And My Problem With The Oscars Is....

Me. Or rather, the fact that I don't go to movies very much and so there is little going on at the Oscars to draw me in. So I don't watch. In fact, the only way I know what happened is to read about it or hear about it the next day.

In the past, I'd gotten a little upset about "slights" at the Oscars. I think of Annie Hall/Star Wars and Forest Gump/Shawshank Redemption/Pulp Fiction right off the bat. These are rare cases where I had actually seen all of the films involved.

Then in more recent years, it would be a good year if I'd seen two of the films up for best picture. Then I was down to one. And more often than not now, it's down to zero.

Which brings me to Dark Knight and Iron Man. Neither of which were nominated for any truly significant awards. Of course, Heath Ledger won best supporting actor, but I feel that this award was won more for Ledger's sake and the tragic situation of his dying, than his appearance in Dark Knight. Nay, I'd put forth that he won this award despite having been in Dark Knight.

I'd heard before I'd seen the film that Ledger was brilliant. And I agree. It was a masterful performance. And it's true that the film made tons of money worldwide. That doesn't necessarily translate to Oscar consideration.

If it did, Spider-Man would have won in 2002. And every Harry Potter film would also have won. I think that the Academy would rather not have the Oscars than turn their Dog Show over to these vile ruffian action/costumed adventurer films.

Expect the same thing to apply to Watchmen, no matter how good it is or how much money it makes. It will not be nominated for best film, best screenplay, best actor or any award worthy of note.

And that's fine. Comic books no longer need validation from outside sources. Just because Hollywood is making good movies out of comics, doesn't mean that comics are any more or less valid as an art form.

As a matter of fact, the overall horrendous and forgettable output of comic book films prior to Spider-Man tells me that Hollywood knew (or should have known) that they had some great potential material and a built-in audience. All they had to do was not screw it up.

They got it right with Superman, Superman II, The Rocketeer and The Crow. And I am sure there are few others I am forgetting, but for the most part...the years from 1978 to 2002 are pretty freakin' grim when it comes to comic book movies.

But that wasn't what they did. Comic books were for kids, so we're going to take the basic ideas and make movies that adults would want to see. This is the impression that I got, anyway. And the result was "movies that suck ass." And I am being kind.

Batman Returns was so bad, it tainted my opinion of Batman and made me ignore the next two Batman films. All through the 90s, anytime I heard a rumor that they were going to make a comic-book based movie, I hoped that it would never come to fruition. It almost seemed like they were only making (or trying to make) the movies to thumb their nose at comic books. They didn't take them seriously, so they could not have made good movies.

Now they can. There are fans making movies, and the studios are on board because of the money that flows in. People go to these movies and really enjoy them. They get big names for the comic book movies. And still, there is very little hint at the Oscars that they even exist.

And that's fine with me. If Star Wars and Shawshank didn't get an award, maybe it's proper that Spider-Man, Dark Knight and Iron Man didn't as well. I'll be happy as long as they make good movies.

I'd like for the films based on comics to be as memorable (or at least as respectful) as possible of the comics I have read and enjoyed. That's not asking for too much, is it?