The Kite Runner (or "Why the academy is worthless")

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
This is why the academy can't be trusted. This little film is amazing. It is simply an epic story about a child who makes a terrible mistake and must live it the rest of his life. Every frame of this movie is perfect.

Let's look at the five nominees for best picture and how this movie compares.

Juno - a different film but a better film
No Country For Old Men - didn't see it but hear the ending is terrible.
Atonement - Way better
There Will Be Blood - at least on par with this movie
Michael Clayton - 1 BILLION times better than this movie.

This goes to show what's wrong with the system. For whatever reason, the studio for The Kite Runner decided not to (or couldn't afford) spend as much money as the rest of these films campaigning for the oscars and THAT is the ONLY reason it's not nominated. This movie is at least as good as all those other films. I'm baffled and angry. Campaigning for films has become like campaigning for the presidency. A joke and completely dependent on money.
 
I dunno... I found the movie a kittle weak, especially compared to the book. nicely shot, but not as powerful or memorable as it could be. Not bad... but it sure didn't live up to the material.
 
Yeah.

The filmed adaptation didn't come anywhere near doing justice to the source material.

Plus, it was okay - but certainly not great - even leaving the source material aside.
 
Juno was great. I dunno if it's Oscar worthy, but what is considered Oscar worthy? It was a great little film, different, inventive, clever, wonderful from the writing to the performances, and very entertaining. So even though it doesn't seem like a typical film to be nominated for best picture, I'm also not surprised.

Plus, we can debate all we want, but all film making is subjective. "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder" as they say. So debating which is better, and which is worse, is kind of pointless IMO. To one person one film may be better, and to another it'll be worse.

Haven't seen Kite Runner, but who knows, when I do I could very well hate it with a passion.
 
I disagree. I think this movie was better than the book, mainly because the book had an extremely long (and dare I say "boring") middle - perfect for squeezing down and putting in movie form. I thought the film did that perfectly, excising a lot of the San Francisco-based father stuff, which felt muddled and drawn out. We get it. He couldn't live up to what his father wanted him to be. Anyway, I think had this movie had some white and/or more "famous" actors, it would've received a lot more attention.


Jon, I think films can be pit against each other. The one thing that can't be compared is the individual experience each viewer has with a film. That is definitely the X-factor. But you can look at all the other aspects that went into the film: the casting, acting, set design, lighting, cinematography, directing choices, etc. and determine somewhat which films are "better".
 
c.g._eads said:
Jon, I think films can be pit against each other. The one thing that can't be compared is the individual experience each viewer has with a film. That is definitely the X-factor. But you can look at all the other aspects that went into the film: the casting, acting, set design, lighting, cinematography, directing choices, etc. and determine somewhat which films are "better".
Click to expand...

Right, but who determines what's a good casting? What's good cinematography? We've set "standards" for good quality, and we grew up sticking to them. However there will always be individual experiences concerning these various aspects, and they can deviate from these "standards". These "standards" are also very loose and often changing with time, and can also be different from one individual to another. Some individuals dislike the ending of No Country for Old Men, yet that is an individual experience that relates to one of these aspects (story/script/directing choice). (I hope that made any sense, lol)

Anyways, c'est la vie. For every great film, there will always be someone to hate it.
 
I actually thought about that after I made my post. All those things are subjective. So you're right. However, I think that if you polled a random 100 people and asked them what's a better movie, "The Matrix" or "The Matrix Revolutions", two movies that have a bunch of things in common, probably a good 95% would say "The Matrix" was a better movie. So if those were the only two movies made one year, and were subsequently the only two movies that were up for best picture, a very large portion of the population would be fine with "The Matrix" winning best picture. My point being that, expanding the pool to 500 or so movies should make no difference. One of those movies is going to rise to the top and be the favorite of the majority. And I think that's the key word here: majority. The best picture simply represents the picture that the mojority of people liked best. Nothing wrong with that.
 
c.g._eads said:
I actually thought about that after I made my post. All those things are subjective. So you're right. However, I think that if you polled a random 100 people and asked them what's a better movie, "The Matrix" or "The Matrix Revolutions", two movies that have a bunch of things in common, probably a good 95% would say "The Matrix" was a better movie. So if those were the only two movies made one year, and were subsequently the only two movies that were up for best picture, a very large portion of the population would be fine with "The Matrix" winning best picture. My point being that, expanding the pool to 500 or so movies should make no difference. One of those movies is going to rise to the top and be the favorite of the majority. And I think that's the key word here: majority. The best picture simply represents the picture that the mojority of people liked best. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

You're right, but wouldn't what the majority likes be more along the lines of the people's choice awards? The Academy is just basing their judgment on a set of standards each academy member has on an individual level... which I suppose is the whole point of the argument, and the whole problem in the first place.

Then if we look at majorities, often we'll see the biggest hits to not be those "Oscar worthy" films. The only big grossing film on the list of best picture happens to be Juno.

Hmmm...

I think the whole idea of awards is just flawed to begin with. Whether it's chosen by an academy or by the people. But it's still fun to watch, and would still love to get one. :)
 
I understand and respect what you're saying. And sometimes I take that point of view. Movies are art. And how can you judge art? However there's an irrational side to me that thinks it's okay to compare movies. Obviously it might work better if the films you compared were all in the same category (all Westerns for instance). But I just find it hard to believe that somebody could say that the cinematography in Juno is better than the cinematography in There Will Be Blood. Or that the costumes in Atonement weren't better than the ones in Michael Clayton. If you could then compare all the films that way, on each individual technique, despite a lot of the categories not being as simple as the examples I just gave, you can arrive at a winner. However unfortunately, I think it just comes down to what movie the academy members enjoyed the most. And we all know that the Academy members' age does not reflect the age of the rest of the nation. So it's interesting. What's also interesting is that you would like an award that you admit is worthless. Must be something to it. :) kidding.
 
the fun thing about the academy awards is that they are given by the "old guard" the people who have been doing that same exact job long enough and good enough to be the most respected members of their union.

i disagree as much as anyone with how the doll out the awards but at the same time i respect their decisions.

the diving bell and the butterfly not being up for best cinematography is the biggest sham of the entire year.

i dont think that the kite runner was as better than atonement, there will be blood, or no country for old men. I thought Juno was just aggonizing to watch. I think I may be the only person in America who didn't enjoy the film but I walked out.

And Michael Clayton was pretty flawless. But Diving Bell should have been on the best picture ticket I think...

its all relative though. everyone can make an argument for anything.

ps. zodiac was a damn near perfect movie too.
 
I say Transformers should have been nominated for best film, and Micheal Bay for best director!

c.g._eads said:
What's also interesting is that you would like an award that you admit is worthless. Must be something to it. :) kidding.
Click to expand...

Well how else am I going to get da ladies?

"Hey baby, ever slept with an Oscar winning director?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top