2010 Oscar Winners

Guess The Hurt Locker cleaned up. Haven't seen it yet but it's on my netflix queue. Yeah for Sandra Bullock and Jeff Bridges.

I haven't seen The Hurt Locker - what I heard is that hollywood loved it and military people hated it, which might be indicative of its accuracy.

No upsets this year, I don't think.

I liked The Hurt Locker a lot, but for me a 'Best Picture' is one that is entertaining, above all else, and one that I could watch again, and enjoy. I never expected Avatar to win, because its genre rarely does, but did find it more 'enjoyable' than The Hurt Locker. I would have been happier if Bigalow kept her Best Director win, and Avatar had won best picture. I thought it was a toss up between Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock, with actual performance going to Streep; however, The Blind Side was Bullock's "Erin Brockovich' so having Sandra win was okay with me. Meryl Streep is long overdue for her next Best Actress award though.
I can't really comment too much on Jeff Bridges since I saw so few of the Best Actor films, including Crazy Heart. While I didn't like the movie Precious, I thought Monique deserved her award, and the guy who won Best Supporting Actor was fabulous in Inglorious Basterds, and deserving as well. Overall I didn't see any real upsets or surprises last night. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were awesome!

Frankly I find the Oscars to be a joke anyway. It's not what the people enjoy or what movie did the best, just what some group of actors think. I'll stick with People's Choice or whatever they're called.

And I like the Oscars for the reasons you don't.

To me, since actors vote for actors, and directors vote for directors, etc., to me it seems like the awards have more merit to those who win them. Who better to judge your work than people who are a direct part of your specific role in the trade?

People's Choice awards are given by Mr or Ms John Q Public because of how much they like the actor, and not necessarily how well the actor does their job.

but they could vote for their friends too, They arent immune to bias..

One of the producers of 'The Hurt Locker' sent out a mass email to the Oscar voters, a huge no-no. They said they yanked his invite, and if the movie won (which it did), he'd get his Oscar in the mail. Idiot.

To me it just always seems like the majority of what wins the Oscars, and I'm not talking about the off the wall stuff just the supposedly mainstream movies, almost always end up being something I've barely even heard of before. I had only just heard of The Hurt Locker earlier that day when someone woman was on the news talking about it. I haven't seen it, haven't seen any of those up for awards yet actually since I never go to the theater. Based solely on all the hooplah surrounding it, I don't see how -anything- beat out Avatar. When they announced Hurt Locker as the winner, I snorted and shut off the tv.

I think the word you are looking for is pretentious and I agree with you.

Some actors may know more about acting than I do, but some are on crack, and do not. Movies are meant for entertainment - how does the movie that breaks every record out there not win best picture?

This is what makes me hate mainstream movies and anything mainstream in general. Ive seen movies that arent on that list and ive seen movies from that list that dont long belong on it, much less the actor(s)

Ive seen movies not even listed that pretty much smoke anything on that list over the past year or so.

I tend to look-away from anything mainstream tagged.

I just like the gowns :X.

But by doing you're going against exactly what you're complaining about. There are really good mainstream movies.

Any award show is pretentious, since its the act itself that matters. To give an award to a singular person for an ensemble event, or group of similar events doesn't really mean that those who did not get an award were worthless. And so what? Who do these shows hurt? Basically it is just a night for a community to get together, party, and enjoy the work they do. I also enjoy the gowns, and seeing who went with who, etc. I find it entertaining. What a sad world we'd be in if we didn't have entertainment.

Who said anything about getting rid of it? We were expressing the opinion that we don't like how its done. What a sad world when everyone has to like everything.

Shit I'd totally run up stage and grab my Oscar - nickel plated piece of crap or not lol. I think the best gown was Kate Winslet - that woman is just...classy. It wasn't a huge dress, wasn't overtly sexy, but a beautiful pale dress that enhanced her natural beauty. Plus I think she wore a 2.5 million necklace - I think that helped too =x

I didn't watch at all this year, but if I do its because of who's hosting it. And James Cameron knew he wasn't going to win - Avatar was too mainstream, plus science fiction just doesn't win. Signorney Weaver's 'best actress' (or supporting) nod for 'Aliens' (didn't know that, did you?) was the very first for a science fiction movie. Nothing since. A movie about the military, albeit the dark, painful side - other than the action scenes - a movie as obscure as that says 'BUY ME DINNER, OSCAR!' all over it.

I never said everyone had to like the Oscars, but I don't get the hate I hear about it. How would you 'do' the Oscars then?




Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture in 1977.

War movies are kinda big for Oscars. Schindler's List, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, Patton, The Bridge on the River Kwai, etc... Like Sci Fi, comedies do poorly for Oscars. I've yet to understand why that is.

I've never watched the Oscars, so I guess I don't really have much of a stake in this discussion.

Just for the sake of argument though: Arguing that a film should win the award for best picture because it broke some records with the public might be like saying whichever pop princess is a big deal these days should be considered a good musician because she broke some sales records.

The fact that she sold so many records says that she (and her producers) are certainly doing something right. The question is whether it's musical. Is it being sold on its artistic merits?

The reason I'm framing the question like that is that I've had musical training for the majority of my life. Even though I opted for a different profession, I consider myself a musician nonetheless*. When I hear people calling the Top 40 stuff on the radio good music, I get a thought bubble above my head with "@(#$#(@" in it.

But maybe I'm a Top 40 film watcher because I've not had any training in the craft of movie making. I thought Avatar was a cool movie, even if it wasn't the first time that story has been told. On the other hand, maybe someone who's been acting, directing, etc. for most of their life would read that and get a similar thought bubble above his or her head? I don't know. I do know that it kills me inside when someone says, "Oh, that's good. It's not very original, but it's got a good beat."

Since there seems to be a set of awards voted on by the audience in the People's Choice Awards, comparing the results of those with the results of the Oscars could shed some light on how these people perceive these films through the lens of their professions.

On a related note, I've been called pretentious often enough because of my opinions on music. I usually have thoughts of my own about the musical taste of the people who call me that. From where we're sitting, the members of the Academy and the films they vote for may seem pretentious, but from their perspective, we might not understand what makes a film or a performance good.


P.S.: I've not seen "The Hurt Locker."


* I know the training doesn't make the musician, but that's a different discussion.

I think its more about whats in style that year.. which is why sci fi and fantasy almost never win, however good they are.

War movies are a big deal cause most war movies are really anti war, and its a big hollywood thing to stop the war(s). If they had made a drama about global warming orther popular hollywood causes (not like that John Cusack movie, that wasnt that great) it would prolly be on the nominations too with a chance to win.

Ok 1977 - 2010...yeah that's a long time. Aliens was made in 1986, but it didn't get a Best Picture nom - WHICH IT SO SHOULD HAVE - so something from the 70's (Star Wars should have won too, don't get me wrong) to something literally over 30 years later might as well be never. It's like Hallie Berry winning best actress, it was like a bajillion years earlier when that happened.

Gongaa you make some valid points, but there are slight differences between the two. Most actors would consider true theater as stage productions and such. Movies ARE pop entertainment - sure some can break off and really capture the art, but that doesn't mean that type of movie needs to win every year. Many actors aren't really "actors" so much as filling a specific look. Also sticking with your example - there hasn't been a pop artist touch the records of the Beatles because pop artists don't have the population backing of nearly everyone even though it seems that way. For Avatar (which I haven't seen) to shatter Titanic records means it broke through nearly every genre of fans out there. It also isn't like this record gets broken often - so I think when a movie comes around that shatters a record that has persisted over a decade it is probably at the least the movie of that year.

And while you can argue the artistic side of whatever the hell movie won - you also have to account for the fact that avatar was a huge breakthrough in new movie technologies - and that step forward should also count for something.

Finally - usually the roles that win best actor/actress are very good roles. But I've often seen actors "act" in a much superior way in roles where they completely disappear - often you forget who they are - but the movie doesn't fit the mold of what wins academy awards so no one even talks about it. So saying that these actors vote for the best acting of the year is also a joke.