• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oscar Pics - BEST PICTURE

Who SHOULD win Best Picture?

  • AVATAR

    Votes: 11 25.6%
  • THE BLIND SIDE

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • DISTRICT 9

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • AN EDUCATION

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • THE HURT LOCKER

    Votes: 12 27.9%
  • INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • PRECIOUS

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • A SERIOUS MAN

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • UP

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • UP IN THE AIR

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • Total voters
    43
Out of those choices? I'd say "Up".
But I really don't think any of those were 2009's best offerings.

I don't think an animation film would ever win. The biggest voting block are actors, and if you combine all the individual blocks of voters who support actors (like makeup, costume design, and the actors' producers) then they're the second biggest. Depressingly, I don't think they'd ever vote for an animation film to win. Even if it is deserving.
 
One film not mentioned, funniest of 2009 by a country mile, In The Loop.

I laughed so much at the exchanges between Peter Capaldi and James Gandolfini that I left a little wet patch on the cinema seat.
 
One film not mentioned, funniest of 2009 by a country mile, In The Loop.

I laughed so much at the exchanges between Peter Capaldi and James Gandolfini that I left a little wet patch on the cinema seat.
Let us know which cinema and which seat so we can avoid it...
 
One film not mentioned, funniest of 2009 by a country mile, In The Loop.

I laughed so much at the exchanges between Peter Capaldi and James Gandolfini that I left a little wet patch on the cinema seat.

I bought it on DVD, before that I had downloaded it from Piratebay, and have not stopped watching it since.
 
The Hurt Locker... Really?

I guess I need to see it again... I remember thinking it was an interesting slice of life film about a very stressful job. I didn't think it made any profound statement about the nature of war or man... It certainly didn't cover any ground that Stanley Krubric, Francis Coppola, and Steven Speilberg hadn't already covered.

If Hollywood was looking for a film to define today's war the way A Bridge Too Far or Apocalypse Now or Platoon defined past wars... If Hurt Locker is that film, perhaps that's a commentary or the Iraq war itself... I don't know.

I will watch it again when it comes out on video.
 
The Hurt Locker... Really?

I guess I need to see it again... I remember thinking it was an interesting slice of life film about a very stressful job. I didn't think it made any profound statement about the nature of war or man... It certainly didn't cover any ground that Stanley Krubric, Francis Coppola, and Steven Speilberg hadn't already covered.

If Hollywood was looking for a film to define today's war the way A Bridge Too Far or Apocalypse Now or Platoon defined past wars... If Hurt Locker is that film, perhaps that's a commentary or the Iraq war itself... I don't know.

I will watch it again when it comes out on video.

Yea I haven't seen it but am about to watch it in a few to see what the big deal is.
 
Yea I haven't seen it but am about to watch it in a few to see what the big deal is.

Honestly, there's not much. The film is stridently apolitical, instead relying on the tense drama of trying to disable bombs for much of its motivation. It's incredibly inaccurate, chock full of overused themes, and the characters lack any sort of depth.
 
Honestly, there's not much. The film is stridently apolitical, instead relying on the tense drama of trying to disable bombs for much of its motivation. It's incredibly inaccurate, chock full of overused themes, and the characters lack any sort of depth.

So it is the ideal winner for Best Picture, judging by the Oscar standards.
 
Honestly, there's not much. The film is stridently apolitical, instead relying on the tense drama of trying to disable bombs for much of its motivation. It's incredibly inaccurate, chock full of overused themes, and the characters lack any sort of depth.

Well that sucks.
 
So the over-animated, over-hyped, boring and predictable remake and fusion of Little Big Man, Dances With Wolves, and Forbidden Planet didn't win an Oscar. Oh, dear.

So a movie which, according to all reports is grossly inaccurate, celebrates unprofessional leadership in a profession in which professional conduct is critical to survival, wins the Best Picture Oscar from an academy of buffoons almost none of whom ever donned this nation's uniform outside of a sound-stage.

Hollyweird is still scoring perfectly on the Left-Wing Predictable Scale.
 
I did not watch the Hurt Locker, but the guys at work said not to because it's full of military and historical inaccuracies that would just piss me off the entire movie if I watched it...for any military types out there, is that true?
 
Avatar, like almost everyone here has said, contains all the originality of a dung beetle. And I apologize to the dung beetle.
Not to mention the predictability, melodrama and dumbing down of the story so that anyone of an IQ 80 or above could get the message.

In some respects it was as much a kids movie as Up.
 
The Hurt Locker - Movie was terrible. Entirely unrealistic and set up as basically a "woo look war is CRAZY! it makes people CRAZY! lets wrassel."




exactly.... After being told by some to go see its realistic depiction of the Iraq war. I went and a actually paid to see this crap...


I walked out.
 
exactly.... After being told by some to go see its realistic depiction of the Iraq war. I went and a actually paid to see this crap...


I walked out.

Israeli makes good war movies. There is public outcry if the actors are not trained soldiers, which is what happened with Beaufort.
 
" A Matter of Loaf and Death " was far and away better tan any of the noninees. It's a travesty.

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xFKiDYCf8s[/nomedia]
 
Last edited:
Israeli makes good war movies. There is public outcry if the actors are not trained soldiers, which is what happened with Beaufort.




The worse was sitting through a dinner the next night, and having to listen to a bunch of people who never served pontificate on how accurate a war film this was...


I did not sit quietly for long.


These films always piss me off. :lamo
 
I did not watch the Hurt Locker, but the guys at work said not to because it's full of military and historical inaccuracies that would just piss me off the entire movie if I watched it...for any military types out there, is that true?

The way this all played out was rather interesting. When the movie first came out, it was an indie film that got little notice outside of the rarefied circles that most Oscar winners float around in. The initial reviews criticized the film for making such an effort to avoid talking about the politics of the war, presumably because it was a wasted opportunity to wax poetic about the failures of American foreign policy. However, despite that, it won early acceptance because there were a few reports of soldiers talking about how it was the most accurate war movie in decades, one that really conveyed what it was like to be on the front lines. As the film started gaining momentum going into the Oscar season, the producers started adopting a more overtly anti-war tone in their characterization of the film, presumably to win back some of that lost enthusiasm. At the same time, more soldiers started seeing the film and began pointing out the terrible inaccuracies. All of this developed so quickly during the voting season that it got lost in the rush and most people voting believed that the film was an accurate portrayal of war.
 
The way this all played out was rather interesting. When the movie first came out, it was an indie film that got little notice outside of the rarefied circles that most Oscar winners float around in. The initial reviews criticized the film for making such an effort to avoid talking about the politics of the war, presumably because it was a wasted opportunity to wax poetic about the failures of American foreign policy. However, despite that, it won early acceptance because there were a few reports of soldiers talking about how it was the most accurate war movie in decades, one that really conveyed what it was like to be on the front lines. As the film started gaining momentum going into the Oscar season, the producers started adopting a more overtly anti-war tone in their characterization of the film, presumably to win back some of that lost enthusiasm. At the same time, more soldiers started seeing the film and began pointing out the terrible inaccuracies. All of this developed so quickly during the voting season that it got lost in the rush and most people voting believed that the film was an accurate portrayal of war.




I think that was made up hype. The way they went about clearing IED's was completley inaccurate and implausable.



EOD clearing houses? "lets split up"? :shock:


I doubt anyone in the military would call it an "accurate portrayal".... ;)
 
I'm 90% sure they are serious.

that was 100% parody video.

Oh, and I'd take District 9. I think it was a great story and presented very well. Probably one of the most unique of the bunch. While I liked Avatar, it's just not that great of a movie. I mean, the graphics were all new, the 3-D was cool. But the story was pretty much the same ol' same ol'.
 
Last edited:
Who do you think SHOULD win BEST PICTURE and why?

And the 10 Nominees are:

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Precious

A Serious Man

Up

Up in the Air
can't say, haven't seen them all.
 
Inglorious Basterds.

Avatar was good, but what it did to the minds of those over at the Avatar forums is repulsive. Some of them are clinically depressed because there is no Pandora (I **** you not).
you asshole....what do you mean there's no pandora?
 
Let's get this straight, Avatar is basically Pocahontas in space.

Second, I saw the 2D version first before seeing the 3D version, so I never caught on to the massive and unnecessary hype.
 
Who do you think SHOULD win BEST PICTURE and why?

And the 10 Nominees are:

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Precious

A Serious Man

Up

Up in the Air

District 9 sucks. Worse movie on my list behind "100 million BC" and "Mamma Mia".
 
Back
Top Bottom