I can't tell you about Crash because all I know is the name. But I've heard the English Patient had a plot and characters and stuff, even if it's not a film I would likely enjoy.
Avatar had amazing cinematography, cutting-edge special effects, a fantastic soundtrack and solid acting. It's just as worthy of a Best Picture nod as anything else.
And I also notice that you're not having issues with Inglorious Basterds, Up or District 9 as nominees...
I don't debate the technical aspects of Avatar--it's apparently cutting edge stuff, and people have testified to the cinematography. The technical aspects of the film are, so far as I can tell, beyond reproach, much like Titanic. I don't recall the soundtrack, but I often don't. Solid acting? I may not agree there, but I don't think any of the actors got nominated.
I didn't see either Inglourious Basterds or District 9, but I've heard District 9 had great special effects and a plot. I'm not in agreement with Up, but it's not as egregious as Avatar.
In the end, I suppose I should remember that the Academy is not actually interested in the films so much as politics, image, and bankability. It's why I only watch the awards when Jon Stewart is hosting.
Really? You saw the 'heroic adventurer turns evil bad guy with pack of genetically altered dogs' thing? Because I totally didn't.
Regardless, t sounds like expanding the category to ten entries regardless of whether there were ten movies worth the nomination or not was probably designed more for pandering than for increasing quality.
I knew the heroic adventurer was the bad guy before he ever got near the screen, simply from how "up on a pedestal" he was. The genetically altered dogs were a bit of a surprise, but only the genetic alteration part.
No, everyone in LaLa Land wants to kiss Cameron's ass. He is the ultimate cool kid and the wannabes think that if they throw golden statues at him, he'll let them sit at his table during lunch.
JC. If he wins. But mostly I want to smack the Academy for being determined to be more popular year after year and coming to be more and more of a farce every year. I mean... at least they used to be predictable, with crap like The English Patient* winning for sure. But now they're flailing because they missed a movie that was genuinely good, and it's just making it clear that they wouldn't know good if it bit them on the rump. :-\ *Feels betrayed*
* = I didn't like it. Fine characters, but most of the plot struck me as completely ridiculous. It made almost as much sense as Showgirls.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And I also notice that you're not having issues with Inglorious Basterds, Up or District 9 as nominees...
no subject
I didn't see either Inglourious Basterds or District 9, but I've heard District 9 had great special effects and a plot. I'm not in agreement with Up, but it's not as egregious as Avatar.
In the end, I suppose I should remember that the Academy is not actually interested in the films so much as politics, image, and bankability. It's why I only watch the awards when Jon Stewart is hosting.
no subject
And Up's plot was even more see-through than Avatar's.
no subject
Regardless, t sounds like expanding the category to ten entries regardless of whether there were ten movies worth the nomination or not was probably designed more for pandering than for increasing quality.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But then again, Titanic was a piece of shit, and look at how many Oscars it received.
The Academy Awards are a popularity contest, plain and simple.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
* = I didn't like it. Fine characters, but most of the plot struck me as completely ridiculous. It made almost as much sense as Showgirls.