always goes. It's why I didn't want to jump on the Avatar wagon. I realize it was aesthetically amazing, but I didn't want hype to ruin my opinion of it.

Also, I'm almost positive that most of the people in this thread defending The Dark Knight are not saying it should have won Best Picture. They are saying it should have been nominated. I think that it's a much tougher thing to argue against. A movie of that production value, with an actor that many regarded having had the best performance of a fan-favorite villain, backed by the directing and writing of two of the most notable filmmakers in our era, is a film that deserved a nomination.

It didn't get one and the argument is why did Avatar get what The Dark Knight did not despite the fact that Avatar is being nominated for all the reasons The Dark Knight was not nominated.

It's like that way for most movies except classics which truly stand the test of time (they might even get better with extended watching). See the Terminator 2 example in previous post.

[Beantown]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

It's like that way for most movies except classics which truly stand the test of time (they might even get better with extended watching). See the Terminator 2 example in previous post.

Which movies would you consider the "classics"? Just wondering.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Which movies would you consider the "classics"? Just wondering.

A classic movie to me is one which does a particular thing better than any other movie before it while possibly redefining what that particular genre of movie could be in addition to delivering a top notch story, acting, etc and then to top it off has that jenesequa which makes the movie just brilliant.

Off the top of my head movies like-

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

The Exorcist

Schindler's List

Terminator 2, etc.

I agree with alot of movies on this list-

http://www.filmsite.org/mrshowbz.html.

[Beantown]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

A classic movie to me is one which does a particular thing better than any other movie before it while possibly redefining what that particular genre of movie could be in addition to delivering a top notch story, acting, etc and then to top it off has that jenesequa which makes the movie just brilliant.

Off the top of my head movies like-

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

The Exorcist

Schindler's List

Terminator 2, etc.

I agree with alot of movies on this list-

http://www.filmsite.org/mrshowbz.html.

That's a pretty good definition. My personal tastes have many of those "classics" as overrated (on the list, not yours) because they either didn't entertain me or I just never liked them, but I can respect what they've done and why people would consider them to be some of the best movies ever made.

For instance, both of the times I've seen Casablanca, I've absolutely hated it, therefore it wouldn't even come close to my personal "Top 100" movies list...but I can see what about it people would like and consider classic and can respect a list with it as #1.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

Personally, I think TDK fits that classic definition.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Anyone who understands the Oscar process, please explain...

That's a pretty good definition. My personal tastes have many of those "classics" as overrated (on the list, not yours) because they either didn't entertain me or I just never liked them, but I can respect what they've done and why people would consider them to be some of the best movies ever made.

For instance, both of the times I've seen Casablanca, I've absolutely hated it, therefore it wouldn't even come close to my personal "Top 100" movies list...but I can see what about it people would like and consider classic and can respect a list with it as #1.

Yeah some of those movies in that list are ridiuclous (Did you notice Ace Ventura, wtf lol), but they had alot which I thought were classics.