CT Why wasn't Star Wars able to win Oscar?

The academy is full of hipsters. They love picking out the obscure art house films to nominate so they can tout their fine taste in film. I get not nominating The Avengers, or the PT, or even Harry Potter - but how the hell did The Dark Knight not get in for best picture?

 

I actually really like Slumdog Millionare which won and was the front-runner for the 81st / 2008 Oscars, but a lot of that has to do with me being a Danny Boyle fanboy since "Trainspotting" is basically drilled into my head. Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Frost/Nixon are also worthy nominees (not my personal top 10 of the year but quite good) but truly Milk or The Reader could have easily been replaced for The Dark Knight. However, that was such a big hub-bub that it resulted in the new over-5 nominee system that's going now. Hell, the next year District 9 got a freakin' nomination! Which is way awesome. So even though Dark Knight wasn't nominated it casts a long shadow that, just maybe once in awhile if the stars align, sci-fi blockbuster genres get attention.

 

You honestly think that any of the Prequels should have been nominated?
I would hope not

I've seen them 20 times each and will continue to watch them but even I'm not blinded enough by Star Wars worship to think that.

 

Yes, absolutely. Read my post to see which categories it should have been nominated in and won.

 

Best actor Hayden Christienson
Best Actress Natalie Portman
Best Supporting Actor Samuel L Jackson

 

Best Supporting Actor: Sio Bibble

 

The thread was quite obviously referring solely to "best picture" as of the OP, but if you think one of the films deserved to win some bogi prize like "best sound track" or "best CGI Jar Jar Binks" then that's far enough

 

You consider "Best score", "Best Visual Effects", "Best Sound Design", "Best Costume Design" and "Best Production Design" to be "bogey prizes"? Figures.

 

well this question was put to a vote by people who have far more cinematographic experience than any one on these boards, and they decided that the PTs didn't deserve even a nomination in any category, in any of those categories "Best score", "Best Visual Effects", "Best Sound Design", and "Best Production Design". Why? Because the PT doesn't deserve any of those, it doesn't even deserve nominations. Even suggesting that any of those three films deserve "Best Picture" or any other Academy Award is a load of unsubstantiated crap.

 

Lance Armstrong has a lot more experience in bicylce racing than (perhaps) anyone on these boards and decided to use doping substances.
Does that make it right?

From my point of view there is nothing more foolish than to think someone is ungestionably "right" (except maybe for something like mathematics where strict rules determine procedure) because of "experience" or reputation. Relying too much on "experience" and "tradidion" is the death of innovation in a lot of ways.

 

Steroids and the Academy Awards. That's not a good comparison. And it made little sense.

If it was a question of whether using steroids is right, you need to ask a doctor, not a cyclist. If it was a question about bicycling, then Armstrong would no doubt be the authority on the matter.

What awards a movie deserves, is best left to the Academy, and they (rightfully) decided not to give the PT anything, for good reason.

 

In my opinion, it's rather pointless to put too much stock into consensus into something as subjective as art -- especially as this consensus only reflects the opinions of a small portion of the population in a particular time and place. Tastes change over time, after all.

Plus, when it comes to critics, even the most illustrious have disagreements. TS Eliot said of Hamlet:

"So far from being Shakespeare's masterpiece, the play is most certainly an artistic failure." And this most certainly goes against the sentiment of almost all famous Shakespeare scholars and Shakespeare himself. And yet, I would not invalidate Eliot's opinion simply because it goes against the majority.

Using an argument from authority is a rather silly option by my estimation. I'm more interested in why a person holds an opinion than whether or not a lot of people agree with that opinion.

It's why I don't put much stock into the Academy. None of the Star Wars films has won a Best Picture award (and only ANH was nominated), but my interest is still primarily in what the individual has to say about the film rather than a numerical tabulation of its popularity. Critics and the Academy Awards are useful if you're trying to budget your money since the greater number of people that like something, the higher the probability that you yourself will enjoy it, but they can't speak to any objective truth about quality.

 

You don't put stock into the Academy? If 'art' (I disagree with even referring to the PTs as this) is so subjective, why can't it be subjected to be judged by a group of people, who then hand out awards based on those Judgements?

The PTs and SW in general might have won some sort of special award from you based on your particular tastes in art, but it didn't from the Academy, and there is a reason for that.

They are great movies, and they will be remembered for far longer than many of the films which have one Best Picture, because it has that mass appeal, which you claim is not interesting, which is not what appeals to the Academy, but it is what Star Wars has, and has alot of.

 

No, I don't put stock in the Academy. That doesn't mean I can never agree with it -- there are many films I hold in great esteem that have received numerous Academy Awards. But I don't think those films are great because the Academy says so.

And of course the PT can be judged by a group of people, when have I ever said otherwise? My point was simply that I believe one should not to let the opinions of others dictate your own as even the majority and the experienced and talented do not always agree (as seen with the example of TS Eliot). I am much more interested in hearing why a person liked a movie rather than them simply saying it's good because it won a bunch of awards. That might be a good basis for a recommendation -- since if a lot of people like something, it's more likely that you might like it as well -- but it says nothing about its objective quality nor should it influence your own opinion of a work, by my estimation.

The reason that PT didn't win -- the Academy didn't like them or didn't think the were good films. It's as simple as that. That doesn't make the PT films objectively bad, just films that weren't particularly liked by the Academy. Which, again, is fine by me.

Mass appeal, also, is no indicator of quality in my opinion. Look at Twilight or Transformers -- they both have enormous appeal but I don't enjoy either or think they're particularly good.

My philosophy is simply to own your opinion and not apologize for what you like. Liking popular or well-reviewed media doesn't make you a smarter or better person after all.

 

I'm just saying that Star Wars didn't win Academy Awards for a reason, and you pointed out that reason.

My philosophy is that bad movies are bad. I don't care for the Academy Awards in most cases. Titanic won 11 awards. I hate Titanic. I think it's a bad movie, and would never recommend it. The Academy obviously disagrees with me.

Twilight and Transformers will just be a bad joke in 30 years. Star Wars, however, I predict will still be very popular.

 

Sure, I agree. I guess, though, for me, saying that the Academy Awards didn't like the films is like saying John Smith didn't like them. That's all well and good, but it doesn't really tell you anything except that the Academy didn't like them. I guess that's why I find the topic of this thread a pit perplexing -- who cares if a Star Wars film has never won Best Picture? Neither has Harry Potter and those films are beloved by many people.

And, like you, I think Star Wars will stay very popular -- there are lots of kids that are getting into it through new avenues, like the Clone Wars and the video games so it will continue to build a new fanbase into future generations.

 

Watch the personal attacks

 

The "Best Picture" certainly is almost never the "best picture" of the year in my opinion.

Saying that, the films of the PT do not come close to being good enough films to be nominated. Sorry. They are just candy in a lot of ways.

Now, as far as the OT goes, I think SW or Empire would have had a chance if they were released in our era. Why? I hate to use the old adage of "things were different back then" but it's true. Sci-fi did not get any respect back in the day to the high and mighty academy voters. Look at the original Planet of the Apes. A fantastic film. More than just brain candy IMO. Great acting, wonderful script, pacing, etc. That would have been nominated today (look at the LOTR - back in the 70s and 80s a film series like that would not have gotten a nomination most likely, let alone a win). Just like comedies did not receive much respect back in the day as "real acting." Death is easy, comedy is hard. As a former actor myself, I agree with that 100%.

Also, it just goes by votes and politics. Should "Brokeback Mountain" have won over "Crash?" Yes, I think it should have. Should "Star Wars" have won over "Annie Hall?" Yes, I think it should have. "Pulp Fiction" changed movies forever and the way they're made but it lost (to Forrest Gump I believe?). Should Empire have been at least nominated? Yes.

This is the Academy for you. One organization gives the best director award to Ben for Argo, while the Academy does not even nominate him. Don't try and rack your brains, hurt your heads over these decisions. Enjoy the movies and they can be YOUR best picture.

 

because nerds are not in charge

 

Well, it was nominated for Picture, Director, and Sup. Actor. It won 7 Oscars I think that year. No major ones, but I'd say that's a good showing for a Sci-Fi film.

 

Quite right. I don't even follow Awards season anymore. It doesn't lesson the quality of film if it is or isn't nominated. Back in 2006 "Children of Men" was the best film I saw that year, and the director wasn't even nominated. So go figure. The people in the industry aren't hurting cause of lack of nomination, however I just had a thought. On a rare occasion a nomination can be huge for a smaller film or an actor trying to find more work. So it's not all pointless.

 

In Hollywood? It's run by nerds (and a shady mobster crook or two).
Where do you think all those people were hanging out during their youth? AV club.

 

Stop spamming.-Darth Boba

 

A supporting actor nomination can mean only one thing-

INVASION!

(side note: I was googling Sio Bibble - that sounds so wrong - and this image came up.

I will also post it because it is pleasing to look at)