DVDizzy.com

And to be honest, I'm a little sore about it. Don't get me wrong; I really liked Rango, but I just felt that Kung Fu Panda 2, for a sequel, had a much more endearing story that really pulled me in.

Poor, poor Dreamworks. Even if you get a shot, it seems that you can never win. I mean, come on. This just really isn't fair! The only time a Dreamworks movie has ever won was with Shrek and that was eleven years ago.

_________________
<a href='http://www.mickeypath.com/'>
<img src='http://www.mickeypath.com/id/1344409238.png'>
</a>

ten, actually

_________________

If Dreamworks released How to Train Your Dragon in any other year, it would have basically swept the board as far as animation is concerned.

_________________
Fountain of Thought - My views on cinema past and present

But, this is the first time Nickelodeon has won. Aren't you happy for them?

Besides, if Gore Verbinski winning leads to more live-action filmmakers entering the animation pool, I'm all for it. That and Rango was my favourite of the three nominees I saw.

_________________
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I'm sure they're content with the Annies they've been winning in the past...

well, the only 2 films (out of what, 15?!?!?!) which were worth an Oscar from DreamWorks were Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon. If they wanted to go for the Oscars they should have tried harder. It's entirely fair. I guess they were just unlucky that their good films had strong competition

as for this year, I will be watching Kung Fu Panda 2 more often than Rango, but Rango was original and something different. It was worth the Oscar

But Kung Fu Panda 2 was a little more in-depth. Rango's kind of the typical Western film. Okay, maybe not typical, but still...

The fact that they didn't give Winnie the Pooh (which was so simple and yet completely nostalgic) a shot just proves how much of pretentious snobs they are: http://anvilmationstudios.deviantart.co ... -287314434

And the fact that none of the Harry Potter movies didn't win any of the Oscars that they got nominated for, let alone never got a higher status type of nomination like Best Picture, is even more baffling and unfair. Those movies have a great blend of humor, drama, action, suspense, etc. All those pretentious buttheads give the HP films is a bunch of middle fingers and I'm assuming they just have their heads up their asses!

_________________
<a href='http://www.mickeypath.com/'>
<img src='http://www.mickeypath.com/id/1344409238.png'>
</a>

You really think Winnie is a movie to win the Oscar? Why? It's cute, it's well done, yes, but nothing great. Plus, it's the same recipe over and over again.

I'm not too baffled about the HP films. As a series it was great, but it had a lot of flaws. I could be biased from the books, but I don't think they would be worth the award...

You know, the Harry Potter movies aren't the ONLY movies that have flaws.

_________________
<a href='http://www.mickeypath.com/'>
<img src='http://www.mickeypath.com/id/1344409238.png'>
</a>

I liked the Harry Potter series, but I wouldn't nominate any of them for Best Picture. Would you say I'm a pretentious snob?

As for Winnie the Pooh not getting nominated, maybe they possibly were more charmed by the other one hour-long hand drawn film (I'm, of course, referring to A Cat in Paris, a film I don't think anybody on this forum has seen yet). Besides, Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery won the Best Animated Short Oscar and like that category, the nominees for Best Animated Feature are selected by animators. With the possible exception of maybe John K, I would hardly call animators snobs. I imagine a good chunk of the animation branch has worked at Disney and some members probably worked on the film.

It was a competitive category this year as Arthur Christmas and Rio were also well-received films that didn't get nominated. I have heard almost nothing but praise for Chico & Rita and A Cat in Paris.

In regards to Rango vs. Kung Fu Panda 2, while I found Nelson succeeded in topping the first one, I felt Verbinski brought such a charm, humour and whimsy to the story of Rango. It had an almost Looney Tunes feel to it, which I loved and the animation was absolutely stunning. I especially looked how the animals looked like road-kill and the homage to Chinatown and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly were also thrown in, while still creating a fresh experience.

The Annies also preferred Rango, so it's not just an Oscar thing. Besides, it's not out of the question that some voters selected Kung Fu Panda 2 on their ballots and I'm sure plenty chose Pooh during the nomination process. It's simply a case of them having a different opinion than you and that's not a problem.

Plenty of people were upset that Michael Fassbender didn't get nominated in Best Actor, but more voters probably preferred Gary Oldman. Same with the Best Animated Feature category. Is it really hard to believe the majority preferred Winnie the Pooh over A Cat in Paris? If I was in the branch, I wouldn't have voted for Puss in Boots, but there it is and I'm not complaining.

And like I said, while DreamWorks may not have won their second Oscar, Nickelodeon has won their first, which was nice to see. DreamWorks will have plenty of opportunities in the future, as will Blue Sky (the studio responsible for my favourite animated film of the year, but I'm not boo-hooing because Rio wasn't nominated in the category).

_________________
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I didn't say that, nor did I say that the nominees should be flawless films.
Look at it this way. See the list of nominees and winners of the Best Picture award in the last decade. even if a HP film was nominated, would it have a chance to win? And aren't these films (or at least 90% of them) better than the HP films?

Btw, I could debate how worthy of the Best Special Effects nominations they are. Some effects looked great, others didn't.