No Oscar light for 'Dark Knight'

What a slap in the face to Clint Eastwood and the movie, Gran Torino!!

I thought The Dark Knight should have been nominated for make-up and set decoration, at least!!

Another year of the same boring speeches from the same boring people from the same movie that will win everything. The Academy needs to wake up and start taking lessons from the Golden Globes and The SAG awards. I have never missed the Academy Awards, its just tradition, but maybe its time to break that "tradition". BORING!!!

Just goes to show how out of touch the artsy fartsy Academy is with today's movie going public. The Dark Knight was a fantastic movie and the worldwide box office gross figures support that. The Reader? please.

We’ll never know if Heath Ledger would have been nominated if he were alive

Special effects does not a director nomination make. The Dark Night has been nominated in all categories for sound, visual effects, cinematography...as it should be.

As always, there were a few unknowns/little known nominations (Frozen River, The Visitor) that I am intrigued by.

Let the theatre hopping begin!

"The Dark Knight" was a great movie and certainly one of the better movies of 2008 but I do not believe it deserved the Best Picture nomination. I think the movie's third act hurt its chances to claim a nomination and I also think there were more deserving films. "The Reader" is an interesting choice for Best Picture. I think "Revolutionary Road" is more deserving but I guess Holocaust movies are automatically nominated for awards.

Batman was great entertainment, with interesting relevant themes, but I never thought it was in the same league as movies like Milk or Slumdog. If for no other reason, I found that the action sequences were poorly directed and impossible to track. That didn't make them less enjoyable or pull me out of watching the movie in the moment, but how can a movie about a superhero be best picture if the action sequences don't make any sense?

the people who vote for the oscars always make terrible decisions. no surprise the dark knight wasnt nominated.

Actually, I could care less about the Academy Awards, it means zip to me, nothing like padding yourself on the back telling the planet "how cool you think you are".

It means ZIP to me, nothing at all..overpaid actors doing what they like, they need to get real jobs and make a difference to society (instead of making millions pretending to be somebody).

Just typical Oscars – was anyone really surprised by this?
They will probably have even lower ratings again, Oscar is totally political and is a dead institution anyway. I mean really, who watches this crap. The fact that the Dark Knight was passed is just a testament to how archaic and antiquated the establishment is. The Dark Knight was revolutionary in its cinematic scope. In reality, it's probably a good thing considering the Oscar curse. This way Christoper Nolan will continue to make excellent engaging films while the Oscar winners will go on to make crap as they always do. Benjamin Button – I like Fincher but its basically a Forrest Gump wanna be – pleaaaase!

The dark Knight is just an average movie.Ledger in the role of the joker is no better then any of the other characters roles in previous films.The media is pushing because he passed away.At times in this film the plot is even hard to grasp.

I'm relieved that the film didn't garner a Best Picture Nomination. This is the Academy Awards. Other than Heath Ledger's creepy performance and everyone's posthumous fascination with the actor, what else stood out from Dark Knight except for its gross? That’s right, not much! Every summer blockbuster that has famous names in little tights usually draws big bucks. This formula for record-breaking opening weekends keeps the production company’s wallets overflowing, but doesn’t really translate into shelves full of shiny gold statues.

Despite such a huge turnout at theaters for "The Dark Knight", it wasn't because we were all dying to see Christian Bale, it was because we wanted to see Heath, plain and simple. I loved the movie, but it didn't exactly standout as something I would push onto my kids when they get old enough to appreciate films.

While The Dark Knight had its moments, it was a mess of a comic book movie. I would rather have seen Aron Eckhart get a Best Supporting Actor nod than Ledger, though Ledger's performance was pretty good.

Generally, I like the nominations. I'll have to Netflix The Visitor; while I saw the trailer a few times in theaters, I think it only spent a week in our area. I will watch the Oscars (I have a 40 year streak going that i want to maintain) and expect it will mostly be Slumdog Millionaire's night.

Though I am not gay, I feel the Academy lost a great deal of respect when it did not give the award to 'Brokeback Mountain'. This movie affected everything from one's church, conversations with friends and family to the results of a presidential election. Instead, awarding the Oscar to another hack-Hollywood movie. Now, the Academy cannot recognize the overwhelming response of the movie-going public. Money, money, money and egotistical arrogance, rather than recognizing true artistic talent and social impact.

Once again, the Oscars are showing that they feel they are above and beyond commercially succesful films. When they need the exposure, they nominate Lord of the Rings and Titanic in droves. When they don't care what the world thinks, and have a point to prove that THE Academy nominates pictures, not the general public, they go out of their way to show how out of touch they are. Dark Knight on so many levels deserves nominations, for best actor, best supporting actor(for which you could easily give three out for Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman AND Heath Ledger), best picture, best director, screenplay, special effects, editing, and music. I liked Dark Knight. I've been a fan of the comics since I was a kid, and disgusted at the turn Batman & Robin and Batman Forever took. I looked forward to a darker, edgier theme with Batman Begins, and was well rewarded with Dak Knight. A film does NOT have to be a commercial flop to get an Oscar nomination, nor does it have to be a giant blockbuster. But nearly a billion film worldwide shows that obviously it touched on something with people. A slew of awards and commendations from every writer, critic and news organization says volumes to the draw this film had. Once again, the Academy has shown that no film is truly great until THEY say so. Since 2000, only two films grossing high dollar amounts to win were Gladiator and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. To a degree I commend the Academy for nominating what's best in their eyes, and not succumming to others wants as far as awards. But then again, with an organization that actually allows an untalented hack like Will Ferrel to vote, what more could you expect?

I'm going to watch just to see if Heath gets his award that he rightly deserves. Though Superhero movies rarely get much nod at these awards shows, no one can say that Dark Knight is not the BEST Superhero movie made. People have told me that it was too dark and twisted for them, but i say that is the appeal of it. Its real! It shows the human side of what must go through any Superheros mind when faced against a Villian like the Joker. Dark Knight should be nominated for best picture! Period.

I won't be watching it. I have not seen Button, and I won't see button. I have a huge dislike for Pitt in general.
I do however love the Dark Knight. I wish that movie had gotten more votes. I am glad to see that ledger was at least given a nod.
but no, won't be getting my tv time.

No Dark Knight? I have no interesting in watching the Academy Awards (again). The Acadmey Awards is starting to look a bit like the BCS!

Ditto the above...Heath was good but the movie never hit a home run for me.

There is NO WAY I will watch the Oscars this year. I personally thought that Dark Knight was one of the most perfect films ever made with intense action, thought provoking characters, amazing acting talent, and superb direction. It took characters that we've all known for decades and shown them in a new, culturally relevant light. I cannot imagine why the "academy voters" would snub this film after it dominated the box office and the hearts and minds this past year. It was rated higher than many (if not all) of the best picture nominees. To me, it shows that the "Academy's" finger is nowhere near the pulse and is just a silly little pageant that does not reflect our society. While the Oscars are littering the airwaves, I will host a Dark Knight viewing instead.

I almost never watch the Oscars but I might have if The Dark Knight had been nominated. I have seen some of the other movies but not all and they are certainly good movies, but I've never understood why big budget movies that are made well almost never get recognized.

I'm sure you can make arguments for any of these movies to be nominated or not, but looking back ten years from now, which of these movies will be remembered and stand the test of time?

I'll be watching to see if they give Heath Ledger the supporting actor nod that deserves or if they are truly insane and give it to Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder. Other then that, I honestly don't much care.

There's some good stories (Rourke's comeback in the Wrestler, Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire) but the show spends too much time on what most people don't care about. If they reformatted this to be more focus on the movies, the actors and directors, and focused on those 6-7 categories and gave us more background into different flicks, then people might care more. I think the format and the process and the snubs will equal lower ratings as time goes by.

Dissed? Simply put, it wasn't one of the best pictures of the year. If you think that it should have received a nomination in this category because Heath Ledger died, then you are not judging the film based upon the film.

Once again the committees have nominated the films that no-one seen or cares about for their little awards. Out of the five nominated for best picture I had only seen one. The other four I do not even remember seeing any commercials for. It's as if they were handing out trophy for best athelic of the year and ignoring everyone at the olympics, NFL, NBA, ect. The only surprise is how long the hype of the award has carried it. Maybe Obama can bring back meaning to these award cerimonies as well.

I won't be watching.

Once again the nominations for the Oscars fail to live up to the public's expectations. The Dark Knight uses revolutionary IMAX filming technology for several key scenes, grosses the second highest amount of money (behind Titanic) in recent history, but does not get a "Best Director" or any other nod besides Heath Ledger (and that only because the Academy wants to nominate him out of sympathy, even though his performance was Oscar worthy). Gran Torino fails to get either a Best Director or Best Actor nod for Clint Eastwood despite being one of the best movies I've seen all year. Instead, we are subjected to art movies that no one has seen or even heard of because the studios that produce them are Hollywood favorites (e.g. "The Reader"...are you kidding me?). Sorry, this is one viewer who will be skipping the Oscars this year.

I can name 20 movies that came out last year that were better than the Dark Knight...and I really liked the Dark Knight.

I didn't think it was a great film at all. A lot of the usual CGI, long and boring, the only saving grace was Heath Ledger's good, hard work.
Film was designed to make money as its chief mission.

dark knight was not a great movie by any stretch. after watching it i asked myself "was this it? was THIS what people were going crazy over?" im glad it didnt get a nomination because it did not deserve one.

Well, it's not surprising – I was saying that it would be ignored when I first saw it. No worries, people who feel that it is not Oscar Worthy are exactly the people that I loathe as critics, and are in general color blind to what constitutes good film.

It's like that critic in ratatouille, who says critics are generally unwilling to take a chance. It's true. It's cool though, I haven't liked Oscar choices most of my life.

Being a major movie buff, I would likely still watch the awards ceremony, particularly if the Academy gets a good host this year. However, my friends, who are not film buffs and who usually watch only because I bore them and make them watch, will not get that nudge from me this year, because there is not a movie that is close to my heart to root for. That's at least 5 Hong Kong viewers gone. If they had given the Dark Knight more credit, they might have gained more Hong Kong viewers simply because the Dark Knight was filmed in Hong Kong and it would have made us feel more involved. And yet, they haven't done so. Magnify this sentiment 1000 times around the world, and the Academy is likely to have a less than desirable year....

They give Milk a nomination and not Dark Knight? This is why people could give a crap about Hollywood anymore and won't watch that stupid award show.
They are all so out of touch it isn't funny.

I'm sorry, but the Dark Knight wasn't oscar worthy...imo of course. I think Heath Ledger was great in it, but he's a good actor who was nominated previously so it wouldn't suprise me that he was nominated here as he's already proven himself a very good actor with Broke Back. I think the nominations were totally fair and just. You can't add movies JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE BIG BUDGET MONEY MAKERS. That would shame the oscars imo. I think movies that are truely great are those that are both big money makers and at the same time great movies. sorry if i'm pissing anyone off.

Although I agree with some of the nominations, I will not be watching the Oscars. I lost interest in watching the Oscars once Titanic won Best Picture over L.A. Confidential. I also stopped watching the Grammys when remakes and sampled music began winning over original compositions. Unfortunately, it seems Hollywood and the Music Industry has their collective heads up their you-know-whats.

I feel my time that evening will be better spent watching the rerun of that week's Battlestar Galactica episode. Now there is something worth watching!

Nothing new here. It is the typical "snub" movies in this genre receive, because the Academy still doesn't understand these types of films. That Nolan did not get a nod for Director demonstrates an equal amount of arrogance and stupidity. If it is a shame when a film is ignored because it is small, it is no less so when it is ignored because it is big.

I've really lost respect for the Oscars – it seems it just a turf war between well-connected studio bosses, producers and moguls jockeying for their own films' positions and to hell with actual quality and popularity of the films. The Weinsteins are past masters at this game – I remember when incredulously "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan" in 1999.

The same thing has happened here: Dark Knight is definitely the best movie of 2008 but these dull, literary adaptations will once again dominate Oscar night. Hollywood seems to be hell-bent on egotistical power-trips and disregarding the public. Well the public is going to give it back just as much when the TV ratings are abysmal.

I will not likely go see the movie The Strange case of BB, but I have had a burning question. What was the birth like ?

When is Hollywood going to wake up and realize that its not about what they like but about what we the ticket buying public likes.
Sean Penn and Milk shouldn't have even sniffed an award this year but the Libs in Hollywood just love this traitor and everything he does.
And they all wonder why we could care less about them anymore.

Well, I won't be watching the oscars this year. Benjamin Button in my opinion, was not that great of a movie, I'm not sure exactly how movies get nominated for these things, but I can say, it is apparently not on how well the movie does. I'm 30, and nobody I have spoken to in my age bracket, who have seen both movies, can believe the flub that BB has gotten. Boycott the oscars. I am.

ledger would get the nomination even if he was still with us. it was a great performance, and his acting was the reason people built up word of mouth for the dark knight. i would like to think masses of people went to see if because it was a great film not just b/c one of its stars died tragically. I think nolan got snubbed in the best director category. yes danny boyle will win, but in nolan's defense you have to acknowledge good work when its out there. i mean titanic won everything, but looking back on it now i can't think of anyone who still thinks of it as a good movie.

It seems that the Academy awards has no interest on popular opinions. The Dark Knight was a great movie and someone to say that Keith Ledger performance was like any other Joker, you must be blind. Hollywood is always going to thinks that they are superior than the people who pay to see the movies.. It does matter what we like, but is seems hollywood always wants our money, not our opinion. i will not watch no Oscars this year.

The big thing here is that the Academy didn't just ignore what the general public thought about Dark Knight in not nominating it...it also ignored people within the industry as well.

As this article says " the film had done well among the motion picture guilds -– producers, directors and writers -– and had both critical praise and big box office in its favor" The Academy is ignoring just about everyone on this.

The Oscars? Who cares? The Oscars are artsy awards for that little community. They nominate each other in movies that people dont watch and then go off on political rants about this or that. The problem isnt the awards, themselves, but rather that Americans dont watch many movies anymore. Who cares? I dont.

Obviously, it's all about a movie without action. A movie that's only here because of a story line. A story line that doesn't have any type of bombs, guns, or even firecrackers. Dark Knight had not only that, but a hidden love story. In my book, The Dark Knight owned everything in the past year. I am a Kerasotes employee. I know what ratings were, i know what made more money. At my theatre Showplace 14, the Saturday of the Dark Knight, we set a new attendence record. Previously owned by Spider-man 3, The Dark Knight owned it by over 1,000 people. What does it take to get that nomination? Fancy Love story stars and someone on the inside? C'mon man it's all about the entertainment......

Slumdog Millionaire – you have got to be kidding. What a stupid story.
Nobody is going to want to see this thing.

I think the fact that the film made almost 600 million shows that people thought it was a great movie.
How much money did Milk make? I rest my case.

The Dark Knight..was a C+ movie...why it would even be considered for an award...is crazy

I applaud the Oscars for continuing to steer the awards to be about excellence instead of popularity.

Dark Knight simply wasn't as good as the other Best Picture nominees. There were plenty of good movies last year! Dark Knight was just another comic book hero movie, with its star, Bale, being spoofed across YOutube for his unintelligible delivery, and its co-star, Ledger, being deified for dying young.

Ledger got his nomination. That's more than enough for a movie that was all about special effects and being a heavily promoted and merchandised franchise movie. They've got their record grosses and other popcorn awards – please keep the Oscars about quality, not quantity.

The Dark Knight for best picture? Please. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie and thought Ledger's performance lived up to the unbelievable hype. That said, there were a number of pictures that were better overall and some of them correctly received a nomination instead of Dark Knight. Just because it was entertaining brain candy does not mean it should be up for best picture- that kind of craptastic thinking should remain with the People's Choice Awards were it belongs. Maybe Hannah Montana has been snubbed as well?

seriously, those of you who didn't grasp concepts in the Dark Knight are as out of touch as the tools who picked the movies. i don't watch any of the awards shows because they're a joke. it all comes down to the opinion of a few sappy dorks. it's no wonder the ratings for these shows are in the tank.

I don't disagree about Dark Knight not being nominated for Best Picture. It was a great film but it definitely is not the calibur of the other Best Picture nominations. However I do question their Best Actor nominees. Why was Richard Jenkins nominated? I have not had the chance to see The Visitor but that truly came out of left field. I would have definitely expected to see Clint Eastwood or Leonardo DiCaprio instead. Also, what is this movie Frozen River? It got like 3 pretty major nominations and I've never even heard of the film.

The Oscars are one of the many things I look forward to each year but they never cease to amaze me how they pick and choose who gets a nod and who doesn't. More and more they go for these indie films and actors and they'll continue to lose the audience because a majority of the people haven't heard of them. I'm shocked that they actually gave Robert Downey Jr a nod for Tropic Thunder. That is completely out of their realm. But they don't give Bruce Springsteen a nod for Best Song but give it to 2 songs from Slumdog Millionaire that no one will probably ever hear unless they watch the film. I definitely have to agree that the Oscars are becoming elitist and hardly nominating films that the public watches.

Of course Dark Knight got snubbed. People saying that they didn’t understand the plot or story line are just shallow people who can’t see what's beneath the surface. The movie was excellently scripted and all involved gave great performances, topped of mostly by Heath Ledger who absolutely personified the ideals and sadistic horror that is the Joker; the greatest Joker ever portrait by an actor. So what if it was a based on a comic book; the story told has deep and profound. The idea behind the Joker isn't to be funny and sick but to make people turn against their morals and beliefs and to tell people that the life they thought they were leading is a joke. If innocence can be lost then there is no innocence; if the incorruptible can be corrupted then there is no such thing as being incorruptible; this is what the Joker is about. Batman in return had to stick to his ideals and beliefs to fight the Joker and in doing so became the villain by the end of the movie. It's what Alfred said to Bruce about the gem thief hiding in the jungle, some people just want to watch the world burn, and when Bruce asked how he stopped him Alfred replied they burned the entire jungle down. This movie was great and again the snobs and money grubbers turned their noses at something great and profound because if it's mainstream success for movies nobody ever heard of. We're being force fed garbage like Slumbog Millionaire and The Reader and being told that these movies are more deserving. This is exactly why the People Choice Awards are what really matters; Oscars and SAG are nothing more then fodder and the people who vote for them most definitely do not represent my ideas of who is deserving. I'm glad the Heath will win but I won’t tune in just because of that.

February 22nd will not be about the ratings. It will be about excellence in filmmaking – and that is how it should be. The People's Choice awards are designed for the public to have a say so be happy with those. And I have seen almost every film and from my perspective, The Reader is far more deserving than The Dark Knight. And its not a Holocaust movie – it is so very much more – a truly great film. Slumdog Millionaire is also a great film while The Dark Knight is a fun, entertaining, good film. And I'm certain that the Academy will not be disappointed that some folks who might be considered narrow-minded won't be tuning in on February 22nd.

Hollywood hates nerd fodder of all kind. That's why LOTR winning shocked me - Fantasy Adventure and Superhero movies have long been the pass-over standards for Oscars.

Any kind of movie that shows some kind of emotional hardship, no matter how poorly made, is usually given the inside track.

I love it when a movie like the dark knights makes history by knocking off starwars as the 2nd highest grossing movie ever And doesent even get a nomination. But a movie like Slumdog gets like 10 mil world wide and gets best picture? No Dark Knight win thats it plan and simple. Oh wait does Dark Knight really need a award? They made more money then all the best picture movies combined so i think id rather have that then a plastic yellow award.

Its ridiculous! I reccommend a boycott of the Awards this year.

People in Hollywood don't care how many people watch the Oscars.

Dark Night is a masterpiece. Most people don't see past the simple plot, the special effects and the superhero stigma, however, the manner in which the story is laid out, the music, the imagery and the electric performances by the actors, all make this a special picture. Yes, it was certainly dissed.

It's ridiculous that the Dark Night was snubbed. I'm not sure it was the best picture of the year, but it certainly was worth a nomination. I haven't watched the Oscars in years, and this year will be no different!

Why is anyone surprised? The Academy has made it clear on more than one occasion that its awards are not based on what the Public at Large believes, but rather on who the Academy and its members choose to honor. That's why we have more than one awards show, so that sometimes the opinion of the general public will be evidenced. Do not watch the Academy Awards unless you understand that only the opinion of the Voting Academy Members matter in this case-nothing else. It is not about us, what we prefer, or anything EXCEPT perhaps as a tool to point out how out of touch the academy is with what the audience actually wants.

nominated for set decoration?! That was the worst Gotham ever! It was blatantly the streets of Chicago.
The Dark Knights hype doesnt live up to quality.

i dont see the problem. the movie got the one oscar nomination that it deserved, and that is Heath Ledger's portrayal of the joker. Even I, who thought the movie was painfully overrated, will not downplay Heath Ledger's performance because it truly was impressive. it beat everyone's expectations and if he doesnt win, then i would say the dark knight got dissed. but best picture??? no way. from a cinematographic point of view, fine. the movie created a feeling with the dark lighting and the camera angles and what not, but the story was full of plotholes/inconsitencies, some other actors were far from spectacular, and the fight choreography was abismal.

people really need to relax and stop with this dark knight hysteria. i think people have forgotten what an epic movie really is. if not, the younger generation really needs to get a frame of reference because it truly was not the best picture.

The comparison of the Academy Awards to BCS is the best example I have seen. Its a broken system that needs fixing. It seems that people forget what movies are about, they are about "ENTERTAINMENT" and no movie was more entertaining this year then the Dark Knight. Most of these "oscar" movies will be forgotten in a year or two. The Dark Knight will be considered on of the greatest movies of all time.

The Oscars are fow snobs who are out of touch with the common man/woman who spend a hard earned $15 for a movie ticket! I think it's a shame when a Billion dollar great movie such as the Dark Knight get's pushed out by a film that NO ONE WILL GO SEE "The Reader"?? Yep, I gotta call fandango quick to get tix to see it before it sells out!

Hollywood keeps making itself into more and more of a joke. I'm not saying Dark Knight needed to get a bunch of nominations for them to save themselves (altho if they skipped Ledger for the Joker it would have been pretty ridiculous), but the fact that they only seem to nominate girly-flick dramas for anything at this point is obscene. It's like they think they're maintaining the "integrity" of the industry by refusing to see high-end value in anything but those types of filims. Hollywood needs to get with the times and accept that the available technology, the medium itself and the public's perception of what constitutes important milestones in film have all changed. The whole set of nominations this year just comes across as pandering to something the "academy" thinks is important, but nobody else does.

And in my opinion, as much as I loved Dark Knight, it's probably Pixar that has the most right to be feeling dissed right now. Wall-E was an achievement from start to finish any way you slice it.

Am I going to watch the Oscars? Be a waste of time after reviewing the nonminees. Looks to me as if the movie critics made the picks this year... they're usually clueless in their comments, and so goes this year's Oscar nominees. Looks like a night with the Food Network for me.

Snarky comment about "The Reader." You have not watched it, but you attribute its Oscar nomination nod to Harvey Weinstein's marketing? Watch the movie (which is AMAZING, by the way), then comment on the issue. As my mother always said, if you have nothing nice to say (and especially if you are uninformed) then say nothing at all!

Somewhere along the line the Oscars stopped realizing that the reason people go to movies is to be entertained.

The elite self-righteous Academy recognizes movies that it feels are "challenging" or "important" instead of movies that–heaven forbid–enterain people.

The Dark Knight entertained a LOT of people, featured a great cast and was thought-provoking. Apparently that's not enough for Oscar anymore. And that's why the awards slouch toward irrelevance with each year that passes.

To be honest, more angry about Eastwood and "Grant Torino" being left of everything. Anybody who went and saw that movie knows just how good it is, and should've been nominated for at least Best Picture or Director.

When will the Academy get the fact that young people would be more prone to watch this 3 hour lamefest if more mainstream movies were nominated? "Dark Knight" was only the highest grossing movie of the last ten years. Let's give this movie the credit it's due come award time. Ledger better win too. If Javier Bardem can win an Award for playing a psychopathic killer in "No Country," Ledger should win for playing a villain with an actual personality.

not watching. couldnt care less about dark knight or heath ledger – but im all for any controversy that makes people boycott this insipid oscar nonsense.

Typical Hollywood. The Oscars are a joke and once again I refuse to watch.

I cannot believe Grand Torino was ignored. It is a FABULOUS movie, Eastwood was awesome – and this is coming from someone who has never been a big fan of his. I went only because my husband dragged me and was astonished at the film. At the end, the entire audience sat in silence for an extended period while the credits ran – I've never seen that happen at amovie before.

I will not be watching. Not only did TDK not get a most deserved best pic nod but also missed out on others-best director, best adapted screenplay, best original score . . . The Academy must live under a rock until time to make the noms and simply watch films that make them film smart and out of the box. I love independent films and small, intelligent films and even some that are seemingly made just to depress and haunt me, but there have been in the past movies like TDK-blockbusters with a lot of heart and depth full of everything a great movie is-great acting, great direction, great script due to a great story, great music-and somehow almost every time (Return of the King was a shocker) these movies are ignored by the Academy. Heath gets his nod but his film doesn't in any other major category? A film praised over and over-a film that broke records-a film that is being re-released due to its popularity-this these things do not speak volumes? Well, as someone has already said on another site-TDK will be remembered as one of the best of the year-maybe the best and the Academy will continue down its road of disillusion and boredom. Like I said, I will not watch this year (the first year I can remember not watching), but go Heath! TDK-best of '08!

Dark Knight wasn't a good enough movie to get the nomination.

It was appropriate for Heath Ledger to get a nomination for the movie. His performance was far beyond anything else in the movie. Light years better than the rest of the film.

And that's why it doesn't deserve a Best Picture nomination. Compared to Ledger, every other part of the movie was pale and weak.

The movie is not, by any measure, Best Picture quality.

If they could have cut TDK to two hours it probably would have helped. As it was I thought it drug on a little long. And that's coming from a comic-nerd.

I was personally inspired by the Batman character. When you think of what he went through, watching his parents killed in a senseless act of criminality, feeling guilty about it his whole life and then dedicating himself to fighting injustice. And, in the end, Batman takes on a the status of something more than a hero, refusing to let the Joker win and rewarding the faith shown by the people of Gotham, a completely selfless act in which he rewards their faith, takes the blame for another's crimes and runs off to hide knowing that the people he rewarded were going to hunt him down.

I've seen The Dark Knight and while a pretty good movie, I don't find it to be the best of the year. That being said, 9 times out of 10 the movies nominated for "Best Movie" are some of the worst, so I wouldn't take much offense to it. That's like at the MTV VMAs, the winner of Best New Artist is usually forgotten by the next award ceremony. All award shows are a joke.

The oscars not only needs movies that are great, but also talent that hosts to be great. The MTV movie awards always has great ratings. Why can't they bring some of the fun of the MTV movie awards to the oscars. I may not see most of these films (who can afford $10 movie tickets all that often) but the musical artists the hosts everything is fun. The oscars are too stuffy and they need a major overhaul. If the President can in a tux get down and funky the oscars should have no problem pulling something off.

It's all just Hollywood self-promotion, self-gratification, patting itself on the back. The only people who watch it anymore are the people who keep magazines like The Enquirer in business.

The nominators got it right: Heath Ledger gave an excellent performance in an otherwise lame movie. Though many were entertained by it, Dark Knight will not withstand the test of time. (Many people have been entertained by chainsaw massacre movies, too...)The storyline of Dark Knight struggled, some gaping plot holes could not be ignored, there were some weak performances by lead characters, and it was not easy for viewers to suspend disbelief. Spiderman 2 is actually a better movie (but likewise un-Oscar-worthy), but there was no suffering character in it to compare with Ledger's joker, which is the only thing that distinguishes Dark Knight from dozens of other films. Ledger's finely crafted performance, and subsequent untimely death, have given an already over-hyped movie some illusion of artistic status. That status is undeserved. Future generations who take a look at Dark Knight will wonder what all the fuss was about. They won't be complaining about a best-picture Oscar snub.

NO!!!! I was quite impressed with the substance of the pictures that were nominated.

Maybe it's a sign that we are "growing up". Maybe it's just a response to the dumbing down of America the last eight years.

Now, I hope to see some cable networks to return to something more than "reality" programming.......I'm particularly referring to "Dog the Bounty Hunter" (how tacky are these people), "Most Shocking", Most Daring"..."Cops". I would like to seee us return to thoughtful (not synonomous with "boring") programming.

Heather Ledger's performance in the Dark Knight scared the crap out of me. I'm not watching the show either.

The dark night was nothing more than an average movie.
Heath Ledger was absolutley fantastic.Dead or alive Heath deserves the best supporting actor nod. Without him, this movie it would have been just another average batman movie.

I only watch the awards shows for the categories no one ever hears of, like best key grip, best janitor, or best shoe seamstress. Besides that, they're pretty boring. I would be more interested in the Oscars if they were done live on a sinking boat in Alaska, and all the awards had to be handed out before anyone could get in a life raft.

Apparantly, Joe Public has no idea what constitutes a great movie. Remember : The Lord of the Rings isn't much of a book in the eyes of la-di-da critics either, is it?

As far as I'm concerned, The Dark Knight already won Best Picture.

Yes, I am upset at this. The Dark Night didn't stand for anything significant or deliver a message of any significance. It was simply a great piece of art, flawlessly merging music, story and performance to deliver something that I will treasure the rest of my life.

What are they thinking of? The Dark Knight was worthy of the nomination and not giving the nod will continue to decrease interest in the oscars, to many good films have been overlooked by the academy because they were popular

Re: Joe from Chicago

AGREE! I haven't seen The Reader, but I always make a point to see the Oscar noms for best pic. Why? Because they usually are the best, most stunning, impactful movies you'll see. I look forward to catching up on the movies that were nominated by the Hollywood Foreign Press, like Revolutionary Road. Also MUST see SlumDog ASAP.

As for The Dark Knight, I loved it. But I don't think it deserves a best pic nod. I agree with the nom for Ledger, deceased or not. He was an incredible actor. See Candy, if you don't believe me.

I agree that Gotham looks JUST LIKE Chicago. Ugh. They couldn't even use computer graphics to change out IL plates on the cars. Lame-o.

But, in the movie's defense, I forgot that I was watching a supposed superhero/Batman movie. It felt more like a film noir to me.

In these troubled times, awarding a dark movie about a dark hero who comes in shadows to save the day would have indeed been a good move on the part of the Academy. I do see the point of nominating cinematic art, even that which is not well known, but at what point do we call nearly unheard of special side projects "art"? Have these nominated films actually moved forward or added something to the history of cinema? How many time has a film like "Ordinary People" won out over a film like "Star Wars"? The Cinema does have a responsibility to uphold its plebian, low brow roots. As an art form, it must bend and sway with the progression of time. The Academy is not bending, and thus losing its ability to portend or reward well made art which fulfills the unwritten contract it has with society.

Not nominating "The Dark Knight" means that an apt film which impacted our world and reflected the feelings of our people and time will be remembered for decades as having been "snubbed", just as "Star Wars" was. It also means that the studio marketing ploy to release all the "good movies" during the Holidays- at the end of the year- means that movie goers interested in seeing quality cinema will keep their wallets closed longer, only opening then at the very end of the year. It's bad marketing and poor handling of an important art form.

Personally, I trust rottentomatoes.com far more than I'll ever trust the Academy to judge a quality film.

Liz Aiello

The Dark Knight was nominated for make-up, as well as several for costuming and cinematography.

Will I watch?

Nope. Not anymore.

I don't think it should be a popularity contest to garner viewers. If it is truly an event for the movie industry and based on merit, then they should not worry about what viewers think.

I still won't be wasting my time. I'll just read the results on EW.com the next day.

I have been watching the Oscars for over 20 years, and this year will be no different. I haven't seen all the nominated pics, so I can't say whether they are all better than "TDK"; but I was not surprised that it did not get at Best Picture nod I just couldn't see the Academy nominating a comic book movie for best picture, no matter how good ti is. Very, very happy that Heath Ledger was nominated, though; truly, that movie would not have been near as good as it was without his amazing performance. I am sorry, though, that the film's score was not nominated b/c it's an amazing piece of work. The biggest shock for me were: "Gran Turino" receving NO nominations, "The Wrestler" only receiving nods for acting, Sally Hawkins not getting a nod for "Happy-Go-Lucky"'; "Benjamin Button" getting an astounding 13 noms, and Michael Shannon coming out of nowhere to get a supporting actor nod over Dev Patel, Ralph Finnes, and James Franco. And this was admittedly a long shot, but I was hoping that "Sex and th City" would get a costume nomination since the clothing was so much a part of that movie.

I was impressed with Ledger's performance, but I thought that overall the movie was pretty ho-hum– definately not best picture material! Christian Bale is pleasant to look at, but what's with the Batman voice? Really annoying!

Is it any surprise? I was always under the impression that, more than other awards, it was an award that focused more on the artistic value than the popularity (which is why personally I never cared much for it, as my tastes aren't so refined). Out of touch with the general public? Of course, when it's not a popularity contest. If it is expected to mimic the other award shows, then why even have it?

So what, TDK didn't get nominated. It really wasn't that good a movie overall. Lots of flash & effects, no substance. I'm bored with the lack of physics in movies these days. Just because they digitally erase the wires, doesn't mean you can't see where & when they were used. Technology is really cool and all, but a real award worthy movie would be one where you don't notice the wire effects. Everytime i see a Matrix or Crouching Tiger type effect it ruins the scene for me.

Ledgers Joker was well done, but it was no earth shaking dramatic performance.

I love all the hipsters on here talking about how the Dark Knight was decent and the only heat it recieved was because of Ledgers death. It was a great movie, it was more entertaining than Button or The Reader. As far as Revolutionary Road goes, the only reason its even being talked about is because its the 2 kids from the big boat movie. So for all the people here that are just too cool or hip to admit that Dark Knight was a good film, get your Macbook and head back to Starbucks and join the rest of the "too cool for the room" crowd.

The Oscars are so out of touch with reality... I've seen a few of the best nom. movies- they were good. Dark Knight was better. There have been many other "best pictures" that were not as good. It was modern film noir/ crime drama with a super hero twist. I'm thinking of Watchmen in a few months coming out- buzz is that it may also be "best picture" material- I'm not a comic book fan at all- but have read it and will admit it could be best picture material if handled correctly. Will it get a nomination?? No... Let's be honest- the Oscars prefer artsy fartsy movies- end of story. A few years ago- Return of the King won, I think for the only reason that there would have been massive uproar amongst the Hollywood community had it not. The Oscars are insular, contrived and out of touch...

People, I'm upset! Why is WALL-E not nominated for the best picture???

I sat through the entire length of the Dark Knight and I believe the first half was a masterpiece, and the second half a hodge podge of way too many ideas thrown in for filler.
It would of served if the editing could have been a little heavier. I still believe that somewhere in all that mess, a great film is there, if only they could bring it back to the cutting floor. So in essence, the Acadamy made the correct choice.

I think the Dark Knight really was a great film–but I'm not surprised at all that it didn't get nominated for picture of the year. To be honest, though I agree Heath Ledger was FABULOUS in that movie, and I hope he wins, I would never have expected the award shows to even nominate him, or ANYONE from a superhero/comic book movie, no matter how excellent they were in the role. I was pleasantly surprised when the Golden Globes nominated him (and then of course he won) and now that the Oscars have done the same.
I remember that even before he died there was talk about how good he was going to be in the movie...now I just really hope that it isn't a 'pity vote' for him instead of recongnizing the fine, fine work, IMO, that he did as the Joker.

It has never seemed to me that the Oscars think anything about the public's view or the money spent at the movies by normal people. They do generally pick, as I read above, the 'artsy fartsy' movies..in the past, some of those choices HAVE been good movies. Others made us wonder why we bothered to waste $5 at the video store.
Same with the Best Actor and Best Actress categories too..but don't even get me started on THAT! ;o)
I don't consider the Oscars "the best of the best"..I consider it someone's OPINION of the 'best of the best'..and we all have opinions. What makes THEIRS so much more important? Critics are pretty much the LAST people I base decisions on about films to see.

In closing, I'm not an avid Oscar-watcher. I used to try and catch it when I could, but after some of the idiotic, IMO, choices they've made in the past, I pretty much gave up on them.
This year I will probably tune it just to see if Heath Ledger wins..other than that, I truly don't care.

The Academy has become more and more isolated from the real world. It's now almost totally about marketing by studio executives rather than quality. The SAG awards are in their ascendancy, the Golden globes, People's Choice, and BAFTA awards are more relevant, and the Oscars are in decline. I have to wonder hoe much longer anyone will care?

Dark Knight, at base, is just another comic book movie. It wasn't that great and the only reason Heath was nominated is because he is dead.

Most popular =/= best movie!

The Dark Knight was entertaining, but it was a low B at best. Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, and Slumdog Millionaire are all A-grade films. They're on a totally different level from The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight is no where near qualifying for Oscars and is simply benefitting from the death of Heath Ledger which I think is a shame. Just as a painter's work goes up in market value, so does popularity of actors.

The Dark Knight was a so-so film, it wasn't bad, it wasn't great. The plot had holes large enough the bat mobile through, and honestly, the Joker? What's his super power?

CEO level executive management / planning while at the same time being crazy?

For someone who was psychotically insane he had immaculate timing and the ability to execute on plans that would have stymied Bruce Wayne in the logistics planning. Not only a terrible super-power, vague and boring at the same time.

And, for a guy who randomly kills of henchmen, how did he keep them motivated to hang around?

AND, so, the scientist guy has issue with Bruce Wayne having a cell-phone snooping device and threatens to quit.. YET, EVERY DAY sends Batman out on the streets with _MISSLES_ and _MACHINE GUNS_. Ridiculous!

I take it back, the Dark Knight wasn't even that great of a film. Let the Batman franchise rest for a while and lets come back to it in 15-20 years when it can be fresh again.

And lets not get hysterical about handing out awards just because someone died. With posthumous military awards it makes sense, for acting not so much.

The Oscars are nothing more then a big post-theater dvd-sales commercial now. It's not what it used to be, and most-likely will fade to oblivion before they have a chance to recover and become reputable again. It's a shame really.

Are any of the award ceremonies vital for broadcasters anymore? It seems that in the past few years all of the events in the world have marginalized the importance of these ceremonies. Perhaps broadcasters could bring in more viewers if they were to televise the Military's top honors in an annual special. Focus on the people from the different branches that make it possible for the film, music, and TV industry to spend the rest of the year out in the spotlight while the service personnel are out on the front lines. Why don't we see an award show where we can see the service men awarded their purple hearts, distinguished service metals, etc. Then the grand finally could be voters put pressure on congress to award a Medal of Honor to those that would qualify. We could hear their stories and hardships and appreciate that they do more for us in a day than some people do in a lifetime. That is why these people are heroes, they are more worried about the survival of their friends and fellow service members than what their box office intake or ratings are.

I always watch the Oscars. But maybe Hollywood should sell the rest of itself out – only nominate pictures/actors who will get the best ratings.

Interesting to see people bashing Dark Knight because it was big budget and made lots of money. It seems to me that it is similar to Titanic which everyone loved. Titanic had good acting but not great and the same with directing. There are plenty of flaws with both. Of course, the main difference is that one was imaginary and disturbing and the other was somewhat "real". Hollywood really does not embrace or reward imagination. Most likely they will just create a new category for superhero./action/sci fi/etc like they did with animated movies. They certainly don't want to actually have to judge these films based on their own merits, its easier to reclassify them and ignore them.

BOYCOTT THE OSCARS, maybe they will listen to us then!!

I know it's wrong to speak ill of the dead but count me in the minority opinion on Heath Ledger's performance. It was a demented, and unfunny portrayel of the charachter, the Joker has always been my favorite Batman villian precisely because he was fun!
Jack Nicholson got the charachter exactly right in the "first" Batman movie.

It doesn't deserve a bes pic oscar. Except for Heath Ledgers performance, I found the Dark Knight to be dull and uninteresting.

i don't know why so many people had trouble following the action seens. nolan is considered one of the best and if you're having trouble, i'll map out every scenario for you.

there was really only one place where he screwed up and that's the pruitt building. mostly, it has to do with repeating scenarios and scenes. morgan freeman says "look above, those clowns doctors are about to ambush the swat team on the elevator", nolan cuts to a different scene on the boat and then within 30 seconds freeman says "uh oh, trouble above", referring to the scenario he just described.

quite frankly, the movies biggest weakness was the cell phone sonar imaging system. i was disappointed to see so much CGI. it could of worked easier and more realistically (which is suppose to be Nolan's forte) if he was just eavesdropping on everyone's cell phones. its unrealistic that there would be enough cell phones in that building first of all, but i could believe that the joker had one on him and thats how the batman tracked him.

i get the feeling nolan was forced to add this element so they could sell "bat sonar" toys etc., except that the rest of this movie is defiantly meant for teenagers and above. i also know nolan was probably rushed into doing this, as he originally intended for the movie to end with the joker captured and two face created... and everything after that would be the third film, following the path that other trilogies have taken, like the matrix and pirates of the caribbean. its shame they didn't have a chance to really show the rage wayne would of been feeling towards the joker for killing rachel, but they really didn't have time to fit that in.

as people have said above, the 3rd act of this movie turned out to be its achilles heal. the final two minutes, with him becoming the dark knight, was awesome though. i

They went a bit overboard on Button (an average 72% approval score on rotten tomatoes), relegated the best reviewed film of the year (Wall-E) to the children's table (best animated film, alongside such Happy Meal fare as Bolt and Kung Fu Panda) and snubbed The Dark Knight for, at the very least, a nomination in Best Picture.

But in these economic times, who cares about Hollywood awards shows?

Not us. And the ratings will show it.

I love Batman, but "The Dark Knight" was not a good movie. It was unnecessarily long and terribly muddled. The acting was undistinguished–yes, even Heath Ledger's. I'm actually more surprised that "Iron Man" wasn't considered.

The Academy will nominate a superhero movie when there is a superhero movie worth nominating. "The Dark Knight" isn't it.

Sorry, I'm not bothering to watch the Academy Awards show again this year. Watching reruns of House and NCIS will be a much better use of my TV watching time.

I was more shocked that Synecdoche, New York got snubbed.

The Dark Knight was anti-climactic. I've seen most of the films that were nominated and The Dark Knight was not as good.

My pick for best picture is Milk or Benjamin Button. I liked Slumdog Millionaire, but it wasn't as good the others.

The Academy Awards just proved how out of touch they are to the general public again. I won't be watching the rehash of Forrest Gump (Benjamin Button), The Reader, or Milk.
Slumdog Millionaire most likely won't win because it's too positive of a film for the academy, and The Wrestler will most likely give Mickey Rourke his due, but Button will win just to give Fincher the credit they didn't give him with last year's Zodiac... I just can't get myself excited about watching a film that blends Forrest Gump and Big Fish, both which are superior films in my mind.
The Dark Knight was a much better film than many on this list, dealing with very socially relevant issues, but because it drew big crowds and big money, the Academy won't give it it's due. I'm tired of the Academy awarding these arty pictures that have nothing to say that's not been said before. Over the past five years, the films that have been nominated have been lucky to break the $100 million mark and wouldn't without the buzz of potentially being best picture of the year.
These aren't the best pictures of the year: They're the best pictures of December. The Dark Knight and Wall-E were the best pictures of the year, recieving many nods from audiences and critics alike. Since the Academy can't recognize that, I'm unsure how long I'll tune in for the broadcast. Even giving The Dark Knight a nod, doesn't mean it would win. The Academy just showed how irrelevant they are once again. I'll rely on the American Film Institute's awards for best films in the future. They at least get more films right on their list.

The dark knight was obviously the best movie of the year, the Oscars are irrelevant, the people have spoken with their wallets.

Also Christian Bale deserves credit for finally nailing the character of Bruce Wayne, after the abominable Clooney and Kilmer portrayals, and Keaton, who was OK, but didn't have the chiseled athletic look of a crazy vigilante who could beat criminals to a pulp with his barehands.

The Oscars are more about quality (usually, except for things like Titanic and The Last Emporer) than popularity. They don't care about the 12-year-old boy vote. Remember, Blart was the top movie of last weekend – think that one deserves an Oscar? Twilight? Come on! Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Frankly, I thought Iron Man was a better movie than The Dark Knight.

While all of the Best Picture nominees are somewhat flawed, Slumdog Millionaire hasn't done too badly in the box office. It's hard to watch not because of flying semis but because it showed many scenes of abject poverty. The Reader has some amazing performances, even though the script has a really stupid plot point that it hangs a whole movie around. Benjamin Button has amazing production values, well-integrated special effects that don't take over the whole movie (unlike TDK) and good performances (though I think Cate Blanchett was robbed). I haven't seen Frost/Nixon or Doubt yet, but hope to soon.

Clint Eastwood got robbed. Gran Turino was excellent. He deserved a nomination. Gran Turino and Slumdog Millionaire are two of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Was a little disappointed in some of the nominations.

who cares if dark knight didn't get nominated... i don't need some stupid academy award to tell me what a good movie is.

I've been watching the Oscars every year for as long as I remember. This year, I'm only going to watch to see Heath Ledger win, then I'm turning it off.

The Academy Awards need to snap out of it.

I like the comment on how amazing it was that the Return of the King was nominated and won given the bias involved. It's a good point. How does a movie that isn't even the best one in its own series manage to win? Especially when the competition was actually better that year.

I do not watch award shows or reality tv. It's all a bunch of political hype.
Benjamin Button, Slumdog, The Reader, just movies and actors (Brad Pitt) that Hollywood wants to push down our throats. With the price of tickets, I want to be entertained, not bored to death.
Batman is a great movie. It grabs your attention and holds it for the entire movie. I loved Heath Ledger and his "Joker" was amazing. He made it all his own. The rest of the cast did a fine job as well and needed to be nominated. I guess if Batman would have bombed, then it would have had more nominations.
Come one how much money did Hollywood make off Batman? If it weren't for Batman, most of these nominated films wouldn't have been made because of the lack of funds.
If I want to see someone who ages in reverse, I can watch reruns of Mork and Mindy and laugh my head off.
Like I stated before, it's all about politics.

The movie-watching public made THE DARK KNIGHT the Best Picture of the year through ticket sales! In a slumping economy, millions of people waited in line to watch this movie a SECOND time!! The Academy members simply don't want to appear "low brow" by choosing a superhero film as a potential best picture. I'm sorry, but TDK was second behind TITANIC in hightest box office gross receipts ever, yet SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE just came out TODAY!!! What a joke! They should create an Oscar for the highest grossing film of the year, to reward a film that the public has already chosen as THEIR best picture!

"The Dark Knight" simply put sucked, the plot was weak and became very boring toward the climax, it did not engage you as the first movie did. So many things were introuduced that by the end the movie was all over the place, how it can be nominated for anything or talk of it being nominated is beyond me. It appears that the third movie might be as bad as clooney's Batman&Robin!

cnn erased my post earlier. People if you really wanna know how they nominate people look at the name of the people that wrote or directed the movie. google it and look at the history of their names. You will see similarities of who they are and how biased the oscars really are.

The Dark Knight should have gotten a Best Picture nomination but I don't think it should win if it did get the nomination. The Academy missed an opportunity by not nominating The Dark Knight. Ratings for the Academy Awards have been horrendous in recent years. If The Dark Knight got a Best Picture nomination, no question it would have helped boost the ratings. More importantly, The Dark Knight deserved the nomination. It just goes to show how out of touch and old the Academy is. Let's be real.....does anyone think The Reader, Milk, or Frost/Nixon wil be more remembered than The Dark Knight in 2, 5, or 10 years from now? Probably not. No offense to The Reader, Milk or Frost/Nixon....I haven't even seen those movies yet to be fair but no one can deny the greatness and impact that The Dark Knight made this year.

Of course The Dark Knight would not get nominated. It is a "super hero" movie and in the eyes of those in charge, not a super movie. I don't know what else an Oscar-worthy movie should have: great script, great acting, great direction, great costumes, etc. I haven't watched the Oscars for a few years now because the only movies which seem to be nominated are the boring, low action movies. The Dark Knight had everything. I wonder how the Lord of The Rings trilogy ever ended up winning..... oh wait, they were well written and well made action adventure movies.

in response to A.N., way to pay attention. batman specfiically says about one of the jokers henchmen... he's a paranoid skitso, the type of mind the joker attracts. also, no one has superpowers in this movie. this isn't a superhero movie. batman's not a super hero, he's a dark knight.

the jokers a villain who kills basically when he feels like it. that's why he's terrifying. he doesn't need superpowers, just a cunning intellect that comes from his relative insanity.

as for freeman, he knows batman isn't using those things to harm anyone. he's essentially the same as anyone who doesn't have a problem with the united states invading iraq, but got pissed about the patriot act.

For those who are dissing TDK as a superhero movie with lots of CGI special effects, take note that Christopher Nolan went through a great deal in avoiding CGI for this film. All those brilliant visuals you saw were infact REAL. Skillfully mastered through some of the best art direction, cinematography and makeup ever. Give that project to any of the nominated directors and you would see how clueless they would be.

TDK suffers from being a comic book adapted movie. I don't think any of those Oscar voters would even watch such a movie let alone nominate it. If it was'nt a comic book adapted movie, the outcome would have been different.

And my comments still hold if Heath Ledger had still been alive. The cornerstone of the movie is not Heath Ledger's acting but rather its screenplay. Its true so many people lost the plot while watching the movie. But I would blame that on their inability to discern an intensely crafted screenplay with dialogues that had so many layered conotations that related to the politics of our modern world. Some people aren't supposed to get it. Others watched it twice or thrice to see the point. The rest decided to diss this movie for the academy awards. The very few who got it, will not watch the awards on TV. Period.

Iron Man was a better movie than Dark Knight. Ledger carried DK on his back. His Joker made the movie, while Bale just talked raspier for Batman. I loved Bale in Batman Begins, but his acting in DK was not as good. The plot had stupid holes in it (we have to blame the good guy, even though we could just blame the bad guy who's right in front of us). The only reason to pay your $10 was to see Ledger. Iron Man, on the other hand, had good acting all around and a smooth storyline.

The Academy has a love affair with Fascist Germany. Recently, the Counterfeiters and The Lives of Others won best foreign film over superior films (Mongol and Pan's Labyrinth respectively). Now, this year The Reader gets all of the Dark Knight's praise. Granted, the Dark Knight probably wouldn't stand a chance in the major categories but it would've been great to see some fresh blood up there. Kate Winslet does rightfully deserve her nomination for the Reader but Chris Nolan certainly out directed Stephen Daldry. The Academy doesn't seem to evolve with time; that's a shame.

overall though, its probably good that the dark knight didn't get a nod this year, because it'll hopefully force nolan and company to make an even better film third time around.

The Dark Knight is not that good a film. It's yet another Batman movie. And had Ledger not tragically died, I'm not sure he would have even been nominated.

Well the competition was with a gay rights movie, a movie with a holocaust theme, one showing the third world poverty and another about watergate and american politics..u cant compete with that with a batman movie!! doesnt matter if its the second most successful movie of all times and that it had tremendous critical acclaim..the academy awards have nothing to do with public perception..its a bunch of self professed pundits who are hopelessly out of touch with reality...i thought that dark knight was one of the best movies of the decade..and gran tarino should hava been up there too..but then..we should have known what to expect from the oscars!!!

Personally, I liked the Dark Knight, but the storyline overall wasn't amazing. Heath Ledger's portrayal...now THAT was amazing. The Dark Knight is not Best Picture material. I mean, what exactly did people pay attention to from that movie? The Joker. Sorry, but the Oscars got it right. Give credit where credit is due.

The credit goes to Heath Ledger.

Your kidding me....The Dark Knight isn't in the run for Best Picture? It just show's you how political award show's have become, especially with such a world wide success. The Dark Knight is the second highest grossing movie since the Titanic (which, I might add, is VERY loosely based on fact). Obviousy, most people only saw TDK because of Heath, but even those people were blown away by the movie itself. The movie isn't about action, or C

Yeah, DK didn't get nominated, but remember, the Oscars are irrelevant in terms of true film criticism anyway. The Oscars are for Hollywood, by Hollywood. It's nothing more than an elaborate "patting yourself on the back" session, similar to the employee of the month program in many businesses...

The Dark Knight was not Oscar worthy. Yes Heath's performance was very good but overall the movie was not great.

Well, I have to admit I watched the Dark Knight and not only was not impressed by it in any respect, all the hype about Ledger's performance was just that – HYPE. It was not all that impressive although it did carry the movie. Not worthy of an Oscar. I kept waiting for the scene where he would stand out and show this great performance and it never came.

The Oscars themselves are no longer any big deal like they used to be. I wish all these award shows would just go away. They serve no one but the ego maniacs who produce and act in them. In the big scheme of things are they important? Not at all. Do they change the world in any way or help the poor or hungry or destitute? Not in a single way. I am constantly amazed at how much money some movies make. It just baffles my mind that people have so little to do in their lives that a movie is so important.

Clearly a snub.

To those saying it was "just another superhero movie," or "just another CGI / effects film," you clearly didn't actually see the movie. Remove the cape, cowl, and clown makeup, and you had a crime drama far more complex and compelling than previous nominees such as The Departed.

I couldn't believe it when the Academy gave "... Benjamin Buttons" 13 nominations. What were they/are they smoking? This had to be one of the most boring movies I've seen an ages, unmercifully stretched to 2 hours and 48 agonizing minutes in which Brad Pitt , once again, eludes good acting. And it's box office receipts? I'm reminded of that old adage "You can sell a bad product just once." Let's just hope there's not a sequel.

I must agree that Gran Torino was one of the better movies of the year, if not the best that I've seen. Clint Eastwood should've received a nomination for Best Actor and the movie should've received a nominated for best motion picture and I'm very dissapointed that it didn't.

As far as The Dark Knight, I think that Heath Ledger did a great job as the Joker. I thought it was a good film and everyone did a wonderful job for their part, but I don't think that it is an Academy award winning film. If you compare Dark Knight to Gran Torino or Slumdog Millionarie, it dosen't really compare.

I really dislike the actors, directors or producers that use that time on stage to promote their own and often “twisted political agenda”, I hate the fact that behavior is allowed or tolerated at all.

If you must, say a simple ;thank you for the honor and get your butt off the stage, no more nonsense political beliefs or personal thoughts on world affairs, you’re not a politician, if so, quit and run for office and shut your mouth.

This one of the main reason I now “hate the whole event”, nothing but whiners and over paid at that….

They are going to see really low ratings. Christopher Nolan deserves to at least get a nod for best director in this thing. Whatever. It's the Academy's loss.

Dark Knight? Best picture? Please.

It was definitely well above the bar for action and comic book movies, but it wasn't Best Picture material by any means. I don't know if The Reader was any better, but the Dark Knight was hardly robbed.

The Academy has become enough of a joke. There's no need to make it worse by tossing out fake nominations for ratings.

I learned to stop caring about the Oscars when Gump beat out Pulp Fiction.

This certainly is a popularity contest to garner the most viewers: nominating or especially awarding Dark Knight with a best picture Oscar would alienate half the viewing audience...yeah, that's right...the female half. You think women want to see a summer blockbuster based on a comic book win best picture when there were some worthwhile tear-jerkers out there that had them plowing thru boxes of Kleenex and Bonbon like they're going out of style? Call it sexist if you want, but it's not my sexism...it's the academy's. They are the ones who won't nominate good films that perhaps would only please half the audience.

TDK did not deserve a BP nod. I can think of several movies outside of the ones that did get nodded I would pick over it.

Gretchen: Star Wars did receive a Best Picture nod, it just didn't win.

Matt: True that RoTK was not the best of the trilogy, but the Academy had not rewarded the previous two (holding out?) so they forced themselves into a corner and pretty much had to award RoTK. It was basically rewarding the trilogy.

To Mark...The Reader can't be nominated because it was a good movie? It was a Holocaust film so that got it a nomination? I can think of 2 other Holocaust movies that didn't get nominated...is there only one slot open for such a movie because they don't want to be too obvious? Think before you make stupid claims like that.

Awards earn viewership and power and money. People organize whatever forces are at their disposal to win these awards to gain more of these things. People who give these awards are also deciding to whom they want to grant greater viewership, power, and money. There is simply no such thing as " best picture." Different kinds of pictures do different things well, but to decide on a best picture means making considerations that go beyond these things. The forces behind The Dark Knight were simply not powerful enough, and the members of the Academy may also have wanted to channel power and money in a different direction. And one must admit, it's very risky to nominate a comic book movie over historically serious films. No matter how well that comic book movie portrays profound collisions of mythic ideas, its form and provenance prevent it from ascending over more conventional and literal and historical depictions of suffering. For better or worse.

This movie stunk. The joker was a great character, but was only part of the movie. Good call hollywood.

Again, and much like its social counterpart, Academia, the Academy Awards are more concerned with what appears intellectual, i.e. their reputation as such, as opposed to admitting what is there. The ethical conundrums presented in THE DARK KNIGHT are as every bit, and arguably moreso, engaging than those in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN but, alas, the Academy/Academia doesn't want to be associated with "common" cinema, i.e. mainstream tastes. This year is once again a testament to Oscar elitism.

I hate these stupid movies. Slumdog Millionaire and the Reader and the Benjamin Buttons. I prefer something thats action, full of suspense, and actually entertains you. I d take Robert Downy Jr. over that old and wrinkly Clint Eastwood any day, even if Downy Jr. was stil in his drug induced days. The Oscars are a joke not to have IRON MAN and the Dark Kight as two best flims of the year. I m boycotting the oscars and not even bothering, i ll just read Perezhilton.com the next day and see if Heath Leadger won as the Joker, and that ll be that

The Dark Knight should have been nominated for Best Pic for many reasons not the least of which was the ability of the Director to take something so many refer to as 'a comic book movie' and turn it into something sincere, intelligent, moving, mythic, and adult. It’s not based on 'history', nor is it reflective of some 'era', and yet so many see exactly that which is why it did so well. Chris Nolan took 'a batman movie' and created cinematic art. When compared to the other films nominated, I think the achievement is even greater. Chris basically made something out of nothing as far as I'm concerned. And while I think Heath deserved a supporting nod, I believe Aaron Eckhart deserved one as well. Harvey Dent could have been a simple throw-away bad guy and yet Aaron's acting elevated both the movie and its themes beyond what I expected or hoped for. But as we all know, Batman will be fine despite being dissed, because he can take…he is The Dark Knight!

I still find it amazing that there is so much controversy over whether Dark Knight is one of the best films of the year. it doesn't matter whether the music blends perfectly with this and that or that the lighting or the costumes were perfect. I (and most of the money-spending public) usually see movies based on if I think they will entertain me for the length of the movie and what kind of mood I am in. I personally thought Iron Man was better than Dark Knight, but I enjoyed them both. I thought they were both better than Milk and Frost/Nixon. I haven't seen the other ones, so I can't comment on them.

The best movie I saw this year was WALL-E, but by adding the animated category, they weaseled their way out of any controversy. I will continue to see movies I like, ignoring the critics, who see so many movies but probably never enjoy them like I do.

They nominate movies that no one goes to (for a reason, they all have an agenda and not to "entertain"). So, look at the nomination list and don't go see them, don't buy or rent the DVD and let's see if "Batman" makes it next time.

All I'm going to say is if the Gladiator can get a best pic award then the Dark Knight is more than eligible for at the very least a nod... I have never been one for the Oscars and this year is no different.

As far as I'm concerned, Nolan did a fantastic job bringing the Dark Knight to screen and shouldn't care one way or another if he gets a little gold statue to prove it. He has far more acclaim in my book...

Hats off to you Nolan... and Ledger... all I can say is wow... too bad we won't see any performances like that.

Maybe they should have changed the name of the movie to
The dark knightstein to ensure a nomination at least!

I think they have it completely confused and mixed-up as to what constitutes a "best movie" and what constitutes the "best actor" or "best actress" performance. They don't necessaryilyi have anything to do with one another, but, for example, giving best picture to somethign like Wall-E would have all the little papparazi-loving wannabes out there angry on behalf of their favorite star through whom they live vicariously.

The Dark Night does not deserve any awards unless there is an award for "Most Scatter Brained Plot" or "Best Birthday Cake Movie".

The Oscars killed themselves back when they gave Shakespeare in Love the Best Picture award.

Did CNN really use "dissed" in a title? You guys are sinking fast. I recommend that you use the Webster's dictionary next time and not the Urban Slang for Dummies guide.

I'll watch the pre-show (with all the fashion talk) and until Heath's win, then I'll bail.

Between the snub of Bruce Springsteen for original song, and TDK for movie and director I think the only chance the Oscars have of higher ratings is to show the supporting actor category last. Many of the public isn't going to care about the other categories. I would be curious to see the ratings before and after supporting actor.

Sigh – the Academy blows it again.

i know i wont be watching now! Dark Knight was the best film last year by far!

Dark Knight, how come no directing and best picture nomination? A much better directed and effective film than Ben Button, which was a complete re-hash of Gump. And Wall-E, no editing nomination??? But Milk received one. Did the nominators actually watch these films, or just make decisions based on industry peer pressure. And not one nomination for Indiana Jones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the best picture list for the last decade or so: Braveheart, Gladiator, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Dances With Wolves... You mean to tell me that the Academy is out of touch? These are some of the best movies of our times and they aren't inaccessable or independent or artsy: they are universal. I'd say this is one of the first times that Academy may have gotten is wrong- but I'd say they have a strong track record- especially in recent years. I haven't met a single person who didn't like a movie like the Departed, Gladiator or Lord of the Rings... I would have loved for Dark Knight to get the nod, but would bet that Benjamin Button or Slumdog will take it. And trust me- they are both great and both worthy of best picture...

I read some of these posts and I'm not sure people appreciate the themes and what the Joker was actually supposed to embody. A previous poster wrote that the plot was hard to follow. That doesn't mean the movie should be dismissed and certainly that the themes shouldn't be examined.

This movie has action and won Best Action at the GG, but it's actually much deeper and richer than most action films. The Joker for instance, is supposed to be more than just some sort of token evil figure for Batman to wail on. He's a reflection on the idea that people and by association society are inherently flawed and create rules which are just as flawed but give us the illusion of order. I think this is why when he tells the mobsters that he's not crazy, he really means it.

The Dark Knight should be praised in that it pleases both the action-film audiences and the drama-film audiences. I wouldn't label this an action movie and lump this film with something like Iron Man or Transformers, it's a hell of a lot more thought provoking than those movies.

Unfortunately, the Academy (which seemed to be aiming toward a more "modern" era when nominated and rewarded "The Lord of the Rings") went back to be the snotty group of people who don't consider (for lack of better word) summer movies as worthy competitors. "The Dark Knight" (and "Wall-E," too) unfortunately is the most recent victim to this awful trend. It's a real shame.

Impossible to keep your eyes off Heath Ledger as the Joker. Essentially, the movie was Heath Ledger and he is nominated! The rest of the film was entertaining but his performance is outstanding. The academy did right.

A lot of people keep harping on the idea that The Dark Knight was was hard to follow. I myself had no trouble following it and I am of average intelligence. I also had no trouble following the action sequences. Personally, I don't think half of the people who are complaining about this movie all of the sudden did either. I think they are trend-geeks jumping on the I-told-you-so bandwagon. If it had gotten nominated for best picture you would have said you saw that coming too. But the bottom line is, if you are too stupid to follow the action and the script that is your problem. Don't take it out on Christopher Nolan.

Seriously, does anyone give a rat's rear end what "the Academy" (ha!) has to say. Ever since they gave "Crash" (and ABC Afterschool Special) the Best Picture award over "Brokeback Mountain", they have absolutely nothing left to stand on. Go and pat yourself in the back once again and see if the rest of us really give a hoot.

I will watch the first of the Oscars to see Hugh Jackson but the rest?!?!? Hollywood folks think they are royalty, but all the Oscars really are is another way for Hollywood to pat each other on the back. They don't care about the people and what we like. And, they pick the movies and actors, etc. so they think they tell the world how important and intelligent they are. Doesn't fool me!!

It's the same way with politics. Just because Hollywood likes someone, It's a crock cause they don't know what they're talking about. It's just PR to them. Very few in the land of glitz and glamour have even gone to college. I'm sure not going to be impressed by someone who uses their bodies and smiles for a living. I prefer opinions of people with brains in their heads.

This is no surprise.

How often do action/adventure movies, especially those based on comic books, ever get nominated for anything other than special effects or other award sub-categories?

If Heath had lived, his role as Joker, while highly acclaimed, would never have received a nod to begin with, just because of the movie genre alone.

We see this complaint every year. The surprising thing is how strongly so many folks react to it.

I have not watched awards shows in years. Too much BS, to many movies I have not seen, and too many performances that I don't care about.

Michelle, that is exactly the point! The award for Return of the King was given based on previous movies more so than the actual one. It was a great example of the politics involved. They awarded it because they were supposed to and that is how all the votes go based on friends, money, connections, etc. How many actors get to work with great directors for their votes in previous years and vice versus?

If box office receipts determined Academy Award nominations and winners, then we would have Best Pictures like "Independence Day", "I Am Legend", and "Hancock". The Dark Knight was terrific entertainment, but Best Picture? Give me a break.

I think the real shocker is that "The Wrestler" only received a nomination for acting. This is one of the highest rated films of the year, but because it hasn't been released as widely as a film like Button, or even as much as Slumdog Millionaire, it didn't get enough attention for the Academy.

To suggest that the Oscars should look for movies that are more mainstream for their nominations is absurd. Kudos to the Academy for not nominating the incredibly overrated "The Dark Knight." The way the movie industry is nowadays, there are very few movies that are released widely that are that good.

I don't mean to sound like a snob here, but if you look at the highest rated films of the year they tend to be independent films. I happened to see "The Visitor" yesterday and I was thinking at the time that Richard Jenkins did a great job but will never get attention. Sure enough, today he got a nomination. I'm glad that the Oscars don't go for the biggest films, but it would be nice if it went even less mainstream. Then maybe people will start seeing better films.

No offense to holocaust movies, but there have been hundreds of them in the past few decades, and while The Reader is probably a fine film, there is no way it can come close to the significance of Dark Knight. The Reader is just like many other movies that have come before it, but the Dark Knight was completely unique in adding artistic integrity to a genre that isn't usually taken seriously. The best thing you can say about Dark Knight is that if you took the Batman and Joker costumes away, it would still have been a magnificent crime drama in its own right. Shame on the academy for being duped once again by Weinstein marketing (Shakespeare in Love). The Dark Knight will be remembered long after this snub.

What really gets me about the Oscars is the focus on end-of-the-year pictures, like Benjamin Button. While I won't take the time to tell you how I really feel about Benjamin Button (cough, pretentious at best, cough) there were plenty of movies released in 2008 that should have been nominated over some of the choices. Where was Iron Man, possibly the best (or second best to The Dark Knight) comic-book-turned-movie?
What's really at issue here is that the nomination and awards process is very political, behind the scenes. Heath Ledger's nomination is deserving, but political, and while I hope he wins for his amazing portrayal of the Joker, do the ends really justify the means?

I stopped watching the Oscars when it became apparent they don't care what the best movie is. They just want a movie with an obligatory scene where people talk in a solemn tone or with dispair and say something that sounds like it may be profound but when you think about it makes no sense what so ever when taken out of context of the movie so all the omygodaphiles can get excited and say "omygod wow!".
Because the Dark Knight focused too much on being a good movie and didn't bother to have that kind of obligatory scene they're pretending that doesn't make it a good movie.

I’ve thought a little more about my earlier answer. In reviewing all of the previous posts, there seems to be a certain level of aggravation with the Academy not agreeing with our opinion of excellence. After all, the job of the entertainment industry is to entertain the public, and the public should know what entertains, correct? In all truth, the Academy is awarding their own members based on what the Academy chooses to admire within its ranks. Okay, makes sense. Why should the discrepancy in opinion bother us then? Think on this: the Academy Awards are televised. The entertainment industry makes a profit off of the televised awards. Let the public vote -with their pocketbook…..no viewers, no companies to buy advertising, no money to be made…the Academy Awards would be relegated to the ranks of other award gatherings, i.e., not televised. In light of this approach it would be interesting to see whether the Academy would retain its current standards or if said standards would be tweaked to match those of the general public, (along with their advertising dollars). Might never happen, but an interesting observation, nevertheless.

Film gross doesn't mean it was a great film (e.g. Star Wars 1-3...)

The Academy is made up of film professionals. The Critic's Choice were chosen from critics, and the people's choice was chosen from the people. Every demographic has its appropriate award ceremony, so stop complaining.

I loved the Dark Knight, I still quote it and bought as soon as it came out. But I also recognize that there are great films that deserve recognition for its artistic and aesthetic properties (e.g. Doubt, The Reader, etc.) I hope that before any of you complain about these films, you've taken a chance to witness these pieces first-hand.

Lastly, people say that they're out of touch? If they were out of touch they wouldn't recognize Robert Downy Jr. for his performance in Tropic Thunder... Don't pick and chose your arguments to fit your skewed perspective. Be objective, and look at the whole picture...

The Academy has always been out of step with main stream "popularity". Their focus has been to award based on originality, strength of performances, etc. Which is good in one way. But, it has also served us up with a bunch of Oscar nominated movies that, to be blunt, are just plain weird, and lack any real lasting value to the consumer. I mean, who gets warm and fuzzy, and watches "No Country for Old Men" every Saturday night, when they have nothing better to do? Not me. Maybe "Titanic" or "Star Wars" or "Dirty Harry". But, none of that artsy-fartsy stuff has any real lasting value to me, except that I saw it the first time around, and that was plainly enough for the rest of eternity. So, was the "Dark Knight" a great movie worthy of Oscar nomination. It was certainly an exhilirating movie to see, and I will be pleased to repeat the experience. Oscar-worthy? Debatable, but not a clear Oscar nominee. But, certainly, without doubt, and there is no ghoulishness about this, Heath Ledger's performance was stunning. I did not recognise him throughout the whole movie, and that is the work of a master craftsman. So, I really hope he gets the Oscar. That would be truly deserved.

The Academy blow it, snubbing the Dark Knight is a big mistake!
Also Bruce Springsteen. Won't be watching!

Actually I would have been surprised if Dark Knight HAD gotten a nomination.

I thought it was a pretty lousy movie.

Loved Heath Ledger, but the action wasn't connected, and the voice they made Bale use? What the hell was that? I kept wanting to give the poor guy a lozenge.

As far as the super hero genre went, Iron Man was a much better flick-

Of course we are all upset that House Bunny was shut out...

Were it not for Heath Ledger's passing, Dark Knight would not have been nominated for anything. It was a typical big budget blockbuster. And it was way too long. Heath Ledger will be given this Oscar, of this there is no doubt. But he will be given it based on his body of work and the mourning of his lost potential due to his untimely death. Plenty of other films this past year deserved and got the Oscar nominations.

Ok... so Jennifer Aniston needs to be the presenter for Best Actor...
... and Billy Bob Thornton needs to present Best Actress.

What a hoot!

That's the problem with the liberal and pretentious Academy. The fact is that these otherwise incompetent and fairly uneducated in anything that matters simpletons want to pretend to know what best is through an 'objective' lens. In order to disguise the fact that anyone involved in this profession need not have an IQ higher than that of a monkey they develop this bias against movies that nearly everyone else finds appealing to simply distance themselves from the idea that anyone can do their jobs. Their profession is a joke, and the industry is a joke.

They had all made up their minds about Dark Knight and other movies long before they saw them (if in fact they did) and that is the kind of irresponsibility that perpetuates stereotypes and bigotry in society.

WHAT A JOKE THE OSCARS HAVE BECOME!!! They clearly pass over such big ticket films, regardless of the talent it presents, and throws its support and promotion behind more "artistic" films that clearly don't live up to any box office or media hype.

Sigh... another uninteresting year where the academy snubs it's nose at the public. I haven't seen any of the films nominated for best picture and probably won't until DVD.

Did Dark Knight get snubbed? Possibly. Its certainly the best of its genre and its box office growth speaks volumes for the ultimate point of movies. Which is to entertain. A movie doesn't reach that level of box office gross without repeat viewers.

Sadly, the academy still thinks best pictures are movies that only a handful of people have seen. Even less understand and even less enjoyed. Movies are art and they should push societal boundries, they should make us think and contemplate, they should educate, but above all of this. They should entertain. And a movie that fails to entertain its audience should not be considered for best picture. Hopefully the movies that are nominated turn out to fit the bill but I suspect they will fall well short of the entertainment factor as so many previous nominees have.

Oh well.

Any award given for artisic endeavors ALWAYS is political because every bit of arc is subjective in quality. To complain that the Academy isn't being objective is completely ridiculous since there are NO objective measures.

Period.

Which is why these awards are nice pats on the back from friends, but in the end are meaningless. Each person ought to make up their own minds and not rely on others for their own opinion.

I guess we live in a comic book world, judging by the number of people who watched "The Dark Knight" and only saw a comic book adaptation. "The Dark Knight" should have been nominated precisely for the "third act" as one commenter called it. Batman, in both of these reboot movies is a rigorously non-violent hero in the truest sense of the word; avoiding both the violence of lethal force and the sometimes greater violence of not getting involved. He battles vile and murderous people without becoming the scourge they are. And at the very end, his actions are motivated by the good of his neighbors, not his own glory. Steeped in the sewage of Gotham's underworld, he knew that neither the "good upstanding citizens" nor the criminals would blow the other up to save themselves, a conclusion that they themselves come to. He fights crime, not because society is irretrievably corrupt, but because people just need a nudge to recognize their own noble instincts. And then he takes responsibility for a crime he did not commit to save the public persona his people so desperately needed. This movie tell exactly the same stories as its worthy competition, only with some guy in a bat suit.

you'd think with the big buget they had, there wouldnt be so many crappy edits too. There was one so blatant where the camera cuts to anotehr camera and Bruce Wayne is speaking in one shot, and the next side-angle shot he is speaking, but his lips arent even moving!

I saw "Chicago" sign on the wall of a building...nice Gotham.
A scatterbrained plot left me with the inability to even think of the movie chronologically just days after I'd seen it.

Hey, it's their guild. It's their show. Let them give their awards to yet another onslaught of December surprises, and let them watch it by themselves.

Yes, the Academy needs to give up being so snoo-tay and full of itself. Art for art's sake is limiting. The industry is about more than just art. It's about entertainment.

Oh wait, sill me. It's all about the marketing machine... then they may as well call it the Annual Weinstein Awards.

It's "Shakespear in Love" all over again.

"The Dark Knight" had its flaws, which I believe kept it out of Best Picture competition. Also, there is still a deep prejudice in the Academy against sci-fi\horror\comic book films that goes back decades. The last time I recall an actor winning a major award for a genre film was in 1932 when Fredric March won Best Actor for "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde"! Richly deserved, btw, but it was the last time the award was ever given for a genre role, let alone nominated. So I am not at all surprised the Academy chose a Holocaust themed 'serious movie' over a blockbuster 'non serious movie'.

THE 2 BIGGEST MISTAKSE THEY MADE WERE THESE ONES

THE WRESTLER DESERVED NOMINATIONS FOR BEST DIRECTOR AND FOR BEST PICTURE!!!

IT WAS INFINENTLY MORE ENJOYEABLE IMO THAN ANY OF THE OTHER NOMINATED FILMS AS WELL.

THE IGNORANCE OF STICKIGN IT TOO CLINT EASTWOOD, IF NOTHING ELSE HE DESERVED A NOD FOR ACTING AND FOR DIRECTING AND THAT WAS THE LAST TINME YOU'LL EVER SEE THE MAN STAR IN A MOVIE !!!

AS USUAL, THE NOMINATIONS WERE MORE ABOUT POMP, CIRCUMSTANCE AND PLITICS, THAN THEY WERE ABOUT QULITY IN FILM.

LASTLY, THIS HAS TO BE SAID

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE TOOK ABIOUT HALF THE EFFORT TO MAKE THAT THE WRESTLER DID !!!

I am actually incredibly upset about these nominations (and I had no idea I cared this much). I've seen almost all of the movies that are nominated, and I think the best movie I have seen in years totally got snubbed: Revolutionary Road. At least Kate Winslet got the nom for The Reader, she deserves it (and then some). She is AMAZING. Amazing. The Dark Knight didn't get that many nominations because it wasn't a good movie. It just wasn't. All of the hype surrounding it was based on the sole reason that Heath Ledger died, nothing else. And I think to put him into the Best Supporting Actor category was kind of a cheap shot, I think the Academy should have given him an honorary award if they wanted to celebrate his career.

I am MOST upset though by the fact that Benjamin Button scored so many awards. The movie itself was just OK, nothing special and nothing to write home about. But it was made even less appealing by Brad Pitt's acting. He's not a good actor. He's just not. Any time I felt myself really getting into the story, his bad acting kept pulling me out of it, each and every time. There were many more flaws with the film as well, so the fact that it received 13 nominations is very strange to me and makes me realize that this award show is not really about talent, but it's mostly about glitz, glamour and celebrity. Kinda sad.

I must say that I wasextremely surprised and disappointed that the Dark Knight was not nominated for Best Picture. That movie is so much more than just another superhero movie. It was smart! It had love! It had action!! It had the good, the bad, and the ugly! I'm sorry, but I really think the Oscars need to change the way they vote on the Best Picture category.

Ummm, Liz Aiello, The Dark Knight is nominated for Best Make-Up, as well as 7 other awards. Get your facts straight before you go bashing the Academy.

The Dark Knight has a total of 8 nominations including Best Supporting Actor.

As for the topic at hand, no, I don't think Dark Knight got snubbed. It is a great movie and is getting everything it deserves. Unfortunately, it is up against alot of tough competition, and there are only so many spots. I'm sure if they had 10 spots for nominations, they would have nominated Dark Knight. I feel like it got nominations in all the parts of the film that are the films strongest parts.

To be perfectly honest, the academy awards aren't FOR you.

They began, and remain a trade show, that really should only be important to the academy; they are a way of recognising what the academy believes to be the best for the year.

That said, there are many problems with this years nominations. In past years, it has been said that the reason the academy doesn't typically recognise comedies or comic book movies is that they don't usually say anything important about the human condition. Fair enough. But, when placed against Wall-e or the Dark Knight, this argument isn't valid. both movies siad quite a great deal about the human condition, and should have been nominate for Screenplay, at least, if not best movie.

While some say the Dark knight had large plotholes(most of which really aren't that large) I find it just a s hard, if not harder, to believe that a person would just happen to have something happen in his past which just happens to give him the answer for every single question. Not only that, but as far as I can tell, nobody else in the history of that show has been subjected to such intense scrutiny as the movie implies.

But, back to my main point, namely, that the academy isn't consistant to their own values. not only is a movie that comes out in November or December more likely to be nominated than one that comes out in may or June, but great performances like those in Gran Torino are routinely overlooked for movies that are often not very good. to put it plainly, the only thing that can be said for no countr4y for old men is that the performances of the actors were good. the movie not only said nothing about the human condition other than the standard "it sucks" but featured little or no entertainment value.

I'm not saying Dark Knight should have won the Best picture award. I'm not even saying it should have been nominated for said award. What I am saying is that the academy overlooked it not for the quality of the movie, but because it was not the type of movie they wanted. Sad, because the reaction of Gotham, oir the people in the theaters themselves, alone to the events of the movie say more about the human condition than the whole of slumdog.

Let the academy awards return to being just a trade show put on by the academy for the academy.

and these words...

...Any award given for artisic endeavors ALWAYS is political because every bit of arc is subjective in quality. To complain that the Academy isn’t being objective is completely ridiculous since there are NO objective measures....

are 100% complete ignorance!!!

THE ACADEMY IS 100% BIASED AND SUBJECTIVE...
100%

AND THE NOMINATIONS THIS YEAR ARE WAY WAY WAY OFF...

PERIOD !!!

THERE IS SO MUCH THAT STINKS ABOUT THE NOMS THIS YEAR THAT I WODER HOW YOU EVEN HAVE THE BALLS TO SUGGEST THIS !!!

Its meaningless. How many award shows are there anyway? SAG, Golden Globes, Oscars, the list keeps going. Nothing more than a way for incredibly rich people to pat themselves on the back with worthless awards. Who cares what Hollywood does. A bunch of worthless people who think their opinion matters more than others simply because they can pretend to be someone else in front of a camera. They already get paid millions, lead charmed lives and do whatever they want with no apparent consequence in the eyes of the law, on top of that they need twenty different award shows to affirm just how "good" they are at their jobs? I haven't watched the Oscars in years and regardless of how much I liked a movie, I showed my support by buying the ticket. That should be enough. I saved my company $2.3 million last year with smart business decisions – where's my statue? Where's my award show?

The biggest miss of these nominations has to be Clint Eastwood for Best Actor (Gran Torino). He played a character who could have been–should have been?–disliked, and made him unforgettable, even charming and absolutely funny. For once we had a film show an old man as strong and still able. Great performance. Great movie. Simple but complex storytelling.

I'd like to see more acting nominations for fictional characters–a character the actor has to create from scratch, rather than trying to portray a real person with whom the audience is already familiar. I just think it's a greater accomplishment to, in the span of a movie ,introduce the audience to someone they've never meet, truly engage the audience and have them embrace that character.

Regarding the Best Picture noms...

Like a lot of people posting here, I haven't seen many (not any, actually) of the Best Picture nominees. As for Dark Knight, I thought it was an excellent movie, but flawed. The action scenes were not filmed in a way that you could actually, you know, follow the action, and the plot had one too many twists, perhaps. As for Ledger's performance as the Joker, I honestly found myself recalling Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice.

Usually comic book/fantasy movies are dismissed without even a chance of being judged or their true value. Do you really think a bunch of "artsy farsty," film critics would let some comic book movie with mass apeal overshadow their beloved and underapprecited art films??. Dark Knight should have been nominated because it had a strong message to us americans, somthing which is often absent from comic book and fanatsy films. The message was "don't abandon your principles, no matter what." No other film this year was able to use the medium in such a powerful way. Great acting aside, Dark Kight was the best movie I saw in 2008. Just look at who is doing the voting and I understand why it wasn't choosen.

No Oscars for me, period. If Dark Knight had been nominated, I might have, but otherwise these idiots with their heads stuck in the sand deserve their low ratings. I'll got to bed early thank you!

Everyone that says The Dark Knight is not Oscar worthy is wrong.

The truth is the Oscars are not Dark Knight worthy.

Nobody cares that you didn't like it. If you thought the story was to complicated, you're dumb. Watch it again.

And if your opinion of which movies are good is dependant on the Oscars... you're dumb. Pick which movie you thought was best and buy that one and watch it all you want. How can winning an award change how you feel about subjective art?

The academy has made my decision easy. I won't bother. If Clint Eastwood does't deserve at least one Oscar this year, why bother.

I made a point of watching all films likely to be Oscar contenders, and have seen all nominees so far except "Slumdog Millionaire". "Benjamin Button" had an interesting premise but turned out to be a disappointing, dragging, bore–I can't believe it got a nomination. "The Reader" was fairly well done, but it was rather pointless; it's probably more interesting to Germans than to an American, or an international audience. Neither of those films should have been nominated in place of "The Dark Knight", which I thought was the best film of 2008. I was very pleased to find that a blockbuster can indeed be built around serious ethical questions, and that there does not need to be an artificial separation between mass-market movies and serious films.

Be that as it may be, "The Dark Knight" was nominated in about 8 categories–just not most of the major ones. "The Dark Knight" has already gathered much critical acclaim, so the Oscar slight shouldn't matter too much. I always watch the Oscars anyway, even if I don't agree with their nominations, because it's a good way to take the temperature of pop culture.

I'll just have to root for "Frost/Nixon" to win "Best Picture".

I'll watch the Oscars if I have nothing else going on that night (only 'cause I like Hugh J.). It's just a big popularity contest. High school all over again. I LOVED the Dark Knight, and Heath's performance was wonderful for sure, and maybe it deserved to be nominated, but do I think it was worthy of winning Best Picture? Nope. Sorry.

Not surprised by the Dark Knight snub. The film is a victim of bad timing. It's a bleak film not fit for our bleak times. With the economic downturn and pessimistic outlook, the Academy would rather recognize films of overcoming the odds (Slumdog) or people impacting the lives of others (Benjamin Button). You can make a case for Milk as well – a timely film about the rights of individuals.

Unfortunately the Dark Knight is a film about corruption, conflicted, brooding heroes and mayhem. It would have done well with last year's crop of "dark" films, There Will Be Blood, No Country...

And besides, Dark Knight was not the most compelling movie I've seen. Technically? Yes.

Our household hasn't watched award shows in years. And in fact, we hardly ever go to the movies more than once or twice a year and if we do watch a film, it is on DVD. But what really surprises me is the number of people who actually even care about these awards, as indicated by the number of posts to this story. These shows have become such a joke, as talent today is considered to be the latest "no-talent" celebrity who has managed to claw their way to fame and fortune by being social misfits. Maybe the old barbaric studio system that created actors and actresses simply on the whim of the studio heads wasn't as bad as it was cracked up to be.

What is so great about Slumdog...there are better movies and producers but all the hype is given to this movie. I just do not see it

Dark Knight was a lousy movie. The Academy has made a lot of poor choices over the years, but I'm glad they weren't taken in by the hype surrounding this movie. Batman Begins was an actual good movie, but anyone who legitimately enjoyed TDK has no concept of what makes for an entertaining film and don't understand the medium at all. The people who claim this film is deep or seriously philosophical in any way probably bought into the last two Matrix films as well. A lot of great action movies have been snubbed at the Oscars, but this is not one of them.

The acting was fine, including Ledger, but the writing and directing were awful. The characters' actions were inconsistent, the plot was full of holes and gaps in logic, the "philosophy" was shallow and immediately obvious to any child who's ever read a Batman comic or seen a Batman cartoon, the action scenes were poorly staged and edited, the political commentary was forced (and stupid), and the movie was just flat out boring.

I really liked Batman Begins and Memento, but this movie depressed me, because it blew so many wonderful opportunities.

It's been my overall experience that movies that win big-name awards typically do not interest me. I'm sure they're good art, but I don't tend to find them even remotely entertaining–and frankly, that's what I go to the theater for. Entertainment. I've not seen any of the films nominated for Best Picture, and none of them even remotely interested me. "Benjamin Button" is an old story–repackaged with Hollywood gleam & made pretty by Brad Pitt, but the story itself is centuries old. See for yourself, run a search on "Merlin" and "Arthurian legend". "The Dark Knight" kept me rivetted for the entire duration, which given the current state of crap coming out of Hollywood, says a great deal. Unfortunately, we'll never know if Heath Ledger's nod is a genuine nomination, or just a "pity vote" because the Academy doesn't want to be seen as the pack of insensitive snobs that they are. *shrug*

No Clint Eastwood?
No Gran Torino?
This was the best picture I have seen in a while.

I loved The Dark Knight, but they never recognize comic book stuff.
The stats of the box office say everything to normal people.
Dark Knight was fantastic, everyone who saw the movie purchased the DVD.
How many people are going to buy the DVD of Button, Slumdog, or The Reader?

I won't be watching since Clint was shut out again.

Talk about a dissing!!!!!! Where was a nod to Bruce Springsteen for the song at the end of The Wrestler...it was haunting, thoughtful and simply perfect!!!!!!!

As well, where is the expected nod for Sally Hawkins for Happy Go Lucky...by far the best performance of the year!!! A must see if you can find it in theatre.

Just my two cents.

The Oscars are such a snooze-fest, I'll watch The Dark Knight any day over watching the Oscars. Who are these Academy people anyway? I'm sure they're not like me or the majority of the viewing public. Maybe these awards should be handed out based on a combination of these Academy members, ticket sales and a viewers vote.

Simple, really. The Batman character has been viewed as having right-wing values (law and order, do the right thing, taking responsibility, etc. etc.) which irks the left-wing Academy. Just goes to show you how petty lefties are.

eh, the dark knight was good for what it was.
Some entertainment on the weekend. Not much else.
It was a summer block buster. Why does that equate into a "best picture" again?
Anyone?
I mean, a few explosions makes something a "best picture"?
Heath's performance was great, but he couldn't, and didn't carry the WHOLE movie, where as some other actors in other movies WERE the movie, and they carried it all.
And they deserved (and got) the nod.
Dark Knight fanatics have to get over themselves.

The Dark Knight wasn't as good a movie as Batman Begins or The Reader. Heath Ledger's performance was really good, though. But apparently was even better now that he's dead (let's face it, that's why everyone watched the movie and he got a Oscar nod).

Wall-E was a great film, and like "Pulp Fiction" it might win best original screenplay (kind of the second class best-film award).

I think the academy pretty much got it right this year.

I can't believe that some people think that Dark Knight should not have been nominated for best picture. Exactly what does best picture mean anyway? Dark Knight is the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time.. This just really shows that the academy is out of touch. They have picked many movies that only a handful of people have seen, or more to the point will pay to see. How exactly can the most watched movie in North America in 2008 not be picked as best picture.. what a farce.

I no longer watch any of these Hollywood events. The worlds in turmoil, good Americans are losing their jobs, homes, sanity. And yet, these Actors/Actresses get paid this enormous amount of money, are financially set for the rest of their lives, live in a fairytail world and then shove it all in our face by constanstly giving themselves awards. It's disgusting.
How about those people who work trying to discover cures for the sick, elderly and deseased, trying to save your kid, mother, dad, uncle etc etc. What award to they get.
Celebrities, Stars, etc, who the hell are they in the big picture of things.

Does best picture have to be artsy fartsy....why can't best picture be one that everyone enjoys and will watch over and over again. Since when did the word best imply best artsy film?

Again the academy are displaying their irrelevance. Remember the actors who should have won the award – eg Kate Blanchett for Elizabeth (awarded to Gwynnethe Paltrow for Shakespeare in love??) etc etc. If Heath doesn't get the award for best supporting actor you should hang your heads in shame.

Well people, I'm almost 60 years old now and this IS how people of power do things. Saying that though I do not think the Dark Knight should have gotten lots of nominations. BUT, Heath Ledger WAS GREAT in his role and he should get this award even though posthumously! And with a side note, I'm sure he won't be awarded it as the People of Power will nix it in the bud to punish all who chose NOT to watch awards! Including me for the first time! Maybe it WILL be over in 12-21-2012 and finally the righteous wil be rewarded!!

Bruce's song didnt get the nod b/c he's putting that song on the next album. Bunch of croc, but rules are rules

Let's be honest, why are the same people getting noms for acting the same in each movie? Oscars really are a joke, if theses movies are the best of best why can't their pull in the same audience as The Dark Knight. Hollywood thinks their so original and above everyone but they can't even relate to us.

The Dark Knight was a very entertaining film, and one of the best action films I have seen in a long while. I agree completely with Heath Ledgers nomination as his performance stood out clearly and his face was etched on my memory for quite some time after viewing the film.

I dont think the movie would ever get a Best Picture nod, mainly because it doesn't fit with the people who decide these things. Just like Art, selection panels often indulge themselves in hidden meanings and subtle nonsenses to justify their opinion. They see action, and they don't get it. Understanding what most of the population enjoys is key, we pay to see the films, the marketing is aimed at us, and we buy the magazines with the celebrities front and centre.

this is great news. The Dark Knight was one of the most boring, poorly acted, and terribly written movies I have ever seen...

Next to Batman Begins.

I fell asleep in the theater during both, and I wasn't even on drugs.

maybe that was the problem.

Dark Knight was a phenomenal film and I can't remember the last time I truly thought that about an action film. The Oscars' are not for the average filmgoer anymore (Dinosaur of the pre-Internet days) and are just riding off the branding. Eventually people will slip away to an awards show that reflects what the majority believes.

I love the people that try and act like they have some artistic insight that the rest of us don't have. The Dark Night was a well made, and highly entertaining movie, and thus, deserves to be in contention. The numbers back it up. The Reader? What the hell is that? The same people that rave about movies like 'The Reader' are the same people that listen to terrible and obscure music in an effort to seem intellectual. Stop trying so hard and shut up.

The Dark Knight simply wasn't an Oscar worthy movie. And pardon me if I don't rush to have Best Picture noms determined by box office numbers. If that were the case "Saw" would have been a contender a few times over. Nor to suddenly have ratings determine which pictures are nominated. I may not always agree with their selections, but I don't want them to totally sell out to the highest bidder.

And truthfully, I don't see how The Dark Night changed the landscape in any way.

‘The Dark Knight’ deserves an award – most OVERRATED movie of the decade. Ledger’s performance was average, so was rest of the movie. Some good scenes, but overall NOTHING to deserve so much attention.
Other Batman movies were much better, for their time.

Sorry to Batman fans...I am one too, but "The Dark Knight" didn't do much for me. Too loud, too long and too...well, dark. A good movie but not a great movie. I would have been disappointed if it had been nominated.

its a CARTOON people and the over acting gets what it gets. lets not immortalize a drug induced death

To everyone saying that batman deserves a best picture nomination because of how many people saw it, you are crazy. There is difference between "most popular picture" and "best picture". For a huge chunk of the 90's, "Baywatch" was by far the most popular show on television and watched by millions of people world-wide. Does that popularity mean that is was also the "best" show on TV? No, and just because batman made a ton of money doesn't mean it was the best picture. It was a fun summer movie that was well done and deserved to make big bucks, but let's not get carried away here...

How the hell did Titanic win best picture and all those other awards and Dark Knight doesn't? Titanic sucked and the only people who liked it were only middle and high school girls. It sucked and everyone knew it. Dark knight is such a complete film with so many captivating performances, SHAME ON YOU ACADEMY!

No Clint Eastwood and no Dark Knight? Terrible! Congratulations you goons on passing on the best superhero movie ever made. I'm not sure if you looked at the stats, but it made a BILLION dollars! A BILLION!!! With a B!!!!! And the last time I checked good fantasy movies got nominated (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings). You guys should be nominating this for best movie ever made. The Academy is a joke!

Another year where the best movie of the year based upon box office and critic reviews, will not be included in the Best Picture category. What a farce!!! This award show should go back to being a private party; it is no longer relevant.

"Other Batman movies were much better, for their time"??? Um, yeah. "Batman Forever" was cinematic genius. That Schumacher, brilliant compared to that tosser Nolan.

Not.

So much of what Hollywood lauds is the same old stuff and follows the rule that a self-promoting air of importance has to be around a film for it to be worthy of attention. Furthermore, now that I know that behind "The Reader" is Weinstein, that schlub who got "Shakespeare in Love" Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan" through sheer publicity alone, how selection goes is clearer than ever. The only gain that matters to much of the Academy is the give and take behind closed doors. Enjoy your purchased awards.

"The Academy Awards are mainly interested in films that did okay at the box office, that deal with 'serious human drama', and are released at the end of the year so they are fresh in the memorys of the votes."–Jack Valenti PBS's 'Sneak Previews' March 1984.
Last year's telecast bombed in the ratings, and it was hosted by Jon Stewart.
The Feb. 2009 A.A. will be one of the least watched programs in history.
ABC will blame it on USA television going all digital in Feb. 2009, but, the fact is most people just are not going to watch a booring 3 1/2 hour show featuring people in love with themselves and who believe the universe rotates around them.

Haven't watched since Titanic garnered all the nominations ...best part of that movie was when the boat sank.

Nominations are supposed to be an honor. How pretentious to "expect" a nomination! No wonder Oscar ratings are tanking. The entire industry is out of touch with those who foot the bill...

The Dark Knight was snubbed purely because it's a "comic book movie." Benjamin Button was showered with praise primarily because it's "touching" and "heartfelt" and "human." The fact that all those attributes apply at least equally to The Dark Knight illustrates yet again how elitist sensibilities are the by far the heaviest determiner of who does and does not receive recognition by the academy.

i think The Dark Knight got snubbed this year for awards. This movie was the biggest grossing film in a while

I have been patiently waiting for "Slumdog Millionaire" to come to a venue near me. I don't understand why so many movies get nominated and yet most of mainstream Ameria doesn't get a chance to view and form an opinion. As of this writing, "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Frost/Nixon" are both AWOL on theater screens within any driving distance from where I live, yet both are in competition for Best Picture and other awards.

Why would people want to watch an awards show when they have no way to see most of the movies nominated? I saw "The Dark Knight" and was not happy it was largely dissed. I can't even comment on the 2 movies I just mentioned because they haven't come here yet. I realize my frame of reference is skewed....which is why I am asking again....what's with nominating movies that haven't reached most of the population yet?

No, the movie is more fantasy nonsense. Eastwood got screwed for being a conservative though!

Obvious trolls are obvious.

On one hand you have people that blindly believe that The Dark Knight is the next coming of jesus that has no flaws.

Then on the other hand, you have people that can find nothing good in the entire movie and devote their lives to bashing popular movies so that they can be"different," even if they really enjoyed it.

Perhaps there can be some kind of middle ground here? Maybe, you know, actually and rationally give the movie props for what it did good as well as see the flaws that it has.

I wanted to like Dark Knight sooo much. But Bales horrible deliveries and how his voice got huskier and huskier as the movie went on almost had me laughing. He was trying too hard.

Explosion,
Explosion,
Run,
Run,
Drive,
I'm Batman (in a low husky porno voice),
The End.

I don't know that the Dark Knight got dissed. I saw it. I've seen every film or tv show ever made of Batman. I thought the first Batman with Christian Bale was better than the second one. That's just my opinion. I thought Heath Ledger was good, but I don't know that I thought it was Oscar worthy. I preferred Jack Nicholson's Joker from the 80's. I do think it should have at least garnered some technical, make up and special effects. Also, it did a great job showcasing what a beautiful city Chicago is.

I think the Oscar's try really hard to seem "relevant." So they nominate these movies that virtually no one has seen or even heard of. Often they come off seeming out of touch. I love Meryl Streep and think she's probably one of the most talented actresses of our time, if not ever, but do we have to nominate her every single time she makes a film?

When you get down to it, the Oscar's have nothing to do with anyone but Hollywood. It's like Hollywood is a big highschool and this is their end of year award's ceremony and prom all rolled into one. They get all dressed up and spend the evening patting themselves on the back for all their "hard work".

It can be fun to watch, but for the most part they're always too long, sometimes incredibly awkward, clunky and boring. It's usually my default channel that night while I watch something else.

I can't say much, I haven't seen most of the movies nominated as I just don't enjoy going to the theater anymore. Cell phones, teenagers, texting, etc have made the movie going experience unbearable.

This is why I don't watch the Oscars because they always nominated the crappiest boring films of the year.

While I believe the dark knight almost certainly deserved a nomination over the reader I do not think it would have deserved to win if it had been nominated for best picture. That I think should almost certainly go to Slumdog Millionaire. I do believe that somebody at the academy rigged it because everybody was expecting a nomination of tdk for best picture but it did not come.

The ratings will again show how terrible the oscars have become.

/Sign Boycott the Oscars

Wow, for something has "silly" or "stupid" or "elitist" as the Oscars, everyone sure seems to be pretty passionate about their opinions concerning them. There are a lot of claims here that Hollywood is full of themselves because not nominating The Dark Knight means that they don't care about a film because it was THE hot ticket at the box office. Well, last week Paul Blart was number one in that respect and seemed to be enjoyed by a great many people. And I do recall Titanic and The Return of the King doing quite well at the Oscars along with rolling in the dough. Also, I think if the Academy had nominated The Dark Knight simply to have good ratings on Oscar night, that would have been a bigger demonstration of not going with films that were seen as excellent achievements by people who work in every aspect of the film business. In the end, this is just opinion, I love the Oscars because I am interested in what those in the industry find to be the best films. Sometimes they lead me to great films that I probably would have never stumbled upon otherwise (last year it was La Vie En Rose) and although I have disagreed with some of their choices in the past (Chicago instantly comes to mind), the Oscar race is still great fun. I was sad that Revolutionary Road was not nominated and that Kate Winslet won't be able to repeat her Golden Globes feat but I will still watch the ceremony. I'm hoping Hugh Jackman will be as great a host for this as he was for the Tony Awards.

Also, if you're going to be so irate over The Dark Knight not being nominated, at least know enough to spell Knight with a K....it seems that quite a few people are lamenting the snub of The Dark Night.

Its time to replace the council, get new faces, or add new names. Tired of the same people casting their votes which don't come close to the public's views of films. Understandably so in most cases, the public more or less fairs well with family films more than others. its just odd when by certain standards votes are cast one year, the reasons change the next year... Its getting old. I'm tired, tired of the same show year in and year out... I'm best off just logging on to any news source the day after or the night of to find out who wins what awards. Not worth in any way to tune in anymore. Plummeting ratings should have hinted to a change long ago... but because they ignore the people's voice (which pays for it) it will sink... sink into a whisper or two about who wins the best picture in the week to come. That's it.

Dark Knight doesn't need to be nominated, but Benjamin Button? Come on, talk about a spin off of Forest Gump. The Reader, although has potentially the best acted film of the year, shouldn't be nominated for ACTING.

For Dark Knight fans, such as myself, its going to be hard regardless due to the "supporting actor" instead of "best actor". He will forever become the most lost yet amazing villain I have ever seen.

Yep. Boycotting the Oscars. They truly got it wrong this time. I mean why nominate a movie that reinvents a classic American superhero and turns him into the protagonist in a brilliant Shakesperian-like morality play ripe with action?

Yeah. That's right Academy. Nominiate yet ANOTHER boring movie about some gay, priest, from india, who ages backwards and has an affair with a woman in the 1950's. Because those movies OBVIOUSLY fit the OSCAR mold of artsy-fartsy, arrogant, indie, CRAP.

This years nominations = EPIC FAIL

You know, I think Dark Knight has a good argument for being nominated.

I also have to really point out that I think the Academy has a lot of guts for NOT nominating it in spite of the people wanting to see it nominated. The academy would have been playing politics if they HAD nominated Dark Knight. While they aren't going to pull me (or many people for that matter) in)by doing this, they have always wanted to be an elitist awards group that does what they want. They haven't let money and ratings stop them from doing exactly what THEY think is the right thing and I have to credit them for that.

What a shame that the Academy didn't recognize The Dark Knight for the work of art that it is. They also snubbed Christopher Nolan in the directing category. All wards ceremonies are pieces of excrement, anyways. Thus, I will no longer watch the Academy Awards, and no one in my household will, either. They won't get my rating anymore. I hope they're crying themselves to sleep in their $50k pillows...

I'll agree, Bale's Batman voice was pretty bad in this movie and sometimes laughable, but that was more Nolan's fault as he was the one directing and telling Bale to make his voice that way.

The Dark Knight was a very entertaining film, but it did not deserve to be nominated for best picture. No way.

Did 'The Dark Knight' deserve a best picture nomination? Absolutely. Why? For one, it broke through more boundaries than any film this year. Along with the superb technical aspects it hit a home run with the performances, profoundness of larger than life characters, story, score, and originality. In additional, it's more grounded to reality than most if not all comic based movies in history which in effect allows more people to take this film seriously(there are no mutants or rocket propelled superhero suits here). It bothers me when people question whether Ledger's accolades are due to merit or his untimely death. Are you kidding me? For one these people need to stop wondering and see his peformance and his competition for themselves. Whether Ledger's character was planted into a sci fi, horror, or even a direct to video film, it took a significant creative effort to mold his 'Dark Knight' character. The excellent deliverance of the voice, gestures, dialogue and laughter is not something any actor can pull off. It's these kind of unusual, unique, actor-irrelative characters (that are executed correctly) that tend to win awards (think Hanks-Forrest Gump, Pacino-Scent of Women, Crowe-A Beautiful Mind) and rightfully so for it takes much more work to pull off. That's how I believe the Academy and other film organizations should award best actor/actress and not let's give it the guy/gal we've snubbed for so long. For the keyword is ACTOR/ACTRESS. Best picture is a little more subjective I think, however, I think in that area a film should be judged on a combination of public appeal, direction, technical aspects, and acting etc. That's my 2 cents.

I liked Batman Begins but I hated Dark Night. I was thrilled it didn't get the nominations. I think the only reason Heath Ledger ( who was a fantastic actor) got nominated is because he is dead. If he had lived this movie would have never been mentioned come awards shows time.

The academy had the chance to make up for last years boredom, by
nominating The Dark Knight for best picture and best direction..I guess a billion dollar gross just isnt enough. They had the chance to
honour an icon, Clint Eastwood..but I guess his fabulous performance
in Gran Torino as well as his 50 plus years in the industry is yesterdays news I hope Mickey Rourke wins and beats the crap
out of the academy.

Sooooooo LAME! I wouldn't really care if it had won or not but it should have been nominated. This is just another reason this awards are total crap. They put The Reader on there, I for one have never even heard of that movie but they dont put the 2nd lagest grossing movie of all time on there. Another thing that bother me about this is that I feel like the only reason they nominated Ledger is becuase he is dead, I'm sure they would have passed him up if he were still with us. Really what can you expect from a bunch of pompus morons.

I think for the next batman movie, Clint Eastwood should do the voice

The Dark Knight was almost good... It was way to long. Ledger was very good. Sad that he's gone. But it's no Best Picture.

I had fun watching it until I had decided that I'd been in the theatre too long... The film needed editing something fierce.

Nuff said.

I also agree with John's comment (at 11:33am). I'm glad "The Dark Knight" didn't get nominated for Best Picture. Basically, the film had more weaknesses than strengths. The pacing was slow, the other actors like Bale, Oldman, etc looked like they didn't have a clue of what to do in each scene, and—like every "action" film, the audience gets a dumpload of poorly staged and "eye-rolling" sequences. Not to mention the horrendous and irritating Batman voice from Bale. Sorry folks, but action films just aren't Oscar material and won't ever be. Films like "Frost/Nixon" are far superior than "The Dark Knight."

I actually watched most of the movies nominated for the Oscars... and I think Ledger deserved his nomination (and most likely the win) because he MADE the movie. Even if he was alive, people would still be raving about his performance. Imagining it even now in my head gives me the chills... But was Dark Knight the BEST movie of the year? I don't know. It was a very good movie, but not one of the best in my humble opinion. But I did despise 'Benjamin Button'. It was horrifyingly slow and long and devoid of any entertainment value, it was painful to sit through. I suppose I'm a Philistine for not liking it, but there it is.

Since when was receiving 8 Oscar Nominations mean a film was overlooked?
The 5 nominated films for best picture should have been nominated. They are all excellent and deserving.
"The Dark Knight" is a great movie, but Best Picture? I think not. T
he 8 nominations it received, however are all well-deserved, including one for Heath Ledger's great performance as The Joker.

I won’t be watching the Oscars this year. I am really tired of having good movies and actors not being recognized. Where is Clint Eastwood??

Loved Slumdog. It deserves its Oscar-nods. For those of you who think that not nominating the Dark Knight for an award means that the Oscars are out of touch with what the public like, watch 'Slumdog' and think again. I didn't really like the Dark Knight – sorry! I liked 'Ben Button' but it's hardly entertaining, I don't think 'Frost/Nixon' should win because it's just essentially a dialogue, 'Milk' was also good but if it weren't for the actors, the film wouldn't be half as good as it was, I didn't see 'The Reader' but I plan to. 'Slumdog' was the best of the lot – for sure. You can bash the Oscars for not liking what you like, but there it is. This year, Oscar and I agree.

This is a disgrace – The Dark Knight was by far the best picture of 2008 and grossed the most money and it was not nominated. Hollywood needs an enema! "The Reader"? I never even heard of this movie! What was it out for 3 weeks and straight to video?

I respect the ones in Hollywood that actually do things for others (not just PR exposure). But the rest just dress up in their thousands of dollars gowns and diamonds which sickens me as times are tough and this is just flaunting to us regular folks.

Hollywood is so full of themselves. They should try to earn a decent living like the rest of us.

Wouldn't it be great if all of these comments were sent to the directors, producers, actors, etc. that think they're so great!!!

When it comes to The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger took that movie to a new level. Without him, it would have just been your average summer blockbuster movie. It certainly did not deserve to be nominated for Best Picture. Top ten? Definitely. The only mistake in Best Picture is The Reader taking Revolutionary Road's place.

Didn't watch it last year, and the year before that.

Thought I may watch it for Best Picture if the Dark Knight was nominated. So guess I'll skip this year again.

Wall E is clearly the best movie of the year, and one of the best movies I have ever seen. It is a work of art, and should have been recognised as such.

Even though The Dark Knight only has 1 nomination in a major category, no worries cuz it still ended up with 8 Oscar nods overall, which is awesome 4 an action/superhero movie. I think Heath will win BSA, & the flick should take at least 2 of the other categories in which it's nominated....

The Dark Knight, while it had its' flaws, was a great movie. Since I had not seen Benjamin Buttons yet, and the other movies are not widely released, I cannot say whether or not the best five movies were indeed nominated for Best Picture. The academy, however, has such a bias for off-the-radar and/or political movies, it is pathetic, so I am afraid of being disappointed with these choices.

It is hard for me to believe that The Dark Knight, or WALL-E for that matter, wasn't among the best five movies of the year. Both movies are way better than Return of the King, Titanic or Forrest Gump, all of which actually won Best Picture.

Christopher Nolan is easily one of the five best directors out there today, and hopefully one day he will get his due.

I am personally pleased that "The Dark Knight" did not receive the Best Picture nod. Don't get me wrong, it was a hell of a movie, but the Oscars aren't about nominating the money makers. It's about honoring the films that truly touch you. Let's face it, the only reason the "The Dark Knight" made the money it did was because of the late great Heath Ledger, who rightly deserves the nod he received. However, on a technical aspect, "The Dark Knight" deserves the nods for all it's special effects, sound and editing. It was a visually amazing film.

I am still going to watch the Oscars, regardless of the fact the "The Dark Knight" didn't get the Best Picture nod. And I will stand applaud in my living room when they call out Heath Ledger as the winner for Supporting Actor.

So I have to say as a movie goer that I am profoundly disappointed in some of the nominations, especially Best Picture. Benjamin Button is NO WHERE NEAR good enough to be in this category, its an entertaining movie but with many flaws and in my opinion wasn't nearly as good as Gran Torino or even the Dark Knight. I'm glad to see Ledger nominated, and even more disappointed to see Eastwood miss out, Brad Pitt is definitely not as captivating or dominating as Eastwood is in their respective movies. All I have to say is you can easily skip out on Benjamin Button but you shouldn't on Gran Torino nor the Dark Knight. I thought Seven Pounds was better than Button and that Will Smith turned in a great, and emotional performance where I thought Brad Pitt fell flat at times in a long, drawn out movie that lacked the grand scale that it advertised.

People *cough*the academy*cough* need to see The Dark Knight for what it really was - a fantastic crime drama. Something akin to The Departed. It deserved to go head to head with Slumdog. The tech noms were aren't enough for such a gret movie. As for some of these other nominations, they are rightfully deserved. Richard Jenkins, Melissa Leo, Mickey Rourke, kudos. The buzz for them has been ongoing for months. Just seek out little, indie movie reviews. Meryl, well, couldn't she pull her name from ever being nominated again? I would, if I had that many nominations. It's not like she' s poor Kate Winslet, still waiting for that first win. To sum it up, get over yourselves, academy members and recognize that greatness is found not just in lofty, artsy movies. TDK was the best from last year.

To everyone who is dissing how Gotham looks just like Chicago, perhaps you've heard of a fellow called Rod R. Blagojevich, and maybe another one called Al Capone, in addition to it's sky-high homicide rate and then tell me that there's a better city to make Gotham, known for corruption an danger, emulate. I've never heard anyone complain that a fictional city looks just like New York.
Secondly, The Dark knight did deserve an oscar nod, hands down. It had depth politically, philosophically, and emotionally, on top of some of the best action sequences known to man. The Hong Kong sequence and the truck flip? Some of the most stunning action since mordor tried to burn minas tirith. The only action sequence that could perhaps be construed as hard to follow is the finale, but then again, when the joker does a hostage swap like that, it should be hard to follow, now shouldn't it? Ten years down the line, this is the film people will be talking about, no matter how many statues benjamin button and slumdog take home. And to claim no one could act but heath is ridiculous. Christian Bale put desperation in Wayne's eyes, and hurt in the dark knight's voice. Michael Caine conveyed wisdom and empathy to a butler, a character normally resigned to answering the door with a brittish accent. I could go on for just about the entire cast, but i know you all have better things to do than spam the message boards, don't you?

I'm disappointed TDK did not receive a best picture nod or that Christopher Nolan did not receive a Best Director nod, but I am thrilled that Heath Ledger was nominated for Best Supporting Actor and I will watch to see that (honestly, I'm a bit more p.o.'ed that Revolutionary Road wasn't nominated for Best Picture, etc ... or that Kate Winslet (or Leonardo DiCaprio) wasn't nominated for it (glad she was nominated for "The Reader", but her role in in "Revolutionary Road", IMO was much more Oscar Worthy). That said, I am happy that Michael Shannon was nominated and if it wasn't for Heath Ledger, I'd want him to win.

It does not matter whether americans will be watchng or not...whle of india will be watching and that should be a enough for the oscars to be hit..slumdog a good movie deservedly shuld win...darkk night was good but nor oscar picture worthy....good sales and profts dont have a great movie especialy oscar worthy...it was a capecrusader movie...plain and simple...LIVE WITH IT PEOPLE...SLUMDOG ALL THE WAY

And the dark knight is NOT anti-climatic. "you and I are destined to do this forever"? come on. "I killed those people." "the joker won." "We thought we could be decent men in an indecent time" I don't know. Maybe i should just spew out every quote from the entire final half-hour if you pretentious snobs still aren't satisfied?

To MLB, I see you get The Dark Knight totally. To those who own this movie, watch it with your closed captioning on. You can catch so much more of what's going on if you read the dialogue. The Joker is an agent of chaos. He likes to make a little anarchy. He'll mess with your mind because it amuses him.

Again, this movie is a masterful crime drama.

By the way:

Slumdog Millionaire is fantastic, and is probably who I'm going to be rooting for. Also, let's give some love to Robert Downey Jr. for grabbing a nomination for Tropic Thunder, in which he is fantastic and is definitely a surprise and shows maybe the academy isn't so dumb after all. If it wasn't for Heath, I'd be rooting for him, and if he wins I'd be okay but my geuss is that it's more of an honor than anything. Carry on.

The Reader???!! Instead of The Dark Knight! Is this some kind of joke? I could live with the Wrestler being nominated instead of the Dark Knight but the Reader is the kind of pointless, dreary literary adaptation manufactured, yes manufactured purely for awards – i.e Oscar bait.

The Oscars have been a joke ever since Titanic won (Happy Feet's win just supported that fact). I hate the Oscars. I'm not surprised that 'Dark Knight' was left off the Best Picture category, but the fact that they left it off the Best Original Score, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Costume Design lists is ridiculous. The Oscars are just as worthless now as the Golden Globes. For what it's worth, go Heath!

I can't believe that The Dark Knight did not receive nominations for Best Picture and Best Director!!...I see that the Titanic being the highest grossing film ever was well received by the Academy but TDK being the second highest grossing film ever was not!...I am sick and tired of these no-name movies being automatic Oscar worthy but when a true work of art that combines morality, Shakespeare, and on-the-edge of your seat quality is overlooked...I thought that we the fans of movies who support it, decide what is Oscar worthy??...but because the Academy Award Board still wants to ignore what the actual movie-goers enjoy, these no-name movies continue to get 7-12 nominations every year!!...I mean why should 1 movie get that many nominations??...and its the same pattern every year with the nominations.

And for those who don't believe that TDK is not Oscar worthy of at least a Best Picture and/or Best Director, the movie must of just blew by you...anyone with at least a small measure of movie IQ and appreciation would say that TDK was a groundbreaking movie that was able to bring and relate a movie based on the comic book genre into as real of a world as you could have...the movie touched on so many themes of this current society (terrorism, rules, morality, etc), it should be respected and honored for it...and Christopher Nolan definetely deserves Best Director for the quality of the movie...he is one of the up and coming directors of our time.

Having watched Richard Jenkins in the repertory company of Trinity Rep Theater here in Providence RI for several years, I could not be more thrilled that the Academy has chosen to honor his stellar performance in The Visitor.
You really got it right this time, Academy!
This performance is Oscar-caliber all the way!

The Dark Night was a terrible film. Horrible lead acting. Asinine and immature script. Poor directing. Heath Ledger's performance is only praised because he died. It was all makeup. The Oscars are about selecting the best films, not the most popular. Outrage like readers here have shown is to be expected when we have a society that puts a premium on making money as opposed to intellectualism. If you think the Dark Night is masterful crime drama, clearly you have only been watching movies for the past ten years.

I'm not really surprise. I've come to realize the Academy Awards is what they like not always what the audience likes (I.E the english patient one of the most boring movies I have ever seen) Slumdog millionaire? The Reader? Frost Nixon? Milk? Never heard of those, what the hell? the only one I heard about was Button and I don't want to see it. The oscars are going to continue to lose viewers unless they drag their heads out of their asses and actually put some films in their with both critical and commerical success (Titantic, Lord of the rings, THE DARK KNIGHT)

john, January 22nd, 2009 11:42 am ET, "I didn’t think it was a great film at all. A lot of the usual CGI, long and boring, the only saving grace was Heath Ledger’s good, hard work.
Film was designed to make money as its chief mission."

--------------------–

The director of Dark Knight hates CGI, and used very little. Check your facts. It was a great movie with interesting themes. If you were bored, then maybe the movie's themes were beyond you.

Best picture does not equal highest grossing picture. The Oscars are about celebrating the ART of film, so doesn't it make sense that they select artistic films ("artsy fartsy as people here say) over popular movies? Bale and Nolan should be up for Razzies, not Oscars.

WTF!
Yes, I think the Dark night is not best picture worthy, director, mak-up, sound, costume yes. But... The movie and any other movie that was the top grossing film of the year should be given the honor of a nomination, because it gave us the viewer the honor of seeing it. For 30 years I have watched the Academy Awards, it was a tradition with my family. But, for the last two years I have watched something else and this year will not be any different.

I don't know if I would give this movie best picture (loved the movie, my favorite for the year). But I believe Best Director was a must and qualifies as a snub.

The academy is full of old yuppies.

DARK KNIGHT was not that great of a movie. Many people think it is just because heath ledger died. Its the same effect you get when a musician dies after making a record, suddenly its the best record ever. i.e 2 pac.

So The Reader gets a nomination for Best Picture but Clint Eastwood
is passed on for his work in Gran Torino??
I hope Mickey Rourke wins and punches the crap out of The Academy.

Milk was one of the biggest pieces of self-serving crap since Mystic River. Oh wait, what do they both have in common? And if I wanted to spend 3 hours watching Brad Pitt age backwards, I'd watch the Oceans movies in reverse order.

People complain about blockbusters and CGI in regards to nominations. Christopher Nolan has said many times his dislike for alot of CGI usage. There were many shots in "The Dark Knight" that could have been CGI, but Nolan kept the 'real' factor by shooting them live. That's Bale on top of the tower in Chicago looking over the city..that's a real truck flipping in the middle of the street.

Ledger's performance was great. Whether you liked it or not, it garnered the attention.

Jeff, moron, Poor action sequences? What drug are you on? The Dark Knight action sequences are considered top ten in movie history. You need to get some help or a new set of eyes maybe.

George please please name us 20 movies from last year that were better than the Dark Knight. I'm laughing over that statement.

I have been waiting to see if The Dark Knight would get a nomination for best picture. And of course it got snubbed because the voters don't want to give appreciation to a good film because it is about a superhero who dresses as a bat. However, if they were to take the social themes that were portrayed in the movie into mind, they might have had a different perception. Even for supporting actors, I think Eckhart and Oldman gave terrific performances and didn't get a thing. Very disappointing!

Dark Knight was CRAP!!!!! Nothing better than a jason Movie...has Jason won an oscar........

Dark Knight was a great movie, but as far as nominations go, it received the only one it should of. The absolutely incredible performance of Heath Ledger is without question as deserving as it gets.

I honestly believe, even if he were not dead, he would of still been nominated and won.

WTF?
DARKNIGHT WAS AWESOME!!
i m disappointed.

It seems to me that for some reason the Awards committee as well as some people commenting here think that just because a movie isn't labeled first and foremost as a "drama" or something similar, it automatically doesn't deserve the same respect as a movie labeled "action." Many critics, I might add, have a similar view. What ignorance! A quick look at the last dozen best picture winners clearly shows my point-only a couple (Gladiator and Lord of the Rings) would be not labeled as a primarily dramatic movie. Not since Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespeare in Love have I been so infuriated with the ignorance of the joke that is now the Academy Awards. An "action" movie can be every bit as compelling, complex, and fascinating as a "drama." It is this sort of combination that makes a movie like Dark Knight amazing. Ask yourself this-how is it right that a movie that shattered virtually all box office records, and is probably going to eventually pass Titanic as the highest grossing movie of all time, not even NOMINATED?

I am absolutely livid at those here who have trashed Heath Ledger's nomination for Dark Knight, especially those who have the gall to say he was only nominated because he died. If any of you people who are so callously trashing this brilliant actor actually saw the movie, then you have to be out of your mind not to recognize the tour-de-force performance Heath gave as the Joker. It was mesmerizing, outrageous, audacious and chilling.

Awards won't bring back Heath Ledger. That is what saddens me. But I am glad that he is getting so much recognition for his work. I only wish to God that he was here to enjoy it. It's such a shame that some have to be petty and mean-spirited.

I also believe that Dark Knight should have been nominated for best picture. I am speaking as someone who has despised the superhero comic book genre of movies. But Dark Knight was a masterpiece of intelligent, exciting, thought-provoking issues of good versus evil, morality, and the extent to which law enforcement should break society's rules in pursuit of crime. It was daring, uncompromising in its vision and refreshing. Shame on the Academy!

I didn't see The Reader. I quit watching the trailor about half way through because of boredom. The Acadamy forget the most important thing about movies every year – the entertainment value. The four other nominees this year are entertaining. On that note just because something is entertaining doesn't mean its the best picture. Dark Knight was great, but Gran Torino outclasses by far.

The thing that gets me every year is the nods to dramas for technical awards. Other than cinematography they rarely have incredible technical skill.

KUDOS to the acadamy on the Robert Downey Jr. nod. I really hope he gets the oscar. Ledger was a great joker, but he wouldn't be in the race i f he were alive.

I am furious at the people here who have suggested that the only reason Heath Ledger was nominated for his brilliant work as the Joker in Dark Knight, was because he died. That is beyond outrageous and an insult to an incredibly talented actor. His performance was a tour-de-force, mesmerizing, wickedly funny and chilling. He WAS the movie. Without his Joker, the Dark Knight would have been just another comic book movie. He made it great.

Heath Ledger is deserving of the recognition he is receiving for his work in this movie. I am only sorry that he is not here to experience the rewards of his efforts. I wonder if those who are trashing his performance even saw the film. It's impossible to come away from watching this movie and not realize the immense achievement of an actor who was just reaching greatness.

I also think that Dark Knight deserved to be nominated for best picture. I am speaking as someone who has despised the superhero, comic book genre of movies. But Dark Knight was an intelligent, exciting, thought-provoking movie about good versus evil, morality, the extent to which law enforcement can exceed or bend the rules to wipe out crime. It was uncompromising in its vision. I loved the dark point of view and found it refreshing. For once, a movie that did not insult the intelligence of the audience. Shame on the academy!

I'm glad the common folk of America don't decide the nominees and vote for the Academy Awards. Ha! I can only imagine their nominations (trying to contain laughter):

BEST PICTURE: The Love Guru, Transformers, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Hancock, Epic Movie
BEST ACTOR: Mike Meyers, the midget in that one movie who made a "poop" joke, The big robot in "Transformers," Will Ferrall, Kevin James
BEST ACTRESS: The actress who "got laid" with the "poop joke" midget, the emo/goth vampire girl in "Twlight," that girl in "My Bloody Valentine 3D," the rapper lady from "Notorious," and the third chick who "got laid" with the other chick and midget.

Must I continue because I don't know if I can contain my laughter.

Oh, and I am a so-called "artsy" film fanatic with a college education and I'm glad for the Academy Awards. At least they know what's "real" entertainment! It's just too bad films today aren't made like "Citizen Kane," and "Bicycle Thieves (Landri de biclette)"

Why do people act like the "movie-going public" have any say in the Academy Awards? They are private awards based within the industry. It never ceases to amaze me that folks (including critics) get up in arms when their "favorite" category is dissed.

If fans want to have a say, the People's Choice Awards are the ones to watch. The critics have newspapers, web sites, and TV shows to display their unique wit (or at least 1/2 of it).

The Oscar nominations for the 81st Academy Awards were announced this morning with the shocking snub of The Dark Knight in both Best Driector and Best Picture.

Change has come to America but change has not come to the Academy.

The Dark Knight was ultimately snubbed for The Reader.
The Dark Knight garnered huge critical success, especially for a blockbuster, scoring an 82 overall on metacritic, The Dark Knight was supported by the precursor awards including the WGA, ACE, DGA and PGA, and The Dark Knight grossed almost 1 billion dollars worldwide 500 million domestically in the US. Simply put The Dark Knight is a phenomenon. On the other hand The Reader poor critical praise scoring a 58 overall on metacritic, it got no support from the precursors, and grossed a dismal 7 million in limited release.

The deciding factor is that The Dark Knight is a 'superhero' film whereas The Reader ia a 'holocaust' film

This snub will go down as the most worst since Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash in 2005.

This is just a mock to the commercial market. Dark Night was not only one of the best superhero movies, but it was also one of the most praised movies in 2008. We come to think about the real purpose of OSCAR. Is it for the satisfaction of their needs? Wasn't it a place for the OSCAR peopel to pick the BESTS? In this sense, THE DARK NIGHT shouldn't have been excluded!!!!

i can't believe people "couldn't follow" the action sequences or thought the only thing to the movie was Ledger. The movie is amazing and incredibly symbolic of the current times we live in. Terrorism and how you counteract it and how you are perceived when you go to great measures to counteract it. Are people blind? Did blind people actually go see a movie? The Dark Knight should have been nominated for not only Best Picture but Best Screenplay and certainly Best Director. I don't think we should be so hard on the Academy, I mean read what the general public "doesn't get" in a great movie. I don't love this movie because Heath Ledger isn't alive. I love this movie because he helps make a great movie even better.

To all the people who are saying that we(and I mean the people angry about this huge snub) think that The Dark Knight should be nominated solely because Heath died, or because it grossed a billion dollars worldwide, I say......NO! You just don't get it. It is not just about the money. It is really easy to make a great action film, and have some terrible acting in it, and it is also easy to make a great acting film with little special effects, but to have both in one movie, that is when you truly do something special. The Dark Knight succeeded in this arena, and should have been rewarded for it. Are you really gonna tell me that a movie that has made over 100 top ten lists, has a score of 82 on metacritic, and 94 on rotten tomatoes, has been nominated by all the essential guilds(Producers, Directors, Writers), and yes, did gross 530 million at the US box office doesn't deserve to at least be NOMINATED for best picture? Please......This goes to show how out of touch the Academy is with the new pulse of Hollywood. To clarify, I never expected Dark Knight to win, I am not even sure I wanted it to win(That goes to Frost/Nixon), but was it one of the five best movies of the year, and should have at least been nominated....YES!

First time ever blogging on these public debate forums. However, reading statements regarding Heath Ledgers performance purely because he died unexpectedly is bunk. Anyone making that statement, is a)a movie snob, b)didn't see the movie c)wasn't paying attention.

As a 'seen it all' viewer, I am rarely affected emotionally by movies any more. However, two specific Ledger scenes in the movie were very chilling. I personally haven't felt that affected/disturbed by a character since Silence of the Lambs. I looked around at my family and the audience to see if their reaction was the same as mine. Many in the audience (including everyone in my family) had closed their eyes or looking away from the screen.

Why? There was no overt violence or gore in the scene? It was because of the performance the actor was giving which implied it. That's great acting!

I agree with all pix choices except for The Reader. This is the typical boring avant-garde selection. It should be out, with The Dark Night in and a real threat to the other pictures. That would have been gutsy and right!

The Academy Awards are and always have been just a little silly. I was hoping that 2009 would be the year in which we got our first black president and a Batman movie finally won best picture, but you can't have everything. Even so, The Dark Knight is the best picture in my book and as I'm the one deciding how I spend my movie watching time, I suppose that's the only book that matters. Still, it would have been nice to see the Oscars celebrate anything but the same small, boring movies it always nominates. Frost/Nixon was okay, but it didn't blow my socks off. As for Button, I saw Mork and Mindy and that show portrayed a person aging backwards way better because they didn't take it serious. Nor should anyone else. A man who can't love because he's becoming a baby is stupid unless it's a comedy. What are we supposed to take away from that movie? Man, it would suck if we were becoming a baby–but none of us are. And if I was becoming a baby, I'd do something more entertaining than whine about it for two hours. Give me Batman any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'll probably skip the Oscars this year and read a book.

Even though Dark Knight got nominated for Best Supporting Actor, I think the academy is discriminating, Dark Knight should be up for Best PIcture Best Director, best Make up. it grossed over $600 million dollars one of the highest grossing pictures of all time. I bet it made more money then all the movies put together last year. I say boycott the Oscars.

The Academy Awards have always been a joke!! If you look back at all the "Best Pictures", most age poorly and are intolerable and unwatchable after the "Best Pic" hoopla dies down. Notice how few "Best Pictures" get airplay on TV? I have no respect whatsoever for the Academy!!

I forgot to add , we should go and protest.

I've been watching the Oscars for 21 years now, and I'm not surprised that Dark Knight didn't get more noms. That's just the way they work, unfortunately. I wanted Robert Downey Jr. to get a nod for Tropic Thunder because I thought that he was truly hilarious, but I was surprised when he actually got it. The Oscars have never been kind to comedies. Ask any comedic actor. They don't get half the respect they deserve. I may be the only one on the planet that thought Tom Cruise was really fantastic as that hip-hop loving, foul-mouthed, dancing movie exec in Tropic Thunder. But, it would have been nice for Tom Cruise to get some kind of respect. He did totally immerse himself in the character the few minutes he had in Tropic Thunder. Again, the Academy just doesn't work that way. The Academy has not changed much in the 21 years I have been watching them. Some things they are right on about, and I agree with; others they just baffle me.

I still can't believe that Gran Torino got left out of everything. It was such a fantastic film. At the end, the whole entire audience sat and stared, very noticeably moved. They all just sat in silent disbelief. I'd like to see Benjamin Button or Slumdog Millionaire do that. And the Academy is not even going to mentioning it? I won't be watching.

My wife and I went to see Dark Knight at the local theater ($3 each). She walked out about half way. I stuck it out to the end as the story was somewhat interesting. Ledger's performance was interesting, but not outstanding. The rest of the acting sucked. Overall the movie was filled with too much sadistic violence and way too LOUD.

For creative portrayal of violence, Sweeny Todd was much better, the violence in it was repulsive and attractive at the same time.

Button was pretty good but a bit too long. Pitt made the role almost believable.

Haven't yet seen any of the other best picture noms yet.

Most entertaining one we saw this past year was Miss Pettigrew.

If the Academy wants the Oscars to become the Hollywood Insider's Ball, I have no problem with it. If they want the Oscars to be a showcase of the ART of making movie, the equivalent of an abstract painting, which pleases the eye and heart of the most avid movie enthusiast, the I have the utmost respect for them. If the Academy wants to make the Oscars a showcase OF those who live only for movies, BY those who live only for movies and FOR those who live only for movies, then more power to them...

Just don't expect the rest of us to be watching,

I will certainly not be watching the Academy Awards. I will wait to find out the next day that Heath Ledger did not win supporting actor, even though he should.

A wise man once said, "You know a good actor when you can't see the actor, but the character that they play".

This proves true with Ledger. The make-up was well done for sure, but as I watched the film, it was hard for me to see him in the role. I kept looking for Ledger, but all I found was the Joker. Certainly his death was unfortunate, but that only brought people closer to seeing the talent that Ledger holds.

Don't get me started on the film. It deserves nomination for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay at the very least. In my eyes, it should win. Maybe it's the Citizen Kane of this generation.

I can understand the Academy's point.
For someone to -truly- love the Dark Knight, you -had- to be a Batman film.
But this is why its so upsetting.
Batman is a part of our American Mythos. Our comic books and works of fiction are setting what were once the Greek equivalent of Hercules, or epics such as Beowulf.
Just like Superman, these are MYTHOLOGIES that are older and (in my opinion) far more culturally significant to American entertainment than even certain key pieces of cinema, like the Godfather.
I read another post that the Dark Knight should not have a best picture nomination -because- it could not inspire.

Its one of the few times I wonder if a critic has any credibility anymore. I cannot think of a child today who still does not see the Bat-symbol or the Big S and not be "inspired", this goes for adults too.
Whats the point I'm getting at?
-The Dark Knight was a great comic book-film that broke the barrier
of what that meant.
-It is a staple of modern-culture mythology translated to the silver screen and is a testament to the endearing nature of these characters.

MOVIE wise,
-It was a critical success, again, as mentioned above, succeeding the stigma attached to comic-book related media, just as the graphic novel Watchmen had done when it made its place in Time's 100 greatest novels.
-Box office triumph, seconded only by Titanic.
-more importantly, while being a Batman fanatic made you enthusiastic, millions walked out of this movie entertained.

I remember the standing ovation opening day at IMAX when the movie credits rolled.

I remember walking out of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" looking to my friend and saying,
"That was a pretty good movie."

Again, I'm not saying The Dark Knight is the end all "Best Picture of the Year".

But not even a nomination?

Sounds like the rest of the nominations to it given by the Academy, including Heath Ledger's, is just to boost ratings.

for shame, sirs.

Read all about the voting process here.
http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/voting.html

You can please some people some of the time, but you can"t please ALL the people ALL of the time. – Never has a statement been more true. Just scroll back up and read the previous posts.

I will be watching The Dark Knight instead of the Oscars. I cannot believe people think that The Dark Knight does not deserve at least a Best Picture nod. The Reader? Come on! I am not saying The Dark Knight deserves to win but to leave it out?! Out of touch old fogies who think they know a better movie then the average movie watcher! The Academy is irrelevant!

I have always watched the OSCARs and am pretty upset that I'm going to have to miss Hugh Jackman host them, because he would be great, but it's not worth watching when you look at the crap that's nominated. The Dark Night was a cinematic feat, that didn't fail to entertain, and was also thought provoking, and definitely wasn't a happy movie, which should have been a plus for the academy because sad downers of movies seem to be a stipulation for a best picture nomination. My real beefs about this movie getting snubbed, other than the fact that it was the best film of the year, is what was nominated instead. Benjamin Button was HORRIBLE. It dragged on, wasn't completely coherent, and really was a poorly done Forest Gump. let's face it, people go to see Brad Pitt movies because he's hot, so why in God's name would you have him be some old dude for like 50 minutes in the film, and only really have him young enough for the last 20. The movie really missed the point. Onto The Reader, the first half of the movie is like porn. Movies that stand the tests of time should not have to rely on Kate Winslet nudity, seriously. The movie was okay, but I wouldn't ever watch it again and definitely feel like the theater stole my money. Best Pictures should be movies you want to watch over and over again. I couldn't stop going to see the Dark Knight in theaters, and I didn't even want to see it in the first place. I understand Slumdog Millionaire, it's the Juno of the group, except where Juno should have succeeded, Slumdog will. Frost/Nixon and Milk make sense, but they still weren't that good. 2008 was not a good year for hollywood or movies. I feel robbed of time and money for all the horrible movies I've seen, the only bright light was the Dark Knight and if Hollywood can't see that, then they might just begin to finally feel the effects of this struggling economy as people stop putting their hard earned money towards seeing poorly executed movies.

Yea, I wont be watching. The Dark Knight is a great film, regardless of it being from a comic book. What a joke the Oscars are.

Dark Knight was the best feature of the year hands down. Slumdog was amazing but it's third act betrayed everything the movie was built on. But who cares? The Academy Awards, since its conception, has been a vehicle for promoting the big studio's best films. Dark Knight did what almost every movie that is made no a days sets out to do; make money. it's just a shame because some people with closed minds might have given it a chance if it got the nods it deserves, now those poeple are missing out. Oh well. Peace out Chaiwala.

the Oscars is really for "old people" who tend to like sad movies or period pieces anyway. I don't think it The Dark Knight had a chance with this snubbish crew. The Peoples Choice Awards is a better indicator of what the average joe really cares about.

Dark Knight was a great Movie, and I'm not exactly sure what it has to do to get nominated. Heath Ledger deserves the nomination, but for some to say it was a one man show didn't pay attention to the story. No matter, I don't depend on the Acadamy to tell me what the best picture is for me, I'm glad that Downey got nominated, he had two very good roles including Iron Man. But face it, outside Lord of the Rings, these awards don't go to fantasy films. It's nothing new.

The Dark Knight at least deserved a nomination for Best Picture. It was one of the most highly acclaimed movies of the year, it got better reviews then any of the other so called "best picture" nominees, oh and it did make more money then all of those combined several times over. How does Christoper Nolan NOT get nominated for best director? His movie was among the top 3 critically acclaimed movies of the year, he eaisly had the highest grossing film of the Decade and had one of the finest performances of all time with Heath Ledger as the Joker.....that qualifies you for....nothing I guess. The "oscars" should give out golden piles of S#$T because that's what their show is about.

While usually no fan of the Oscars, let's applaud the Academy recognizing Melissa Leo and Richard Jenkins giving great performances in films with a small fraction of the budgets of most of the other nominated films.

The Academy only recognizes sci-fi films and related genres when it absolutely has to. In this case despite how popular Dark Knight was, the only nomination it was likely to get was for Ledger because blood would have run in the streets if he'd been passed over (whether he'll actually win is another story). When Return of the King was nominated for a ton of Oscars (and won almost all of them) that was a special case, and everyone knows they were awarding the whole trilogy. But such nominations are unusual. Just alike the Emmys are allergic to nominating superior shows like Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who for anything, so too does the Academy rarely if ever recognize SF or fantasy. Watchmen has the potential to be this year's Dark Knight, but regardless how good it will (hopefully) be, it won't be nominated for Best Picture next year. The new Star Trek film could be this generation's Star Wars; it'll be lucky to get tech nominations. Such is the way of things with the Academy. Want an Oscar? Stay away from fantasy - unless, of course, it's adapting a fantasy written by a classical writer like Fitzgerald.

Listening to some of these comments praising "The Dark Knight" makes me laugh. They sound more like praise from young kids who have listened to too many movie critics and are trying desperately to sound like them. "The Dark Knight was revolutionary in its cinematic scope," and other comments like it are nonsensical. They don't even mean anything.

Yes, The Dark Knight was a very good movie, and Heath Ledger's performance was excellent, but the movie didn't break new ground or push any boundaries of understanding. Yes, it had very effective thematic elements, but it didn't say anything we haven't heard many times before. In the end it was an excellent popcorn flick – one that went beyond typical summer faire, but still a popcorn flick, and there is nothing wrong with that.

That is not to say that the Academy Awards haven't had problems. They have certainly nominated worse films than "The Dark Knight" for best picture, director's who did a worse job than Christopher Nolan, and actors who have given much worse performances than Heath Ledger as the Joker.

Oscars are out of touch I'm not watching I urge others not to as well

I hope they don't make the stupid move and not give Heath Ledger the oscar because then the show will definitly be protested.

As for Dark Knight not getting a nomination, same thing happened with another superhero movie by the name of Spider-Man 2. In that situation, it was the top rated film that year and grossed millions of dollars (no where near Dark Knight though). All it got was special effects nominations. That shows you how stupid these people are and may be the Oscars are in need of a change.

great movie.....but

i just don't believe it was better than BATMAN BEGINS
(which SHOULD HAVE got an oscar nod)

I haven't watched the Oscars since Return of the King, just to see if a SF/F movie could finally break through and win it all. I guess we'll have to wait to see if a comic book movie (TDN) or a comedy (take your pick) could win it all. This feels like The Last Emperor all over again.

The Dark Knight should have been nominated for the Best Picture Award and so should more of it's lead actors. There is no picture without performance and those performances were the best I've seen in years. It wasn't just a horror / sci-fi / comic book thing. It had the kind of depth that is rarely seen today. The fact that it made so much money at the box office should have been Hollywood's first clue. However, Hollywood has never been that bright, so there ya go.

Again, round five of the same old, same old. And why Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino was by-passed in favor of the Reader, go figure.

DC Comics Should leave the movie making to marvel. stan lee and his characters light up the big screen I have never been a fan of bat man on the big screen. This movie was hyped because someone in a staring roll died prior to the release. I fell asleep.

Watch "Silence of the Lambs" and watch "Dark Knight". No one can honestly tell me that "Silence" is an all around better movie than "Knight"...yet it won the Oscar. In addition, The Joker was by far the more developed character, Heath outacted Sir Anothony, and the Joker is honestly a more believable character than Hannibal. And Hopkins won an Ocsar for that performance!

I will put the Joker and Batman's mano a mano in the police interrogation room up against anything in a movie this year...and that will make you feel more viscerally than any scene out there.

I thought the Dark Night was extremely overrated. I mean it was a solid action flick but best picture? No way. I think these other films deserve the nomination much more than the dark knight. Maybe if you people would actually see movies other than the big blockbusters you would grow some appreciation for what good film making really is.

It is sad that we cannot honor every great film. The Academy often makes some good choices and bad choices. However, I think they made a mistake in ignoring Revolutionary Road and The Dark Knight. I though The Dark Knight was a very gripping and masterful film especially for it being an action film. Most people don't take action films seriously enough for Oscar consideration because most associate that an action film serves nothing but to entertain and not necessarily in quality.

I think the BIGGEST mistake by the Academy is to award a dead actor in a category. Heath Ledger's performance deserves an Oscar, but I think in light of his death it should be a separate Oscar. It's rather unfair to Robert Downey Jr who's also worked terribly hard to be placed up against an actor that has died. It's a rather unfair advantage because the public will offer a backlash if Heath is not given the Oscar and the Academy knows it.

Heath was a consistent actor and he gave good performances. He should be honored by himself.

the only reason why Dark Knight made such big money over the summer is because Heath Ledger passed away. That alone drew all the crowds to see this movie. Overall the movie was decent and Ledger's performance is deserving of an award but other than that the movie could have been better. Batman's voice was very annoying and the rest of the actors did not do a good job in my opinion. Sorry but thats prob how the Guild felt about this as well.

Just because a movie is popular doesn't mean it isn't high quality. Look at Titantic or Lord of the Rings. TDK made the leap from superhero movie to mass appeal. Years ago, the Academy traditionally honored films that did well at the box office (Sound of Music, etc). It's only in recent years that it's always movies few have seen. Maybe when the Networks decide no one is watching the "Superbowl for Women" and drop the broadcast, Hollywood will wake up. By then it will be too late.

I find that the Oscars always somehow fit in movies that because of the nature of the topic they cover, they're "Oscar" quality, like the movie on the holocaust. Not to be insensitive here, but come on, the Reader was good, but it wasn't THAT good. I sure hope the Oscars straighten up. What is it they have against high grossing films for instance? Sure, they wanna spread popularity to more underground films, but that will come based on their quality, not how "underground" they are. I found that many deserving movies were shut out of many big categories, and hope the Oscars viewer turn out is minimal, to let them see just how everyone is fed up with their biased choices.

Pardon my French, but most of you need to grow up. (scroll down for the short version)

The Dark Knight was probably one of the greatest cinematic achievements of the year. It has revolutionized the way that people look at comic movies and contained incredibly strong performances by many of its actors. The talent did NOT stop at Heath Ledger, Eckhart, Caine, and Freeman also did phenomenal jobs. The action scenes were difficult to follow at times, but then again, I can count on one hand how many actual action scenes there were.

When it came out, most of you were raving about it. I, for one, still am. It is only now that it has not recieved a Best Picture nomination that you guys are picking it apart, because OBVIOUSLY you're not cool if you like a movie that wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

I am not denying the movie's problems, such as Bale's ridiculous Batman voice and a weak third act. I am also not denying that it is not Best Picture material, though the movie itself was (in my opinion) better than a couple of the films, namely The Reader (I personally would have given the slot to The Wrestler).

Here's the situation. In 1977, Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture. It revolutionized the sci-fi industry and turned it into a serious area of film. It lost to Annie Hall, which is, in retrospect, an outrage.

This is The Dark Knight. In 10 years, provided it hasn't been one-upped, people will probably still know it as one of the best comic book adaptations ever. However, in 10 years, most of these Best Picture nominees will be long forgotten. The films nominated have a certain importance to the here and now (i.e, Milk – Proposition 8), but will probably not in the future. Look at Crash vs. Brokeback. Brokeback was groundbreaking. Crash was okay at the time and is now in the 5 dollar bin at Wal-Mart.

Sorry for the rant, but if you've made it this far, here's the cliffnotes version:
If you're dissing on TDK now, jump off the bandwagon and stop trying to act like a member of the Academy.
It wasn't an Oscar film, but was probably the most groundbreaking film of the year.
The Academy Sucks.
Heath Ledger Rules.
Bale's Batman voice sucks.
Grow up.

Oh, and for the record, TDK was my favorite movie of the year. Peace out.

100% "ditto" on (B. Skadder's) comment on January 22 (2:05p). It says it all and is exactly how I've felt since 9/11. These stars think they are above it all (especially the law). We watch them live these lifestyles that most of us only dream about. The saddest part is, they are doing it on "our" hard earned dollars! Without the fans and the folks paying to see them....where would they be? While I understand that we will always need (want) art and entertainment in our lives, the money that they so frivolously spend is mind boggling. I don't think any of them know what's going on in the "real world"? The last thing I want to do is sit and watch them pat themselves on the back and then be lavished with thousands of dollars in gifts afterwards! No. Thanks! And just because they are so called "good" actors, does not make them "good" human beings!

I will watch the Oscars as usual simply because I enjoy watching them. I love them. I do like to see the awards "spread" around though. I kind of hate when one movie, such as Slumdog, wins everything coming and going at all the awards. But that's neither here nor there. As far as Dark Knight goes, I thought it was highly overrated and down right boring. I think any of Michael Keaton's Batman movies were much better. Heath Ledger did a great a job, but the movie itself was a snoozer IMO.

It seems to me that the majority of opinions here are expressed by folks who don't know anything about the making of a film – nor who the Academy is made up of.

First – the Academy is comprised of the same people who make the films you watch. So how out of touch are they really when they are making the films you are so entertained by? They are absolutely in touch and that's why we have so many awful films that have big draws at the box office.

Second – the Academy members themselves vote on who the nominees will be. And then the individual peer groups vote on the winners, i.e., sound editors for sound editing, actors for actors, etc.

Third – the members of the Academy are voting for excellence in filmmaking. They don't vote for a film because it was trendy or because it had great returns at the box office or because its a one-of-a-kind. And they don't base their nominations or their votes on potential ratings of the Academy Awards when the Oscars are presented.

Finally – to make a film (even a bad one) is an immense and exacting task requiring months of preparation, months of filming and months and months of post-production work (such as editing, etc.). Hundreds of people work on a film from the writers and script supervisors, the art directors and props people, the costume designers and tailors, the sound guys, the electrical guys, the people making sure the cast gets fed, the people scouting and negotiating for locations, the labs that process the film each day and the final prints for release to the theaters, the marketing people, the writers, directors and I could go on and on and on.
And its the experts in their fields that are voting for who gets the Oscars – the experts who understand the whole process better than you or I.

Next year – I suggest channeling these strong feelings you have towards the People's Choice Awards where you can vote for your favorites instead of criticizing the filmmakers for their choices.

while it is true that the academ claims to strive for excellence, they do have certian predjudices. any movie made about the holocaust, for instance, is going to be nominated if its at all watchable.

the reason Dark Knight should have gotten more attention is very simple, and easily illustrated.

When in the theater, everyone was laughing. then it occured to us that we laughing at a man blowing up a hospital and performing mental torture. Everyone started to look around and see each other, the movie having forced us to face some things that were not comfortable.

WHile I'll agree that bale's performance was not nearly as good as he usually puts in, and thus not worthy of a nomination, nearly everyone else turned in marvelous performances.

even so, I would not be unhappy that Dark knight got as few nods as it did, if it weren't for the fact that other, equal or better movies, got snubbed as well, namely, revolutionary road, gran torino, and wall-e.

ENOUGH with the "if you want to have a say in what gets Best Picture, that's what the People's Choice Awards are for" comments!! The People's Choice Awards are a joke! The only people who win those are the ones who say they will show up to claim the award! (Don't believe me? Watch the show this year, see who was there and who wasn't, and see who won! Plus, I don't know ONE person who has ever actually voted in the People's Choice Awards process.) And we're not arguing about the People's Choice Awards anyway, we're talking about the ACADEMY AWARDS.....something with little higher profile and respectability than the PCA's!!

Am I incorrect in my understanding that the People's Choice Awards solicit votes from the public (through People Magazine and/or their website?) If that's not correct – then someone should form their own awards forum and let the movie-going public have their say!

Gran Torino was in fact an excellent film. But Clint played Classic Clint as in almost all of his movies – and I don't see where that would garner a nomination. I would have preferred to see Leonardo DiCaprio get the the nomination for Best Actor for his role in Revoluntionary Road. And I agree that Revolunary Road was an excellent film – if not easy to watch (grew up in that era!).

By the way – some of these films such as The Reader, The Visitor, etc. just don't have the budget to market themselves the way the summer blockbusters do. And that's why so many folks haven't heard of them. They are not obscure, poor or unworthy films and I have learned to seek these types of films because they are often rewarding!

The Academy has been a demense of political sluttery for decades. This appalling and senseless lack of response to obvious moviegoer preference comes as no surprise. Eastwood is unpopular with Hollywood at large for his politics, hence he gets shut out. Nolan has made a career of going against the grain; he gets shut out. Rourke dared to express praise for former President Bush in an interview; he gets shut out. The Academy has betrayed its purpose in favor of inner-Hollywood politicking, and we, the moviegoers who pay money to watch excellent films that get shafted for awards, are the ones who suffer.

I hope Ledger gets his Best Supporting, and then an EMP takes out the cameras and blanks the rest of the show. Disgraceful.

I am amazed by the amount of people in here who think that the only reason The Dark Knight is so popular is because of Heath Ledger's death. Sure there's some extra free advertising of the movie being given by news reporters, but that is a small piece of the pie as to why the movie is so popular.

Just ask yourself this and you'll realize how stupid you sound; Why exactly were all the other Batman movies before this so popular? There was no Heath Ledger death to make the popularity of Batman Begins rise to the top, nor was there a Heath Ledger death to make the original Tim Burton Batman so popular. The Batman franchise has always been, and always will be popular in American culture, whether the movies are good (The Dark Knight) or bad (Batman & Robin.) because regardless of their quality they have all been entertaining theater experiences. People like the Batman character, it's as simple as that.

The great reviews of the movie coupled with the fact that it is an already popular franchise only serve to multiply it's already established popularity.

As for the awards he's getting, he would have been nominated even if he was still alive. It's the great acting in the movie that is winning him awards, not his obituary column.

EDIT of my last post:

Where I say "People like the Batman character, it's as simple as that."

What I really meant to say was "People like the entire Batman universe, it's as simple as that."

I might watch this year's Oscar show, but you will never know. I thought TDK was one of the best films of the year. I was really disappointed when they did not announce TDK as Best Picture. For what, making too much money? Look at movies like Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and E.T. They were all huge moneymakers, yet they all got nominated for best picture. People still remember these movies to great significance today. Looking at these Best Picture nods for 2008, do you think people will remember The Reader or Frost/Nixon 10 years from now, not that I have anything against those movies. Most of us go to the movies for entertainment, that's all. Not to learn or any of that other crap. Of all five of the Best Picture nods, the only one I'm curious to see is Benjamin Button. It looks like it's Forrest Gump (one of my all-time favorite movies) for the decade, maybe even the century. I am thinking of giving it a chance once it comes out on DVD. Nowadays, I watch the Oscars pretty much for the more technical acheivments rather than Best Picture or Actor/Actress. I think the Academy needs to shape up and give more nominations for the movies we see, rather than the sappy, boring stuff like The Reader (not that I have anything against Holocaust movies). In fact, I would rather watch Rambo 4 and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (both I really loved, yeah I hear a few gasps) than The Reader.

Oscars, Shmoshkers! Knowing my wife shw will probably watch them, but as for me without the Dark Knight nomination I will probably glue myself to my computer and spend the night with Farcry 2!

My theory on the Oscars is much like many of the car magazines I read. If the manufacturers are willing to pay, they will get the praise. That is pretty much how I view the whole Oscar Awards Ceremonies. A bunch of Pomp and Circumstance for nothing.

The one respondant who stated that the only time they nominate the good films is when they need the attention is right on the money. There were several great films this summer. Will they get moninated? Probably not. However, films like Button and Doubt? What? C'mon! I saw Button, I should have remained "curious" and waited for the DVD. Button was nearly as boreing as Austrailia! Now there's a winner for ya!

Movies like Flawless and The Bank Job don't even get a mention, but were great movies. Mainly because they were based on true stories. My point? Remember a few years back a film called "The Worlds Fastest Indian" with Anthony Hopkins?? Yeah, not even a mention!

I know they can't nominate every movie out there. But it would sure be nice to have a few eye openers. I will never forget the nomination for Silence of the Lambs, (also Anthony Hopkins), that was a shocker. First time I ever think a true Horror Film got the Oscar for Best Picture.

I remember another picture that should have gotten at least a mention for the CGI Artwork. Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within by Square Soft Media. No the story may not have been a big hitter, but the Art Work that was involved in making the picture should have at least been noted.

My point here is fairly simple. In the past few years the Oscars have become like Chirstmas. Its nothing more than a commercial ploy by Hollywood and the associated television networks to get you glued to your tube for two hours to see the glitz of Hollywood.

Personally, I suggest watching Mike Rowe on Discovery Channel, or maybe even catching an episode of the Mythbusters on that night. You just never know, it could even be your favorite episode of Wings on the Military Channel! Personally, if I am going to plug into my tube, I'd rather watch something from Discovery!

The awards are nothing more than a mutual admiration society's self promotion. A popularity contest where the ENTERTAINMENT value of a film is ignored in favor of whatever the the membership feels is more self gratifying (of self flagellating, depending on your point of view there).

What's unfortunate, is that the entertainment industry has lost track of what "entertaining" is to the mainstream, cooped up in their million dollar mansions and all...

Here's an idea, maybe Dark Knight got snubbed because it sucked. Case in point:

http://therawness.com/why-i-hated-the-dark-knight/

I'm fifty years old and shouldn't be surprised but I still am, at the people who try to draw some line between commercial success and worthiness of awards, or even commercial success and real quality. What succeeds has nothing- many times, not always- to do with how well the film was actually made. Awards, especially awards given by industry peers, like the Oscars, bear no relationship to box office revenue, not should they. The nominations that pleased me the most this year BY FAR were the two for "Frozen River," which was one of the best, most moving films I've seen in years. I don't begrudge the big hits the money they make, I enjoy some of them, but I don't kid myself that these are great films. I don't agree with every decision the Academy makes, but to the degree that they don't always reward commercial success is a mark in their favor, I'd say.

With the movie being such a hit, Heath winning the Best Supporting Actor award last night and Heath dieing a year ago, can anyone tell me if I'm just blind or was Heath not even acknowledged in the Tributes part of the SAG awards last night?

Do we really want this to be Meryl Streep's legacy, 15 Nominations, 1 lead win and 1 supporting win?

The woman is nearly 60 years old, do we really want to have her sing another 30 years for her supper?

It is chilling when you put up her record there against actresses with far less ability. In the end, it is the win that will speak directly to her incredible talent. These countless nominations and no wins is beginning to be an embarrassment to the entire process.

It's been nearly 30 years and she has had to sit there 12 times and see the Oscar given to someone else when in fact she has turned in several Oscar worthy performances. I hope they don't make this #13.

I saw Doubt and her performance was brilliant. It is a memorable script. Cherry Jones got her Tony and rightfully so. Meryl Streep deserves an Oscar for that role. She put in the work in all the complexities of the character she played.

Tom Wharton, how easy it is for you to slam actors and say that they need to be productive. The fact that you have such a irrelevant comment on an ENTERTAINMENT article shows that you at least watch the aforementioned actors doing something on the screen.

Now if you are saying that the oscars are pointless becasue it's a bunch of self serving crap, that's fine. Just don't be hypocritcal and slam them for providing you with something to complain about.

"The Dark Knight" was one of those rare movies that literally and figuratively left my jaw dropping at least half the time, and that's saying something from a self-proclaimed stoic such as myself. I appreciated the philosphical wrangling of the nature of good and evil and that often we become the very thing we struggle against. Despite all of that, there were moments (particularly with two-face'd Harvy Dent) that left me feeling that he could have been completely dropped from the movie altogether with little tragedy. These minor issues (though infintesimally small) left a big enough hole for other more flawless movies to crawl through.

being a film maker myself, i think The Dark Knight is one of best films ever to come out in the history of cinema. No best picture? its a tragedy.
i will only watch the oscars for Heath (hope he wins).

I'm not going to watch the Oscars, in protest of the Academy giving a "humanitarian" award to Jerry Lewis for his work with people who have Muscular Dystrophy. Lewis has called disabled people "half a person," and said some other despicable things. Him getting this award would be like Michael Richards getting the NAACP Image Award.

joker all the way bby! if heath doesnt get something then thats gonna make me mad cause thats the best joker in the history of jokers.