'Dark Knight' snub will cost ABC's Oscar telecast

They did it again!

Despite having the most critically acclaimed commercial blockbuster Oscar hopeful since 2003's "Return of the King," academy voters refused to give "The Dark Knight" a nomination for best picture this morning. 

Last year ABC's telecast of the Academy Awards fell to an all-time ratings low because, analysts agreed, too few viewers saw the top-nominated movies ("Juno," "Atonement," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will be Blood"). Oscar rounds when popcorn movies like "Titanic" or "King" have a shot at the big prize tend to draw larger audiences.

Now we have yet another year of largely art house fare that's going to make ABC's Feb. 22 show a tougher sell.

There's “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (gah, the only way Button's story could be more dull is if theaters ran the movie backwards), “Frost/Nixon” (like going behind the scenes of "60 Minutes"), “Milk” (okay, but, still, modest box office), “The Reader” (obligatory Holocaust entry) and “Slumdog Millionaire" (dirty kids running to electronic music).

Of these, only "Button" has squeezed over the $100 million mark. "Slumdog" is second with $44 million. "Milk" is at $21 million and "Reader" and "Frost" are below $10 million (though will go wide this weekend). 

"It would've been great to have 'Dark Knight' in there," says an ABC insider. "But 'Benjamin Button' is having some decent success at the box office too."

"Knight" co-star Heath Ledger was nominated for best supporting actor, of course. But after his Golden Globes win that story feels like it's already been played to some extent. "Knight" would have added some suspense for mainstream moviegoers. Denying the gothic drama is expected to cost the broadcaster, but surely the Joker would appreciate the snub bringing a little anarchy to ABC's ratings. 

Full nomination list here.

Comments

[Matt]

Idiotic move by the Academy. I won't be watching, though I haven't for the past few years finding the Oscars increasingly irrelevant. This was the year to change all that and get the people who really watch movies to care.

[Chris]

So disappointed with nominations. How can Dark Night, Gran Turino, and Burn After Reading all be this overlooked??

[Justin]

I can't believe The Reader, which has been mixed at best in reviews, got a best picture nomination while films like The Dark Knight and Wall-E, which have near perfect RT and metacritic scores, are left in the cold. Slumdog is the only film that I'd see again of the five, so I'll be rooting for that.

[SoulHonky]

Why are people so surprised? The Reader had the dearly departed Sidney Pollack and Anthony Minghella as producers. Milk had Prop 8. Ben Button is Hollywood's chance to finally anoint David Fincher as the next great American director. The Dark Knight was a comic book movie made by a director who hasn't really established himself in the Hollywood circles. The only time Hollywood acknowledges the difficulty of making an action film is in technical awards.

As for Gran Torino, Changeling ALWAYS seemed more like Oscar bait and, quality be damned, here it is.

People expecting their tastes to be mirrored in the Oscars might as well practice field goal kicking with Lucy. Good Grief.

The broadcast will indeed suffer and while Hugh Jackman is an interesting pick and should be very entertaining, I'm not sure if making the show look more like The Tonys is really the way to get more viewers.

[TVGuruMAN]

TDK is far and away a superior film to any of "The Lord of the Rings" pictures. Shame.

[Lance]

Yet another cycle of stories about how the Academy Awards are dropping in ratings and becoming increasingly irrelevant to the public. Leaving the Dark Knight out of the running for Best Picture was just incredibly stupid, especially as it happens to be one of the most ambitious mainstream pictures in years.

Honestly, is the Academy living in a bubble? If they nominated Return of the King, there's really no reason they should have turned up their nose at Dark Knight. These are the people who actually let Titanic have the Best Picture Award, after all...

[Patrick]

Dark Knight and WALL-E were the most ambitious and artistic mainstream films in YEARS. They are what future film makers should look to when making a summer movie. They prove mainstream films CAN be art.

And yet the academy overlooks them for The Reader, which is an arthouse film that WASN'T that good or artistic, just because its indie and TRIED to deal with the Holocaust?

This snubbing is effectively saying that mainstream films CANT be artistic at all, no matter what, and mediocre indie movies that FAILED at being good are somehow Better than mainstream art, and that's a horrible message. WAY TO GO HOLLYWOOD

[Deanne]

Bad move Oscars. How could they overlook TDK but give Heath a nod? Both went hand in hand. ABC's again going to pour their TV actors and Disney stars to try for ratings with the likes of Hannah Montana, Zac Efron and Patrick Dempsey.

[mike]

Let me sum up the oscars for you
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jophn Jonesa]

I am not surprised. Its all about "who you know". Apparently they didnt "know" the right people OR lube the right pockets!

RT
www.Privacy-Center.net

[TrainWreckIdeas]

It's not only the fact that they missed out on a chance to draw ratings with the biggest blockbuster, it's the fact that they did not nominate a great movie for the Oscars. I am very curious as to who submits these nominations.

[YDUR]

the dark night wasn't that great either, it just got a lot of hype because of Heath. Yeah the story had a twisted ending and Heath's pencil joke were great, other than that it was just another superhero movie

[Bob]

In regard to Wall-E: "[Sasha Stone of AwardsDaily.com] notes that the biggest voting bloc in the academy — actors — will have to be won over. "To them, actors drive good drama. They will probably think that it is a lovely movie and deserving of their animated-feature Oscar, whether it is so much more than that or not."

WALL·E is one of the best-reviewed films of the year so far, and a healthy $63 million opening weekend is proof its popularity reaches beyond kids to grown-up film buffs."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-07-01-wall-e-oscar_N.htm

[WWW]

I honestly didn't think that The Dark Night (or even WALL-E, if it matters to you) was all that Oscar worthy. It was good and it was Batman, but the fact that it combined all the action it's category demands with a modicum of effort on the behalf of it's creators, does not warrant an Oscar.

And as for WALL-E, I liked Kung Fu Panda better.

[Jack Henry]

It's not a great film. Get over your fascination with Mr. Ledger's death. That's what all this fawning is really about.

[tim]

did you even see any of the other films? I agree that Dark Knight was a great movie but those others were also very good. You should check them out.

[lee]

Wow, another dumbass with a blog of his uninformed opinions. You should be nominate for some kind of award 'er something.

[Christian the Agnostic]

I will be seeing Slumdog Millionaire this weekend and I will probably watch Frost/Nixon on the internet, having found a great copy. I will wait to see Benjamin Button until it comes out on DVD to rent it, it seems kind of like a waste of seven dollars to me. I will probably do the same for Milk. As for The Reader, it has yet to draw my interest.

I liked Gran Torino but I'm not sure if I would call it the best movie of the year. In my opinion, The Dark Knight definitely deserved a nomination, and a win. I have never watched the Oscars, and the asinine choices in nominations will make it even more unlikely that I will be viewing, but that's just me.

[Christian the Agnostic]

And for all the people that think I just want The Dark Knight in there because of Heath Ledgers death, when I watched the movie, I didn't think for one second about his death. If the movie would have been crap I wouldn't have liked it even with his death. I would say I have a pretty damn good taste in movies too. I'm willing to watch anything so I also see a lot of the great movies that most people don't see.

[Spencer King]

Yeah, it's no surprise that TDK didn't get an Oscar nod. It was an exciting action packed movie, but it wasn't amazing film making. While Heath Ledger's performance is the definitely Oscar worthy I don't think the movie in it's entirety is as great. The performance of Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent was enough to disqualify the movie for me.

[Jill b]

The Oscars are not a popularity contest. They have the People's Choice Awards for that. Dark Knight was not a great film; it was just a big effects movie without a decent story.

[Dapipminmonkey]

While I agree that often the academy shouldn't mirror our tastes, the fact that TDK took in over $531 Mil should give it some ground for being nominated. Granted the entire award shouldn't be over dollars and cents but it gives a good gauge for how the public viewed the movie.

[bob]

Ok while I agree that the Dark Knight should be a lock for best picture and best director, you can't discount those other films. Slumdog is awesome, and to be honest, it's an uplifting film during some pretty crappy times which is what we could all use about now.

I'm not saying the Dark Knight should have been snubbed but those films deserve nominations too, so don't throw a temper-tantrum.

[BrandoncLyon]

If you look at the film and heath ledgers portrayal of the joker it really was riveting. Never before have I loathed a character more. I felt true hatred for the character which would definately justify his support actor nod. But that also comes in part to the director, Christopher Noland didnt get a nod.

I watched the other films, Milk is the only one that I really agree with. I feel the Reader was tossed in because it delt with the holocaust but was not that great of a movie.

The directing, the acting, the cinemetography in TDK were all top notch, but i feel it got the comicbook movie snub in this case.

[Adrian]

Dakr Knight was poorly edited and the plot was all over the place. I can't beleive people are up in arms about it not getting a best picture nod.

[rockman]

I think Dakr Knight really was poorly edited, I haven't seen it though. But Dark Knight was awesome! The best picture ever!

[wordsarelouder]

Sounds like Indie/Artsy movies are now the only good movies in the world. Heaven Forbid we have a good action movie come out every once and awhile.

Let's be honest, I found Benjamin Button to be an interesting story. BUT I was filled with joy at watching a Mad Clown ruin Gothem City.

I think that TDK deserves a nomination, it should be in the running, no reason for it to be put in the cold.

Maybe they didn't want to idolize the level of insanity that Ledger pulled off...

ANYONE WANT TO SEE A MAGIC TRICK?

[Mace Moneta]

They still have academy awards? Really? Who watches them?

I stopped watching award shows when I realized they systematically ignored those that excelled and recognized those that sniffed their hind-quarters.

You want great movies, TV programs and music? Ignore everything that the Oscars, Emmys and Grammys recognize.

[Chet]

The Oscars will do just fine this year. The problem with last year viewers totals had to do with the writers being on strike. They did not have time to prepare a good show.

[andy]

1. This article seems to say that a good movie depends on its box office performance. Big mistake. Not only is that a bad indicator, its a crass move and makes you look like an uncultured whiner.

2. The Dark Knight wasn't that great of a movie. It was good, but it's definitely not Oscar-worthy. The biggest, most glaring problem is how Christian Bale's Batman voice was uncomfortably raspy for the entire movie without reprieve. Also, no character had the right amount of depth. Batman had a painful amount of emo angry-at-the-world in him. That's it. Nothing else. The Joker was half crazy half homicidal. That's it. Nothing else. Then there's all the little weird "artistic" additions that people seem to have forgotten since Batman Begins. Crazy fantastical military hardware for Batman. A strong compulsion to go way too far into detail while explaining the plot, almost as if telling the viewers that they aren't smart enough for the film. An overly dramatic build-up to the climax that is always solved by throwing money, and by association, technology at it. And I'm not even going to discuss why the mayor had more eye-liner on than a Vegas burlesque show.

[Ben]

I'm a movie elitist through and through. A lot of the shit that comes pouring out of Hollywood is an insult to our intellects. It's all so formulaic and retarded. Finally a summer block-buster worth going to see, not just big explosions, but some actual depth of story and character. A movie that appeals to the masses with out pandering to our simpler side. I go to movies to be entertained and with some of the better movies I actually end up thinking about an issue. The Dark Knight delivered on both fronts and this is how Hollywood repays it's own? Lame. I won't be watching and you can take that to the bank.

[James]

Idiotic move by the Academy. I won't be watching this year.

[IsWas]

The Academy has been, is and will always be incompetent. The Dark Knight should have at least been nominated for best director (I despise the academy's trend of nominating best pictures/best directors necessarily in tandem). Best cinematography is a nice consolation, because it is a visually stunning film. Wall-E should have been nominated for best picture because, animated or not, it represents one of the most enthralling love stories ever told. The next time anyone sees a movie with almost no dialogue convey so much emotion, get back to me. Burn After Reading should have been nominated for best screenplay or perhaps best director. Also, I am a big film score buff and the Academy hasn't gotten that right since 2004 (Jan A.P. Kaczmarek for Finding Neverland). Defiance is the best of the nominees, but TCON: Prince Caspian, The Dark Knight, and Quantum of Solace are all better than the nominated works. Oh, wait, those are tent poles, so they don't qualify. I don't care if the movie was poor, the score should stand on its own (Prince Caspian would be my choice). They really have become irrelevant.

And for the ignorami who keep stating that The Dark Knight is only considered good by its fan because of Ledger's death, nice attempt at being a dissenting opinion, but you're just being fools.

[Terrance]

"1. This article seems to say that a good movie depends on its box office performance. Big mistake. Not only is that a bad indicator, its a crass move and makes you look like an uncultured whiner. "

Straw man argument, read the article again without the lens of flunky film student rage.

Furthermore, even if that's all that the article was saying, would not movies like Titanic and Return of the King provide sufficient precedent?

[randpat]

Like what most are saying, but TVguruMan should probably stick to TV. The Lord of the Rings trilogy (extended versions) are the best films ever made in the history of cinema.

[Fausttt]

Thank god, I have been slowly losing faith in the academy over the years. I was convinced they were going to give TDK an oscar nod. This relieves me to see they didn't.

As mentioned previously. . it just WASN'T THAT GOOD OF A MOVIE.

I know many may consider that blasphemous, but watch it again and pretend it isn't a batman movie. Yeah it really does suck that badly. The plot had more holes than a net and too often they relied on partial deus-ex-machina to solve their problems.

how is the joker going to have leverage over ALL the criminal groups? VOILA! make the joker SOMEHOW able to magically have ALL their money in 1 place (in physical form no less).

Hmm, escorting a maximum security prisoner in an armored vehicle and notice a burning firetruck blocking your path (obviously a regular occurrence in Gotham)? Why not go down into a dark tunnel that seemingly has no security at all?

Can't figure out how to let the good guy win in the end? Why not make up some ridiculous technology all of a sudden (it was secretly being developed for YEARS!), even though this same technology you MADE violates your own code of ethics.

There were plenty more idiotic elements of this movie, but I don't have a copy of it to watch at the moment to refresh myself. needless to say this was NO amazing feat in the film world. It was a barely passable action flick with a bad storyline and poor acting (for everyone except ledger).

Thank you academy for seeing this movie for what it was.

[dweeb]

I'll definitely not be tuning in, I have better things to do. When they pull crap like this, and have all these films I've not seen (nor plan too) then I feel like I don't know what they are talking about, its inside baseball.

[Curt StockShotsNow.com]

Why would they do that? However, I don't think it will effect the ratings. I doubt that anyone will not watch just because they are mad that Batman wasn't nominated. Do you think it will affect the viewership?

[Perry Crann]

There is an incredible amount of lobbying and politics surrounding Oscar nominations.The idea that the best movies are always elevated to the Oscar stage is so not true. Wonderful movies are overlooked because they do not have the money to lobby the academy members and pay for the "for your consideration " campaigns .

A while back Jay Leno did a great bit during the Oscars. He went out on the street and asked people if they had seen the movies on the nomination list. Most people had not. He then listed the most cheesy & frivolous movies on the year and almost everyone interviewed had seen them. Granted this was edited for television but there is allot of truth there.

[MrJeff]

If big box office = Oscar nominations then the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movies would have mantels full of plaudits.

The Academy is attempting to "move out" older members, by changing rules so that voters must have had SOME involvement in the industry in the past 20+ years (yes, there were people voting who had not made a movie since 1975 or earlier). By the same token, they are inviting younger talent to JOIN the Academy.

But let's be realistic - we're talking about a (mostly) grey-haired leaning-liberal group of less than 6,000 people. They will always vote in THEIR interest. TV is still seen as a bastard stepchild to many of them, and they are not going to vote for "big earners" just to garner ratings for a TV broadcast.