Tuesday, February 2, 2010


Alright, I've just about had it with the Oscars. This yearly tradition that I always looked forward to with enthusiasm rivaling Christmas has done a good job of pissing me off these past two years. Last year, one of my favorite films in THE DARK KNIGHT got screwed out of a Best Picture nomination and this year it's STAR TREK. Yeah, these are two very nerdy, bug budget features, but they are also some of the best reviewed films of the decade. I could understand these snubs better if there were exceedingly deserving films nominated in their stead, but that just isn't the case. Last year, THE READER nabbed a Best Picture nomination despite relatively poor reviews and little fanfare. Nobody thought that it deserved to get nominated over THE DARK KNIGHT besides The Academy.

STAR TREK's omission is even more ridiculous when considering that there are 10 Best Picture nominees this year. I wouldn't be up in arms about it if this year was a regular 5-nominee Oscars, but, as I was lead to believe when this change was announced last year, more potential winners would allow nominations for more fan friendly films and hopefully increase viewership. However, instead of STAR TREK, THE BLIND SIDE was deemed more worthy of the prestigious Best Picture nomination. I'm okay with that film being an Oscar-vehicle for Sandra Bullock, despite her really not deserving it, but c'mon! It received OK reviews for being maudlin inspirational garbage, but no one was clamoring for Best Picture!

Why then was STAR TREK snubbed? I have no idea. Has the academy already reached their sci-fi quota with AVATAR and DISTRICT 9. Now, I liked DISTRICT 9 just fine. It was very original and interesting, but it wasn't a better film than STAR TREK, I'm not even sure I'd say it was in the top 15 movies of the year. I'll save my venom towards AVATAR for a different post, but I guess I get it. I understand why it was nominated, though I don't agree with it. It still wasn't nearly as good as J.J. Abrams' film and despite all the hubbub and hoopla surrounding it, it wasn't even as well reviewed.

STAR TREK was even cut out of other categories that it should have made an appearance in. It failed to garner respect in Best Editing, Best Costume, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography. Am I to believe that AVATAR had better editing and cinematography than STAR TREK because it most certainly didn't. It didn't even have good editing as made obvious by its serious pacing issues. It's as thought they don't really care what the award is actually for. Do the members of the academy truly sit in a room and dissect the editing of each film to determine who is best, or do they just see each film once and choose whichever ones are most popular? "Hey, AVATAR was a big film with lots of action and stuff, that means it had some of the best editing of the year, right?"

I'm starting to think that perhaps none of these nominations hold water and that these choices were made without any real insight into what each category asks of its nominations. Don't just nominate films because they are the most popular. Don't just nominate actors because they always get nominated. Don't omit films from a category because it already features other films of the same genre. The bottom line is: THE BLIND SIDE got nominated because of the ridiculous different strokes for different folks idea that the Oscars employ. Why don't you just try to nominate the films that were actually THE BEST. The Academy needs to get their heads out of their asses and go back to school.

Here's a pretty rad unofficial trailer:

No comments: