Something I have thinly noticed, and am asking if anyone is willing to look it up, but how often do milestones in film genres ever get nominated for Best Picture?

For science-fiction: Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey. For the Western: The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly. For horror: The Shining (ok so it wasn't getting nominated anyways), and lets not even get started on animation. So I guess the Dark Knight and Wall-E being milestones for their respective sub-genres and mediums, it was expected, and in the long run they will be far more remembered than Slumdog Millionaire.

Slumdog's nomination wasn't offensive. The Reader, yes.

I'm not calling it offensive, just that in my opinion people will remember Dark Knight and Wall-E more than they will any of the best picture nominations. I just tagged Slumdog because I don't like it and it will likely win.

The only time I can think when a "genre" film ever won was Lord of the Rings which was such a massive accomplishment that they kind of had to give it to them (and it really was for all 3 films)...

Yeah, upon reflecting on it, ROTK's win was more surprising that we think.

I think it's mostly because they were browbeaten to award it after three years.

Horror films nominated: The Exorcist
Westerns: Unforgiven and Dances with wolves won best picture, other westerns have also been nominated before.
Science-Fiction: Star wars and E.T got nominated, but those are more fantasy right?
Animation: Beauty and the beast is the oly one to get nominated.

Beauty and the Beast being before Best Animated was introduced.

I doubt it would have managed a Best Picure nomination had the Best Animated Film Category existed.

To neowolf: I am not talking about genre films in general, I am talking about milestones in the particular genre. Unforgiven and Dances with Wolves hardly re-invented the western. Beauty and the Beast is another animated musical, had been done before. The Exorcist? Maybe. Star Wars was more so a technical milestone than a milestone for science fiction (which it isn't even anyways), and ET was hardly a milestone of anything. When I say milestone, I mean they changed the genre, The Dark Knight clearly altered the comic-book sub-genre and Wall-E was been argued to be a change for the animation genre (or medium).

The Dark Knight didn't just change the superhero sub-genre. It forever shifted the course of cinema... nay, HUMANITY. It's the most important creation since the wheel.

Well duh, there's nothing new about this... do you remember Atlantic City? Best Picture nominee?

Atlantic City was actually decent, though.

The Dark Knight is not a milestone in the comic book genre.

Personal feelings aside, Box...it is. Recognition-wise, it definitely is. Box-office-wise it is. Even as far as the number of current Oscar noms goes...it is.


I don't like E.T. too much, but I also recognize that it was an immense success on many levels.

Box office is utterly irrelevant when it comes to TDK's status as a milestone. I'd say Spider-Man 1's and even X-Men 1's successes were a bigger deal.


Anyway, fundamentally, the film did nothing to revolutionize the genre.

It was taken more seriously than ever.

www.criticstop10.com

Take a look at that. No other comic book adaptation ever came close to this passion so far.

...by 62 Berardenelli's

I think we're talking about different ideas of what constitutes a milestone. You're talking about TDK in terms of factors external to it (mainly, the way it was received), while I'm talking about it's internal accomplishments.

But even so, I'm not convinced TDK marks so significant a break from other comic book films for it to constitute a milestone in the genre. I think Iron Man is almost as significant a film, and that they together in combination with X2 and Spider-Man 2, rather than any of these films apart, constitute a significant shift. And personally, I think The Incredibles did just as much for the genre as any of the more strictly defined comic book films.

So guys like Corliss and Ebert are Berardinelli's?

The snobbery on this site is starting to become malignant. I guess everything that's successful or liked by the public is terrible, rather than most of it.

Anyone want to join my schism? It's not okay to like Bay past 1997, but The Dark Knight's okay.

ANTON SO ANGRY GONNA HULK OUT!!!!

Box, the internal accomplishements are very subjective and since your subjective view does not like TDK...well, you know....


I think a milestone means general recognition (that sets ir apart from similar films), visible milestones (like box-office...but of course this is a minor part) and cultural impact and influence on films (the latter will be seen after time passes of course).

No, the external accomplishments (reviews) are subjective.


When I say internal, I mean things like the narrative or technological advances, like in 2001: ASO or Blade Runner. TDK has no significantly outstanding technical achievements, and its narrative is deeply flawed.


I think that Ang Lee`s Hulk, for example, is the single most innovative comic book film of this decade. I think it`s more relevant as a milestone than TDK.

How are you defining relevancy?

Hulk is innovative, but since it actually failed somewhat critically and financially, it didn't have much influence on the genre (like Blade Runner did).

Reviews themselves are subjective, but if looking at reviews as a mass, you just see that the recognition is there. The overall reception among critics and audiences is better than for any other comic adaptation in the past. Whether they are right or wrong, that is still a fact, both of them really really liked it.