My Studios

To each his own and not wanting to start mad ravings from the fanboys but from my perspective "TDK" isn't the masterpiece all the fanboys think it is and definitely not OSCAR best picture material and if anyone should be in line for an OSCAR it should be Aaron Eckhart for his outstanding performance as Harvey Dent and the reason the Dark Knight turned out fine in the end. OK, I don't have a problem with Ledger performance as the Joker so maybe someone should be looking at him as well. Whatever you may think of TDK you have to admit the first one hour and some minutes were boring and trite to say the least. Oh, well, you don't have to admit it. As for "Hellboy2" I would say the special effects in that film and the magnificently created characters outdoes the special effects of TDK save the "two face" effect of Harvey Dent face. Overall, the Dark Knight might have had the better script and TWO top notch performances but comparable "Hellboy2" is pretty darn good in its own way and definitely worth a look.

Guillermo? Is that you?

Yes, it is a very good film but I don't see it getting a Best Picture nomination. In fact, I believe they're should be a rule preventing sequels from getting nominated unless the previous installment won.

As for The Dark Knight versus Hellboy II, both were better than the previous installments but I'll give the advantage to The Dark Knight because Batman has always been my favorite superhero and he succeeded again. And Heath Ledger's performance may be this year's version of Anton Chigurh award-wise.

Buscemi wrote:

Yes, it is a very good film but I don't see it getting a Best Picture nomination. In fact, I believe they're should be a rule preventing sequels from getting nominated unless the previous installment won.

As for The Dark Knight versus Hellboy II, both were better than the previous installments but I'll give the advantage to The Dark Knight because Batman has always been my favorite superhero and he succeeded again. And Heath Ledger's performance may be this year's version of Anton Chigurh award-wise.

Don't agree with that "rule" where sequels couldn't win. If that be the case, then "The Godfather 2" would have never won Best Picture, and that would have been a tragedy in my eyes. The other nominees that year were: THE EMIGRANTS, SOUNDER, CABARET, and DELIVERANCE.

Producers shouldn't be punished because they want to continue a similar storyline even if it's for the sake of money. Regardless, a quality film still can come out of it. If nothing else, DARK KNIGHT is evidence that something new can come out of a sequel. They all don't have to be as disposable as FANTASTIC FOUR: THE SILVER SURFER.

Just to let you know, I don't know how the rest of this year's pictures are going to pan out, but I'd be surprised if DARK KNIGHT gets a nomination. I know you might keep reading that the Oscars wants to stay relevant, but I know there's going to be more Oscar-bait movies than to allow for DARK KNIGHT to contend for Best Picture. I agree that Ledger deserves a nomination, but I don't agree that this deserves a nom for Best Pic. But, if a film like CRASH can win, who knows?

Buscemi that is probably the dumbest thing you have ever said. Sequels are films too!

Obviously a lot of the Oscar bait is yet to come, but the only two films I've seen this year that I would even put in 'Best Picture' contention are 'In Bruges' and 'The Dark Knight.' Maybe 'Wall-E' too, but the academy is more comfortable keeping those animated films in their own categories. 'In Bruges' might get a nod for writing. It has been a fun year for enjoyable movies but nothing has floored me yet (yeah, it happens

.) The Fall schedule will let us know if either film has any hope for the big prize.

Why would a sequel automatically be bad? There are many examples of sequels that are better than the original. There are also a lot of bad sequels but that's usually because the original was also crappy.

I agree with the general consensus about sequels. In the first movie, there's usually a lot more time spent on character development than is needed in any other installments. Come the sequel, many main characters are already established and while you might need to introduce a couple more, the focus can be much more on the story. If a sequel is done right, it can easily surpass the original.

Yeah, and who cares if the original won? It could have had huge competition from awesome movies or it could be the only great movie of the year.

To nominate sequels to previous films that didn't win or get nominated I think shows that the Academy is pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of actually watching films that are better than the film nominated. Obvious example: the incredibly boring The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers being nominated for Best Picture over better films such as Far From Heaven, Adaptation, Punch-Drunk Love, Spirited Away and Frida. It simply got nominated so that they would get people to watch. I also believe that Return Of The King did not deserve a nomination mainly because the first two didn't win and it wasn't even one of the five best films that year. Once again, I believe it was nominated so that people would watch. In fact, I believe that a LOTR fanboy fixed the outcome that year so it would sweep. In reality, the first film will always be the best Lord Of The Rings film.

And frisky, I said that sequels should only be eligible when the previous (the first) installment wins. The Godfather Part II would still be eligible. Though in that year, there were three other good films nominated (Chinatown, The Conversation, Lenny) all from fine directors (Polanski, Coppola, Fosse). I disagree with The Towering Inferno's nomination though, it being a bloated action film. That's about the same as Transformers being nominated today.

Also, The Emigrants is a film that is worth watching. Hard to find (and seemingly available only in the shorter theatrical version and dubbed) but worth it.

That is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever hear. just because its a sequel doen't mean it shouldn't be weighed for quality on its own merits. Just because the majority of sequels now are mindless doesn't mean that is the rule.

Also there is no way In Bruges will even get a second thought. it may have been good but it made no money, got no recognition, and came out way to early in the year for the academy to remember such a small film through the award season rush of films at the end of the year.

Buscemi Thats one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. The Sequel cant win unless the orginal won? what that just doesnt make sense.

Like I have heard many people say calling the Godfather 2 a sequel doesn't really do it justice. I am not sure if I agree with that. But what I can tell you is that The Dark Knight is not a sequel, just as the third one (if done by Nolan) won't be a sequel either because it is a continuation of the story started in Batman Begins, not a completely new story at all, it is the next chapter so to speak.

But anyways to say that Hellboy 2 had special effects that were better is stating the obvious. Nolan wanted to stay away from CGI and things of that nature. He wanted the focus and emphasis to be on characters and story. Not the effects.

Yea, you could totally tell on what Nolan was focusing on (Story and Character) and what Guillermo was focusing on (Effects and Creatures).

Honestly, it dont matter to me if it gets nominated. It wouldn't make me like it any more or less. Even if it does, some people will agree with it and some wont.

Buscemi wrote:

To nominate sequels to previous films that didn't win or get nominated I think shows that the Academy is pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of actually watching films that are better than the film nominated. Obvious example: the incredibly boring The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers being nominated for Best Picture over better films such as Far From Heaven, Adaptation, Punch-Drunk Love, Spirited Away and Frida. It simply got nominated so that they would get people to watch. I also believe that Return Of The King did not deserve a nomination mainly because the first two didn't win and it wasn't even one of the five best films that year. Once again, I believe it was nominated so that people would watch. In fact, I believe that a LOTR fanboy fixed the outcome that year so it would sweep. In reality, the first film will always be the best Lord Of The Rings film.

You're expecting way too much from the Academy. Yes, I think it's a general consensus that the Academy usually gets it wrong. Rarely do they get it right. I mean, "Crash" winning?! "Saving Private Ryan" losing to "Shakespeare in Love"?! "A Beautiful Mind"?! "Ordinary People" beating out "Raging Bull"? I think everyone in Hollywood has figured out that if you do A and B, you'll probably get a nomination and in some cases, get a win. There's a formula, like in anything. I don't agree that "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" didn't deserve a nomination. We could bicker about this all not long because it's based on opinion, but remember it's just an award. I'm glad one of the "LOTR" films got an Oscar because it did a lot of good for Hollywood. I didn't think the first "LOTR" deserved a win. I wasn't partial to the last one that did because I liked "The Two Towers" the most, but that's just me.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: