Ten Sci-Fi and Fantasy Oscar Snubs Comments - Mania.com


Showing items 71 - 76 of 76
<<  <  5 6 7 8 
keithdaniel 2/23/2013 8:04:35 PM

VermithraxPejorative, you think The Andromeda Strain is better than Blade Runner or even Star Wars? Oh well, I guess that's taste, so be it!

Kaziklu 2/24/2013 2:59:26 PM

 Keith, I'm saying it wasn't snubbed. That is what I've said all along. 

I also said that I think it looked good. 

But the other movies from that year were as good or better. 

ET won for Visual effects, Top Grossing Movie of the year, and still much beloved has 60 times the following of Blade Runner according to Rotten Tomatos. 

Ghandi's did win for Art Direction, it was a stunning movie to watch. Annie and Victor/Victoria and La Traviata were the other nominated movies. I love Victor Victoria. La Traviata was a Opera Adaptation, and Annie was cute. 

And yes I think based one the movies I've seen that were nominated or eligable that year... the Academy got it right. 

And I'm sorry. I still see no large scale love of the movie. It is enjoyed by a niche group of people.. It's a Cult Film. That is what a Cult Film is... and there is nothing wrong with that. 

VermithraxPejorative 2/25/2013 5:44:53 AM

Keith, no no no.....I ddn't say it was BETTER, just MY personal favorite movie. Just because someone likes a movie over another doesn't mean it's "better".

I love all those movies, and they hold up equal to me, but The Andromeda Strain holds a special place for me because of when I was first exposed to it, and that it was probably the first "serious" Sci-Fi film I ever saw!

keithdaniel 2/25/2013 11:55:04 AM

Kaziklu, I along with a great many others disagree with you regarding this notion that "the Academy got it right" because they didn't as they usually don't.  I believe Blade Runner was snubbed because the Academy has had too long a sad history of leaving out movies that are in the sci-fi genre and even when they are included in nominations like Star Wars; they're still defeated by films that shouldn't have won.  You also didn't address the fact that the Academy snubbed Psycho in the best picture category (even though it inspired and changed the face of horror forever) as well as Hitchcock never having won for best director which is also an outrage given how acclaimed he, the master of suspense was and will always be.  I guess you're saying the Academy was right to do so.  Was Driving Miss Daisy better than Born on the Fourth of July just because the Academy said so?  A snorefest like DMD was nowhere near as great as BotFoJ, the latter film is arguably one of the greatest dramas of all-time and the greatest coming home from Vietnam films ever.  Should Anni Hall have won best picture and director over Star Wars?  SW only revolutionized not only what kinds of films were made but how they were made and became a movie franchise and cultural phenomenon like no other film ever will!  The Academy keep shaming themselves too often and don't even realize it.  They have especially done so in light of films like: BR, Superman:The Movie, SW, The Empire Strikes Back, in addition to Psycho.  

There were no films that came out that year or any other year for that matter that looked nearly as good let alone better (if that's what you're saying) than BR.  You're basically saying that Gandhi won for best art direction and cinematograpy and should've because that was the Academy's decision and theirs is the one that counts.  Sorry, but that isn't good enough because a movie isn't necessaily better in any department just because the arrogant Academy says so and is obviously too snotty and stupid to look beyond it's miopic thinking.  I can't think of many or any films that tried to copy or were inspired by Gandhi's look, even though it was very well shot.  As I've explained in more detail earlier, BR has inspired much more in terms of it's look and how it was shot than Gandi or even ET.  The latter film has a younger audience by the way, that's one of the reasons why it did better commercially.  But despite ET's commercial success over BR, the latter film is still seen as a phenomenal classic, one that continues to make the short lists of all-time greatest sci-fi films by various publications, and even tops some lists; something which I don't see ET or Gandhi doing!

Just because you and people you know don't like BR doesn't mean the movie has a small audience and that's very narrow-minded of you to think so to say the least.  Try looking outside your world and then maybe you'll finally see that.  A big audience isn't limited to instantanous commercial success.  What is wrong is for you to suggest that a movie like BR is a cult film and has a small following when history has clearly proven you wrong.  A cult film is a film that has initially failed to gain commerical fame upon it's initial release but gains a specific audience over time and can even cross over and shed it's cult status by having a mainstream audience which is what BR has done.  Cult films don't have mainstream audiences with that many fans (many of whom also love SW and Star Trek), from popular publications which keep mentioning the film, highly rating it and discussing it's legacy, authors who've written books on the movie and it's troubled history and even famous acclaimed filmmakers who have rated it so highly as well.  Legend (which just happens to be another Ridly Scott film) is a cult film because not only has it not achieved any initial commercial fame but has only attracted a limited but devoted following.  Despite it's fans, it hasn't broken out into the mainstream or transcended into wider audiences.  With the examples I've previously given, BR has and just because you haven't seen it for some odd reason doesn't mean it hasn't transcended it's cult status.

Believe whatever you like, but no matter how much you deny it, BR despite starting out as a cult film, is a movie that easily has one of the biggest followings ever in sci-fi history.  Cult films don't remain to be cult films when they've achieved that much noriety and acclaim that BR has received for some time now, but whether you get over that fact or not is another story.

lazarus 2/25/2013 3:07:25 PM

The Oscars have become such a joke which is why other awards like Golden Globes and Peoples Choice are becoming more important. Everyone KNOWS which movies should get awards but the uptight, high brow, psuedo intellectual morons that comprise the board wants to seem sophisticated. Ledger deserved that Oscar. Again that is why these other awards will gain signigficance as the Oscars diminishe.

pumaleader 2/25/2013 7:33:37 PM

Um...Star Wars? Raider of the Lost Ark?

<<  <  5 6 7 8 


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.