SpyVsSpy: Sigh--
"No Country For Old Men" made 162 million world wide. That's not a blockbuster? Fine.

If you read my original comment and the comment I was responding to, EVEN BY the selective nitpicking of what makes a blockbuster...

Last 11 years, Best Pictures include...

Titanic -- almost 2 BILLION dollars
Gladiator -- half a BILLION dollars
The Rings -- almost 400 million
Chicago -- 300 million
Beautiful Mind -- 300 million
American Beauty -- 350 million

All earned over 300 million dollars. (And most MORE.)

All earned BP (apparently the only award that has any value here)

But it only counts if they're superhero movies?

The original point was blockbusters were somehow being ignored. They are absolutely not. It's crazy to say that. Only by the most ridiculously selective comic book standards can that be said.

Dude, people don't use "blockbuster" like that. They mean the big, bombastic summer releases, you know? I definitely know what you're talking about, but you're just coming at it from the wrong angle.

wwffan7385: it won't make #1 next week, if the 3756 ads every hour rate for "Taken" has any effect.

Good. Liam Neeson as Jack Bauer + 20 Years sounds awesome.

SpyVsSpy: People don't use the word "blockbuster" for Titanic, Gladiator, and the Rings?

Really?

Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey. When people say "the Oscars ignore blockbusters," they're not using it in that way, period.

/Gladiator came out in May and Titanic was intended for a July release, actually, but that's neither here nor there

SpyVsSpy: That's silly.

Titanic, Gladiator, and the Rings are the very definition of blockbuster, by any standards. The very essence of popcorn crowd-pleasing big moneymakers.

And they were all BP winners.

And the other winners weren't exactly arty films unfairly chosen over Pixar's latest.

What's silly is your insistence that 99% of people aren't talking about high-grossing, non-Oscar winners as "blockbusters" when they use the term. And again, Gladiator came out in May. Forrest Gump was released in July. "The Rings," as awful as they all are, weren't. Doesn't change that people aren't thinking about American Beauty's final grosses when they say things like that.

SpyVsSpy: And again, Gladiator came out in May. Forrest Gump was released in July. "The Rings," as awful as they all are, weren't.

What's the time of release have to do with anything? Certainly not anything I was talking about, with the original comment I was responding to.

We really have to start at the beginning here? Your tilting at the windmill of "most people don't define 'blockbuster' as summer popcorn shiat" is charming and all, but.

SpyVsSpy: So you're making up both sides of your own argument then?

You're the one being disingenuous here. You can keep changing the definition of "blockbuster" by placing absurd restrictions on BO or now when it was released(!), but to say "Titanic" and The Rings aren't popcorn blockbusters is silly.

But, that argument aside, answer this--

--if people define a blockbuster as you say as "summer popcorn shiat" why in the world would anyone EXPECT it to win a best picture award?

Dude, don't ask me! Have you not understood this entire time that I'm talking about how OTHERS define the term? Jesus, that would explain a lot.

robsul82: SpyVsSpy: So you're making up both sides of your own argument then?

You're the one being disingenuous here. You can keep changing the definition of "blockbuster" by placing absurd restrictions on BO or now when it was released(!), but to say "Titanic" and The Rings aren't popcorn blockbusters is silly.

But, that argument aside, answer this--

--if people define a blockbuster as you say as "summer popcorn shiat" why in the world would anyone EXPECT it to win a best picture award?

Dude, don't ask me! Have you not understood this entire time that I'm talking about how OTHERS define the term? Jesus, that would explain a lot.

Further, while there's been some megagrossers as BP winners, and indeed most of their grosses are high, the point is that most people don't think of most of them that way. Titanic, yeah. "The Rings," as you keep saying, yeah. American Beauty? No. A Beautiful Mind? No. EVEN THOUGH both of those films also grossed a whole lot of money, I just think most people have a general blank spot over that. THAT, in turn, feeds into the whole "AMPAS only nominates movies nobody's seen" thing that really isn't correct.

Coming from the perspective of a person who definitely would've voted The Dark Knight #1, the problem wasn't the popularity, the problem was the source material. "The Rings" were still based on actual factual books, etc.

In my own arguments in these threads and elsewhere, indeed I held up the success of the LOTR movies as a reason why AMPAS would nominate TDK for Best Picture, that it HAD opened its mind. That if a movie with goblins and walking trees and all the rest of it could be nominated and in the third movie's case win, then so could TDK. But I lost sight of the fact that it's not what's on screen that counts, it's where it came from.

SpyVsSpy: "The Rings" were still based on actual factual books, etc.

You mean based on books as opposed to comic books?

(Obviously because the Rings books weren't 'factual books')...

Okay, I see what you're saying--though I don't think TDK not getting a BP nom is because it comes from a comic book--There's plenty of nits to pick in that movie, no matter what the source material. I know it's big on the online community especially, but lots of people were underwhelmed when they saw it, especially post-hype. (Maybe because it was so hyped. Onliners were calling it as good as "Godfather 2" and such. I mean, c'mon...)

But it could have just as easily been nominated--"Titanic" was long and had what many considered flaws, and it won. Which was the original point I was making with the person I was originally talking to... Movies that please audiences and make buckets of money are certainly not being ignored by the Academy. Even in BP--which, again, there's only 5 spots per year for hundreds of annual releases--they can't all be nominated.

Sure, sure. But I have to disagree on the comic book basis derailing the hopes of TDK. If you could have Ernest Borgnine running around during the '05-'06 Oscar season screaming about how he'd never even watch the Brokeback Mountain screener and "John Wayne would be rolling over in his grave," I'm thinking the online community, et al isn't incorrect in thinking that a big segment of the voters just tossed it out because it was "a comic book movie," which is an insult. I mean, fark, they can't all be nominated, but Frost/Nixon and The Reader (and like I said, I liked 'em both more than most people) could've hit the bricks easily. Small disclaimer - haven't seen Milk yet, so I can't comment on that one way or the other.

/not to mention Slumdog, but apparently that's a losing battle with most people

SpyVsSpy: You're right, people vote or don't vote for Oscars for good and bad reasons, so I wouldn't be surprised that was a reason for some folks. Agreed.

But to me TBK wasn't this automatic slamdunk of a great film being denied its props--it seems to me that Heath's performance was the only aspect that seemed to truly get almost complete universal respect, and that performance got rewarded. The rest of the movie has had its share of criticism--some even say Iron Man was a much better movie, aside from Heath's Joker. I saw both movies and I'd agree-- though neither movie was BP-worthy in my opinion.

But again, my original point wasn't about comic book movies, it was about big moneymaking audience pleasures of many sources getting more than their share of noms and wins in the BP category. Which they do, every year.

(Take that, Ernest Borgnine!)

Well, being nominated by the WGA, PGA, and DGA has been a BP-nominated slam dunk for, I believe, every other movie that's hit that hat trick. The Dark Knight is the only movie ever to do so and miss out on a BP nomination, if I'm not mistaken. Looks like not getting that SAG Best Ensemble nomination was more telling than it appeared - those same Borgnine-like older actors probably kept it off there too.

And yeah, totally disagree on Iron Man being better than The Dark Knight and the rest of it, but you could've assumed that anyway, lol.

/TDK has 94% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, damn near universal respect, and they weren't just reviewing Ledger's performance

dahmers love zombie: "American Movie Critics" are a somewhat more educated, effete group who got made fun of as children, so they feel only their opinion about culture counts.



Would question you on the point, if he had passed his GED.