The Dark Knight Toy Story, Avatar, and Distric 9 got Oscar noms, but TDK didn't? Why is this?

[Motown Marvel]

Sorry but no it isn't. The WALL STREET JOURNAL prior to the nominations being announced that year spoke to a great number of Academy voters, who remained anonymous of course, about their choices and more than one dismissed TDK not on the grounds of quality but on it being a movie about Batman. I recall one Oscar prediction site flagging it up a a warning to people that it was going to get possibly snubbed but given the PGA/DGA noms no one took it seriously then.

shocking. so with a voting membership of 6,000 people, they found someone who doesnt like comic book movies. big surprise. with that many people, i bet you could even find academy members who dont want to nominate WWII films.

Again, Oscars have way too many examples of awarding mediocrity over genius. Chaplin, Hitchcock, Kubrick snubbed time after time. That's not "from time to time."

and yet their flaws are still minuscule compared to what they get "right" (for lack of a better word. i dont like to think of what they do in terms of "right" and "wrong".)

the academy is an institution of opinions. you dont agree with their opinion of TDK? okay. doesnt make them wrong though. feel free to believe it doesnt make them right either. but i think their assessment was entirely appropriate. the film was far too flawed to be recognized as best picture material.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

All of the films you mentioned were nominated in a field of 10 nominations...

Which, frankly, was a dumb idea. In a field with ten nominations, one picture still wins, and while "it's an honor to be nominated" when you keep moving the goal posts that ceases to be the case. Ten films is pushing it. In a field with five more films maybe, just maybe, The Dark Knight gets nominated. Who cares though? I never thought it deserved to win. The movie had a lot of things that while not problematic for a summer blockbuster, are problematic for a film trying to win an Oscar. The dialogue most noteably was very forced, ham fisted, and at times made little to no sense even though they threw enough buzzwords in there to make it catchy.

Ledger won, and quite honestly deserved it, so I don't see why anyone is complaining. No one here petitions for Goyer or Jonathan Nolan to get "Best adpated screenplay" or that Christian Bale deserved "best actor", and I seldom hear that Nolan deserves "best director" (since his fight scenes are typically harder to follow than other directors). Movies that are in the Best Picture category, in my mind, ought to sweep most or many of the other categories, and while The Dark Knight was a good film I don't think it was a great script, the story was a little convoluted at times, and some of the acting was definitely poor (Maroni and MJW). So even if someone made a decent enough argument for it's nomination, I don't see it winning, so the nomination is a pretty meaningless thing, especially in light of Ledger's win.

 

[El Payaso]

shocking. so with a voting membership of 6,000 people, they found someone who doesnt like comic book movies. big surprise. with that many people, i bet you could even find academy members who dont want to nominate WWII films.

Yeah, they really found the needle in a haystack there, as the Academy is well known to be impartial for the superhero genre.

and yet their flaws are still minuscule compared to what they get "right" (for lack of a better word. i dont like to think of what they do in terms of "right" and "wrong".)

I like to think of those options in terms of "blunders" and "happy coincidences" myself.

But no, they're not known for how many good movies and actors they award but because they're just cool and popular.

the academy is an institution of opinions. you dont agree with their opinion of TDK? okay. doesnt make them wrong though. feel free to believe it doesnt make them right either. but i think their assessment was entirely appropriate. the film was far too flawed to be recognized as best picture material.

Again, you say that's the criterion? Too flawed = not nominated? Then, once again, it's incredible how many times they have violated their own policy.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It's so amusing to me that a film wins Best Supporting Actor, something no comic film has done before, but somehow it was "snubbed" because the Academy failed to nominate it in another category that would've been a stretch for it, and certainly it probably would not have won. I think The Dark Knight winning Best Supporting Actor is at the heart of this, people feel because it won a noteworthy oscar for a comic film that it deserved to win more. As far as I'm concern the film got exactly what it deserved, and the performance that really stole and propelled the film got the lion's share of the recognition as it should have. Without Ledger's Joker (assuming the hypothetical other guy doesn't do as good a job) the film is probably no better than many other good Superhero movies. The Dark Knight owes a very large portion of it's critical success to Ledger, and unsurprisingly the Academy took notice.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Yeah, they really found the needle in a haystack there, as the Academy is well known to be impartial for the superhero genre.

the superhero genre hasnt really done much to warrant recognition from the academy.

I like to think of those options in terms of "blunders" and "happy coincidences" myself.

if you find the institution to be so incredibly illegitimate, i dont know why you'd take such concern with their "snub".

But no, they're not known for how many good movies and actors they award but because they're just cool and popular.

are you saying they nominate whats "cool" more than whats "good"?

Again, you say that's the criterion? Too flawed = not nominated? Then, once again, it's incredible how many times they have violated their own policy.

i would actually say its been pretty rare a blatantly inappropriate best picture nomination occurs.

 

[Robin91939]

@ Motown Marvel


I've read you reference that The Dark Knight had "too many flaws" to be nominated....

You've said this several times, however, you have failed to name any of the flaws or go into any detail about them at all. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious as to what you perceived to be the weaknesses in the film?

Was it the acting?
I'd have to argue with you there. Bale anchors the cast terrifically. Caine and Freeman bring a sense of wisdom and reality. Ledger provides the panache and brings it, creating a funny, startling, and scary character who will be remembered for years. Oldman and Eckhart bring a gravitas to the picture in their roles, making the last ten minutes in particular especially pulse pounding and heartbreaking. Gyllenhaal may be the weakest link in the ensemble, but that isn't saying much as she is pretty solid here...everyone brought their "A-games" here. Even Eric Roberts does a commendable job in the little time he has.

Is it the directing?
I'd argue you here as well. The tone and pace of the film are tremendous. The film gained over $500MM at the domestic box office....people don't sit through boring films that lag and sag in the middle more than once. This film received multiple repeat viewings and part of that comes from what Richard Roeper called "the fastest 2 and a half hours you'll spend at the movies". Nolan's directing goes so much further than his choices in editing, assembling a team, framing shots, or setting the pace of the film....it's in getting the best from his actors. And from the section above, you can see he delivered. The character scenes are intimate, the Batmobile/Batpod chase is exhilarating and the fight scenes are VASTLY improved from Batman Begins.

Was it the editing?
Lee Smith deserved an Oscar for this film...I'm SHOCKED he wasn't nominated for his work on Inception in 2011 (keeping 4 levels of story telling coherent is tough duty). For reference to his terrific work in The Dark Knight watch the sequence when the Joker is about to crash Wayne's fundraiser for Dent. From the time the cops go to pick up Judge Surrillo, to Commissioner Loeb dying, to the elevator doors opening revealing the Joker....just thrilling, PERFECTLY paced stuff. It's just one of the very memorable sequences in the film. It could have been a simple, uninspiring sequence, but through amazing editing, it became one of my favorite sequences in the film.

Was it the cinematography?
Wally was vindicated in 2011, winning for his work on Inception...but he should have won here as well. The film is beautiful. The Imax shots are revolutionary and breathtaking. Even on blu-ray the quality holds up....but nothing compares to the feeling of seeing it on the Imax screen in July 2008. Batman soaring through the skies of Hong Kong IMMEDIATELY comes to mind as a moneyshot that still leaves me in awe.

Was it the FX?
From the Batpod chase sequence, to Two-face's face, there's nothing but perfection here. The hospital explosion stands out as an amazing money shot (the pull back reveal and wide shot of the explosion). The practical FX will stand the test of time and can't be rendered "not real looking" in coming years do to technology leaps....these FX WERE real. The little CGI in this film is blended beautifully from the ejection of the Batpod from the tumbler to Harvey Dents burning left side to the face he wears the remainder of the picture. Beautiful stuff. In the year of 2008 it is only rivaled by The Curious Case of Benjamin Button in terms of SFX that enhance the story experience. Iron Man was also a stand out that year.

Maybe it was the score?
I know that it's not Danny Elfman's hero march from the 1980's and 90's but it is epic in it's own right. Rousing and poignant, Zimmer and Howard give the Caped Crusader a score to be proud of. They highlight the intimate moments of the film (the scene with Rachel narrating her letter as Alfred reads and Batman stands over the rubble comes to mind), capture the FEAR of the film (the razors on string theme of the Joker makes the hairs on my neck stand at attention) and if you need proof that they gave Batman a truly heroic feel--watch the last 2 minutes and Gordon's closing speech as the Dark Knight rides out into the streets of Gotham...excellent and epic.

Could it be the writing?
Here is the only area we may agree on. The film is wonderful, gritty and real. However, it does fall into some problems that I can identify in the third act. Yet, these are scenes I love and, personally, had no qualms with. The macguffin of the sonar device is a complaint some have. I saw no problems with it as it highlighted a theme that the script had been hinting at the whole film: "how far is too far, and what moral lines do you cross to stop the immoral". I saw no problem with the use of the sonar device. Another complaint are the ferries. Again, in the way it was presented (after building up the unpredictability of the Joker throughout the film...showing actual carnage and not playing it safe) it was a real threat and created tense moments on the home stretch. I can see some who had thought it was unrealistic.....but no more unrealistic than a poor boy being selected as a contestant on a game show, his long lost love just so happens to be watching, and every question he is asked just somehow relates to a past memory of his life...
Jonathan Nolan's script has strong dialogue, especially the exchanges between the Joker and Batman...I mean, poorly written characters don't usually win Oscars... And the script has perfect levels of humor in it, social commentary (relevance, intentional or not, to the Patriot Act), spectacle, and drama...The script itself is an entertaining read on its own. To this day, I don't see how it can't get Adapted Nominations as even though it's not adapted from a single source or story, it is an adaptation.

So, I would like to know, what were the big flaws in this film that made it unworthy of a nomination to you? All this being said, I feel that The Dark Knight is a film that is GREATER than the sum of it's parts, and as you can see--it has some strong parts working for it. I saw every film from the 2008 field. I loved almost all of them. However, The Reader was particularly weak for the field. And Frost/Nixon was superior to Slumdog Millionaire. Of the films nominated, as well as The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight is the most re-watchable to me and others I know. Frost/Nixon is also great to watch more than once, though. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button suffers on repeat viewings for me as it feels longer and longer each time...not like a film like Forrest Gump that I can watch whenever it's on. Milk while a strong film, with great performances is probably the film I am most ambivalent about...I neither love it or am I bothered by its nomination.

If I had to nominate the films of 2008:

5.) Slumdog Millionaire
4.) Milk
3.) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2.) Frost/Nixon
1.) The Dark Knight

-R

 

[EliteF50]

TS3 was much, much better than TDK. And even though I dislike TDK, I agree that it deserved a nomination.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i've gone into details of the flaws dozens of times over the past few years here. its generally an annoyingly pointless debate, and one im not eager to get into yet AGAIN. and debating those details isnt going to change my point being i believe the reason the film wasnt nominated was because it wasnt worthy of it.

 

[Carusos Shades]

Unsurprising really, driving miss daisy won best picture, Martin Scorsese snubbed until an arguably consolation oscar with the departed. Ordinary people over raging bull? Who honestly remembers that picture? The Academy has gotten it wrong plenty of times.

 

[El Payaso]

Unsurprising really, driving miss daisy won best picture, Martin Scorsese snubbed until an arguably consolation oscar with the departed. Ordinary people over raging bull? Who honestly remembers that picture? The Academy has gotten it wrong plenty of times.

More than plenty of times, I call it an Academy tradition.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

It's like anything but a pretentious drama about an autistic kid with cancer who paints masterpieces is beneath the old coots who run the Academy

 

[noonelovesrobin]

Same reason why Jennifer Hudson has an oscar and Gary Oldman not.

 

[TheDragonator]

Perhaps it didn't get a nomination because it didn't deserve one.

 

[Brain Damage]

First off, are the Oscars even relevant anymore? I haven't really noticed any of my friends talking about them before or after - this certainly wasn't the case six or seven years ago, I remember in particular Return of the King's win was huge buzz. Also the whole ten nomination thing is just stupid.
As for TDK. Do I think it deserved to be nominated for Best Pictures? Absolutely. Do I think it deserved to win? Questionable.
Putting the geek in me aside for a minute, TDK was a strong, complex, character driven crime drama in the same vain as Heat, The Departed or Goodfellas - not to say TDK is better than them, it's not (though personally I think it's just a taaaaaad bit better than Heat, but that's just for minor reasons). Point being, this movie had what those movies had: an involving story that acted on a grand scale where the character's actions affected a large group of people and where each character had their own goals, motivations and reasons for their actions. It had social commentary. It had a powerhouse ensemble cast that all put in their A work. It even had the look and sound of an epic. And critics recognized all of these facts and that is why The Dark Knight is one of the best reviewed movies of 2008; over 90% of the critics in America weren't simply blowing smoke out of their ass, I hate to tell you.
As for the nominations in 2008 - Slumdog was good, certainly, but I don't really see what all the buzz is about this movie. Nothing was really wrong with it, and the concept was intriguing, but I was dissatisfied with the overall presentation.
Benjamin Button - I was honestly disappointed by this film. I am a huge fan of Fincher's work but this movie left me wanting more. Now, don't get me wrong, it's a great film full of some really spectacular scenes, but there were many points where it seemed to drag on needlessly - and this is coming from a guy who had absolutely no problem with Zodiac's pacing. I remember leaving the theater and just feeling kind of empty, as if all I had witnessed really just summed up to nothing. Still, it's an exceptionally well made film (beautiful to look at), with a terrific first act, some great scenes in the middle and the end, but it could have been so much more, and I expected such from Fincher.
Frost/Nixon I didn't see, would anyone recommend this?
Milk - Really great film, enjoyed it a hell of a lot, Penn, Franko and Brolin are all spectacular in it and this very much did deserve to be nominated.
The Reader - Ugh. This movie. It was so.... okay. That's really all I feel about it. I don't hate it as much as some people seem to, but like them, for the life of me I can't understand why this wasn't nominated. Winston is phenomenal, of course, but she nearly always is, and I don't think this was her best performance - much like how The Departed wasn't Scorcese's best film (though in my opinion, it's up in the top 3 or 4) but it was about time he got an Oscar for SOMETHING.
So, having said all of that, I really can't understand why TDK wasn't nominated. It had flaws, yes, but all films do, and all the films that were nominated do, some, much more so than TDK, in my opinion. For those of you who think TDK didn't deserve a nom because you didn't like the story, directing, acting, etc etc, fine, fair enough. But to those of you who nitpick every detail of it and proudly proclaim it as an overrated piece of ****, then I'm sorry but you're just stupid. If you think that TDK shouldn't have been nominated because of Bale's voice or how the Joker was the only one standing after the cellphone bomb, then you are just blind, and I'm sorry that you can't enjoy the big picture because of a few dirty pixels.
The one movie that I am honestly SHOCKED wasn't nominated and I think deserved to win was the Wrestler. That movie was simply a punch in the gut from beginning to end and it's protagonist was both incredibly well developed and acted. I could forgive TDK not being nominated, as great as it was, I didn't expect it. But The Wrestler, the type of movie the Oscars love, getting shuned made me lose complete faith in the Academy.

 

[Rocketman]

The problem is that a lot of Academy members have no clue what a good movie is anymore. Same with people in general.

Like last year, Blue Valentine wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
This year, Drive won't be nominated for Best Picture.
Gary Oldman won't be nominated for Best Actor.
Meanwhile, Leonardo DiCaprio will totally get nominated for J. Edgar.

God damn it, Drive was THE best movie of 2011. THE best.

 

[The Morningstar]

The biggest Oscar snub in recent memory is Children of Men, not TDK. That film should have won the damn thing, let alone get nominated.

 

[Brain Damage]

The biggest Oscar snub in recent memory is Children of Men, not TDK. That film should have won the damn thing, let alone get nominated.

Guess it goes to show that putting Michael Caine in your movie is instant magic

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Because you are probably viewing it with rose tinted goggles than objectively?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Now I understood the idea that TDK didn't get the nomination because it's "a comic book film" and it can be seen as immature but I don't see how the Oscars look past that, yet aknowledge those other films, which are clearly as immature and child-like as TDK.

Spider-Man 2 got nominated before, so this "comic book movie is too wrong" is kinda wrong

And childish? They can say a movie with a guy who kills using the knife and a guy who got half of his body burned down to the flesh and miraculously survives to turn nuts, but a cgi movie of talking toys is mature?

 

[El Payaso]

Spider-Man 2 got nominated before, so this "comic book movie is too wrong" is kinda wrong

Only to technical categories, not Best Picture.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Only to technical categories, not Best Picture.

This one could have at least get nomination for that