Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment

Slumdog Millionaire Takes Home 8 Oscars 317

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the stuff-to-see dept.
Ben Burtt was robbed of his overly deserved Oscars for the sound on Wall-E, and Heath Ledger's Joker unsurprisingly got a posthumous statue, but the big winner for the night was Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire with Picture, Director, Song, and five others. Go ahead movie nerds: talk amongst yourself.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slumdog Millionaire Takes Home 8 Oscars

Comments Filter:
  • by justthinkit (954982) <floyd@just-think-it.com> on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:22AM (#26956433) Homepage Journal
    Comedy:
    Definitely, Maybe
    Ghost Town

    Documentaries:
    Flow
    National Geographic's In The Womb series

    Drama:
    Red
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Where were these noms?

      They forgot to send hookers and blow to the Oscar committee. The parties responsible have been sacked.

  • Britney kicks off her latest world tour on March 3... post an article about that while you're at it.
    • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:28AM (#26956493) Journal

      I was wondering that myself. My girlfriend made me sit through part of the Oscars last night and at one point some clueless celebrity started gushing about how the Oscar is the "most prestigious award in the world". Really? More prestigious than the Nobel prize? More prestigious than the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross?

      Give me a fucking break. I'll never understand the fascination that a lot of my countrymen have with Hollywood and the culture surrounding movie stars/other celebrities.

      • In that clueless celebrity's world, it is the the "most prestigious award in the world." Do you really think she will ever get the Nobel Prize? Highly doubtful. Just let her enjoy her clueless life and go on with yours.
        • by wisty (1335733) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:51AM (#26956651)

          Even more than the AVN awards?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Are you seriously implying that the Nobel Prize has any meaning whatsoever? Seriously?
          Do you really believe that the Nobel Prize is anything but a circle-jerk, just like the Oscars?

          • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:52AM (#26957333) Journal

            The Nobel Prize awards would mean more if they were not given out until there was someone of worth to award it to. Instead they are given out regularly, as if the world continuously produces people worthy of the awards. The more often they give them out, the more it is like being one of the 40 million high school queens at the prom each year. Now, if there were only one prom Queen for all the high schools in the USA each year... now that would be special.

            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23, 2009 @10:10AM (#26957517)

              I quite agree with you.
              I actually lost any respect for the Nobel Prize a long time ago, shortly after first learning about them and being mighty impressed,
              I went through the list of the laureates.
              To my surprise, I did not find Gandhi.
              Instead I found that he was nominated five times, but was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
              Now I can accept the last omission, as that was within the rules of only living people being eligible and he was assassinated after being nominated for the fifth time, but I could never accept the other four times.
              There have been many other problems with the awards and omissions of them, but I still feel that this was the worst blunder of them all.

            • by eln (21727) on Monday February 23, 2009 @10:41AM (#26957849) Homepage

              The Nobel Prize has been inflated in the minds of some (with help from the media, no doubt) to be far more than it is. It is not designed to be awarded to people who just make mind-blowing life-changing discoveries. Nobel's will specifically stated that it be awarded annually:

              The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind

              It then goes on to stipulate what categories each award is for.

              So, the Nobel Prize was originally intended to simply be sort of a "man of the year" competition in various fields, and was supposed to pertain to work that was done during the preceding year. In that spirit, Gore's prize was proper, since he was being awarded for stuff he had done during the previous year, while those prizes given to scientists for discoveries made years or decades earlier were technically in violation of Nobel's original intent, since it was supposed to reward only work done during the preceding year.

              If the Nobel Prize was awarded as a "Man of the Year in x field" rather than "person who made earth-shattering discoveries in x field", you wouldn't have near the controversy it always seems to generate.

        • by frission (676318)
          maybe they should have said most recognized. i think more people can tell you who won what oscar last year, than they can tell you who the nobel prize, and for what...
      • by FooGoo (98336) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:34AM (#26956551)

        Celebrities live in a different world. It's kinda like a snow globe filled with lithium and cocaine. In their world it is the most prestigious award.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by spydabyte (1032538)
        I personally enjoy the Oscars and obviously I read Slashdot. Sure there are a lot of clueless actors and actresses out there, but I truly believe some of the work they do is incredible and no one else in the world can come close to the product they create.So I completely agree that the Oscars should be as noteworthy as they are.

        Now I found Barbra Walters and the Red Carpet bit pretty irritating, but at least they stopped cutting people off (for the first 2 hours I voluntarily watched).

        I personally am emb
        • I truly believe some of the work they do is incredible and no one else in the world can come close to the product they create

          Directors, special affects artists, and maybe writers, yes. But good acting isn't hard to come by. Acting is pretty easy, and there are lots of great actors who are never given the opportunity to work with the best directors, producers, or writers.

          As for the Oscars, I think the opening act was insulting. A room full of millionaires gave a standing ovation to a musical bit making fun of the economic hardships we're facing. Talk about living in a bubble...

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Acting is pretty easy

            I dunno about that... I've got some 'actor friends,' I've seen a lot of plays and movies and TV shows and I don't know / haven't seen too many people who could have rivalled Sean Penn's performance in "Milk" or Winslet's in "The Reader..." and on it goes. Utterly brilliant.

      • by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:39AM (#26957179) Homepage

        The Oscars are a bunch of MAFIAA types stroking themselves, and assuming (with the complicity of the media) that the entire fucking world cares about it.

        When we give/get awards, it's in the family.

        • by rahvin112 (446269) on Monday February 23, 2009 @01:08PM (#26959653)

          The Oscars have nothing to do with the MPAA or RIAA. The Oscars are the entertainers themselves nominating and awarding themselves. The votes are from current members of the actors and director's guilds (unions) and other members of the entertainment industry. They have nothing to do with the AA's other than the fact that the actor's and director's don't get paid when you pirate.

      • by zappepcs (820751)

        The women in my house have a tradition for Oscars (and award shows in general) They like to open a bottle of wine (each) and sit back and giggle at the movie industry players. That alone is enough to put me off watching any of it. I didn't watch so finding out that Ledger won, and slumdog won... well I figure that I missed out on nothing. period.

        When there are items in such award shows that actually have something to do with 'news for nerds' then I'll watch. Since there was no news for nerds in the awards s

      • by The Moof (859402) on Monday February 23, 2009 @11:10AM (#26958143)
        I think Brian Williams put it best about the Oscars during Friday's newscast:
        "It's the day where the west coast pretends what they do actually matters."
    • "It's not that we want her to die, it's that we *need* her to die. Do you understand son?"
    • I mean really the guy died for the role so the 20 seconds to post that yes he did get his statue and that whatever movie got the rest of them is fine.

    • by Ogive17 (691899) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:11AM (#26956857)
      Why do you know when Brittany's tour kicks off? Hell, I didn't know she was out of the loony bin yet.

      And I don't see why people are bitching about a thread about the Oscars. Plenty of nerds enjoy movies. If you do not like movies, you could simply NOT CLICK ON THE FUCKING ARTICLE. That's what I do when I come across an article that doesn't interest me, I don't read it (and therefore don't create a whiney post complaining about it either).
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I think that really did it.

  • cheese with cheese (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NoMass (74236) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:24AM (#26956451) Homepage

    Every year that goes by the Oscars become more of a farce.
    Slumdog was the most cheesy and predictable film i have seen in years. The screenplay seemed like it was written by a 3 year old, the acting was horrendous, and you knew exactly how the film would end after about 8 minutes into it.

  • I'm not going to enter an extended rant. But I do wish this kind of story didn't make the front page on /.

    • by The Dancing Panda (1321121) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:33AM (#26956537)
      Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.
      • Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.

        Okay, fair point. But I just figured that /. was implicitly News for Technology Nerds; not other kinds of nerdiness.

        • by Spazztastic (814296) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [citsatzzaps]> on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:44AM (#26956607)

          Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.

          Okay, fair point. But I just figured that /. was implicitly News for Technology Nerds; not other kinds of nerdiness.

          We had this same argument during the earthquake in China over the summer. If you don't want to see this on the front page, use the firehose to mod it down. If you're using the beta index, mod it down so you don't see it. It's News For Nerds. Stuff that Matters. To many, this does matter. Not all of us participate in online forums (specifically that work doesn't block during the day) and it's nice to discuss it.

          Just because this article doesn't pertain to your interests doesn't mean you have to come in and troll it. There's also many kinds of Technologies that go behind making movies from the start to finish.

          I don't have any interest in the Mars Lander, but I don't go in trolling ABOUT THOSE DAMN NASAHOLES and how JUNIOR CANT READ GIVE THEM MONEY. Get over yourself and scroll down, it's not that big of an inconvenience to ignore one article.

          • by conner_bw (120497)

            Sorry, but "the firehose" is completely unusable.

            Makes no sense from a UI design perspective and is slower than molasses on a modest computer system (i.e. G4 and G5); to the point of crashing the machine.

            I guess if you want to chase away your loyal older readers, it's a good move.

            But for the same reason younger people don't hang out at their dad's lodge or coffee shop, they won't be coming here any time soon either.

        • by GundamFan (848341) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:54AM (#26956673)

          And yet it doesn't say Technology on the site header.

          What would be appropriate content for the entertainment department in your opinion? I'm honestly asking here, as a movie/tech/gaming nerd I'm curious.

      • by pzs (857406) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:51AM (#26956655)

        What is this new trend for everybody who has any kind of interest calling themselves "nerds" or "geeks"? I heard some beautiful person on TV the other day describing themselves as a "Musical Theatre Geek". WTF?

        My current theory is that this is a nice way of bragging that "I know loads about this". By saying you're a "geek" it makes it sound like you're being humble about it.

        Seriously though, I was proud of being a geek/nerd when it meant being a computery person who is passionate about science and technology and who therefore sometimes seems odd to people who are not into those things. However, if the word "nerd" has come to mean anybody with any kind of interest, it seems a bit of a lame and meaningless term.

        • by rmadmin (532701)
          I concur. The terms geek and nerd have gone too mainstream. I used to get made fun of because I was a nerd, now everyone calls themselves a geek or a nerd. "Look i got a new [TV|ipod|cellphone], I don't know how to hook it up and can barely use it, but I'm such a geek for getting it!" The hell with that, screw all you posers. Go back to being wiggers or something.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by SputnikPanic (927985)

            [T]he words "geek" and "nerd" exchanged status positions. A nerd was still socially tainted, but geekdom acquired its own cool counterculture. A geek possessed a certain passion for specialized knowledge, but also a high degree of cultural awareness and poise that a nerd lacked.

            From The Alpha Geeks [nytimes.com], an op-ed piece by David Brooks. It's actually an interesting read -- worth checking out.

        • by Wescotte (732385)

          Seriously though, I was proud of being a geek/nerd when it meant being a computery person who is passionate about science and technology and who therefore sometimes seems odd to people who are not into those things.

          <nelson>ha ha</nelson>

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SputnikPanic (927985)

          Geekdom has always had its camps: you've got your computer geeks, music theater geeks, comic book geeks, fantasy geeks, and so on. Basically if you were interested in something that wasn't considered cool (i.e., something other than cars, sports, cheerleading, binge drinking), you were a geek of one stripe or another.

          Of course now, in some sort of wicked irony, it's cool to be a geek. Part of it is a reflection that so much of our lives have become so closely intertwined with technology and gadgets. For

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.

        There are already tons of sites for those people. The difference between a movie nerd and a real nerd is that movie nerds have dedicated huge portions of their brains to meaningless, typically mindless entertainment. They have memorized the names, faces, shoe sizes, and favorite foods of people who could not give one tenth of one shit about them and if they met them on the street would probably tell them they smell funny.

        Please, please keep the non-geek-interest entertainment schlock off of slashdot lest it

    • by GF678 (1453005) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:40AM (#26956585)

      I dunno, I actually enjoy news articles like this sometimes. It's a welcome surprise from all the Linux zealotry/Microsoft bashing this site is used to.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by genner (694963)

        I dunno, I actually enjoy news articles like this sometimes. It's a welcome surprise from all the Linux zealotry/Microsoft bashing this site is used to.

        Bah....in the old days we would add Mac Fanboyism to the mix and call it a night. We were happier back then.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mcgrew (92797) *

        You must not come here often, or you get your information from uncyclopedia. Posts saying anything negative about Microsoft are almost always modded flamebait, especially when true. Say something negative about Linux and you're more likely to get a comment reply educating you.

        I had six stories posted to the front page last year, eight the year before that, and IIRC not one dealt with Linux or Microsoft. If you haven't submitted any stories, don't bitch about what's posted.

        That said, I agree completely with

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Posts saying anything negative about Microsoft are almost always modded flamebait, especially when true. Say something negative about Linux and you're more likely to get a comment reply educating you.

          This hasn't been my experience at all. What I have noticed is that if you say the same old boring shit against Microsoft, or if you say some shit against Microsoft that just isn't true (e.g. completely fucking ignorant psuedotechnical examinations of Windows that purport to discover flaws which aren't really flaws while ignoring the real issues) then you are likely to get modded down by a community tired of hearing people make shit up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by SputnikPanic (927985)

        I enjoy this sort of story every once in a while too. Here on Slashdot we're more than happy to talk all day about what technology is being used in making films or about Hollywood's often overzealous antipiracy efforts or any number of stories about the Watchmen movie, all of which just reinforce the fact that movies are part of our lives. So if Slashdot wants to toss in a story about the Oscars, which after all happens only once per year, I don't see it being all that big a deal. The way folks are react

  • by Anonymous Coward
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscar.nominees.full.list/index.html [cnn.com] For a proper listing of the nominees and winners. Posting AC because I don't care, but I also don't want someone to see my UID attached to this post.
  • by damn_registrars (1103043) * <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:34AM (#26956543) Homepage Journal
    I may be missing something, but how is it that difficult to do sound for an animated film? I would say if anyone was robbed regarding sound-related categories it was slumdog millionaire. With animation you have all the time in the world to do the sound effects any way you want. Some of the scenes in slumdog were shot on handicams in crowded slums by comparison; how many times can you redo a take with thousands of extras and still achieve some sort of continuity?
    • by FatalTourist (633757) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:48AM (#26956641) Homepage
      So animated films have no deadlines? Sound for animated or live action is often done the same way. In post. Rarely do you actually use a sound that you recorded on set (aside from dialog).
      • Rarely do you actually use a sound that you recorded on set (aside from dialog).

        And even a lot of dialog is either redone or touched up in post.
    • by abigsmurf (919188)

      You could argue it's much much harder to do sound when none exists whereas a crowded street provides them all for you.

    • by pz (113803) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:02AM (#26956761) Journal

      Most live-action movies have overdubbed sound. Not all, but it is the norm. So the difference between a live-action film and an animated film, in terms of creating a soundtrack, is quite small. Both have massive sound effects -- in a live-action film, each footstep, each door opening, each paper crinkling, each jingle of keys, each car passing, and every single uttered syllable, is likely dubed. And even if you do have live sound (which, nominally, you do), there's lots of manipulation that needs to be done to turn it into a soundtrack. Just like with an animated film, except you lack the live sound recording.

      • by The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:32AM (#26957087)

        and every single uttered syllable, is likely dubed.

        That's where you lost it. Most sound effects are dubbed, yes, but there's an entire team of people on a film set dedicated to keeping the dialogue clean and usable. Dubbed dialogue can rarely match the intensity of a real, live recording of a scene and using it almost always robs a performance of some quality.

        • by mzs (595629)

          I disagree. Barring anything stupid like bad sync, dubbed does not rob anything. The sound mixers can do wonders, and they do. If a producer or director wants it to sound crappy to match the feel of other footage, they can add that right back in.

          • From an actor's point of view, I have a hard time believing that you'd be able to get anything near the same emotions standing in front of a mic that you would in the scene, especially if there's any movement involved - the movement not only changes how you feel, it changes physically how the sounds come out of your body. They'd have to basically re-enact the scene exactly to get the same intensity of emotion - or even just the same emotion - that they'd get in the original.
            • That's what I tried, and failed, to say up there. From a performing standpoint, dubbing is a very different and less authentic process than being on a set and interacting with other performers and colors the final result.

              • by mzs (595629)

                I see now your point. The thing is that I think that good actors are good, and that is just acting. When I watch a particularly good movie, I watch it a few times. Then I wait for the DVD and I watch the commentaries. In almost every case during the commentary there was something to the effect of, I needed to rerecord this dialogue, I am happy with how well it turned-out. If I had never heard the commentary, I would have never even noticed. In fact there are some cases where words were changed, and the effe

    • by Bohnanza (523456)
      The point is that the soundtrack for WALL-E is basically nothing BUT sound effects. Truly amazing on a good sound system.

      I agree that Burtt got robbed.

  • by nyvalbanat (1393403) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:55AM (#26956691)
    In any case, if it's by Microsoft I automatically hate it, and if it's for Linux I definitely love it.
  • by ghoul (157158) on Monday February 23, 2009 @08:59AM (#26956727)

    Would Slumdog have been even noticed had it not been made by a British Director? Thousands of movies have been made about poverty in India. They get as much attention as movies made about drugs in American cities. People deal with this shit in their everyday life and dont want to watch it when they pay to enter a theater for some relaxation. Only people who have never seen poverty get their rocks off by watching something like Slumdog. Then again probably why Rambo and Die Hard were so popular outside the States was that guns are a big deal in countries with gun control.

    • >Would Slumdog have been even noticed had it not been made by a British Director?
      It nearly went straight to DVD so possibly not. However, it's the first film I can remember in years where I would hear people talking in the office, on the train etc saying 'you must go and see Slumdog'. That just doesn't happen these days so the buzz was very much word of mouth initially.
      • by cptnapalm (120276)

        One possible reason why no one has said "you must go and see Slumdog" before is because never before has a movie been called slumdog.

        All, jackassery on my part aside, nobody flipped you knew flipped out over Dark Knight?

    • by owlnation (858981) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:11AM (#26956865)

      Would Slumdog have been even noticed had it not been made by a British Director?

      Your point is very valid. But in this case it's not the director. Danny Boyle wasn't a bankable name, or, indeed, a successful director. Or indeed, a good director. He's a hack who steals ideas from other movies. Slumdog would have been much better with a talented artist at the helm.

      Note also that he had an Indian co-director who's had absolutely no credit whatsoever.

      No. In this case it's the producer who got it its success-- multi-millionaire Paul Smith, realty TV hack, and expert publicist. Cashing in nicely on India.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I strongly suggest watching Ram Gopal Verma's film "Satya" and/or Madhur Bhandarkar's "Chandni Bar"
        instead of slumdog for a better exposure to the same subject.

        Satya and CB portray the genuine trials and tribulations of Mumbai's different peoples without degrading or dehumanizing an entire country of people like Boyle did with slumdog.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mzs (595629)

          Thank you for those suggestions. Slumdog was a gangster movie with a love interest and a game show hook. It is by the numbers. If it had not been set in India everyone would have seen it for what it was. I was very disappointed to see it do so well. I saw it and Coraline on Saturday and Coraline was the much better movie, and Coraline had much potential that it did not take advantage of in the closing third. As I was watching Slumdog I could not stop thinking that this movie must be incredibly offensive to

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Slumdog was a gangster movie with a love interest and a game show hook. It is by the numbers.

            Oh, absolutely. I can't tell you how sick I am of the unending stream of gangster romance movies set against game shows.

            As I was watching Slumdog I could not stop thinking that this movie must be incredibly offensive to Indian people, and I don't know that much about India.

            How very enlightened and noble of you. I'm sure that the world's 1.1 billion Indians will sleep better knowing that you've taken time out of your day to be offended on their behalf.

          • by frission (676318)
            that's funny that you should mention that. When I saw the movie with my mother (who grew up in Ecuador), we talked about how easily the movie could have been set in any 3rd world country, and it would have been just as good. have you seen City of God? It takes place in Brazil, I recommend it.
        • without degrading or dehumanizing an entire country of people like Boyle did with slumdog.

          Can you educate me as to how Boyle did this?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by funkelectric (931604)
          It is not degrading. It depicts vibrancy, spirit, hustle and bustle. Have you actually seen it? For an interview with Loveleen Tandan, the co-director, see http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/oscars/article5772395.ece [timesonline.co.uk] The crew that made the film very much seems to have lived and worked together as a team. Storytelling is universal and knows no boundaries, and movies are not tourism commercials. Have you seen trainspotting, a movie more in the director's backyard? I think
        • So which is it? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by snowwrestler (896305) on Monday February 23, 2009 @01:19PM (#26959775)

          Was Slumdog the co-creation of an Indian director who is not getting sufficient credit? Or is it a Western director degrading India for profit? Both criticisms cannot be simultaneously true.

          The idea that Slumdog Millionaire "degrades" India is offensive. It implies that any movie that shows the negative aspects of a society is inherently degrading. Thoughts like that come from a perspective that we have to treat some countries like "special" children--keep them from all harm and make sure they wear their helmet and kneepads all the time. Give me a break. No one would be complaining if this exact same movie was set in the U.S., where there are plenty of slums and gangsters and game shows. That betrays a subtle racism of low expectations toward India. In comparison I do not recall similar outcry when Western filmmakers began to use Hong Kong cast, crew, and concepts to make movies.

          India has slums and violence, as many, many Indian movies have portrayed. Note that much of the production and acting crew of SM come directly from the Indian film industry, and are happy about their work in the movie. Including the Indian co-director.

      • Which ideas has he stolen?

        From where?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SoupGuru (723634)

        If I recall correctly (and I'm at work and can't verify), I thought the producers of the film and Boyle were so thankful to their casting director for rocking their socks off with such talent that they gave her a co-director credit. It was purely symbolic since that goes against "the rules" of the director's guild or whatever. Maybe that's the co-director you're thinking of?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by frission (676318)
      having grown up in a 3rd world country (Ecuador), I can say that I have been exposed to some level of poverty (my family wasn't poor, but you saw all the little kids in the streets, like in Slumdog). I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and not because I was exposed to something I hadn't seen before (poverty), but because it was actually a great movie. What's not to like about a kid who overcomes so much to be with the one he loves?
  • How about watching Marc Andreeson on Charlie Rose

    http://www.jacklail.com/blog/archives/2009/02/marc-andreessen-the-game-is-co.html [jacklail.com]

    Excellent discussion of technology, economy, kindle, newspapers and social networking.

  • Danny Boyle (Score:4, Interesting)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:04AM (#26956789)
    I'm glad to see him finally get some recognition. But honestly, he should have won for Shallow Grave or Trainspotting (his best films). The Oscars are too conservative and often don't recognize filmmakers until they're way past their prime (like Spielberg and James Cameron, who didn't win Oscars until their best work was actually long behind them). The Independent Spirit Awards are much better, IMHO. And they're much more likely to recognize the work of young and audacious filmmakers. The Oscars almost never recognize first time directors, no matter how brilliant their debut work. Chris Nolan, for example, deserved and Oscar for Memento. But it took a Batman sequel for him to even get slightly acknowledged.
  • by jasenj1 (575309) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:33AM (#26957113)
    The main Academy Awards may not be news for nerds, but the Sci-Tech Awards [oscars.org] are certainly full of /. fodder.

    - Jasen.
    • Kinda funny that in 1-1/2 hours, your post has been modded up to +5 Insightful (as it should have), yet there isn't a single comment or discussion about it (at least not directly in response to your comment).
  • Sci-Tech Awards (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nameer (706715)
    Wouldn't a better /. story be about the Sci-Tech [oscars.org] awards?
  • by the-matt-mobile (621817) on Monday February 23, 2009 @09:44AM (#26957257)

    Anyone else think that the Oscars are pretty much irrelevant? Anymore it's just about the movie industry patting itself on the back, and not at all about what was actually praiseworthy. Count me in the buck of "didn't watch, didn't care". What happened to news for nerds and stuff that mattered?

    • Actually, 4 of the 5 films nominated for best picture went relatively unnoticed in the US, despite all being critical successes. Only 'Benjamin Button' received a widespread release, or could have been considered a "blockbuster" by any measure.

      If nothing else, this makes this year's ceremony a bit more noteworthy than years past. Even the industry seems to acknowledge that the films that did well at the box office this past year were by and large awful, in spite of there being some legitimately good films

  • The asinine amount of replies to this topic is completely mind boggling.

    From all the fine arts, cinema is the most accessible and for the same reason the art that most matters, since all of us are exposed to it in a way that sculpture, classical music, literature, dance or architecture can only dream about.

    This form of art awards prizes in different festivals and ceremonies, and undoubtedly the Oscar is the most important prize in the English speaking world, which in case you didn't know, dominates the movi

  • Sweet justice that governs this world doesn't cease to astonish me. The kids from the slums that played main parts in the movie get paid with chump change, the movie is a success, gets 8 Oscars, the kids get a plane trip to the US for the Oscar gala and get dumped in the slum afterwards, producers sip lattes and count the profits, people are touched by a beautiful story of love while stuffing their faces with nachos, the kids are forgotten, continue to live in poverty.

    Ahhh, the circle of life.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Working...