(no subject)
Television Without Pity did an article "If Geeks ran the Oscars", which is an interesting idea. There is a discrepancy between genre fare and prestige films. However, I suppose the problem is that the Academy recognizes it so little, there are very few nominations to quibble over. It will also, at times, make the assumption that if you've been in a geek friendly film at one point, they'll follow you for life. Which may happen, but you don't get cred for life for any old thing. Also, the problem with "geek" is they once again make the assumption geek-interests are all are nothing. There are Star Wars geeks, Lord of the Rings geeks, and film geeks. And the last would mean that they go for actual arty films, not just George Lucas brainchildren. article here, you'll have to follow the slide show manually.
1939: I suppose the joke is that, as a fantasy epic, geeks would be drawn to it. But you also forget it's a musical which means the theater-geek crowd will voice strongly for it, but get outvoted. Your standard, stereotypical myopic geek, hates everything musical and skewing towards kids. (Ironic as that is) Besides, this the late 30's, I'm not sure your depression-era geek could be pulled from his Doc Savage clippings and ham radios to see movies
1973: Not out of the question, but wasn't that category supporting actress?
1975: I guess I can't argue with that, but Jaws is a rather mainstream disaster type movie.
1977: Yeah, this is pretty much a given. Most nerds will never, ever, ever forget Star Wars lost to Annie Hall. Even journalists hold it up as the penultimate case of art vs. commerce.
1982: I guess this is the last of the era where Spielberg and Lucas were thrown a bone, but lost to a much smaller (And perhaps not as remembered) film. But At this point, I don't think geeks really are that into E.T., it's just the principle of the thing. And as I mentioned before, it's not so much as a "geek" vs. "non-geek" thing, but as a populist vs. elitist thing
1984: Is Karate Kid a particular geek film? I mean, it is a sports movie, martial arts or not. But I guess Pat Morita's role was Yoda-like enough to have clout there.
1989: Is this article officially saying that geek cred transcends time? Because Michelle Pfieffer had yet to play Catwoman by this point. I suppose she would get it by virtue of nerds wanting to bang her most, but still.
1990: I know geeks can be a myopic sort, but their inner psychos mean that would more likely vote the hardcore gangster as opposed to the cartoonish one. And Dick Tracy was based on a comic strip. As much as Dick Tracy tried to sell itself as the next Batman, I'm sure as far as most of the comic geeks were concerned, the movie was old people wearing campy zoot suits.
1994: Okay, now I'm not saying most geeks I know don't prefer Pulp Fiction, but I thought we established that bad-ass arthouse cred does not equal sci-fi cred. Or is it the reasoning that one day, Samuel L Jackson would go on to play Mace Windu?
1995: Sure, Pitt was in the sci-fi movie, but he was also a Hollywood pretty boy, while Spacey was a menacing character actor. Maybe it could have gone either way, but I have never heard anyone in any community say "Brad Pitt was robbed for 12 Monkeys."
1999: Geeks only cared about one thing at the Oscars and one thing only and that was The Matrix.
2000: I'm not arguing with the result, but I'm not sure how hard a choice it would be. There's a large resentment for Gladiator winning in the geek crowd.
2003: Once again, I think the writer's putting too much stock for roles they're not actually nominated for, but sure.
2005: Now, I'm pretty sure Pirates of the Caribbean isn't that much of a geek favorite. It's kind of more of a family, four quad thing. Certainly not enough to like, run with that kind of cred they're attributing Knightly with. (And why didn't Depp win the year before for doing the movie?) Though I suppose Knightly wins for lust-factor. But that's not the same thing.
2007: Not out of the question, but once again, this writer doesn't understand that dorks will cross genre lines and admire the work of someone who played a Grade-A Asshole.
2008: I can probably give it Mickey Rourke, but Jolie does not get any geek cred I'm aware of for playing Lara Croft. It's not a Halle Berry level of resentment. but Tomb Raider is mostly forgotten. I think Winslet's relative lack of glamor pretty much means the geek crowd may see her as one of them.
1939: I suppose the joke is that, as a fantasy epic, geeks would be drawn to it. But you also forget it's a musical which means the theater-geek crowd will voice strongly for it, but get outvoted. Your standard, stereotypical myopic geek, hates everything musical and skewing towards kids. (Ironic as that is) Besides, this the late 30's, I'm not sure your depression-era geek could be pulled from his Doc Savage clippings and ham radios to see movies
1973: Not out of the question, but wasn't that category supporting actress?
1975: I guess I can't argue with that, but Jaws is a rather mainstream disaster type movie.
1977: Yeah, this is pretty much a given. Most nerds will never, ever, ever forget Star Wars lost to Annie Hall. Even journalists hold it up as the penultimate case of art vs. commerce.
1982: I guess this is the last of the era where Spielberg and Lucas were thrown a bone, but lost to a much smaller (And perhaps not as remembered) film. But At this point, I don't think geeks really are that into E.T., it's just the principle of the thing. And as I mentioned before, it's not so much as a "geek" vs. "non-geek" thing, but as a populist vs. elitist thing
1984: Is Karate Kid a particular geek film? I mean, it is a sports movie, martial arts or not. But I guess Pat Morita's role was Yoda-like enough to have clout there.
1989: Is this article officially saying that geek cred transcends time? Because Michelle Pfieffer had yet to play Catwoman by this point. I suppose she would get it by virtue of nerds wanting to bang her most, but still.
1990: I know geeks can be a myopic sort, but their inner psychos mean that would more likely vote the hardcore gangster as opposed to the cartoonish one. And Dick Tracy was based on a comic strip. As much as Dick Tracy tried to sell itself as the next Batman, I'm sure as far as most of the comic geeks were concerned, the movie was old people wearing campy zoot suits.
1994: Okay, now I'm not saying most geeks I know don't prefer Pulp Fiction, but I thought we established that bad-ass arthouse cred does not equal sci-fi cred. Or is it the reasoning that one day, Samuel L Jackson would go on to play Mace Windu?
1995: Sure, Pitt was in the sci-fi movie, but he was also a Hollywood pretty boy, while Spacey was a menacing character actor. Maybe it could have gone either way, but I have never heard anyone in any community say "Brad Pitt was robbed for 12 Monkeys."
1999: Geeks only cared about one thing at the Oscars and one thing only and that was The Matrix.
2000: I'm not arguing with the result, but I'm not sure how hard a choice it would be. There's a large resentment for Gladiator winning in the geek crowd.
2003: Once again, I think the writer's putting too much stock for roles they're not actually nominated for, but sure.
2005: Now, I'm pretty sure Pirates of the Caribbean isn't that much of a geek favorite. It's kind of more of a family, four quad thing. Certainly not enough to like, run with that kind of cred they're attributing Knightly with. (And why didn't Depp win the year before for doing the movie?) Though I suppose Knightly wins for lust-factor. But that's not the same thing.
2007: Not out of the question, but once again, this writer doesn't understand that dorks will cross genre lines and admire the work of someone who played a Grade-A Asshole.
2008: I can probably give it Mickey Rourke, but Jolie does not get any geek cred I'm aware of for playing Lara Croft. It's not a Halle Berry level of resentment. but Tomb Raider is mostly forgotten. I think Winslet's relative lack of glamor pretty much means the geek crowd may see her as one of them.