2008 has been scheduled with a number of sequels and revivals of mainstream popular movies, can any of them really break through to the Best Movie category? Several past movies to have been able to reach this auspicious level were movies such as The Aviator and Finding Neverland (2004), Seabiscuit (2003), Chicago (2002), Erin Brockovich (2000), The Sixth Sense (1999), Jerry Maguire (1996), Apollo 13 and Babe (1995), The Fugitive (1993), Ghost (1990), and Working Girl (1988). Even E.T.and Tootsie both 1982, Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and Star Wars (1977) were considered for an award. The classic popular movies that are notable would be The Silence of the Lambs (1991).

For your 2008 popular movie consideration:

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (May 22). Slight chance. The original movie made it.

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE (Nov. 21). No chance. No previous Harry Potter registered a blip.

THE DARK KNIGHT (July 18). No chance. Another superhero movie. Technical awards only.

MAMMA MIA! (July 18). Possible. Musicals have been making a come back this past decade.

STAR TREK XI (Dec. 25). No chance. Technical awards only.

IRON MAN (May 2). Slight chance. If this superhero is sufficiently dramatically different and serious, if not, this is for action and money only.

SEX AND THE CITY (May 30). No chance. Too commercial and it's from a comedy television serial. Too embarrassing.

X-FILES 2 (July 25). No chance. Didn't happen the first time, won't happen the second time.

HANCOCK (July 2). No chance. An anti-superhero comedy, too light.

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN (May 16). No chance. Original didn't get recognized, a sequel almost impossible. Technical award nominations possible.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE (Nov. 7). No chance. James Bond movies haven't ever been considered award material.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK (June 13). No chance. Superheros don't get any credit.

GET SMART (June 20). No chance. Silly comedies don't get recognized.

LEATHERHEADS (April 4). Unlikely. A popular period romance comedy that aren't considered even if there are some caliber actors involved.

WALL-E (June 27). Possible animation award nomination.

HORTON HEARS A WHO! (March 14). Possible animation award nomination.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (Nov. 26). Possible. Brad Pitt in this age reversal movie depending how it's scripted could be considered for an award nomination.

Well...maybe next year.

Yeah, I doubt many of those will get any nominations. However, I saw an interview somewhere where Christopher Nolan stated that he thought Heath Ledger acted so well as the Joker that he deserved Best Actor consideration.

How does Finding Neverland fit into this category?

quote:

theelfpat Upwardly Mobile Participant
Posted 06 February 2008 12:56 AM

How does Finding Neverland fit into this category?

http://www.last.fm/user/pitchwick/

A fair question and one that my explanation may not satisfy. Finding Neverland has been considered a biographical family drama, about a real writer, who wrote an extremely popular child's novel Peter Pan. Just because the lead character is odd, performed by Johnny Depp and that one of the main characters in the movie is extremely ill doesnt' make this movie diverge from popular mainstream...it's just rather more dramatically sad than usual. This movies isn't controversial nor it is an independent, movie. One might argue that this is a studio, industrial production with independent features that usually caters to the more art house audiences. However, I think that this distinction is becoming more and more blurry. I am the only person I know who is pushing the belief that the overall quality of mainstream, popular movies have increased over time. It's not the independent movies have gotten better but that the mainstream movie industry and the popular audiences have become more sophisticated and appreciative of quality movies.

Well, in that case, would Brokeback Mountain be considered "mainstream?" I don't think that commercial films have simply gotten "better," rather certain films are marketed with the intention of receiving Oscar nominations.
All of the 08 releases you listed, I would consider summer blockbuster type movies, not simply "mainstream" movies. I am 100% certain that a movie put out by a major studio backed with a million dollar Oscar marketing campaign will receive Oscar nominations in 2008. Just like Finding Neverland did in 2004, and just like most of the other movies on your list did as well.

quote:

theelfpat Upwardly Mobile Participant
Posted 08 February 2008 11:34 AM

Well, in that case, would Brokeback Mountain be considered "mainstream?" I don't think that commercial films have simply gotten "better," rather certain films are marketed with the intention of receiving Oscar nominations.
All of the 08 releases you listed, I would consider summer blockbuster type movies, not simply "mainstream" movies. I am 100% certain that a movie put out by a major studio backed with a million dollar Oscar marketing campaign will receive Oscar nominations in 2008. Just like Finding Neverland did in 2004, and just like most of the other movies on your list did as well.

Having a lousy day.

Your comment is having to be consumed by my gray matter that has been beaten to a pulp by a nasty corporate consumer service nightmare.

"mainstream" movies," "commercial" films, and "summer blockbuster" motion pictures. Film quality vs. better Oscar award marketing.

I would like to refine this thread by stating that I have based my subjective opinion that mainstream, commercial, or blockbuster moving pictures have become better not necessarily based on the fact that these films receive movie awards but in general their cinematic technique, their story content have become observably improved. The fact that some of mainstream, commercial, or blockbuster cinematic production have been brought the attention of award member voters using a lot of money isn't something that I have considered in deciding about the quality of these general audience movies as opposed to art house and traditionally award-quality movies that in part were developed or produced with awards in mind.

I think you could include Gladiator in your opening list of "big" movies to receive nominations/awards.

quote:

PaddyG
Jedi
Posted 08 February 2008 01:41 PM Hide Post
I think you could include Gladiator in your opening list of "big" movies to receive nominations/awards.

Gladiator (2000) which won the Academy Award best picture along with Russell Crowes best actor award, denied to him the next year for his role in A Beautiful Mind (2001) was one of those movie that I felt didn't deserve the award, unfortunately, I didn't write a review anywhere I can find about the movie, the only thing I can remember was being turned off immediately even before the movie was release by the terrible low-budget special effect of the artificial tiger clawing at Russell Crowe and immediately knew that the movie wasn't of the highest quality. I imagine that one day I'll have to view it on DVD and see if my initial memory of the movie was as bad as I recall.

It may not have deserved the Oscar, but it was still a mainstream movie that received many accolades.

quote:

PaddyG
Jedi
Posted 11 February 2008 09:23 AM Hide Post
It may not have deserved the Oscar, but it was still a mainstream movie that received many accolades.

I agree that Gladiator received a lot of award attention. But why? After of number of concerns about my pre-movie bias regarding No Country for Old Men which in some this pattern of behavior had its origins with the way I went into the movie Gladiator, it would be interesting to watch this movie again and see what my impressions of it are now. Memory is a funny thing.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
I agree that Gladiator received a lot of award attention. But why?

It's a fair question. At the time, I particularly loved the movie, but looking back, I can see how one might be suspect of the attention it received. I think much of it derives from the terrific cast and the epic feel of the movie. Hollywood loves to wrap its arms around big, epic movies, and if you look at its competition, Gladiator certainly fits the bill. Did it deserve it? Maybe not. But what did? Traffic? Maybe. Erin Brockovich or Chocolat? Doubtful. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Personally, I think this is the most beautiful of the contenders, but I think the academy figured it scored a victory just nominating a non-english film for best picture.

quote:

PaddyG
Jedi
Posted 11 February 2008 12:36 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
I agree that Gladiator received a lot of award attention. But why?


It's a fair question. At the time, I particularly loved the movie, but looking back, I can see how one might be suspect of the attention it received. I think much of it derives from the terrific cast and the epic feel of the movie. Hollywood loves to wrap its arms around big, epic movies, and if you look at its competition, Gladiator certainly fits the bill. Did it deserve it? Maybe not. But what did? Traffic? Maybe. Erin Brockovich or Chocolat? Doubtful. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Personally, I think this is the most beautiful of the contenders, but I think the academy figured it scored a victory just nominating a non-english film for best picture.

Your observation appears to have a firm grounding to it. My preference for Best Picture would have been Traffic, but it's hard to avoid the epic nature of Gladiator.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
Your observation appears to have a firm grounding to it.

For once!

Looking back, I'd have no problem with Traffic, although Crouching Tiger has aged the best for me.