×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Inception, The Social Network, TS3 Get Oscar Noms

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the stop-nominate-and-listen dept.

Movies 201

Among the Best Picture nominations this year are Inception, The Social Network and Toy Story 3. In addition to TS3, the Animation category has How to Train Your Dragon and The Illusionist. Also getting a nod in documentary was Exit Through the Gift Shop, which is worth your time if you are into that sort of thing. You'll have to wait a month to find out who the winners are... and to find out what the stars will wear on the red carpet. Or to play the Oscar speech drinking game.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

201 comments

Everyone here should go see (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994890)

the King's Speech. I think most people here will relate to it.

Re:Everyone here should go see (2)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995060)

Agreed, although not for the reason you spoke of. I watched it over the weekend and was probably one of the best movies I've seen in years. Rush, Bonham-Carter & Firth were great and the script was rock solid. Definitely worth the money to see it on the big screen.

Re:Everyone here should go see (1)

krou (1027572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995442)

I wouldn't say a rock solid script and good acting make a film worth the money to see on the big screen (at least, not any more). A film like Inception, which has the visuals to match, sure, but the vast majority are just as good, and far more cost-effective, in the comfort of your own home. I stopped watching films in the cinema years ago because it's just way too expensive here in the UK. For just a bit more than the price of a single ticket (less, if it's a 3D film), I can buy the DVD brand new if I wait a few months. Since I'm married, and that means two tickets, the DVD is always way, way cheaper, and that's before even considering buying popcorn etc. (Never mind the fact that the cinemas almost always run the same garbage week after week, unless you're lucky enough to live near an independent cinema). It's a pity, because going to the cinema was one of my greatest joys as a kid. And I just wish those damn kids would get off my lawn.

Re:Everyone here should go see (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995918)

I agree with all your points, but this film was worth it.

I'm a married father as well and a date night costs about $40 for tickets and snacks ($25 for the second run show) plus another $40 if we go out to dinner afterwards, and that doesn't include babysitting and the like. It was still worth it.

Re:Everyone here should go see (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996724)

I stopped watching films in the cinema years ago because it's just way too expensive here in the UK. For just a bit more than the price of a single ticket (less, if it's a 3D film), I can buy the DVD brand new if I wait a few months. Since I'm married, and that means two tickets, the DVD is always way, way cheaper, and that's before even considering buying popcorn etc.

I stopped because a big enough chunk of the public has forgotten how to behave in a cinema. There's nothing quite like being in a full screen, where everyone is gasping or laughing along with each other. But in the last 5 years or so, whenever I've been in a reasonably full UK cinema, other patrons have been happy to chat with each other at normal speaking volume, during the film.

Ironically, there was a period when they showed an anti-piracy ad, in which someone watches a grainy version of a film, in which a silhouette of a cinema punter getting up to go to the toilet spoils the film. This has never happened to me with a DVD, *nor* with a BT download -- but of course it's happened for real in the cinema.

So, for less money, I can see the film at home, with better sound (5.1 DTS without strangers' chat), equivalent size (if I want to sit close enough, that is) for less money.

I have made an exception for 3D -- Toy Story 3 was OK. Jackass 3D was well worth it -- with 8 other people in the auditorium, giving the film their full attention and cackling like idiots. :)

Re:Everyone here should go see (4, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995240)

It doesn't matter, because The Social Network or that stupid Ballet movie will win, anyway.

Of course, it also doesn't matter, because nobody with a lick of sense gives a damn about a stupid fucking industry award. I mean, really, there couldn't be anything less relevant to our lives than an award given by a bunch of celebrities to a bunch of other celebrities about who plays pretend the best.

Also, you can tell you're getting old when you look at the entire Slashdot submission and say "didn't see it, didn't see it, didn't see it, didn't see it, didn't see it, and didn't see it".

Re:Everyone here should go see (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995384)

Amen.

The fact that a large majority of people (even some very smart people) really get into this stuff depresses me. The whole celebrity worship thing is quite disturbing. I just don't understand the attraction!

Re:Everyone here should go see (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995426)

I can get the fact that someone might really dig a movie, but why anyone would give a fuck about an event to award people in an industry that they're not even part of is beyond me. If you sell vacuums, you might be super keen on who the Vacuum Engineer/Salesman/Manager of the year is. Otherwise . . . well . . . who cares? Even though I own and use a vacuum, it's irrelevant to me.

Of course, as the ratings reportedly show, people care less and less every year, so . . . good.

Re:Everyone here should go see (1)

mibe (1778804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995498)

If you don't understand celebrity worship, you've basically missed a huge chunk of human history.

Re:Everyone here should go see (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996426)

No, you know you're getting old when you look at the submission, say that, and then log in to post about it. Give it a few years and you'll be writing scathing letters to local politicans about the state of the roads and just how much it costs to gas up.

Re:Everyone here should go see (2)

coolmoose25 (1057210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996726)

WRT the nobody caring about industry awards, the winner of that should go to George C. Scott [wikipedia.org]... who was nominated for Best Actor for Patton, and won it. He didn't go to the ceremony and returned the Oscar to the Academy. When asked if he would watch the ceremony on TV, he said he was going to watch a hockey game, which apparently he did. He later said that the award should be sent to the Patton museum, but since he didn't put it in writing, it was never delivered. The award is now at the Virginia Military Institute, where generations of Patton's have attended...

Re:Everyone here should go see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995430)

Everyone here should go see..

OK I will download it later. :P

Re:Everyone here should go see (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995436)

Even those with a healthy distaste for the institution of monarchy?

Re:Everyone here should go see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34996384)

Because Slashdotters are really boring and unjustifiably think highly of themselves? I agree.

Nom nom nom Cookies!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994916)

I LOVE Cookies!!

Nom nom nom nom nom

You know... (0, Troll)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994934)

...despite some of the huge names that came out last year, overall the new movie scene was a bit boring. There were some big ones that were awesome (Tron, Inception), but overall, there wasn't a lot of variety to be excited about as a moviegoer.

Re:You know... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995072)

Tron was not awesome. It was visually appealing for a daft punk music video.
If ther eis only one post, and it was closed, how was the pager paged?
WHy was the son of the previos movie bad guy specifically pointed out, and then ignored?
What was with all the 'big luboski' talk?

When talking about his zen bullshit his son should have called him out for what it was "Fear to make a decsion".

And what was with Tron?

And why talk about the special light cycle and then do NOTHING with it?
And did they even bother to consulting any computer scientists??
A drunken hobo? WTF? At least they could have made it a 'Zombie' process.

I can overlook a lot of things in TRON. It's a custom computer, with a custom OS. But within that context, it was still week.

But there where so many more things they could have done. When in the plane, Flynn should have been fixing it on the fly. That would have been cool.

Re:You know... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995278)

It's a custom computer, with a custom OS. But within that context, it was still week.

You're wrong. It was totally month.

Re:You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995490)

Sweet Jesus, man...

What was with all the 'big luboski' talk?

Because he talked that way in the original? It's not "Big Lebowski" talk.

When talking about his zen bullshit his son should have called him out for what it was "Fear to make a decsion".

See previous answer.

And why talk about the special light cycle and then do NOTHING with it?

They DID do something with it! He stole it when he went back on the grid!

And did they even bother to consulting any computer scientists??

Why the hell would they? It's a fantasy movie that just happens to be set in a computer. Hint: Computer Scientist would point out that you can't actually put yourself in a computer. A lot of your other questions are mangled enough that I'm not even sure what you're asking.

Re:You know... (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995576)

Sitting around and giving answers to minor questions isn't entertaining. Half of my friends complained there was too much plot and not enough action, and the other half complained it was mindless action with not enough plot. Trying to strike a good balance is always tricky.

They didn't explain how the pager was reached. We're assuming the computer powering the grid had ZERO connection to any other computer, phone line or data line. Yet this is the most important project in Flynn's life. You're saying he didn't replicate data or do backups somehwere? There was probably one connection to the outside world that they weren't aware of most of the time. And it took them ages to find that connection, or figure out how to do anything with it. We're talking about an ancient computer on a custom OS interacting with the rest of the world. This is a minute detail. Does this destroy the viewing experience of the movie?

Why was the son pointed out? Because they're planning sequels.

What was the Big Lebowski talk? What specifically are you talking about? Are you asking why Flynn was a bit of a hippy, then you missed the overall message of the movie.

The first movie was akin to Star Wars, rebels fighting against this evil empire of sorts. That wasn't the case here. This was Flynn struggling to come to terms with his own creation, and why the pursuit of perfection isn't always a good idea. Obsession with the big picture means losing sight of everything else.

Flynn was afraid to do anything initially, and really he was right. He could accept that he and his son was trapped, or he could risk releasing an army on the real world. In the big picture, not taking that risk is the way to go. But it makes for a boring movie, so we have the brash son to push the story along.

The fact that it was a special lightcycle is the reason that people identified Flynn Jr.

As for consulting any computer scientists, the movie is consistent with its own universe. Programs in the grid have personalities, despite being programs. They represent the people who programmed them. Tron is a representative of Alan for instance. This isn't realistic, but reality is boring.

Who says the drunken hobo wasn't a zombie process? He lost his parent thread (job) and is unemployed, siphoning away resources while sitting there and doing nothing.

Who says the nightclub wasn't a repreesntation of Flynn's playlist?

If Flynn can fix anything immediately, then he is God. He is never in danger and there is no dramatic tension. They establish when he fixes Qora, that it is difficult for him to do so, and that it takes time.

Learn how to spell Lebowski and weak, then come back with your next round of pointless criticisms that have little to nothing to do with whether or not the film was entertaining or meaningful.

Re:You know... (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995124)

Maybe not as nerd (I hear you live with one), but looking at the Best Picture nominees:

“Black Swan”
“The Fighter”
“Inception”
“The Kids Are All Right ”
“The King’s Speech”
“127 Hours”
“The Social Network”
“Toy Story 3
“True Grit”
“Winter’s Bone”

A moving story about the British Monarchy, a dark-art psychological thriller, the only movie ever to try to portray a gay family as normal, an animated children's film, a dude who cuts his arm off... and that's only half of them. That's plenty of variety - far better than last year, of which half relied in part on something as pedestrian a topic as guns.

Re:You know... (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995292)

That is an impressive list to be sure, but I wasn't referring strictly to the nominees...I meant in general.

I remember even just a few years ago being able to go to the movies a couple of times a month and having to DECIDE between what to see...now, there's barely anything every couple of MONTHS that I want to see :/

I'm hardly becomming jaded...I'm technically watching more movies than ever (yay 8-at-a-time Netflix!), it's just that newer stuff seems, as a whole, to be fairly weak.

Re:You know... (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995294)

Wow, I haven't even heard of half of those films.

I sometimes think I'm the only person on earth who hasn't seen Inception. However, I also feel like there is absolutely no reason to see it. I've heard enough comments that I can probably recite the plot and be 80% accurate just from my fifth hand osmosis.

Re:You know... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995372)

the only movie ever to try to portray a gay family as normal

Key word is "try". Having to wait until 18 to find your sperm-donor dad is not a good thing, no matter the reason. Neither is infidelity, even when it's apparently a PURELY IMPOSSIBLE affair by a "lesbian" with said sperm donor. I guess this is why it's Hollywood.

Re:You know... (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995968)

>> There were some big ones that were awesome (Tron, Inception)

Really? Inception was still okay (not the story, the special effects). But Tron??? Awesome???

Re:You know... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996086)

Yes, both as a continuation of the first film and as a film by itself. It was really entertaining, it did a good job of putting the audience in the character's heads, it maintained consistency with the real-world representation in the computer world, and naturally it looked awesome. Basically, it was good for the same reasons the first one was good.

People seem to forget how slow-paced and badly-written/acted the original was.

Re:You know... (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996142)

Yeah man the last few years have had terrible movie schedules. It looks like 2011 is shaping up to be an improvement and 2012 will blow the last few years out of the water. I really wish movie studios would do something to try and stop the schedule from clumping up like this.

I vote for Inception... (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994950)

Not that the other contenders weren't good, but Inception really was quite the unique story with a very interesting twist. It was the talk of the town for the first 4 months+ of 2010.

I'm not a big DeCaprio fan at all, but his role was well done along with the others within the movie.

Re:I vote for Inception... (1)

spud603 (832173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995002)

And this emphasizes the Academy's priorities. They care about making a popular TV event much more than awarding great movies. Just because a movie was "the talk of the town" for a long time doesn't make it good.
Inception was fine, but not exactly 'best movie of 2010' material.

Re:I vote for Inception... (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995716)

I haven't seen Black Swan or The King's Speech yet. Let's assume most of the movies nominated were worth all the buzz. That doesn't change the fact that Inception is a masterfully crafted movie.

The beginning of the movie is chaotic with no explanation, and Nolan very slowly unravels his tale while interspersing action sequences without making them feel obligatory. He also edits between multiple layers cleanly. He tells a complex story without overt exposition. This is far harder than most people realize. He gets great performances from a number of actors, and pushes the visual barrier as well.

In the age of CGI and mammoth budgets, finding a way to show people something on film they've never seen is becoming harder and harder.

If that wasn't one of the five best directing perforances this year, then I don't know what to say.

For my money, Nolan is one of the best directors working today (along with Aranofsky, Boyle, Soderberg, and Spielberg) and this may have been his finest movie to date, and his most impressive directing work specifically.

And before someone goes screaming about the brilliance of the Cohen Brothers, or Clint Eastwood, or Polanski or anything like that, those guys can put together a fine drama. But their overall directorial acumen does pale compared to someone like Nolan.

Re:I vote for Inception... (1)

spud603 (832173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995824)

I definitely agree that Inception was very well directed. I'd also like to point out that there's a whole category called "Best Director."
My biggest complaint about the movie is its plot. While a good story is not sufficient to make something the best movie of the year, it certainly is necessary.

Re:I vote for Inception... (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996078)

I apologize if I wasn't clear. When I said, "If that wasn't one of the five best directing perforances this year..." I was referring to the fact that it didn't get nominated for Best Director.

Re:I vote for Inception... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34996386)

College Humor [collegehumor.com] summarised a couple of the plot holes in an amusing manner.

Movies like Inception can be considered great in spite of their plot holes, sub-par storytelling or horrendous acting, though, if they spark an idea in your mind that wasn't there before (see: Star Wars). Perhaps the only point these awards have is to stimulate debate about great movies among the legion of people who believe they were distributed inaccurately.

Re:I vote for Inception... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34996196)

Am I the only person on slashdot who thought Inception was rather horrible? There were too many holes in the storyline to keep me interested.

Re:I vote for Inception... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995024)

Inception was logically inconsistent, and the action sequences were just a bunch of guys shooting each other with mundane guns.

Re:I vote for Inception... (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995286)

[Most Hollywood Action Flicks] are logically inconsistent, and the action sequences were just a bunch of guys shooting each other with mundane guns.

FTFY

Re:I vote for Inception... (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995606)

Great, thank you. All this time I thought I had seen the wrong movie, while everyone I know raved about it, I thought it was just a whole lot of flashy nonsense, barely strung together by screenwriters who clearly didn't understand the subject matter they were trying to present.

I'm quite convinced there's an official step in screenwriting titled "Let's make up a bunch of random bullshit. People think weird nonsense is cool"

Re:I vote for Inception... (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996048)

The hotel loss-of-gravity action scene was a bit unique, but the action was still weak overall. It sort of felt like Nolan wrote the plot, took it to the studio, and they said "ok great whatever, it needs more action to sell". So they went back and added in the bits about dream defense force and threw in some guns and, unfortunately, probably sold more tickets as a result.

I'd be interested to hear what you thought was logically inconsistent about it, while you're at it.

Re:I vote for Inception... (4, Interesting)

cyberon22 (456844) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996444)

Respectfully, I don't think you understood Inception... let me try to explain:

Inception opens with a shot of children building a castle on the beach. This is a biblical reference to Matthew 7.24 and the parable of the wise and foolish builders. The film closes when Cobb's real children tell us they are building a castle “on the cliff”. So we start and end with a biblical story about how getting to heaven requires faith in God. This encourages us to read Inception as an allegorical journey towards redemption through faith, not an action film. Having failed to “buy his way” to heaven, Cobb gets there by taking a “leap of faith”.

If you are confused by the spinning top or self-referential nature of the movie (films are also dreams, and who is to say what message the audience will find in the safe?), that's because you aren't thinking critically about what you saw. People who argue about the spinning top for instance miss the point. The ending of the film is a heaven sequence depicting Cobb’s reunion with God. We have the forgiveness of sins (immigration), the family reunion and the return to the heavenly garden. In order to get there Cobb simply needs to forgive himself (for his complicity in his wife's death) and sacrifice his own life to rescue Saito from limbo. The point of the spinning top is that Cobb ignores it -- he has faith.

One more paragraph because in case you still think that this is a stretch, consider that Michael Caine plays a master architect (creator). Or consider the scene where Cobb stops by Paris to ask his father for guidance. After being chided for his worldliness and corruption (“I never taught you to steal”), Cobb argues he is doing the best he can in a fallen world. But when he asks for help, help is given in the form of a woman whose mythological name suggests her role is guide Cobb out of the maze that is the mortal world (“all dreams are mazes”).

Given that the film has lines like "you have to die to wake-up" I don't think Nolan can be accused of subtly. But if he's made a film that goes over the heads of most filmgoers, it can only be because people have been trained out of having any expectations from movies by the very sorts of films you criticize. So whatever you want to say about Inception go ahead, but calling it a logically inconsistent film with mundane action sequences is about as far off-mark as you can get. This is a film about ideas (it doesn't always give answers -- where does Cobb get the "genesis" of the idea of salvation). If you watch it with the right mindset, I think you'll have a lot more fun and realize how much better it is than anything else released this year!

Re:I vote for Inception... (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995532)

but Inception really was quite the unique story.

It's all a dream? That's a unique story? I remember our grade school English teacher forbidding us from doing that trick when writing stories because so many kids would do it as soon as they'd reached the required number of pages.

Re:I vote for Inception... (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996004)

"It's all a dream"? You must have watched a different movie than me. Not only was it not "all a dream", but it was also nothing like the grade school "I-don't-know-how-to-resolve-this-so-lets-make-the-main-character-wake-up-and-it-was-all-a-dream" hack that you're referring to.

Re:I vote for Inception... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996910)

it [was] not "all a dream"

Are you sure about that? Maybe you should spin your top and see if it falls (or whatever it is you use).

I know who will get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994984)

If it's as political as last year it'll be The Social Network that gets it. Think about it. American Dream, baby! What better way to appease the masses than by reminding them that they shouldn't mind all the injustice and hardship because they too can be the next winner of the American Lotte^H^H^H^H^HDream.

Re:I know who will get it (-1, Troll)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995676)

As badly as I'll get downvoted for this, I'd say The Social Network will win because of its portrayal of a wealthy jew. Hollywood is wholly owned by jewish americans, and they keep it tight, because, well, that's how they got so powerful in the first place. Why change a winning strategy ?

Re:I know who will get it (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995976)

Sour grapes much? We have a half-black man who grew up poor and was ultimately abandoned by both parents as the President of the USA, and you think success in America is all luck?

Re:I know who will get it (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995988)

Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised by it. It wasn't really about worshiping Zuckerberg's success, but that he neither walked away from his success with his self-respect in tact, nor did it buy him friends. Granted that is probably far from the truth, but that's the flaw with moral fables.

Also from the coder's perspective, it was probably one of the least condescending films I've seen in years. Granted that gets a stretched more and more as the movie progresses (can't say I've ever had any success with programming based drinking games or had a boss who expected me to code while surrounded by stoned half-naked coeds), but I never had the urge to throw something at the screen and scream.

Re:I know who will get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34996766)

American Dream, baby! What better way to appease the masses than by reminding them that they shouldn't mind all the injustice and hardship because they too can be the next winner of the American Lotte^H^H^H^H^HDream.

You can't win if you don't play, so don't cry about it while pissing away time on free software and the Internet.

Wait...what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995016)

I was hoping to find some relevance in the article.

There wasn't any.

Not very excited this year (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995026)

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I haven't been very interested in most of the Oscar films in years. Every now and then I'll see a movie that really impresses me, but they almost never get Oscar nom's (occasionally they'll get Independent Spirit nominations). But some of my favorite movies/TV shows of the last decade never got any attention at all from any of these awards shows. Session 9 [wikipedia.org] was the best horror film of the decade and never got any attention from any award show. Did Firefly or Battlestar Galactica ever win an Emmy? Nope.

Re:Not very excited this year (3, Informative)

TheReij (1641099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995144)

BSG won a Peabody which is FAR more prestigous than any Emmy nomination.

Re:Not very excited this year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995170)

Oscars are just a marketing tool to squeeze a bit more money out of a few select movies. "select" meaning chosen based on business considerations.

I don't think any film I'd categorise as outstanding ever won an Oscar. Not that I care, since the Oscar isn't an award for quality anyway.

Re:Not very excited this year (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996110)

What I don't like is it's overtly, almost proudly American-centric view of the cinema. They've got the Best Foreign Film category, but come on, look at a giant like Kurosawa, who made a half-dozen films that are ranked as being among the greatest ever made. He won a best Foreign Film nod, as well as a Lifetime Achievement Award (which is sort of a sucker prize for great filmmakers or actors who the Academy has ineptly never given proper recognition for).

Re:Not very excited this year (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995338)

I've *never* cared. For the same reason that I don't care about the Employee of the Month or Employee of the Year at wherever it is you work. Or why I don't care about MVP for some sports team. Or the same reason I don't care who wins the Best Real Estate Agent of the Year award from the Realtor industry.

Re:Not very excited this year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34996040)

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I haven't been very interested in most of the Oscar films in years. Every now and then I'll see a movie that really impresses me, but they almost never get Oscar nom's (occasionally they'll get Independent Spirit nominations).

Really? Some nominations that I thought were good (and sawing in the cinema): Inception, Up in the Air, Inglorious Basters, No Country for Old Men, Juno, Lost in Translation, LotR, The Pianist, Gosford Park, Gladiator, etc.

Did they all win? Of course not, but it's certainly a good way of weeding out a lot of the crap (though not always: Shakespeare in Love? Over Life is Beautiful? Really?).

How to train: yaay! (5, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995054)

As a fan of animation and kid's movies, I think How to Train Your Dragon was hugely underrated. It is one of those movies that even a 2 year old can sit through and comprehend, which is a rarity for a full-length movie. But the subtlety of the characters is great and the emotions were well acted and realistic. The main character also appeals to the inner geek. There is certainly nothing mind-blowing in it, and the CG is average. But if you like this style of movie and have never seen it I highly recommend it.

The score (2)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995462)

The movie was good, but John Powell's score [youtube.com] to How to Train Your Dragon was phenomenal. Almost year later and it still gives me goosebumps to hear it. I don't expect it to win Best Score (Inception and The Social Network are just too popular), but it certainly deserves it.

Re:How to train: yaay! (1)

Wulfstan (180404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995474)

Yep I totally agree! I watched it at the with my son on the big screen and actually found it lovely and moving - although unfortunately I have a feeling it lacks the star appeal to get itself top billing for an Oscar. Storyline was great, I found the script a bit weak in places, but for junior geeks I thought a great message about brains over brawn.

Oh, and thanks a lot, you useless reptile :-)

Re:How to train: yaay! (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995548)

I really liked HTTYD, but I felt that Jay Baruchel was not the best choice for the main character. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and he plays a great geek, but his voice just didn't seem to fit the movie.

Re:How to train: yaay! (1)

wkurzius (1014229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995868)

The amount of advertising that this movie put out during the Olympics was offensive. I figured it had to be horrible if they were pushing it that much. Perhaps I was wrong.

You'll have to wait a month... (1)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995134)

... to find out the winners.

But only a week for the screeners to hit Usenet!!! Yay!!!

Re:You'll have to wait a month... (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995790)

Okay, I see you don't know how screeners work. They are sent out to the Academy members so that they can decide who to nominate, i.e., the results of which were announced today. Therefore, the screeners have been out for quite some time (since at least December). On Usenet, probably. And your favorite torrent tracker.

Exit through the gift shop (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995178)

I saw this recently and was astounded by 2 things: 1) How a weird guy (Thiery) could convince a bunch of people to basically give him a boatload of money for questionable "art" - he seemed to out-Warhol Warhol! and 2) Seeing Banksy hanging his work in the Tate and nobody realizing that they had an extra image or two on their walls!

Re:Exit through the gift shop (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995388)

I would give anything for Netflix to get the mother fucking clue, already. I can't tell you how many times I have clicked the "DO NOT FUCKING RECOMMEND THIS PIECE OF SHIT TO ME" button and yet it keeps popping up EVERY time as a suggestion. I said I didn't give a shit about this Banksy fucktard yesterday and I still don't care about him today. STOP SUGGESTING IT TO ME!

The only thing even nearly as annoying is how it keeps suggesting fucking stand up comedy films to me. Comedians are boring assholes. How many times do I have to vote down comedian films before you figure me out, you shitty fucking algorithm! GAAAAR!

Re:Exit through the gift shop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995726)

calm down

Re:Exit through the gift shop (2)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995464)

It's a fantastic film -- I'd recommended it to anyone, even if they're not "into that kind of thing" (by which I assume, street art).

But let's not assume too much about its veracity, eh?

Re:Exit through the gift shop (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995622)

But let's not assume too much about its veracity, eh?

I don't think that that film had a budget big enough to fake Thiery's "accomplishments", or the line of people waiting to see his "art". But Banksy is pretty well documented

Re:Exit through the gift shop (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995852)

Well, I wrote a bit about it, but then I deleted it because it had too many spoilers.

Suffice to say that I think the LA show was a bit of a Candid Camera stunt, with the punters as the stooges.

Re:Exit through the gift shop (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996172)

Well, I wrote a bit about it, but then I deleted it because it had too many spoilers.

Suffice to say that I think the LA show was a bit of a Candid Camera stunt, with the punters as the stooges.

Thats what I mean about Thiery taking the Andy Warhol theme and running with it to the extreme (and I think even that point was basically covered in the film). I can see that LA show playing out exactly as shown and people reacting exactly as they did, and spending all their $$$

Re:Exit through the gift shop (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996232)

Mmm, but I think Thiery may be a work of fiction to some extent -- and more Banksy's creation than his own.

Inception and TSN, perhaps. (1)

a Flatbed Darkly (1964478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995190)

But I heavily doubt that anyone could state TS3 worthy of an Oscar were it not for the drought of good "mainstream" cinema. The rest of the nominees are mostly above average, I'd say, but in no way is TS3 deserving of an Oscar. This is, though, an undeniable step up from last year's glut of cheap action movies and thrillers.

Re:Inception and TSN, perhaps. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995406)

Well, neither is the damn Facebook movie, so it's in good company if what you say is true (haven't seen TS3, so I don't have an opinion).

Re:Inception and TSN, perhaps. (1)

atrain728 (1835698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996092)

"Toy Story 3" was a hell of a lot better way to spend 2 hours than "The Kids are All Right." That movie was just dreadful, and yet I keep seeing it nominated for things.

Re:Inception and TSN, perhaps. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996458)

They have to nominate something in the animated category, and TS3 was very well-received. I'd like to see The Illusionist get it though.

Oscar Speech drinking game (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995258)

For any North-American recipients, drink a shot when they do NOT rattle off a whole list of names they want to "thank"

For any European recipient, drink a shot when they do NOT have some witty story/interesting anecdote to tell

Re:Oscar Speech drinking game (2)

Whalou (721698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995348)

For any North-American recipients, drink a shot when they do NOT rattle off a whole list of names they want to "thank"

For any European recipient, drink a shot when they do NOT have some witty story/interesting anecdote to tell

I haven't watched the Oscars in a long time but that actually looks to me like the AA version of a drinking game.

Teamspeak (1)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995342)

For a brief second, I thought that TeamSpeak3 got an oscar Nomination.
I was (not so) shocked to see ventrilo was left out of the running. :P

Technology? (1)

mutherhacker (638199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995454)

How is this news for Geeks? I don't get it.

Re:Technology? (1, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995938)

It's here because its about facebook. And CmdrTaco wishes that this site was as ubiquitous as facebook, so he'll cover any story that references facebook in an attempt to bring back some of the prestige (and traffic) that this site once had. Of course, Taco might also be just a little jealous over the fact that facebook kid managed to make zillions of dollars by selling snake oil through his web site, while Taco is still driving an old Geo Metro...

Re:Technology? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996414)

I would place this under the "Stuff That Matters" category. These awards, while not important on the long-term grand scheme of things, are at least important enough that people will be talking about them for a week or so, and will possibly be discussed years from now by film students (I know for a fact that "Citizen Kane lost at the Oscars" still pops up in film history books, and if one of this year's picks ends up as "the greatest movie ever", the same could happen).

TSN? Gimme a break (1)

ggambett (611421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34995768)

I honestly don't understand the hype surrounding The Social Network. It's an OK movie at best. Not bad, but nothing memorable either. Inception should beat it in every category, yet everybody is talking about TSN. WTF?

Re:TSN? Gimme a break (1)

fpp (614761) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996896)

My opinion only of course, but The Social Network is the best film of the year, followed closely by Inception. That opinion is not based on what anyone else says, that's based on me seeing it without knowing much about it when I went in. The reason why The Social Network comes first? Excellent directing, dense, rapid-fire, intelligent script, a great score, sharp, effective editing, and effective casting and performances all around. Hell, even the cinematography is excellent, especially when you see it on Bluray. There are few films that hold my attention all the way through. Most of them slow down or get down right boring during the saggy middle act. Not The Social Network. It was riveting all the way through. It's very difficult to create a good movie about anything, and it's damn near impossible to create a good movie that's mostly someone talking or typing on the keyboard, or telling a complex story cohesively. The Social Network does it all extremely well. I liked Inception, but I had difficulty following the plot. For that reason alone, it goes to my number 2 spot.

The Illusionist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995996)

While I really liked The Illusionist (had a lot of The Prestige) wasn't it a 2006 movie?

News for Nerds? (0)

bobbocanfly (1061244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996022)

I feel to see how this falls under the topic of "News for Nerds?". A glossy Disney pop-scifi remake of an old cult nerd film is about the only nerdy thing on there. The Social Network was an overhyped fictitious story which had very little of the technological aspect. Toy Story 3 is just a kids film, a very good one at that, but in no way really nerdy.

Inception: where do I get those tank treads? (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996410)

If you watched the movie, you might have noticed in the snow scenes, there's a vehicle that has 4 triangular tank tread kinda things, instead of normal, round tyres. What are they called, and are they commercially available?

Oh boy here we go (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996454)

Seen all three movies, thankfuly didn't pay for them:

- Inception: interesting premise (has been done before however) but absolute crap execution. Expected a deeply philosophical movie, ended up with an Matrix-ish action flick. A wasted opportunity.
- Toy Story 3: ok, deja vu, but ok entertainment, nothing exceptional.
- The Social Network: absolutely boring all the way thru, wasn't entertained for even a second. this has to be one of the most overhyped movies of all time. a very bad movie, even if it wasn't about
one of the worse assholes on the planet (Zuckerberg) it would still be a bad movie. A boring movie about the life of an asshole... wonderful...

Inception: The Social Network (1)

cdp0 (1979036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996602)

First I read it as "Inception: The Social Network", and I was wondering if this is the next generation social network, to which you will connect in your dreams.
That would've put Facebook to shame.

TSN shouldn't be there. (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34996702)

Lets be totally honest, if you made the exact same movie in an alternate universe where no one cared about facebook, the movie would have bombed. The /only/ reason that TSN did as well as it did wasn't because it was a great movie, but because every idiot facebook user went "lololololol lets go see that facebook movie"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...