Posthumous Awards.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Alpha Centauri
Immediately Heath Ledger will spring to mind, but this is concerning the entire topic of posthumous awards.

People have said Heath Ledger deserves the Oscar, or at least a nomination. I am reserving judgement as I am late seeing the movie (Will see it tomorrow).

Do you agree he deserves the nomination and/or award?

Why/Why not?

More importantly, do you feel posthumous awards are necessary or not?

Personally, I don't quite see the point of giving an award to people on behalf of a dead man or woman, since awards are SPECIFICALLY for the actor or actress. Appreciation will be there no matter what, which is what truly matters. It also taints the proceedings because there'll always be the matter of "Well, did he/she get it because they died?". I think there are a lot of credible reasons for posthumous awards to cease being given.

Your thoughts?

-AC

Bardock42
I can't comment on Ledger. I think his performance was great, I haven't seen enough other movies this year though.

As for posthumous awards and in specific the Oscars, I think if the stated goal is to award the ... award...to the best actor of the period in consideration it should not matter whether they are dead at the time of the awards or not. The best is the best and should be honoured as such.

chillmeistergen
In terms of Heath Ledger, it really depends on who else would be up for the award. It was a very good performance, his best? No, but unfortunately that's not what matters.

What I dislike is the Ledger bandwagon, which seems to be becoming somewhat of a pandemic. Members of said bandwagon seem to all claim that he deserves the award, without knowing or caring who else could possibly be in line for it.

BackFire
Ledger certainly deserves the nomination. There are still going to be a number of films coming out this year that will have great performances, so it's hard to say now if he deserves the win, we'll see. If it stays as it is now, though, then he does.

And I agree with Bardock about posthumous awards. If the best performance was given by someone who is dead, then he should be recognized for it, regardless.

I think denying an actor an award that he otherwise would have won purely on the grounds that he's dead is no better than giving an award to someone just because he's dead.

Alpha Centauri
I know people who don't fall victim to the "He died." syndrome, and have all raved about Ledger's performance. That is why I am more optimistic that the hype is going to be justified than unjustified.

I agree that people should wait and see who else comes out, though. It being Oscar-worthy would only go far enough to granting a nomination at best.

In general though, awards should be given to the person winning it or not at all. I think Ledger should get like...an honourable mention, recognition absolutely (Provided his role is that good), but I do not feel he should win the award. I think the appreciation will be there regardless, his role is no less revered because his family haven't received a shiny statue, and his family will undoubtedly not think he has been overlooked simply because he hasn't won.

Leave that to somebody who can appreciate it the award itself, who would value the material object itself.

-AC

Bardock42
I guess it depends on what the stated goal of the people doing the awards is. But if they want their awards go to the person that did the best job they shouldn't care about whether they are dead. A different goal obviously would justify a different approach.

Alpha Centauri
I mean, if they gave it truly because they felt that was the absolute best performance, fine.

An element of doubt will always exist, though. Like would he have won had he been alive etc.

-AC

Bardock42
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I mean, if they gave it truly because they felt that was the absolute best performance, fine.

An element of doubt will always exist, though. Like would he have won had he been alive etc.

-AC

True. But you would have that either way (i.e. "would he have won if he was still alive?"wink. And I guess since the Oscars are always highly discussed anyways it would not really make much difference.

sithsaber408
He will get nominated, he will win, Michelle Williams will accept the award tearfully, the ratings which have steadily decreased the last 5 years will soar.


You know this to be true.

jaden101
Personally i still think it's too early to tell...i don't think there has been anything this year to match Daniel Day Lewis in "there will be blood" like last year...or Julian Schnabel in Diving bell and butterfly...which i personally thought was the best performance of last year

i don't particularly think it's an outstanding performance....although he does a good job of making you believe it's not Heath Ledger playing the part...so that's got to be worth something

i do, however, disagree with the complete hysteria his performance has gathered since his death...as Johnathan Ross said...it wouldn't be getting this much attention if he was still alive

Robtard
I don't necessarily feel Ledger deserves an Oscar nomination, his role was great, it was a blast to watch; Oscar worthy though? He was nominated in Brokeback, that I agree with; that role was above and beyond his Joker.

Living or dead shouldn't matter. If an actor's role was superb that year and it deserves a nomination and possibly winning, death shouldn't be a factor.

MildPossession
I don't understand the people who say he deserves to win when they don't even know who he would be up against next year, if he gets an nomination that is.

It could be next years sympathy vote, like with Martin Scorsese a few years back, or whenever The Departed remake came out... but I would rather hope that if they chose Ledger it was because of the acting, not death.

As for his performance, I believe it deserves a nomination because it was pretty good, voice was interesting, mannerisms, delivery was fantastic with the excellent script he had to work with.

I've enjoyed Ledger a lot since the release of Lords of Dogtown, he was fantastic and weird in that, and was very happy when it was said he was taking the role of the Joker.


If his performance is better than any of the nominations announced, then I don't see a problem with awarding someone who is dead with an acting Oscar. Family can keep the award for him.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by MildPossession
I've enjoyed Ledger a lot since the release of Lords of Dogtown, he was fantastic and weird in that

Well, there's a gem I'd completely forgotten about.

Ledger was a good actor, granted - though Brokeback will always be his stand-out performance for me, I thought he was amazing in that. Really good in Monster's Ball, as well.

=Tired Hiker=
It wasn't until Ledger's Joker came out wearing that pink nurses uniform that I felt a warm fuzzy realization, and I said to myself, damn this is great. I do think he deserves a nomination, at least a nomination. He may deserve to win depending on the competition. As far as a posthemous goes, I think he will and would have been nominated either dead or alive.

MildPossession
That part was just perfect! especially when he was hitting the bomb detonator to try and finish the explosion off ha ha.

Apparently Ledger nailed it and was one of the closest Jokers to the original comics in the 40s according to the paper I read today. I've never read the comics but apparently he was very dark before the silly camp television series came along.

Bardock42
I was under the impression it was the 70s and 80s in particular that reinvented the Joker in the dark way that we know him in now.

MildPossession
We need a massive comic fan of all the Batman stuff. smile

Bardock42
Originally posted by MildPossession
We need a massive comic fan of all the Batman stuff. smile

Well, when i said "I was under the impression" I actually meant "I know"...

Master Crimzon
I think he certainly deserves a nomination. Win? Yeah, it's obviously too early to know if someone is truly better than him. So far, though, his performance is easily the best in the year.

That being said, the Academy would not nominate him if it wasn't for the uber "He died", and the immense DK acclaim/hype. Not because he doesn't deserve to win, but because the Academy often tends to overlook 'mainstream' movies, in categories that aren't cosmetic, such as visual effects, makeup, etc, etc, etc. Take Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow, for instance. It's one of the most popular and iconic characters of the 21st century, and although he was nominated for best actor, he didn't win, although many I spoke to think he deserved to. Why? Again, the Academy likes artsy films, not mainstream entertainment.

Last year, though, Javier Bardam got an award for playing 'best supporting actor' in No Country for Old Men. Did he give a better performance than Ledger? Very, very far from it, but he had the advantage of giving an at least solid performance in a film that makes the Academy wet their pants. So, based on all this, I think we can safely say that Ledger might have been nominated if he hadn't died, but he wouldn't have won an award he (so far) deserves. It's his death that gave him a true shot at winning.

IMO, the Dark Knight should be at least nominated for Best Picture, but that's an entirely different story.

chillmeistergen
No Country For Old Men was a mainstream film.

Jonny Depp got a nomination, in my opinion his performances in POTC don't even deserve that.

TDK probably will get nominated for best picture, I don't think it deserves a nomination or a win, though.

MildPossession
Well he was dark originally in the 40s too according to this comic fan in the papers, but yeah reinvented after the series too.

Master Crimzon
You didn't really like TDK, did you? Personally, I totally loved it. But it's not a flawless movie; it has one flaw. It's too long. Cut it by ten, twenty minutes, and you have a 10/10 movie. I'd personally give it a 9.5/10 at the moment. Still one of my favorite films of all time... but I'll reserve fully stating my opinion of it until I go to a second viewing of it. I can't wait, lolz.

And No Country for Old Men is not a mainstream film in the sense that it's an artsy film made for critics and for oscars, not for audience. Not everyone will like it. I liked it, but not to an extreme level like some of the reviews make it out to be. And if Javier Bardam can win an oscar, I'm sure Heath Ledger- who gave a stronger performance (IMO)- also deserves it.

MildPossession
Pardon? I really liked it...

Master Crimzon
I liked it. I'd probably give it an 8/10... I just wasn't that blown away by it. Especially the anti-climatic death of that guy who fled with the 2 million bucks, and the overall unsatisfying ending. Hadn't watched it in a really long time, though.

MildPossession
My pardon was to the saying "You really didn't like it did you?", or was that to someone else. Quotes do help clear that up stick out tongue

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
You didn't really like TDK, did you? Personally, I totally loved it. But it's not a flawless movie; it has one flaw. It's too long. Cut it by ten, twenty minutes, and you have a 10/10 movie. I'd personally give it a 9.5/10 at the moment. Still one of my favorite films of all time... but I'll reserve fully stating my opinion of it until I go to a second viewing of it. I can't wait, lolz.

And No Country for Old Men is not a mainstream film in the sense that it's an artsy film made for critics and for oscars, not for audience. Not everyone will like it. I liked it, but not to an extreme level like some of the reviews make it out to be. And if Javier Bardam can win an oscar, I'm sure Heath Ledger- who gave a stronger performance (IMO)- also deserves it.

I like No Country For Old Men a lot more than TDK. I thought The Dark Knight was alright, I agree that it was too long, but I also thought that much of the directing left a lot to be desired. It only really enthralled me when Ledger was on the screen. I'm not a Batman fan, but a movie fan.

In no way do I think that No Country For Old Men was made for the Oscars or critics. If you read the novel, you will instantly realise that this bleak setting and dialogue is a key part of the story telling process. Also, the character of the Joker gives a lot more room for outward madness etc. whereas the character of Chigurh is all about understatement, creating a sense of dread with a simple flick of the hand, or a glance.

papabeard
The oscars are always hugely affected by politics, if you look at the history of the awards and films/actors nominated many of them are not worthy winners or nominees.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I like No Country For Old Men a lot more than TDK. I thought The Dark Knight was alright, I agree that it was too long, but I also thought that much of the directing left a lot to be desired. It only really enthralled me when Ledger was on the screen. I'm not a Batman fan, but a movie fan.

In no way do I think that No Country For Old Men was made for the Oscars or critics. If you read the novel, you will instantly realise that this bleak setting and dialogue is a key part of the story telling process. Also, the character of the Joker gives a lot more room for outward madness etc. whereas the character of Chigurh is all about understatement, creating a sense of dread with a simple flick of the hand, or a glance.

What didn't you like about TDK? After the first half, I was literally shaking with excitement. It was -that- good. Though it got a little long, and so it become slightly tiresome in its last 5 or 10 minutes.

Though, I was accidentally spoiled about Two-Face's fate. So, that might have killed a bit of the fun of the ending.

I understand the No Country for Old Men is an eerie, weird film, and it's bleak atmosphere is a large part of it- however, it's an artsy movie that, while maintaining a constant air of tension throughout it, rarely truly thrilled me. The Dark Knight, for the vast majority of it, was major adrenaline. Though instead of making me run like crazy from its excitement, it left me feeling slightly tired. But the 'wow' feeling never faded, and I can't get that image of that Fake-Batman being hanged outside the window. Most of it was WAAAAY more disturbing than your average horror movie.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
What didn't you like about TDK? After the first half, I was literally shaking with excitement. It was -that- good. Though it got a little long, and so it become slightly tiresome in its last 5 or 10 minutes.

Though, I was accidentally spoiled about Two-Face's fate. So, that might have killed a bit of the fun of the ending.

I understand the No Country for Old Men is an eerie, weird film, and it's bleak atmosphere is a large part of it- however, it's an artsy movie that, while maintaining a constant air of tension throughout it, rarely truly thrilled me. The Dark Knight, for the vast majority of it, was major adrenaline. Though instead of making me run like crazy from its excitement, it left me feeling slightly tired. But the 'wow' feeling never faded, and I can't get that image of that Fake-Batman being hanged outside the window. Most of it was WAAAAY more disturbing than your average horror movie.

If you're someone who likes going to cinema to watch explosions, then yes, I'm sure it was thrilling. Personally, I find something that's actually believable to be a lot more thrilling and pack more of a punch.

I honestly do not see what everyone is raving about with The Dark Knight. It was a lackluster performance on every ones part except Ledger's, especially Michael Caine's. The storyline was sparse to say the least - I wandered out of the cinema musing on what the point of the last two and a half explosion-filled hours had been.

The fake Batman bit did make me jump, yeah. Though, that's probably because it roused me out of a near slumber.

Bardock42
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you're someone who likes going to cinema to watch explosions, then yes, I'm sure it was thrilling. Personally, I find something that's actually believable to be a lot more thrilling and pack more of a punch.

I honestly do not see what everyone is raving about with The Dark Knight. It was a lackluster performance on every ones part except Ledger's, especially Michael Caine's. The storyline was sparse to say the least - I wandered out of the cinema musing on what the point of the last two and a half explosion-filled hours had been.

The fake Batman bit did make me jump, yeah. Though, that's probably because it roused me out of a near slumber. I hate you.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you're someone who likes going to cinema to watch explosions, then yes, I'm sure it was thrilling. Personally, I find something that's actually believable to be a lot more thrilling and pack more of a punch.

And TDK... isn't believable? It's a perfectly believable film, actually. The Joker there is just a crazy, insanely intelligent guy who likes to put on makeup and kill people. The mobster part is believable, the Harvey Dent part of the storyline is satisfyingly tragic, and Batman is- although he is given less to do in this film- depicted as truly emotionally torn and complex. It's by far the most believable superhero movie ever made.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I honestly do not see what everyone is raving about with The Dark Knight. It was a lackluster performance on every ones part except Ledger's, especially Michael Caine's. The storyline was sparse to say the least - I wandered out of the cinema musing on what the point of the last two and a half explosion-filled hours had been.

Easily explained. It's the story of a desperate city trying to recover from corruption, poverty, and general crime-filled life. It's the story about.... err.. the 'bumps along the way'. It's a thought-provoking story that makes you truly believe in the darkness of humanity, and, you know? Most of all, it's a story about chaos. Whenever the Joker says something such as "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules", you actually believe him- I thought about that for a bit. I seriously thought about it for a while- is everything a joke? Is life truly meaningful? Why are rules needed? If you could, would you murder someone? The story raises many, many questions. If you get over it being a 'mere superhero movie', you see how truly disturbing that stuff is.

Oh, and except for Maggie blablabla (I CANNOT spell her surname), every performance was strong. Especially Gary Oldman's; he's the most sympathetic character in the film, and the second best performance, next to Ledger's. Bale, the guy who played Harvey, and Caine are all very, very powerful.

I can't seem why someone will actually dislike that movie.


Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The fake Batman bit did make me jump, yeah. Though, that's probably because it roused me out of a near slumber.

I honestly cannot understand why it was boring to you. Then again, I'm not you, so maybe I shouldn't try.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And TDK... isn't believable? It's a perfectly believable film, actually. The Joker there is just a crazy, insanely intelligent guy who likes to put on makeup and kill people. The mobster part is believable, the Harvey Dent part of the storyline is satisfyingly tragic, and Batman is- although he is given less to do in this film- depicted as truly emotionally torn and complex. It's by far the most believable superhero movie ever made.

If we're just going to separate it into the genre of super hero films, then yeah, it probably is. The Harvey Dent part of the story line felt extremely rushed.



Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Easily explained. It's the story of a desperate city trying to recover from corruption, poverty, and general crime-filled life. It's the story about.... err.. the 'bumps along the way'. It's a thought-provoking story that makes you truly believe in the darkness of humanity, and, you know? Most of all, it's a story about chaos. Whenever the Joker says something such as "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules", you actually believe him- I thought about that for a bit. I seriously thought about it for a while- is everything a joke? Is life truly meaningful? Why are rules needed? If you could, would you murder someone? The story raises many, many questions. If you get over it being a 'mere superhero movie', you see how truly disturbing that stuff is.

If you honestly only thought in that philosophical way after you saw The Dark Knight, then I truly pity you.

You seem to think that TDK is the first movie to address the dark side of humanity, or you might think it's the one that does it best (if so, I think you're insane).

Also, most of the things you mentioned would typically be regarded as themes and motifs.


Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Oh, and except for Maggie blablabla (I CANNOT spell her surname), every performance was strong. Especially Gary Oldman's; he's the most sympathetic character in the film, and the second best performance, next to Ledger's. Bale, the guy who played Harvey, and Caine are all very, very powerful.

Are you joking? Christian Bale I can sort of accept, Caine, Eckhart? Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Caine did what he does in his worst performances - played himself, he was in no way believable, endearing or anything else. All it made me think was "oh look, there's Michael Caine". As for Eckhart, he'll never be a very good actor, his acting in TDK was average, acceptable, but not good.


Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I can't seem why someone will actually dislike that movie.




I honestly cannot understand why it was boring to you. Then again, I'm not you, so maybe I shouldn't try.

Different tastes and all that, to a degree. Also, I didn't hate the movie, I thought it was alright - I just think that people are blowing it out of proportion.

celestialdemon
From what I've seen so far this year, Heath definitely deserves a nomination. That might change, of course, depending on what else comes out, but for now he's in. I won't say he deserves to win, since it's way too early for that. But if he truly does end up with the best supporting performance of the year, then he deserves to win the award even though it will be posthumously.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If we're just going to separate it into the genre of super hero films, then yeah, it probably is. The Harvey Dent part of the story line felt extremely rushed.

I'll make a wild guess and say you're not a big fan of superhero movies, right?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you honestly only thought in that philosophical way after you saw The Dark Knight, then I truly pity you.

Tell that to someone who cares.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You seem to think that TDK is the first movie to address the dark side of humanity, or you might think it's the one that does it best (if so, I think you're insane).

I didn't say that it does it best. But TDK had everything:

Mind-blowing action? Check.
Spectacular, realistic special effects? Check.
Exceptional acting? Check.
Thought-provoking? Check.
One of the best villains to ever be portrayed in film? BIG CHECK.
Sufficiently brutal and dark? Check.

It has only one flaw. It's too long. That's it.
Also, most of the things you mentioned would typically be regarded as themes and motifs.


Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Are you joking? Christian Bale I can sort of accept, Caine, Eckhart? Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Caine did what he does in his worst performances - played himself, he was in no way believable, endearing or anything else. All it made me think was "oh look, there's Michael Caine". As for Eckhart, he'll never be a very good actor, his acting in TDK was average, acceptable, but not good.

Oh, my, god. Don't tell me you're one of the "You don't know what you're talking about, my opinions is right, and your's is wrong!" people. I hope not.

And yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Christian Bale is very good. Caine? I really liked his performance. During every scene with him, I felt this wise, warm feeling coming from him; the relationship between Alfred and Bruce is one of the film's strongest points. Eckhart wasn't bad. He was mind-blowing, but he was, IMO, very good; to see how he degenerates from one of the most inspirational men in the movie into a violent monster, and how Batman's hope in him (causing him to eventually kill him), is tragic. The ending is tragic, too.





Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Different tastes and all that, to a degree. Also, I didn't hate the movie, I thought it was alright - I just think that people are blowing out of proportion.

It's your right to do that. Everyone has your opinion- it's, in my opinion, the best superhero movie ever made, the best movie of the year so far, and one of my favorite movies of all time. Is it the greatest movie ever made, like it says on IMDb? Nah. But I don't think any movie can appropriately be called 'the best movie ever made'. Not even 'classics' like the Godfather.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Immediately Heath Ledger will spring to mind, but this is concerning the entire topic of posthumous awards.

People have said Heath Ledger deserves the Oscar, or at least a nomination. I am reserving judgement as I am late seeing the movie (Will see it tomorrow).

Do you agree he deserves the nomination and/or award?

Why/Why not?

More importantly, do you feel posthumous awards are necessary or not?

Personally, I don't quite see the point of giving an award to people on behalf of a dead man or woman, since awards are SPECIFICALLY for the actor or actress. Appreciation will be there no matter what, which is what truly matters. It also taints the proceedings because there'll always be the matter of "Well, did he/she get it because they died?". I think there are a lot of credible reasons for posthumous awards to cease being given.

Your thoughts?

-AC

In the case of Ledger, I think it would be deserved. He took the character of an older veteran actor and made it his own, just like Ewan did with Obi-Wan Kenobi.

The one type of posthumous awards that I oppose are military ones. When a soldier saves his buddies by throwing himself on top of a grenade, he's not doing it in hopes of getting a medal.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I'll make a wild guess and say you're not a big fan of superhero movies, right?



Tell that to someone who cares.



I didn't say that it does it best. But TDK had everything:

Mind-blowing action? Check.
Spectacular, realistic special effects? Check.
Exceptional acting? Check.
Thought-provoking? Check.
One of the best villains to ever be portrayed in film? BIG CHECK.
Sufficiently brutal and dark? Check.

It has only one flaw. It's too long. That's it.
Also, most of the things you mentioned would typically be regarded as themes and motifs.




Oh, my, god. Don't tell me you're one of the "You don't know what you're talking about, my opinions is right, and your's is wrong!" people. I hope not.

And yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Christian Bale is very good. Caine? I really liked his performance. During every scene with him, I felt this wise, warm feeling coming from him; the relationship between Alfred and Bruce is one of the film's strongest points. Eckhart wasn't bad. He was mind-blowing, but he was, IMO, very good; to see how he degenerates from one of the most inspirational men in the movie into a violent monster, and how Batman's hope in him (causing him to eventually kill him), is tragic. The ending is tragic, too.







It's your right to do that. Everyone has your opinion- it's, in my opinion, the best superhero movie ever made, the best movie of the year so far, and one of my favorite movies of all time. Is it the greatest movie ever made, like it says on IMDb? Nah. But I don't think any movie can appropriately be called 'the best movie ever made'. Not even 'classics' like the Godfather.

It's quite clear that no debate could make you see any other side. I've clearly accepted the fact that you like it as a matter of opinion, I've then pointed out objective flaws, which you dismiss as opinion. There is an objective measurement of talent in acting, like there is in any such performing art, so I'm not saying that my opinion is any better than yours.

The list you're checking off seems to be based on almost all opinion, either that, or you haven't watched many other films, or haven't got a critical appreciation of film.

Anyway, let's just accept that you like it, you've given your reasons. That I don't like it, for which I've given my reasons. Presently, we're derailing the topic of the thread.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In the case of Ledger, I think it would be deserved. He took the character of an older veteran actor and made it his own, just like Ewan did with Obi-Wan Kenobi.

The one type of posthumous awards that I oppose are military ones. When a soldier saves his buddies by throwing himself on top of a grenade, he's not doing it in hopes of getting a medal. True, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve one though.

Master Crimzon
Really? The only 'objective' note I saw in your debate is that Harvey's transformation was extremely rushed. Again, I never felt any sort of 'rush' in it... other than that, your argument consisted of "Caine SUCKED!", "TDK uses themes already done BETTER!", and... that's it!

You didn't explain anything. There is no 'fact' when it comes to reviewing movies- there is only opinion. In your opinion, it was 'okay'. In my opinion, it was 'mind-blowing'. In your 'opinion', I can't critique a movie and, for some reason or another, cannot create an 'objective' argument.

By the way, I already noted that it's not a flawless movie and isn't quite a 10/10. Yes, my entire list is 'opinion'- I've watched loads of films. And the action in TDK is, when it comes to modern thrillers/action movies, very high up. The acting is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many critics), amazing. The themes in this movies are presented superbly; it's dark, disturbing, and violent, unlike any other superhero movie ever made. It's realistic, and it gets you to think (it got me to think, anyways). But, most importantly of all, Heath Ledger's Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of cinematic history.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Really? The only 'objective' note I saw in your debate is that Harvey's transformation was extremely rushed. Again, I never felt any sort of 'rush' in it... other than that, your argument consisted of "Caine SUCKED!", "TDK uses themes already done BETTER!", and... that's it!

You didn't explain anything. There is no 'fact' when it comes to reviewing movies- there is only opinion. In your opinion, it was 'okay'. In my opinion, it was 'mind-blowing'. In your 'opinion', I can't critique a movie and, for some reason or another, cannot create an 'objective' argument.

By the way, I already noted that it's not a flawless movie and isn't quite a 10/10. Yes, my entire list is 'opinion'- I've watched loads of films. And the action in TDK is, when it comes to modern thrillers/action movies, very high up. The acting is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many critics), amazing. The themes in this movies are presented superbly; it's dark, disturbing, and violent, unlike any other superhero movie ever made. It's realistic, and it gets you to think (it got me to think, anyways). But, most importantly of all, Heath Ledger's Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of cinematic history.

I disagree with pretty much all of that. Especially with the the "one of the greatest villains in cinematic history" bit - I seriously don't think you have the faintest idea what you're going on about.

Also, most of the critics I've read have not reiterated your rather bias opinion.

Anyway, if you want to continue this pointless charade, do it privately.

Master Crimzon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I disagree with pretty much all of that. Especially with the the "one of the greatest villains in cinematic history" bit - I seriously don't think you have the faintest idea what you're going on about.

Also, most of the critics I've read have not reiterated your rather bias opinion.

Anyway, if you want to continue this pointless charade, do it privately.

Sorry, but why am I biased? I'm not even a big Batman fan. I really loved the movie. That's it.

And I gotta love your arrogance. Once again, the "You don't know what you're talking about!" shit. What gives you the right to judge me? To tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, although you aren't a professional critic, movie goer, or anything meaningful at all? Seriously. Your inflated self-opinion actually made me laugh. I disagree with you, so you tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and dismiss me as one of the raving TDK fanboys.

And now for the Joker part. He's a brilliantly designed character, and deserves to be up there with the likes of Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter. You'll probably say "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!", but then again, it's funny how more people agree with me than with you about this.

Almighty Bauer
Originally posted by Quiero Mota

The one type of posthumous awards that I oppose are military ones. When a soldier saves his buddies by throwing himself on top of a grenade, he's not doing it in hopes of getting a medal.
Surely, that would be more of a reason to honour them. They didn't die looking for a medal or whatever, they died doing something much more commendable.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bardock42
I can't comment on Ledger. I think his performance was great, I haven't seen enough other movies this year though.

As for posthumous awards and in specific the Oscars, I think if the stated goal is to award the ... award...to the best actor of the period in consideration it should not matter whether they are dead at the time of the awards or not. The best is the best and should be honoured as such.

I think Bardock got it.

Röland
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The one type of posthumous awards that I oppose are military ones. When a soldier saves his buddies by throwing himself on top of a grenade, he's not doing it in hopes of getting a medal.
Why do you oppose giving out medals to soldiers who gave their lives to save others?

Alpha Centauri
Because the soldier he saved probably wouldn't get one, and he is still fighting to save others.

They all are. Well, that's the "idea" behind being a soldier.

-AC

Bardock42
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because the soldier he saved probably wouldn't get one, and he is still fighting to save others.

They all are. Well, that's the "idea" behind being a soldier.

-AC

And the idea behind "medals" is to honour those that perform outstanding deeds.


Like saving the life of another in a quite heroic fashion.

Almighty Bauer
Originally posted by Bardock42
And the idea behind "medals" is to honour those that perform outstanding deeds.


Like saving the life of another in a quite heroic fashion.
Precisely. There are soldiers who would never do such a heroic thing. The action of doing such a thing is really remarkable and deserves such a reward, certainly...

papabeard
Watched The Dark Knight last night, as a Comic Book/Superhero film its pretty much untouchable, but as for Heath Ledgers performance, he was great but not worthy of an oscar, but definetly a nomination in my opinion

FistOfThe North
Imo Heath's an Oscar caliber performer so there should be no questions as to whether he deserves it or not. To me, he easily qualifies for an award for his role as the Joker to me. His Joker portrayal was the greatest and the most convincing super villain act in comic book movies and maybe in film period. But for me, beside it being too early to know if he should get it overall, i'd have to see the remaining performances other actor/actresses might offer before the awards before casting judgement. But if the Academy held it's show tomorrow, i'd expect Heath to at least get a best supporting nod. And would be highly surprised if he didn't win.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.