I've been put in the wrong group! I'm not in this club - - I'm one of the so-called "fools" who knows this will be nominated...

bradley, I hope you'll excuse me for assuming that flowery hyperbole from page one was sarcasm.

Your assumption was correct - - but there's still no way I'm joinin' your loser club...

[quote="yoshue"]
The Titular Fools:
John Savage/Monsieur Marin/Benjamin Milk/Wolverine Blart/?quote]


This is why we love you yoshue

Only a loon would think this gets nominated.

Oscar has been more kind to sci-fi/fantasy than comic book films, it wouldn't be totally unprecedented this time. 2001, Star Wars, Close Encounters, E.T., LOTR are all somewhat comparable genre types that did well.

2001 and Close Encounters weren't even nominated. The only exceptions in the last two decades have been LOTR, which actually tells me they have gotten more conservative with genre films.

They got director noms. That's a sign enough of acceptance

Not true at all. They love giving Director nods to movies they would never in a million years embrace. See, also: David Lynch's nominations.

There's a significant line between the Oscar accesibility of Avatar's sci-fantasy blockbuster genre and David Lynch. Again, Star Wars/E.T./LOTR aren't much less anti-academy than Avatar. Mulholland Drive is

And can we please remember that this thing is in 3D? I mean, it doesn't mean all the nasty things that it did thirty years ago (not that it shouldn't), but...3D? You really think the Academy fuddy-duddies are gonna go for that? Really, now? It's almost disqualified right there.

I can imagine Oscar voters like the reel geezers settling down during the Oscar screenings with the awkward 3D glasses on. Or watching the screeners in the rest home activity area.

I want to see a David Lynch 3D film.

Revolutionary, state-of-the-art, redefining the definition of the word 3D. At least that's what we hear,

I hate how people still think TDK got robbed of a BP nom. I mean, sure, the Reader sucked, but it was Wall-E that got robbed.

TDK was, as I've always stated, about the performances. It was directed above average and was an above average movie. That's not how you get nominated.

Actually, that's EXACTLY how you get nominated.

Where you're wrong is thinking that The Dark Knight was 'all about the performances.' Fuck-wha?

Seriously? You'll lose this argument even against ME.

When I watched it, everybody not named Heath Ledger faded completely into the wallpaper.

And we can stop there, because I have less than zero interest in a dialogue about The Dark Knight.

TDK was really not about just the performances. All the stunts and action sequences and FX and it's just an acting vehicle? No. Not at all. Also the screenplay was pretty great.
Don't get me wrong, In my ideal 2008 oscar race, I would probably not have nominated TDK, but to put The Reader, or Frost/Nixon, or even Slumdog over it? That's just wrong.

Just stop. The argument ended once Yoshue got destroyed. You'll only bring it down further.

1) your arrogance is on the boarder of irratiting, but considering all the things I've seen you say here, it's just funny.
2) You really don't have an argument, the movie was a huge production and do you really think it would have gotten 94% positive on RT for having 1 great performance?
3) Fine. I'll stop. Anyone who has a brain knows the facts anyway, and doesn't need me to point them out.

ha.

but to be fair, Star Wars and ET were far bigger (aside from Jurassic Park and Independence Day, I'm not sure there's been a sci-fi/fantasy film to post half of their adjusted numbers) than any sci-fi/fantasy films released since then.

but that does make the argument that Avatar would have to be enormous (like, 400m+) to have some kind of shot. Especially considering everything they have revealed so far has pointed towards more of a fun action-adventure flick than an Oscar-bent drama.

This is sound logic. If people should take anything from The Reader trumping The Dark Knight/Wall-E, it's that the voting members of the Academy are old fogies, and not so reticent to "ground breaking" films as the internet. What's more, they have made a point of short changing progressive motion-capture films like Beowulf, The Polar Express and Waltz with Bashir (not mo-cap entirely, but certainly ) from even getting nominated in the Animated department. In their respective years Surf's Up, A Shark Tale, and Bolt each beat them out, the epitome of safe.

If the Academy has yet to embrace mo-cap, will they really go wild for Avatar? One could make an argument that if they'll ever go for one, it'll be Avatar. And that sort of shows just how much we're really trusting the hype on this one.

I have changed my position somewhat.

I now think that Avatar will not be nominated for Best Picture.

I now believe it will go the unprecedented route of not being nominated because it will unanimously be declared the winner by acclamation...

With ten nominees...I'm unsure now.