...how the hell it won Best Makeup over Hellboy II? I really don't get, from what I've seen of Benjamin Button, how it could possibly have had better makeup than Hellboy II did.

the dude gets younger

I've not seen it either, but I'm guessing it's because they felt it took a fine attention to detail to differentiate between old Brad Pitt and slightly less old Brad Pitt? I can kind of see the reasoning in that (if it's true); it's probably harder to do makeup that convincingly differentiates a man along ten year blocks of age, and do it multiple times, than to toss some prosthetics, rubber masks and face paint to make someone look non-human.

I saw the movie (wouldn't recommend it), and Brad Pitt somehow looking believably 18 or 19 years old *was* quite a feat.

With that said, I think they may be giving too much credit to the make-up artists - those shots with him as a young guy could have easily gone though a soft blur post-process filter, and I'm almost positive they did.

It's possible the makeup was heavily involved in preparing a, um..., foundation? for the post-process. Perhaps they deserve props for a well-done synergy of fields?

And was the movie really that bad? It looked interesting in previews, I enjoy movies that play with time and its linearity, but everyone keeps shitting all over it.

Because the Academy snubbed it in favor of Slumdog Millionaire, and a few technical awards were meant to be its consolation prize.

Also, to the Academy, anything > genre films.

Thats another one that bothered me, I dont get how TDK lost to Slumdog for Best Cinematography.

It wasn't bad, it just wasn't as interesting to me. I watched the two in the same evening and at the end I'd rather watch Slumdog Millionaire again. Not a bad movie really, just not as good as many other movies it was put up against. Very low key in many ways which yeah, does explain people calling it boring.

TDK was the second highest grossing movie of all time (or did it actually beat Titanic at the end of its' run?), yet it received little to no recognition at the awards. To an extent, I understand this - TDK was an excellent film, but not an artistic one. It had a message, but the message compliments the film, not the Academy's preference of the film complimenting the message. Fine.

The problem here is that they continue to ignore the cultural impact of such films. Slumdog Millionare (not a bad movie, to be certain) will be long forgotten within a year or two, while Dark Knight will still adorn everyone's movie collection; will be the new benchmark upon which action films (especially those based on super-heroes) is tested against. TDK will have forever changed not only a comic industry more than a half century old (really, can any Batman author ever look at Joker the same again?), or the action genre as a whole, but the film will be one of those adopted as a generational classic from it's genre - see Top Gun, Raiders of the Lost Arc, etc.

Their lack of understanding of this speaks to an inbred arrogance or elitism, but really, only contributes to the growing insignificance of these people. I just hope a few producers keep their heads on straight so that the industry itself doesn't die off; there are, after all, still some good movies to be made.

I saw all the movies nominated for best makeup, and I thought Benjamin Button was the best choice. It was pretty well done. He was convincing as an old man, and the younger looking makeup was what was most amazing. That's the best he's looked in a long time. I did think Cate Blanchett's makeup was less than impressive, but it was still better than Hellboy. IMO it's harder to do realistic looking makeup than it is to do cartoonish makeup.

As for TDK vs. Slumdog Millionaire... I loved both, don't get me wrong, but I think it's important to reward those films that are truly unique, enjoyable, well-made, and just plain good filmmaking. TDK might be more widely watched, and it was awesome, but in the end, it's still just another superhero movie. I don't think Slumdog Millionaire will be forgotten in a year or two either, not after winning eight oscars.

See thats the thing, I think it actually pains them to even give nominations to action movies, let alone comic book ones. It still amazes me how LotR, all of them, got as many of the good award nominations and won them. Meanwhile, TDK gets a bunch of the ones no one really gives a **** about besides Supporting Actor and Cinematography, and manages to lose all of them except for Supporting Actor and Sound Editing...

As was said, I really don't think Slumdog Millionaire will simply be forgotten in a few years. By Safehousers? Sure, but this isn't exactly an amazing cross section. I also have to say that Slumdog Millionaire was, really, a much better film in terms of story, purpose and narrative than The Dark Knight....TDK had **** explode, though, which is why it's a great movie to watch in theaters. Judging strictly by gross ticket sales isn't necessarily a fair judge of quality. I, and I'd be willing to be that vast majority of people, do not go to the movies to see "quality" as much as to be mindlessly entertained and hang out with friends.

I've never seen a Wes Anderson movie in theaters. I still think he is one of the highest quality directors in the business. I'll likely never see his movies in theaters because I don't think they match the environment right.

I agree with Zeno. Movie sucks, but man, I can't believe they made Brad Pitt look that young. The ancient one wasn't as convincing, just looked silly, but damn if he wasn't 17 in that film.

There's a reason for this. The majority of voters for the Oscars don't see these films in theaters. They see them at their home with a private screening DVD. They are also generally older by a generation or two. To them a good movie is lots of dialogue and not much else. The Oscars lag behind society. The only awards that might actually mean anything and be legitimate are the technical awards.

The movie was LONG. The pacing of Benjamin Button was just way too slow. It wasn't an absolutely terrible movie - it just needed to be edited down to a shorter length, or have more climactic moments inserted somewhere along the way. Maybe I'd recommend it as a cheap rental, but it wasn't worth the movie ticket price.

I liked TDK a LOT, but I'd be hard pressed to say Slumdog Millionaire was a worse movie or that TDK was a better one. I'd put them at about the same standard to be honest, they're just very different types of movies. I plan on getting Slumdog when it comes out on DVD, I doubt I'll forget that movie, it is a very well done movie (Benjamin Button on the other hand I can live without unless the dvd has some very excellent extras).

Now I do agree that the makeup in BB was excellently done when they made him younger, older he was eh, it was decent but not nearly as good. Making something alien look alien isn't so big a feat to these people, but making an actor look way older or way younger than he is without making him also look really really weird is. We look at the Hellboy 2 makeup and go "oh wow" but from the point of view of someone in that business aging or making younger someone without getting a really wonky effect is a real show of talent.

To TDK's detriment the academy is old, by which I mean it's members are getting older to a point where they lean towards certain types of movies and certain movies only. Anyone else remember when everyone said that there was just NO way in hell that Silence of the Lambs would win that year because it wasn't artsy or had fluffy nice themes or didn't have any major social issues and the academy just didn't go for that? Too dark among other things. That was what? 10 years ago or more? In that instance it was proven wrong but in general the rule has held quite well. The main thing is that the academy has tastes that aren't really reflected in the average moviegoers. I mean lets be honest here, how many of you actually saw Milk? I didn't, it's still on my to do list. There's no way Ironman or TDK would ever get on my to do list, that's an immediate viewing.

The people at the academy are more like my older sister's generation, they may appreciate these movies but they don't consider them 'real' movies that have 'real' actors who's work is to be appreciated or noted. To them these are paycheck movies, not art. They're movies that are done mostly to get the paycheck, not movies that people do because they're passionate about the subject matter or because the subject matter uh, matters or holds some relevance. And they're not gonna give out rewards for paycheck movies, no matter how good they are. If Heath Ledger hadn't died he would likely have managed to break that rule, his death pretty much insured that they couldn't give that award to anyone else and maintain any illusion of being remotely in touch with the rest of the industry or the public.

They like dramas that are straight up dramas, we like our dramas to include superhero costumes, space suits, alien beings or at the very least some supernatural **** going down. To them that's RUINING it, I mean you can't have drama that isn't happening squarely in the real world. To them injecting fantasy of any sort completely negates the human element, to us the injection of fantasy allows the human element to be viewed with even greater clarity because removed from real world prejudices and preconceptions the truth of the matters can often be viewed more clearly. It's just two completely different groups of people who aren't ever going to see things the same way. And until the academy has a substantial injection of fresh blood that's not gonna change. However it does mean that the Oscars will become less and less significant to the public as it grows out of touch. The best example would be whether you bothered to watch it. I didn't this year, I havent' the last 3 years. This used to be something I look forward to each year, but lately it's just been "Meh, they usually go for movies I find so depressing I'd almost rather watch Ingmar Bergman movies so why bother?"

Now this year I'm not surprised Slumdog won for two reasons: firstly it is a very well done movie, this is Danny Boyle doing something he's good at unlike frigging Sunshine and he is a good director. Secondly the world in general is in a really rough spot with the financial crisis and some other things - at such times people lean towards movies that make them feel good, not towards the type of Clint Eastwood/Sean Penn emotionally depressing dramas about inevitable death and suffering.

Slumdog could have also been an acknowledgment, finally, of ****ywood by Hollywood. It's not a true ****ywood flick but it highlights Indian culture, and given India's rise in the last few years, maybe this is the Academy's way of bringing Indians into the mainstream. At least tacitly.

I haven't seen it so I can't comment on how well it will be remembered. Any other films that won 8 awards that no one remembers?

Mostly agree with you Koru, except for these people feeling the fantastic and the dramatic cannot mix. Pan's Labrynth is a prime example. The difference is that, for Hollywood, the fantastic and the dramatic tend to not mix in any more than a half assed or tongue-in-cheek form (with some exceptions, the current Batman series being one). I really lay the blame more on Hollywood, there aren't many fantastical movies that I would rate up there as worthy of an Academy Award (I Am Legend would have been another if they hadn't raped, beaten, raped and then peed on the second half). Depending on how Watchmen turns out (and everything I've heard so far is beginning to make me hopeful, though I'm still recovering from I Am Legend), we might have another fantastical Hollywood movie that blurs the lines.

Also, why is **** asterisked? ****y **** **** ****? I think Slumdog Millionaire might have been tacit recognition of that film industry that shall not be named on this board, but it would have also definitely stood on its own merit.

It is filtered because of The Director Who Shall Not Be Named.

Ah....I see. That douche**** ruins everything. :(

**** is bleeped out because of *** ****.

Damn... Ewe Bowl?

Well if it's depressing you're looking for, Bergman is hard to beat. Of course, when it comes to film, he's hard to beat period.

I'll tell you exactly why Benjamin Button won for Visual Effects, Art Direction, Makeup, and why Slumdog Millionaire won for Sound Mixing, Best Song, Best Score, and Film Editing: It's because the majority of the Academy voters don't really give a **** who wins these things. They get sent the nominated movies to their home, they don't really have time to watch and consider them all, so they watch one or two because those are the ones everyone's talking about. Then they say, "Oh, Benjamin Button. That was pretty good. I'll just vote for that in whatever category."

Truthfully, a movie like Hellboy II really should win for Best Makeup, and a movie like Iron Man really should win for Best Visual Effects, because they are clearly superior. But this dogpile effect prevents the real achievements from being acknowledged every single year.

That being said, I have seen each of the five movies that were up for Best Picture, and I thought Slumdog Millionaire was far and away the best one, followed by Milk, then Frost/Nixon, then BB, and last the mostly boring Reader. (I also just saw Religulous a few days ago, and honestly, that should have been a contender for Best Film Editing.)

I also disagree with the posit that Slumdog will be forgotten. It's no Forrest Gump (as much as it tries to be), but I'd say the chances of it being remembered 10, 20, 30 years down the road are much greater than, say, American Beauty (one of the worst Best Picture winners of the past couple decades).

Mueh? How does it try to be a Forrest Gump at all? Yes, it follows a guy through a big chunk of his life...and, like, they both travel around their respective countries some (though Gump most definitely more than Jamal).

The bulk of Benjamin Button's age-defying effects were computer-generated or -aided. I have no problems giving Benjamin Button Best Visual Effects. But Hellboy II: The Golden Army should have gotten Best Makeup. Period.

Also, Benjamin Button was an excellent film, and Slumdog Millionaire was incredibly overrated (so too is Danny Boyle as a director; Trainspotting was a long time ago, and it wasn't even that good). The Dark Knight and Wall-E should have been nominated for Best Picture, and one of the two should have taken it.

Those two films will stand the test of time. Slumdog will be forgotten, likely within a year.

Truthfully I find that Benjamin Button reminded me far more of Forrest Gump, it's the same sort of movement through various phases in the 20th century while the story is being told. While Slumdog to me is far more focused on Jamal's personal history, there's very little feeling of a connect with whatever time he is in at that part in the movie, the slums he lives in undergo some change, but they still remain slums and the effect of progress to his area has minimal effects on the story - changed the story could be set in any slum, any area that undergoes changes and a business boom.

Forest Gump's timeline is external, it links to the world around him much more than anything else, while Jamal's is mostly internal. Forest's scenes are linked to key figures and events in history, this is how we observe time change for him - through which famous situation/event/person he encounters. To Jamal's story it doesn't matter what decade the Taj Mahal scenes are in, it doesn't matter when exactly he returns to Mumbai, what matters is his relative age and his experiences. Now I should probably note that Forest Gump isn't a movie that particularly stuck with me, I remember it of course as I do most movies and I remember it being ok. But I simply have no desire to see it again, as I think back on it it feels too gimmicky for me to form any attachment to it.

Eh? American Beauty is fantastic.

Iron Man was robbed.

That is all.

The Dark Knight will only be remembered because its Batman. Put in "New Superhero 5" and yeah, everyone will say "Awesome movie" but it would be forgotten within a year by a large portion of the people. There are plenty of good superhero movies out there, but because they arent mainstream heroes they get forgotten. Thats why the academy rarely recognizes them. Plus, how many of us really liked the movie because of Joker, not because of Batman or Two-Face?

Wall-E was most likely too preachy.

There's no such thing as "too preachy" when it comes to the Academy.

this might help clarify things:

Those Academy judges are so sheltered and focused on their own genre they don't even realize that all of the best movies this year, that should have won all the awards, were comic book fantasy gaming movies.

Benjamin Button was way more boring than Forrest Gump. There were several minutes that would go by without any major plot points or anything... just Benjamin walking around, or chatting with a minor character that you may or may not see again in the movie (I realize this could describe Forrest as well, but for some reason BB just didn't have too many exciting things in it). The part of the movie I liked the most was when he was on a boat in WW2, because at least things happened then, and there was even some action (for like 5 minutes)!

Well, Gump was also supposed to be an analogy for a generation of Americans, from what everyone's been saying about Benjamin it sounds like they did the same pacing and such but without the symbolic significance.....or something.

Also, w....t...f? He who shall not be named directing a movie about the ****ing Janjaweed and Sudan? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1236471/ I'm completely at a loss. It's either going to be the biggest train-wreck in cinematic history or...ugh, I don't know. Thinking about it is actually making my neck hurt.

I didn't, partly because it was out only in Louisville at a theatre I only put up with for midnight movies afaik (which also had Slumdog and The Wrestler, neither of which I went to see despite wanting to very much so) and also because I hate Sean Penn.

If anything, that should have been up for best documentary, <3 Bill Maher jab while giving that one away.

That's another thing, the current Academy would have to be dead in the cold ground before they'd dare to nominate an animated film for best film. WALL•E sure as **** deserved more than just best animated film, because it quite frankly was a crap load better than most films are and it was a "kid movie" for ****s sake. Seriously? How in the blue **** did Beauty and the Beast manage to pull a best film nomination, which incidentally was going up against Silence of the Lambs... and is still the only animated film to do this, out of its ass while WALL•E didn't? Something was really backwards about 1991 or something...

Then there's also the problem of more foreign films, especially when it comes to animation, not getting nominations.

I call ******** on this. TDK was easily one of the best movies Ive seen that has come out in the past ten years and completely rewrites how you have to do dark comic book movies (not that Iron Man was any slouch when it comes to more action based comic book movies). From the looks of it, Watchmen is set to stay up the the high standard TDK has set.

There are NOT plenty of genuinely good super hero movies out there, there are ones that the general public will watch because its cool, which are bearable for use geeky types. But as for ones that do a REAL good job of making a comic book movie it comes down to Iron Man, the two new Batman movies, and Sin City (and Watchmen probably). Hell, even Hellboy is pretty standout when it comes to comic book movies, Hellboy was pretty damn good and did a lot of the stuff Spider-Man should have been doing (EG: cracking wise while fighting and what not) but didn't.

How the **** did he con Kristanna to work with him again??? Wait a minute... she was in the Dungeon Siege movie too????? The **** is wrong with her?

Naw, I see you're point Jhani, but I'm not throwing a fit because TDK didn't win, it won in the one category that it really did deserve to win. I'd say a few of the technical awards it also had a strong claim in, but while it was one of the very best superhero movies I've seen I, no matter how much I might want to, can't say I think it deserved say best picture. It's more that people are realizing that there are some good movies in multiple genres (not just comic book superhero fantasy) that will never even get a chance because they're not in the right genres. I mean does anyone think they will vote a cartoon best movie? Don't be silly, cartoons are for kids.

BB, I didn't find it a bad movie, but compared to some of the other movies I've seen the last year it becomes hard to see why it got some of it's big category nominations while other movies didn't... I mean Meryl Streep's nomination, I pretty much despise movies about Catholic anything (seriously, angst much?) but seeing her acting I really do get it even though the movie does nothing for me. But sometimes the academy just picks movies because they had the right issue, or the right person. I mean Martin Scorsese finally winning an Oscar for his inferior remake of a Korean film? Compared to a lot of his other movies that picture stunk to high heaven, but he was always gonna win that because they'd snubbed him too many times when he wasn't cool/artistic/refined enough for them. And he's by no means the only director/actor who's had that happen. The Academy is rather conservative, it doesn't move well with the times (or it wouldn't have to give out these "sorry we didn't notice what awesome movies you made 10-20 years ago like the public did but here's a statue for your latest stuff" awards) and I do notice a decline of interest in the awards among the movie geeks I know. As opposed to just the normal geeks I know who never gave a **** about the Academy in the first place.

Beauty and the Beast got a nod because Belle is a full-blown hottie.

Ariel > *.Disney.Female

Okie... so do we call anthropomorphic fish lovers "Scalies" instead of "Furries"?

I would suggest "Finnies", but people might think that meant an extreme attraction to Finland

I don't really care about the awards myself, because i wouldn't watch 99% of the movies that they go gaga over in the first place.
Not that they arn't good movies in their way, they just don't apeal to "me".
and as they have a 20ish year track record of the same stuff getting nominated, i don't see that changing any time soon.
what can i say, im a barbarian when it comes to my movie tastes

So I was looking up something else on the wikipedia page for this year's awards and noticed that Eartha Kitt died and wasn't mentioned in the memoriam bit... wtf, I didnt even know she died, I never saw anything about it

Actually that was one of the most infuriating "In Memoriam" segments ever shown on the Oscars. WTF was up with waving a camera around in front of a screen showing the people, instead of just showing the people? Bad camerawork would sometimes cause their names to be either too small to read or clipped off screen. Thanks goodness we get to see Queen Latifah warble through it all though!

EDIT: Ah apparently Eartha was not the only one left off...

They make far to big a deal about patting themselves on the back.
Rather see the Noble prizes ceremonies get this kind of attention.. maybe the past years laureates could do a song and dance number.

I hear Steven Hawking's little choreographed number is quite the thing to behold so I vote yes.

yeh, how could the oscars snub movie trailer voice guy in their memorial video?

They probably left out Carlin and Kitt because they were more famous in media other than film.

So? He was a ****ing genius in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"!