2008 Oscar Nominees Announced

2008oscarnominees.jpg

Well the full list of nominees are still being unveiled as we speak, but since most of the major categories have been announced, I figured I should throw them up for discussion. So far it’s looking like No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are the two major frontrunners, although I am surprised by the number of nominations that Juno has received. It will probably only win the screenplay award, but it’s cool that it got nominated for Best Picture, and that both Jason Reitman and Ellen Page received a nod as well. Other than that, I don’t think there were too many surprises, although it was cool to see Ratatouille get nominated for Best Original Screenplay as well as Best Animated Film. Sounds like the Academy wanted to recognize it as something above and beyond what its medium is typically constrained to. What are your thoughts on the nominations? Do you see any major snubs here?

Best Picture
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country For Old Men
There Will Be Blood

Achievement in Directing
Julian Schnabel (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”)
Jason Reitman (“Juno”)
Tony Gilroy (“Michael Clayton”)
Joel and Ethan Coen (“No Country For Old Men”)
Paul Thomas Anderson (“There Will Be Blood”)

Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”)
Julie Christie (“Away From Her”)
Marion Cotillard (“La Vie En Rose”)
Laura Linney (“The Savages”)
Ellen Page (“Juno”)

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
George Clooney (“Michael Clayton”)
Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”)
Johnny Depp (“Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”)
Viggo Mortensen (“Eastern Promises”)
Tommy Lee Jones (“In The Valley of Elah”)

Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Cate Blanchett (“I’m Not There”)
Ruby Dee (“American Gangster”)
Saoirse Ronan (“Atonement”)
Amy Ryan (“Gone Baby Gone”)
Tilda Swinton (“Michael Clayton”)

Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Casey Affleck (“The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford”)
Javier Bardem (“No Country For Old Men”)
Phillip Seymour Hoffman (“Charlie Wilson’s War”)
Hal Holbrook (“Into The Wild”)
Tom Wilkinson (“Michael Clayton”)

Adapted Screenplay
Atonement (Christopher Hampton)
Away From Her (Sarah Polley)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Ronald Harwood)
No Country For Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen)
There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)

Original Screenplay
Juno (Diablo Cody)
Lars and the Real Girl (Nancy Oliver)
Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy)
Ratatouille (Brad Bird)
The Savages (Tamara Jenkins)

Best Animated Feature
Persepolis
Ratatouille
Surf’s Up

Best Foreign Language Film
Beaufort (Israel)
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
Katyn (Poland)
Mongol (Kazakhstan)
12 (Russia)

» Related Link: 80th Annual Academy Award Nominations



  • Way too much credit for Juno.

    Although it is nice to see Viggo Mortensen get a nomination for “Eastern Promises.” It kinda sucks that Johnny Depp is finally nominated and it’s against the shoe-in performance of Daniel Day Lewis. Overall I think the noms are decent. I hope PT Anderson gets something– be it Picture, Director or Screenplay. Give the man an award already.

    But if Juno wins for best screenplay, I’ll be disappointed. I just isn’t that good. I hate critical darling indie films (I’m looking at you “Little Miss Sunshine.”)

  • Clive Warren

    I agree. Not too many surprises, although I’m similarly surprised (and at the same time, perplexed) with the love Juno has received. Like Jay, I wasn’t blown away by it. Nominated for Best Picture? Seriously? Against the likes of The Diving Bell & The Butterfly, Into The Wild, Eastern Promises, I’m Not There, American Gangster, The Assassination Of Jesse James, Sweeney Todd, Rescue Dawn, Zodiac et cetera? I also think there were far more deserving directors than Jason Reitman to be nominated for Best Director from the past year (Fincher, Greengrass, Cronenberg, Sean Penn to name a few).

    Once again, the amazing Into The Wild was pretty much snubbed all-round, apart from Hal Holbrook’s best supporting actor nomination. Even the shambolic Transformers received more nominations overall (granted, their noms were more for the technical side, but still noms nevertheless). Madness.

  • Goon

    wayyyyyy too much credit for Juno, especially since Reitman pushes out Atonements best director nod

    i still say Amy Adams deserves a nomination way above Page.

    Gosling was snubbed in favor of for example, Tommy Lee Jones in his (of course) Haggis flick.

    and I’d even say “Guaranteed” by Vedder was snubbed in best song over the Enchanted songs. each of those Enchanted songs on their own is worthy of consideration, but i hate it when the category gets loaded with too many from the same movie. On the other hand though, splitting the vote there paves the way for Once to win it.

  • I guess I’m one of the few that really liked Juno. I personally don’t get all the Atonement praise. I thought that was awfully boring. I kind of wish Josh Brolin was nominated for something. I don’t really know exactly where he would fit. I’m glad American Gangster didn’t get a nom for best picture and I really hope Ruby Dee gets best supporting actress. She owned the screen opposite Denzel.

  • Once again, only one of the Best Picture nominees has opened (Michael Clayton) and I had no interest in seeing it. Too bad.

    It would be cool if Julian Schnabel won the oscar though.

  • Liz

    I was definitely surprised by Tommy Lee Jones, since I didn’t think anyone had bothered to see that movie except me, and Laura Linney, since “The Savages” hasn’t really been on anyone’s critical radar (although she was excellent in it).

    I’m mostly really surprised by all the love for “Michael Clayton”. I’m okay with the acting nominations, but Best Picture? Really? Best Director? “Michael Clayton” wasn’t a bad movie, but I’m failing to see what differentiates it from the ten thousand other legal suspense thrillers out there.

    I liked “Juno” a lot, though, so I’m pleased to see that it got a couple extra nods from what might have been expected. I wished “Atonement” had been shut out of the Best Picture race the way everyone else here wishes “Juno” had been.

    I’m mostly non-plussed about how things are going to shake down between No Country For Old Men and “There Will Be Blood”. I would prefer “TWBB” to win, but if NCFOM wins big I won’t be disappointed. Luckily, they’re not going head to head in the acting categories, because I’m definitely pulling for Daniel Day-Lewis (even though he’s probably a shoe-in).

    Jon Rocks, this is the third time Johnny Depp has been nominated for Best Actor, although I don’t think anyone thought he was going to win either of the previous times.

  • One minor snub is Angelina Jolie for A Mighty Heart. I haven’t seen a lot of the other Best Actress performances, but I think she at least deserved a nomination here.

    And yeah, now that you mention it, Michael Clayton seems to have more nominations than just about anything else, which is surprising.

  • The Juno love baffles me. It’s a decent movie, but best picture (not that I’m surprised AT ALL)? Best director? PLEEEEZE.

    Amy Adams snubbed big time (again). Would’ve liked to see Jolie up for A Mighty Heart, though the contenders there are strong.

    Biggest snub though: There Will Be Blood not up for best score.

  • Croft

    Yeah I don’t understand all the love for Atonement either and I was a big fan of Pride and Prejudice. It had all these elements that would normally make for a great movie- good cinematography, the score(especially that piece with the typewriter), good cast, but the story didn’t do anything for me at all. And the ending felt like a big cop out as well.

    Also I’m pro Juno, I loved it, and I just watched it again recently and it held up in my opinion. I think it actually deserves a nomination unlike Little Miss Sunshine which didn’t.

  • Liz

    Apparently TWBB was disqualified for Best Original Score because portions of it had already been used in another film.

    Newsweek had a roundtable discussion with “probable” nominees for the acting awards and Angelina Jolie was amongst them, which is rather sad after the fact.

  • Croft

    Why not a best director nom for Juno? The direction in Juno is fairly straight forward, there’s nothing flashy about it(although I guess the Art direction is) but there’s no reason that a simple well directed movie shouldn’t get a nomination.

    I mean the Beatles wrote some great pop songs that weren’t great in scope or that progressive. There’s something to be said for making something that’s good without big steadicam/dolly shots(like in Atonement or There Will Be Blood). Juno isn’t groundbreaking by any means the shot selection for the most part follows a very ordinary wide, medium close up approach. But look no further than your local film school to see that it’s harder than it looks. Reitmen makes it look easy as well as getting some solid performances that couldn’t have been easy with some of the stylized dialogue the characters use.

    Oh and before someone jumps all over me I’m not saying Juno is anywhere near The Beatles.

  • “a very ordinary wide, medium close up approach”

    If that is worth nominating, howcome Kevin Smith was snubbed for Clerks II?!?

    I have not seen Juno, but I have a really, really hard time believing that Jason Reitmans direction is anywhere near as interesting and innovating than what Christian Mungiu did with 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days. But I don’t know if that was even in contention ? This is afterall, not a world cinema appreciation society, but the american industry awards.

  • Croft

    Kevin Smith? Well then you’d be saying Kevin Smith does it well. That’s my point Kevin Smith is the perfect example of it isn’t as easy as it looks.

    All I’m saying is not every best direction nomination has to be for someone who is being innovative or pushing the boundaries of cinema.

    Yeah, I’m not saying the Oscars always gets it right but at least they’re not completely irrelevant like oh I don’t know let’s say the Grammys.

  • Well… I do think they are irrelevant. But that’s got nothing to do with the Oscars in particular, I think all awards are irrelevant.

    I forgot who said this about accepting awards, but it’s completely true: “If you accept it when they say you deserve an award, you also have to accept it when they say that you don’t.”

  • Croft

    Actually I would say the Oscars are relevant at the very least because they give exposure to some films that people otherwise wouldn’t see. So it’s nice if they give that exposure to something that deserves it.

  • Matt

    Well hopefully a few more hamburger phones are sold because of this.

    What brilliant political-dramas are up for Best Documentary this year?

  • Not that I’m surprised, but I’m glad to see No Country all over the ballot. What a great film.

  • Goon

    The Oscars are relevant simply because the press hype around a movie having ‘Oscar buzz’ = $$$$

    for many I’m sure high awards are a massive motivation tool – winning it, even being nominated, means Cuba Gooding Jr can use “Oscar Winner” to sell his crappy kids comedies and make a couple extra bucks.

    Theres a lot of really shallow horrible ways they are relevant, but they are indeed very very relevant.

  • I don’t think that’s relevant. I guess I don’t think the world record of Donkey Kong is relevant either, but some people might disagree… The oscars might be relevant in some twisted way of looking at the world.

  • Goon

    rel·e·vant (rÄ›l’É™-vÉ™nt) Pronunciation Key
    adj. Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand

    The Oscars have no bearing on the movie industry, Henrik?
    Sounds like you’re now arguing for arguing’s sake.

    What are you gonna say next, that Jaws is only about the shark and not the people as well? Oh wait, you already did.

  • Hmm… That is true. The films winning the oscar does influence what films are being made in america etc. So I guess that makes them relevant to the american film industry. But they are supposed to be awards given to the stuff that was the best of the year, and as such I think they are irrelevant, since they can’t possibly prove their authority on the matter.

    As for Jaws… I find it hard to believe that anybody would argue that the Shark is the main character in Jaws. The no. 1 clue would be, that as soon as the Shark is dead the movie ends, the sign of any good monstermovie.

    When I talk about a movie being about people, I am talking about films like Fanny Och Alexander, One flew over the cuckoos nest or The squid and the whale… Or even if you want to draw a more fitting comparison, Signs. That movie also has a ridiculous element, but it has realistic characters. And there I go taking your bait again.

  • Goon

    “The no. 1 clue would be, that as soon as the Shark is dead the movie ends, the sign of any good monstermovie.”

    Jaws was a hit novel long before the film, and it was a hit because of the characters. The shark drives the story in “Jaws”, however its about the relationships between the three main characters – the vast majority of the film is character interaction, not pure chase or horror. Even back then the shark was considered to look ‘fake’ – people dont keep going to see a movie to look at the cheesy fake special effects, I mean geez, Jaws is one of the most quotable films of that era, if not all time, and many major writers credit it as influencing their dialogue.

    So what if it ends when the shark dies? All the other characters are dead! I’m not saying the shark does not play a major role, however the main reason that film has stood the test of time is the characters.

    “When I talk about a movie being about people, I am talking about films like Fanny Och Alexander, One flew over the cuckoos nest or The squid and the whale… ”

    All fine films, however you’ve got a very narrow mindset. And again, I’m the baiter? You’re the one who brought up the ridiculous Jaws argument to begin with.

  • What? I said it in a completely different context in a completely different forum, and you pull it here as if it’s some sort of ‘final nail in the coffin’ that my point is pointless, and just arguing for arguments sake.

    And I don’t have a narrow mindset. It just takes alot more than a monologue about a shark experience during the war, for me to say that something is concerned with character.

  • Greg

    I think Goon and Henrik should film an update of My Dinner With Andre. My Dinner With Henrik has a good ring.

    By the way…Juno rules!

    Booyah.

  • Goon

    “What? I said it in a completely different context in a completely different forum, and you pull it here as if it’s some sort of ‘final nail in the coffin’ that my point is pointless, and just arguing for arguments sake.”

    No, I call it just a segue, because I will talk about it here but will never post one word on Campea’s site ever again.

    “It just takes alot more than a monologue about a shark experience during the war”

    Weak strawman argument as if Shaws monologue is the only major piece of dialogue/character development in the film. In fact that piece of dialogue isnt even in the book.

    Juno and Knocked Up end after they have their babies. Tell me, are those films about the pregnancy, or the people surrounding it?

    This is why your argument stinks, you have to distinctly seperate the plot elements from the characters and act like its only one thing. Is Dazed and Confused about the crazy night of graduating, or the characters who spend the crazy night? The answer is both. Likewise, the shark moves the movie forward, however it would not be the same without those characters. Even when it comes to superhero movies, would Spiderman be the same if he had the same powers, but was a 35 year old cocky accountant? You don’t give nearly enough credit where its due.

    NARROW. MINDSET>

  • “Weak strawman argument as if Shaws monologue is the only major piece of dialogue/character development in the film. In fact that piece of dialogue isnt even in the book.”

    Nevertheless, it is the major point of any sort of development in the character. And its an easy and childish way to do it. I don’t care at all whats in the book and what is not, I have not read it, and I am not talking about it.

    Knocked Up is a comedy. It’s quite a good one, but you’d never hear me praise it for its characters. They are charming, but completely unrealistic and irrelevant. Stereotypes that get screentime, does not equal me giving a movie credit for the way it treats its characters. Jaws is a monstermovie, and quite a decent one (I did think all the monster-scenes were conventional to the point of inanity, but that’s Steven Spielberg for you, and I can let it slide more in this film since it’s old.), but you would never hear me praise it for its characters. That praise I leave for films that actually have characters, and not just stereotypes playing off of eachother.

    In Jaws, you’ve got a family father, a rich nerd and a war veteran. The thing it has going for it more than alot of other shit films, is the way the friendship builds between the characters. It lifts it above Godzilla or Transformers. But it doesn’t make it a fantastic movie. Unless you’re interested in getting the shark, the film is boring. Jaws makes the mistake of being a movie about a shark that gets caught by some people, rather than being about some people that catch a shark. Because so much of the movie is centered around the characters dealing with – literally – a shark, how to identify a shark, how to catch a shark etc. in the end, you get the feeling that these characters exist only for this little situation.

    I brought up Signs before. For me it is a way better example of using the McGuffin of the film in order to portray your characters. And it is much less clunky and clever with the writing as well. You don’t learn about Merrill’s past because he explains it in a monologue, you learn about it through his interaction with the other townspeople, and how he relates to the ridiculous situation. When he’s on the couch, it is so obvious that the only reference point he has for life is inane teenage bullshit. The way that scene is written is way more interested and engaging than hearing somebody say “I’m rich and I like sharks because of this and this particular experiece, so I bought all this gear.” It’s lazy and too easy. Too shallow to ever become interesting.

    Unless you think the rollercoaster-ride of trying to get the shark is interesting and fun, the movie gets boring. And for me, it wasn’t that interesting. An hour of barrels was alittle too much for me.

  • As for your idea Greg, I would be down if you cooked some Sea-bass for me and Goon. At least we could just sit there and talk about the absence of deity and listen to Dragonforce, and we would have scored a meal.

  • Greg

    I can make a killer broiled sea-bass.

  • Goon

    I made Henrik write a lot of words. that doesnt happen often.

    “Nevertheless, it is the major point of any sort of development in the character.”

    Your opinion. Doesnt make what you originally said any less a weak strawman.

    “Knocked Up is a comedy. It’s quite a good one, but you’d never hear me praise it for its characters. They are charming, but completely unrealistic and irrelevant.”

    scroll back up to the definition of relevant. You tend to throw this word around as an insult hoping it will stick, neglecting what it actually means. Ben Stone’s slacker character is completely relevant to how the story plays out and the conflicts throughout the entire film. Heigl’s character is completely relevant in her motivation and cynicism to Stone’s parental abilities. Without this no conflict can take place. As for realistic, do I have to write more about Indiana Jones? Can you lose yourself in the world a film creates at all?

    “In Jaws, you’ve got a family father, a rich nerd and a war veteran.”

    They are that, but they’re certainly not stereotypes. I can take any character you want and reduce them to worthless two to three word dupes.

    “…you get the feeling that these characters exist only for this little situation.”

    that is their ultimate goal within the timeframe of the film. antyhing more and it you open the door to allegations of ridiculous pretention and projecting and symbolism. damned if you do, damned if you don’t. In the case of “Signs”, it WAS accused of ridiculous pretentions for making the McGuffin story into this matter of faith and fate. See, its damned if you do, damned if you dont. You’ve just chosen to damn one side rather than another.

    Again, narrow. shallow.

    “An hour of barrels was alittle too much for me.”

    Maybe it is when you expect the barrels to become an allegory for our ambitions and how they float or sink against the waves of our lives or something equally quaint.

    jeez.

    Anyways Greg, you’d have to pay me to subject myself to Henrik on a continuous stream for a regualar period of time, but I’d agree that there may be some entertainment value there.

  • Goon

    tell me Henrik, what gives Gibsons character in Signs SOOOO much more character than Brody in Jaws. Gibson is affected by his loss in the family and protection of his family, with underlying shattered faith. Brody is fearful for his family and under political pressure, with affected determination to win under the influence of his new peers. Tell me, I’m dying to know, what it is that allows you to write one off as a stereotype, when the ‘shattered faith’ character has also been done enough that if I was you and had an axe to grind, could ignorantly write it off?

  • First of all, the entire presentation of the situation is not as ridiculous. The ‘political pressure’ in Jaws is the most stereotypical, lazy and completely ridiculous kind, that has no sense of reality to it whatsoever. The first time I saw Jaws, I turned it off 20 minutes in, when the ridiculous Ebenezer Scrooge came in, saying that there is no way he would put human life above money. Characters like that, exist only in shit.

    The fact that the 3 main characters in Jaws, never go beyond their sloppy setup – because, understandably, the movie has to concern itself with the shark – makes me feel that they are stereotypes. What is the character of the rich nerd? He knows alot about the shark, and he brings the equipment. That’s it. The family father is responsible, yet incapable of action. While being the most realistic, he suffers from having to deal with ridiculousness on a regular basis (not to mention over-the-top moments, like when the mother confronts him in THE Steven Spielberg moment of the film. This is how he can deal with what the character would feel in this situation, by having the mother spilling it all out, and actually having him afterwards go “Yes, she is right” Thanks for letting us turn off the brain when dealing with your characters AGAIN Steven Spielberg) and the aforementioned Scrooge. The war veteran has the least character out of all of them. He is literally just a tough man.

    Mel Gibsons character in Signs has alot more going on. The way he has to interact with his bullshit brother, as well as his small children is way more nuanced than Brody’s family situation which never goes beyond “Get off the boat!” The children in the family in Signs are portrayed not as kids who stay at the dinner table for hours after dinner is gone, but as having a life of their own, which is what kids do. They don’t concern themself too much with their parents, they’ve got their own stuff going on. That is prevalent in Signs, not in Jaws – and it plays along with the character of Graham Hess. He is trying to keep everything together in spite of not having any authority, and not being able to convince himself that anything he is doing actually has any meaning. This is not a man who can order his kids to kiss him, like in Jaws. This is a man without power. Even at the end, he has no power, he is relying on the image of his father to step in, even at that point where his family has been saved by him, he puts all of that effort and effect into an imaginary being that he has created in order to make himself feel like he has authority in life.

    I think Mel Gibson in Signs is a way more accomplished character than any of the sharkhunters in Jaws. That is what elevates Signs even more so than Jaws. Jaws is a good monstermovie, only a little too long for me because I didn’t think the monster was that exciting which is completely subjective, but Signs is a great (I will admit a case can be made for it’s causality though) characterdriven movie, that shows a story about characters. Jaws shows a story about a shark.

    Unfortunately, like you said, people lost that whole characterpiece because of the aliens and the extreme tension, and fail to realize that that’s not what the movie is about. There is alot more to it, whereas in Jaws, I never found anything. Which is completely FINE, I don’t expect monstermovies to give me anything (Signs is the only one that has done it), but then when I hear people acting like it is somehow a poignant film, I roll my eyes.

    As for my relevance use – I mean relevant in terms of you as a viewer being in the real world. There are movies that have characters that can give you insight into reality. Some films can even answer questions. That’s where I think the characters become relevant. I don’t mean that Seth Rogen’s characteristics aren’t relevant to the plot of Knocked Up.

  • Goon

    “The first time I saw Jaws, I turned it off 20 minutes in, when the ridiculous Ebenezer Scrooge came in, saying that there is no way he would put human life above money. Characters like that, exist only in shit.”

    In the spirit of your argument, I therefore only read past this paragraph. You get back what you give out. Karma. :P

    Characters like that exist only in shit huh? So I suppose tobacco companies don’t make money off the publics addiction and don’t market to children?

  • Comparing cigarette-related deaths to shark-related deaths now eh? Nice.

  • Goon

    thats a diversion. You said a character that puts money over human life don’t exist. A politician whose job relies on one major weekend, the economy and businesses of the entire area, overlooking such an incident? How is that ridiculous at all? When it comes to people making a living, it would be clear that most of that tourist area would demand to be kept viable, considered the shark attack an isolated incident. It isnt until later that the community really erupts in horror.

    I mean seriously, look at New Orleans. They knew there was levy problems, they knew they were at risk, but they chose economic interests over spending a whole bunch of money averting future disaster. Worldwide many/most nations put short term economic needs over worries of global warming and how that affects people. We buy whats cheap instead of whats healthy. In the US they avoid universal health care because peoples personal views on taxes, etc conflict with taking care of everyone as a whole.

    Now the villain of Shawshank, he puts his own finances over the lives of the inmates who turn out to be innocent or could help acquit someone. People point out that as ridiculous, but even in that context, I can buy it because of the world Darabont creates in the film – with the narration and style it feels to some degree as a fairy tale/fable. Shawshank Redemption relies very heavily on character even though some of them are clearly lacking realism for the sake of the script.

  • A shark attack is equivalent to the issue of global warming… I get your position of wanting to defend the movie at all costs, but this is ridiculous. But I guess you can always draw in a completely different movie and talk about a character in it. Now who’s ignoring the issues and statements at hand and moving on to completely different and unrelated things?

  • Goon

    “A shark attack is equivalent to the issue of global warming”

    Strawman, I never said that, I merely compared them in terms of how people put the economy over lives. The mayor of Amityville did just that, seeing that the economy would be affected by giving in to the shark fears, just as many world leaders prefer the economy over global warming fears.

    You’re arguing like a creationist, having to fight an argument that isnt being made.

    “But I guess you can always draw in a completely different movie and talk about a character in it. Now who’s ignoring the issues and statements at hand and moving on to completely different and unrelated things?”

    Its completely related. I’m showing an example where a character’s motivations are more clearly self-centred rather than the groupthink area or world economy-affected decisions.

  • “clearly lacking realism for the sake of the script.”

    Will you be leave it be if I say I agree that this is the case with Jaws, as well as Shawshank Redemption? I assume that was the point you were making by drawing in another film.

    I really don’t want to get into why global warming isn’t comparable to a shark attack, and why one can be overlooked and one can not.

  • Goon

    “Will you be leave it be if I say I agree that this is the case with Jaws, as well as Shawshank Redemption? I assume that was the point you were making by drawing in another film.”

    Shawshanks character had personal interests only, The mayor in Jaws has his political interests as well as the short term interests of the people in mind. He made a realistic political decision the types of which happen every day, whereas in Shawshank its up to the viewer whether or not they can buy this particular characters depths of greed.

    “I really don’t want to get into why global warming isn’t comparable to a shark attack”

    Neither do I, but again – thats because thats not what I said – its about how people will overlook long term, even short term safety, for the sake of the economic interests of an area/nation.

    Thread derailed.

  • Goon

    when you’re cynical you can reduce almost anything to ‘for the sake of script’

    when writing Jaws, did Benchley have to think of why the mayor wouldnt shut down the beach after realizing it was a hole in the story? probably, he may have had to fill in the spaces rather than start from scratch and move forward – however that doesnt negate the realism of the mayors decisionmaking. You can take any character created for the sake of plot and ground their actions in reality, and thats exactly what happened in Jaws.

    So whats next then, using this same line of attack against Nedry in Jurassic Park for the same reasons? I can see it
    “I just dont buy that someone would allow all these people to die so he could make some money” and then shut off the movie? Again, its clearly a sake of Chrichton having his concept, having to fill in the blanks with a greedy fatass throwing everyone to their doom so he can be rich. All you can do is take that would-be plot device and give him enough character that you can buy him in the context of the film.

  • “Thread derailed.”

    I think the thread was derailed a long time ago.

  • So if we agree that Jaws is about the shark, and that the characters are glorified plot devices like you say, what’s the argument about?

    Not all movies are about characters. Not all movies try to be. It’s not an admittance of failure to say the characters in Jaws are shallow.

  • “So whats next then, using this same line of attack against Nedry in Jurassic Park for the same reasons?”

    Yes I would use that same line of reasoning, IF I HAD TO HEAR PEOPLE CONSTANTLY PRAISING JURASSIC PARK FOR ITS CHARACTERS. That’s the main difference, that for some reason, people think one has way better characters than the other, and for me they’re on the same level. It’s ridiculous to attack Jurassic Park for its characters, and it’s equally ridiculous to praise it for them. I feel the same way about Jaws.

  • PPPPLEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSSSEEEEEEE SSSTTTTOOOOOOPPPPPPPP

  • Croft

    Please continue. You’re both making valid points but I’d like to hear more from the both of you before I can pick a side.

  • Goon

    “So if we agree that Jaws is about the shark, and that the characters are glorified plot devices like you say, what’s the argument about?”

    It would be so much easier to stop all of this if you’d quit twisting my argument into what you’ve been saying. I said the mayor character is a plot device that had to be reworked into a sensible realistic character and you have now stretched it into me “admitting” it covers all of them. Strawman yet again.

    “It’s ridiculous to attack Jurassic Park for its characters”…”I feel the same way about Jaws”

    How am I supposed to believe that when you turned off Jaws over a minor character?

    I’m stopping. You’re pulling JT tactics at this point.

  • Well.. The combination of the extreme convention of the first shark appearance and the stock reaction from the businessman annoyed me. I did watch it in full the following day, once I realized I shouldn’t hold all the praise against the film. But if somebody calls it a perfect film, I am going to say they are wrong.

  • “You’re pulling JT tactics at this point.”

    Funny you should say that, since you demanded proof that the character in Signs was superior to the characters of Jaws, and when I provided it, you ignored it and moved on to another line of reasoning.

    And you’re constantly concerned with pulling this ‘guilt by association’-trip, saying I argue like creationists and whatnot. I’m not impressed.

  • Goon

    “and when I provided it, you ignored it and moved on to another line of reasoning.”

    only posting to clarify:
    I did read it and simply didnt find much to argue, as everything there was just opinion. I joked that I didnt read it to be a jackass, I thought the smiley face after that sentence would have sufficed. I guess not.

    WUV

  • I assumed you read it, then ignored it. The smiley face was enough.