The Lego Movie not nominated for Best Animated Feature? The only question in my mind was whether it would be included among the Best Picture noms. Animated Feature should've been a given.

What are you guys on?

Yeah, that's a big omission

It does seem to be quite a fuck up. Not that I think the Lego movie should win over HTTYD: 2, but it should certainly have been on the list.

They should've taken out American Sniper and put in The Lego Movie. I guess The Academy had to have its annual patriotic movie and it was slim pickings this year.

Birdman should win. American Sniper is ok, but it's just a movie. Birdman is a meta-movie. It's a movie about movies.

See last year's thread for my annual "the Oscars is bullshit anyway" post. About as prestigious as the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was disappointed to see even the Razzies have now lost their credibility by not putting I, Frankenstien in their Worst Picture category, which has now become a Michael Bay hate-in.

Have yet to see any of the Best Picture nominees, but all eight must be spectacularly good if they're better than Interstellar

I also don't understand how Foxcatcher can pick up one of five nominations for Best Director, but can't get in the eight Best Picture contenders. I swear sometimes they're just picking these things out of a hat.

Strontium Dog wrote:I also don't understand how Foxcatcher can pick up one of five nominations for Best Director, but can't get in the eight Best Picture contenders. I swear sometimes they're just picking these things out of a hat.

I believe the nominations are just voted on by members of that particular discipline. i.e. only directors for directors, costume designers for costume design, etc. But everyone votes for best picture, so such a discrepancy is not impossible. It's still unusual. It was a rare occurence even when they only had five nominations for best picture.

BTW, about Foxcatcher: What's with the weird prosthetics all the actors are wearing in that? I know it's based on a true story, but no one remembers what these people looked like, do they? So why put all that shit on your actors' faces so they look more like people who no one knows what they look like, anyway? Like, if you're doing an autobiographical film and your high school English is one of the characters in it, are you going to put makeup on the actor playing him to make him look like your actual teacher?

And even if we did know what these guys looked like, I think the audience understands the concept of "acting," that the person we're watching on the screen is just pretending to be the character he's playing. He's not actually that person.

Pulsar wrote:

I remember hearing that Lars Von Trier was filming a movie over a twenty year period. This was partly to remain compliant with the Dogme rules, which prohibit the use of makeup to make characters appear older. So he has to wait until the actors are actually 20 years older.

I don't seem to hear much about Dogme any more. I don't know if he's still working on that project.

Did anyone else think The Lego Movie was like 1984 for kids?

Birdman got it.

I thought the lego movie was meh. Big hero 6 was by far the better film.