Slumdog Millionaire Takes Home 8 Oscars

Ben Burtt was robbed of his overly deserved Oscars for the sound on Wall-E, and Heath Ledger's Joker unsurprisingly got a posthumous statue, but the big winner for the night was Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire with Picture, Director, Song, and five others. Go ahead movie nerds: talk amongst yourself.

Comments

Where were these noms?

[justthinkit]

Comedy:
Definitely, Maybe
Ghost Town

Documentaries:
Flow
National Geographic's In The Womb series

Drama:
Red

Re:Where were these noms?

[drinkypoo]

Where were these noms?

They forgot to send hookers and blow to the Oscar committee. The parties responsible have been sacked.

Re:Where were these noms?

[El Gigante de Justic]

Also, the Oscar's don't do awards for movie categories like the Golden Globes do, other than Documentary, so there there are no Comedy or Drama nominations.

Re:Where were these noms?

[LionMage]

The movie Red didn't see wide distribution after its release. I saw a trailer for it, but I think it was shown at a single movie theater in the entire Phoenix metropolitan area for a grand total of one week. Brian Cox just doesn't have the star power of Sean Penn and the rest, so he's under-appreciated.

Fact is, you call this film a nominee, but I can't find mention anywhere that it even got considered for Oscar nomination. (By contrast, I had heard early reports that The Dark Knight was considered for Best Picture, though it missed out on that nomination. I suppose that would be an overly ambitious goal for a comic book adaptation, which few people take seriously still to this day.)

Re:Where were these noms?

[MightyMartian]

Fact is, you call this film a nominee, but I can't find mention anywhere that it even got considered for Oscar nomination. (By contrast, I had heard early reports that The Dark Knight was considered for Best Picture, though it missed out on that nomination. I suppose that would be an overly ambitious goal for a comic book adaptation, which few people take seriously still to this day.)

Which is why the Oscars are, in a way, a bit of a joke. A great movie is a great movie, regardless of whether it's based on a comic book, it's original language is non-English, it's a comedy or an action flick. The Academy Awards are a perverse combination of snobbery, nationalism and "touch me feel me" navel gazing.

Re:Where were these noms?

[niktemadur]

Which is why the Oscars are, in a way, a bit of a joke.

You think??? Within a twenty year time span, from 2000 to 1980, I count eleven so-so films that won the Oscar, contrasted by much better ones that were nominated but did not win.

1999 - Shakespeare In Love instead of The Thin Red Line.
1996 - The English Patient instead of Fargo.
1995 - Braveheart instead of Apollo 13.
1994 - Forrest Gump instead of Pulp Fiction.
1990 - Dances With Wolves instead of Goodfellas.
1988 - Rain Man instead of Mississippi Burning.
1985 - Out Of Africa instead of Kiss Of The Spider Woman.
1983 - Terms Of Endearment instead of The Right Stuff.
1981 - Chariots Of Fire instead of Raiders Of The Lost Ark (or Reds).
1980 - Ordinary People instead of Raging Bull.

Granted, in the same span they occasionally got it right (Silence Of The Lambs, Unforgiven), some years all nominees are weak (1989, when Driving Miss Daisy got the nod), while some years seem to be a matter of personal preference (I thought LA Confidential was a much better film in 1997 than Titanic, for example).

However, any "academy" that fails to even nominate 2001: A Space Odyssey (although Kubrick got a Best Director nomination) or snubs Citizen Kane, is little more than an hermetic scene that celebrates itself and should be taken with a grain of salt.

What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[ActusReus]

Britney kicks off her latest world tour on March 3... post an article about that while you're at it.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Shakrai]

I was wondering that myself. My girlfriend made me sit through part of the Oscars last night and at one point some clueless celebrity started gushing about how the Oscar is the "most prestigious award in the world". Really? More prestigious than the Nobel prize? More prestigious than the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross?

Give me a fucking break. I'll never understand the fascination that a lot of my countrymen have with Hollywood and the culture surrounding movie stars/other celebrities.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Spazztastic]

In that clueless celebrity's world, it is the the "most prestigious award in the world." Do you really think she will ever get the Nobel Prize? Highly doubtful. Just let her enjoy her clueless life and go on with yours.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[FooGoo]

Celebrities live in a different world. It's kinda like a snow globe filled with lithium and cocaine. In their world it is the most prestigious award.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[wisty]

Even more than the AVN awards?

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Ogive17]

Why do you know when Brittany's tour kicks off? Hell, I didn't know she was out of the loony bin yet.

And I don't see why people are bitching about a thread about the Oscars. Plenty of nerds enjoy movies. If you do not like movies, you could simply NOT CLICK ON THE FUCKING ARTICLE. That's what I do when I come across an article that doesn't interest me, I don't read it (and therefore don't create a whiney post complaining about it either).

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[spydabyte]

I personally enjoy the Oscars and obviously I read Slashdot. Sure there are a lot of clueless actors and actresses out there, but I truly believe some of the work they do is incredible and no one else in the world can come close to the product they create.So I completely agree that the Oscars should be as noteworthy as they are.

Now I found Barbra Walters and the Red Carpet bit pretty irritating, but at least they stopped cutting people off (for the first 2 hours I voluntarily watched).

I personally am embarrassed at the response this article received on Slashdot. I'd like to see the response if the new Star Trek gets an Oscar. "Oh man now they're sweet!"

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

The Oscars are a bunch of MAFIAA types stroking themselves, and assuming (with the complicity of the media) that the entire fucking world cares about it.

When we give/get awards, it's in the family.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously implying that the Nobel Prize has any meaning whatsoever? Seriously?
Do you really believe that the Nobel Prize is anything but a circle-jerk, just like the Oscars?

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[zappepcs]

The women in my house have a tradition for Oscars (and award shows in general) They like to open a bottle of wine (each) and sit back and giggle at the movie industry players. That alone is enough to put me off watching any of it. I didn't watch so finding out that Ledger won, and slumdog won... well I figure that I missed out on nothing. period.

When there are items in such award shows that actually have something to do with 'news for nerds' then I'll watch. Since there was no news for nerds in the awards show I'd not expect to see it covered here. Please. We all know how to get to Digg or Reddit. FFS, we're nerds, we know where that kind of shit news can be found.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[zappepcs]

The Nobel Prize awards would mean more if they were not given out until there was someone of worth to award it to. Instead they are given out regularly, as if the world continuously produces people worthy of the awards. The more often they give them out, the more it is like being one of the 40 million high school queens at the prom each year. Now, if there were only one prom Queen for all the high schools in the USA each year... now that would be special.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I quite agree with you.
I actually lost any respect for the Nobel Prize a long time ago, shortly after first learning about them and being mighty impressed,
I went through the list of the laureates.
To my surprise, I did not find Gandhi.
Instead I found that he was nominated five times, but was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now I can accept the last omission, as that was within the rules of only living people being eligible and he was assassinated after being nominated for the fifth time, but I could never accept the other four times.
There have been many other problems with the awards and omissions of them, but I still feel that this was the worst blunder of them all.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[eln]

The Nobel Prize has been inflated in the minds of some (with help from the media, no doubt) to be far more than it is. It is not designed to be awarded to people who just make mind-blowing life-changing discoveries. Nobel's will specifically stated that it be awarded annually:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind

It then goes on to stipulate what categories each award is for.

So, the Nobel Prize was originally intended to simply be sort of a "man of the year" competition in various fields, and was supposed to pertain to work that was done during the preceding year. In that spirit, Gore's prize was proper, since he was being awarded for stuff he had done during the previous year, while those prizes given to scientists for discoveries made years or decades earlier were technically in violation of Nobel's original intent, since it was supposed to reward only work done during the preceding year.

If the Nobel Prize was awarded as a "Man of the Year in x field" rather than "person who made earth-shattering discoveries in x field", you wouldn't have near the controversy it always seems to generate.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[frission]

maybe they should have said most recognized. i think more people can tell you who won what oscar last year, than they can tell you who the nobel prize, and for what...

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[truthsearch]

I truly believe some of the work they do is incredible and no one else in the world can come close to the product they create

Directors, special affects artists, and maybe writers, yes. But good acting isn't hard to come by. Acting is pretty easy, and there are lots of great actors who are never given the opportunity to work with the best directors, producers, or writers.

As for the Oscars, I think the opening act was insulting. A room full of millionaires gave a standing ovation to a musical bit making fun of the economic hardships we're facing. Talk about living in a bubble...

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[The Moof]

I think Brian Williams put it best about the Oscars during Friday's newscast:
"It's the day where the west coast pretends what they do actually matters."

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Sinbios]

Are you honestly incapable of considering the possibility that the context there is "within the movie industry"? Your nerd bias is seeping through the pores.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[CohibaVancouver]

Acting is pretty easy

I dunno about that... I've got some 'actor friends,' I've seen a lot of plays and movies and TV shows and I don't know / haven't seen too many people who could have rivalled Sean Penn's performance in "Milk" or Winslet's in "The Reader..." and on it goes. Utterly brilliant.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Bobfrankly1]

And yet, here you are, discussing it...

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[MightyMartian]

Actually, I heard the Oscars once described as the Gay Superbowl.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Nicolay77]

The fact that Clockwork Orange did not win for Best Movie and the boring and predictable French Connection won is enough for me to dismiss most of the winners.

However, it surprised me this year and I think the winners are mostly good actors/movies. (Specially because 'Benjamin Button' did not won Best Movie.)

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Draek]

A friendly suggestion when talking about the Nobel Prize: forget there was ever such a thing as a Literature or Peace prize, they're nothing more than a tool to give political favors, and have been so for a *really* long time.

Once you do that and remember there's no Nobel for Mathematics (for personal reasons concerning Nobel himself), most of the controversies and omissions quietly fall to the background, and the Nobel becomes respectable again.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[asdfman2000]

Good thing they gave the peace prize to Al Gore then. After all, slide shows go a long way toward promoting peace than Pacifism.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[rahvin112]

The Oscars have nothing to do with the MPAA or RIAA. The Oscars are the entertainers themselves nominating and awarding themselves. The votes are from current members of the actors and director's guilds (unions) and other members of the entertainment industry. They have nothing to do with the AA's other than the fact that the actor's and director's don't get paid when you pirate.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Vinegar Joe]

Do you really think she will ever get the Nobel Prize?

Why not? Al Gore did.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[the_other_chewey]

shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind

Yeah, in its current form, that prize isn't at all what Nobel intended it to be: A prize to help younger, still
aspiring scientist with their work. They reeeeealy stretch the term "preceding year" when awarding the prize
for discoveries made multiple decades in the past.

Sure, groundbreaking discoveries can take some time to be recognised as such, and I symathise with the committee,
but this has really become quite ridiculous.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Haoie]

Ah, but they don't televise the Noble Prize, do they?

Oh and who really cares about contributions to mankind's goodwill, when you can see celebs in their frocks? Huck huck.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[squidfood]

It's kinda like a snow globe filled with lithium and cocaine.

Like, wasn't that just all a dream or something?

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Provocateur]

Now, if there were only one prom Queen for all the high schools in the USA each year... now that would be special.

Especially if they each had to pair off and fight and claw in a mud pit for that oh-so-elusive crown, ripping their uniforms in the process...

What was that thing about Slashdot discussions, again?

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[theskunkmonkey]

Seriously, for me they lost any credibility when E.T. won best special effects over Blade Runner.

I mean, really? A midget in a rubber suit on a flying bicycle? Holy craptastic!

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[westlake]

When we give/get awards, it's in the family.

Meaning that no one outside the family knows you exist - or has the slightest notion of what you have accomplished.

When you rant on about the "MAFIAA' you do so in an echo chamber.

While the producers of WALL-E and The Dark Knight are out speaking directly to an immense global audience.

Which is why your new video card or motherboard has HDMI out - a single cable and a single path for protected audio and video.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[onedotzero]

It's all about perceived and purported stereotypes:

Politics: boring!
Cinema: Fun!
Law: incomprehensible!
Soap operas: addictive!
Economics: complicated!
Reality TV: Best thing ever!

I reckon 'they' are quite happy with these stereotypes. It lets them run the world while the majority sit and absorb rubbish.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Viridae]

That Ghandi was never given a Nobel prize was one has been cited as a mistake by the committee that decides these things. They are unfortunately never awarded posthumously.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Kotukunui]

Directors, special affects artists, and maybe writers, yes. But good acting isn't hard to come by. Acting is pretty easy, and there are lots of great actors who are never given the opportunity to work with the best directors, producers, or writers.

Yes, acting IS easy...

However, GOOD acting is hard work and requires talent and commitment.

I'm not breathless with excitement over the results of the Oscars but I do realise that those nominated are usually there for a good reason.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[mattack2]

E.T. used animatronics and puppets.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[DecoyMG]

shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind

Yeah, in its current form, that prize isn't at all what Nobel intended it to be: A prize to help younger, still aspiring scientist with their work.

Is that what Nobel intended? Do you have a quote to that effect from his will? As far as interpreting the "in the preceding year" in the context of science, often the award is given for discoveries that have yielded results that might not have been envisioned when the discoveries were made. The siRNA related award a few years ago had really only come into it's own after several years of development, perhaps qualifying it for "conferring the greatest benefit on mankind" (in medicine at least) only several years after the initial discovery.

Also, as I understand it, early awards were given to findings that proved dubious at best (cancer caused by worms? OH YEAH). Thus, the switch to see which findings age gracefully.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Son of Byrne]

god damn it. You'd think that you would know this by now, but shockingly, I still see this stupid word being bandied about by morons (like you). Look, I'm tired of people using a word like "pirate" to describe what amounts to copying a movie (whether owned, borrowed, or otherwise) for personal viewing. I've got news for you jacko, that's not fucking *pirating* any fucking thing, so stop saying it is. I really dislike being the nasty jerk saying nasty things like this on a site like this, but come on, you and people like you need to wake up.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Rakarra]

If the peace process had worked like the Nobel committee had hoped, the awards would have been well-deserved. Unfortunately, the Nobel committee jumped the gun, and the Middle East peace process collapsed, as it always does.

Re:What the FUCK is this doing on Slashdot?!?

[Rakarra]

Having seen both, I think E.T. deserved its win over Blade Runner for effects (though I think Poltergeist had them both beat). Blade Runner had amazing cinematography though, and I think that's the award it deserved.

bye slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that really did it.

cheese with cheese

[NoMass]

Every year that goes by the Oscars become more of a farce.
Slumdog was the most cheesy and predictable film i have seen in years. The screenplay seemed like it was written by a 3 year old, the acting was horrendous, and you knew exactly how the film would end after about 8 minutes into it.

Re:cheese with cheese

[Anonymous Coward]

Every year that goes by the Oscars become more of a farce.
Slumdog was the most cheesy and predictable film i have seen in years. The screenplay seemed like it was written by a 3 year old, the acting was horrendous, and you knew exactly how the film would end after about 8 minutes into it.

And that's what makes it such a revolutionary film by Hollywood standards. All the other movies literally were written by 3 year olds, and you knew how they ended just by watching the previews.

Re:cheese with cheese

[SputnikPanic]

Yeah, it was apparent from early on that Slumdog was going to clean up, and you knew that Hollywood would give Penn Best Actor based more on who he played than on the merits of his performance, so there really weren't many surprises. I didn't see many of the movies this year, so it's not like I was really rooting for one movie over another, but I do have to say that I was disappointed that Wall-E didn't get an award for best screenplay. To have so much of a movie be totally without dialog, to have so much of the communication be with "body" language and sounds, and still have the film work? That's genius. That's a screenplay that much harder to craft than one based on a real-life personage (Milk).

Re:cheese with cheese

[Trent Hawkins]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button also did not deserve to win anything. God damn Forest Gump clone Time Vampire...

Re:cheese with cheese

[rjlouro]

And why exactly a predictable film can't be great?

I quite agree that it doesn't deserve so many awards, and for me it's a 7/10 (didn't like how they switched from explaining how he knew the answers to the love story), but your points are highly debatable. Good acting doesn't make a good film (see Doubt), neither any of the other components in separate, it's the sum of all parts that makes it, and they don't have to be all good. It helps, but it's not mandatory.

Oscar awards are an expression of how the academy sees film, not public in general. I follow oscar awards for quite some time, and the main reason is too see films that I otherwise would ignore.

Not news for nerds.

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'm not going to enter an extended rant. But I do wish this kind of story didn't make the front page on /.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[The Dancing Panda]

Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[DoofusOfDeath]

Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.

Okay, fair point. But I just figured that /. was implicitly News for Technology Nerds; not other kinds of nerdiness.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[GF678]

I dunno, I actually enjoy news articles like this sometimes. It's a welcome surprise from all the Linux zealotry/Microsoft bashing this site is used to.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[0xdeadbeef]

You read words you did not want to read. HA HA!

You did it again! HA HA!

Re:Not news for nerds.

[Spazztastic]

Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.

Okay, fair point. But I just figured that /. was implicitly News for Technology Nerds; not other kinds of nerdiness.

We had this same argument during the earthquake in China over the summer. If you don't want to see this on the front page, use the firehose to mod it down. If you're using the beta index, mod it down so you don't see it. It's News For Nerds. Stuff that Matters. To many, this does matter. Not all of us participate in online forums (specifically that work doesn't block during the day) and it's nice to discuss it.

Just because this article doesn't pertain to your interests doesn't mean you have to come in and troll it. There's also many kinds of Technologies that go behind making movies from the start to finish.

I don't have any interest in the Mars Lander, but I don't go in trolling ABOUT THOSE DAMN NASAHOLES and how JUNIOR CANT READ GIVE THEM MONEY. Get over yourself and scroll down, it's not that big of an inconvenience to ignore one article.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[laejoh]

Hey, I know I'm obese but you don't have to rub it into my face you insensitive clod!

Re:Not news for nerds.

[pzs]

What is this new trend for everybody who has any kind of interest calling themselves "nerds" or "geeks"? I heard some beautiful person on TV the other day describing themselves as a "Musical Theatre Geek". WTF?

My current theory is that this is a nice way of bragging that "I know loads about this". By saying you're a "geek" it makes it sound like you're being humble about it.

Seriously though, I was proud of being a geek/nerd when it meant being a computery person who is passionate about science and technology and who therefore sometimes seems odd to people who are not into those things. However, if the word "nerd" has come to mean anybody with any kind of interest, it seems a bit of a lame and meaningless term.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[GundamFan]

And yet it doesn't say Technology on the site header.

What would be appropriate content for the entertainment department in your opinion? I'm honestly asking here, as a movie/tech/gaming nerd I'm curious.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[genner]

I dunno, I actually enjoy news articles like this sometimes. It's a welcome surprise from all the Linux zealotry/Microsoft bashing this site is used to.

Bah....in the old days we would add Mac Fanboyism to the mix and call it a night. We were happier back then.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[rmadmin]

I concur. The terms geek and nerd have gone too mainstream. I used to get made fun of because I was a nerd, now everyone calls themselves a geek or a nerd. "Look i got a new [TV|ipod|cellphone], I don't know how to hook it up and can barely use it, but I'm such a geek for getting it!" The hell with that, screw all you posers. Go back to being wiggers or something.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[mcgrew]

You must not come here often, or you get your information from uncyclopedia. Posts saying anything negative about Microsoft are almost always modded flamebait, especially when true. Say something negative about Linux and you're more likely to get a comment reply educating you.

I had six stories posted to the front page last year, eight the year before that, and IIRC not one dealt with Linux or Microsoft. If you haven't submitted any stories, don't bitch about what's posted.

That said, I agree completely with the GP. This does not belong on slashdot.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[drinkypoo]

Movie nerds are among the largest classes of nerds, dude.

There are already tons of sites for those people. The difference between a movie nerd and a real nerd is that movie nerds have dedicated huge portions of their brains to meaningless, typically mindless entertainment. They have memorized the names, faces, shoe sizes, and favorite foods of people who could not give one tenth of one shit about them and if they met them on the street would probably tell them they smell funny.

Please, please keep the non-geek-interest entertainment schlock off of slashdot lest it become ain't-it-hard-to-read-news.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[drinkypoo]

Posts saying anything negative about Microsoft are almost always modded flamebait, especially when true. Say something negative about Linux and you're more likely to get a comment reply educating you.

This hasn't been my experience at all. What I have noticed is that if you say the same old boring shit against Microsoft, or if you say some shit against Microsoft that just isn't true (e.g. completely fucking ignorant psuedotechnical examinations of Windows that purport to discover flaws which aren't really flaws while ignoring the real issues) then you are likely to get modded down by a community tired of hearing people make shit up.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[Mad Leper]

Are we talking about the same Slashdot ?? All I see are self-righteous anti-Microsoft and smug pro-Linux/FOSS posts.

Slashdot ceased to be a proper "news for nerds" site some time ago when the FOSS community started using it as a prime astroturfing territory. I still visit for entertainment and to bait the Linux weenies on occasion...

Re:Not news for nerds.

[Wescotte]

Seriously though, I was proud of being a geek/nerd when it meant being a computery person who is passionate about science and technology and who therefore sometimes seems odd to people who are not into those things.

<nelson>ha ha</nelson>

Re:Not news for nerds.

[SputnikPanic]

Geekdom has always had its camps: you've got your computer geeks, music theater geeks, comic book geeks, fantasy geeks, and so on. Basically if you were interested in something that wasn't considered cool (i.e., something other than cars, sports, cheerleading, binge drinking), you were a geek of one stripe or another.

Of course now, in some sort of wicked irony, it's cool to be a geek. Part of it is a reflection that so much of our lives have become so closely intertwined with technology and gadgets. For example, around here there's a nice restaurant whose bar area has become a very popular spot to take in Sunday football games. Just about every NFL game can be seen on one screen or another, and the beer is pretty good, so if football is your thing, you could definitely do worse. What's interesting is that the folks who are deeply involved in watching the games are also multitasking on their uber-phones or netbooks: they're tracking their fantasy football stats and trash-talking (trash-texting, actually) the guys in their league. With gadgets being ubiquitous now, the cultural valuation of having technical know-how has shifted.

Another thing that's interesting is that geeks have really taken over pop culture too. Graphic novels are now mainstream. Video games are outselling DVDs. When you go to the movies to see the big summer flick, chances are it's science fiction or fantasy of based on a comic book.

All in all, it's a pretty good time to be a geek.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[NekSnappa]

geek
Slang.
-noun
1. a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.
2. a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)
3. a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken.

nerd
-noun Slang.
1. a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.
2. an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit: a computer nerd.

Most words have multiple meanings. That doesn't mean that the one you associate it with, is the one some one else means when they use it. Maybe that beautiful person meant that they bite the heads off chickens while playing the accordion. (see definition 3 for geek above)

Re:Not news for nerds.

[SputnikPanic]

[T]he words "geek" and "nerd" exchanged status positions. A nerd was still socially tainted, but geekdom acquired its own cool counterculture. A geek possessed a certain passion for specialized knowledge, but also a high degree of cultural awareness and poise that a nerd lacked.

From The Alpha Geeks, an op-ed piece by David Brooks. It's actually an interesting read -- worth checking out.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[pzs]

I suppose so. I still subscribe to the de-facto "geek-card" standard used on Slashdot.

In my view, if you don't know how to customise your bash prompt, replace the mobo in your PC, or appreciate a joke expressed as pseudo-code, you're not a geek. Call me a snob if you like.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[SputnikPanic]

I enjoy this sort of story every once in a while too. Here on Slashdot we're more than happy to talk all day about what technology is being used in making films or about Hollywood's often overzealous antipiracy efforts or any number of stories about the Watchmen movie, all of which just reinforce the fact that movies are part of our lives. So if Slashdot wants to toss in a story about the Oscars, which after all happens only once per year, I don't see it being all that big a deal. The way folks are reacting to the story, you'd think that Slashdot had just wholly subsumed the message boards of People magazine or something.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that comparatively few people saw Slumdog Millionaire. Did Slashdot run a story when LOTR: Return of the King won Best Picture, and if so, did everyone still rail against an Oscar-related story being on Slashdot?

Re:Not news for nerds.

[blind biker]

We had this same argument during the earthquake in China over the summer. If you don't want to see this on the front page, use the firehose to mod it down. If you're using the beta index, mod it down so you don't see it. It's News For Nerds. Stuff that Matters. To many, this does matter. Not all of us participate in online forums (specifically that work doesn't block during the day) and it's nice to discuss it.

First of all, I won't argue with the general point that, if one doesn't want to read a story or a thread he/she just doesn't click on it and all is fine. That said: Slashdot's motto is "News for nerds, stuff that matters". The earthquake in China is stuff that matters. The Academy Awards is bullshit that doesn't fucking matter.

And now, let me add my general view of why, while I can just scroll past this story, am slightly offended by having it on Slashdot: because I consider it a safe haven where self-absorbed pompous assholes (celebrities) have no say and no import. There are gajillion sites, shows and magazines dedicated to them - can we keep one clean of them?

Re:Not news for nerds.

[squiggleslash]

Tough call. My guess would be Fox canceling a promising new sci-fi series.

Interestingly, I suspect that such a story will be appearing soon, probably with news they'll be canceling an unpromising going-nowhere sci-fi series at the same time.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[mcgrew]

Well, here's an example. The story was Mozilla To Join EU Suit Against Microsoft. An anonymous coward (linked) said

Apple bundles Safari, Ubuntu bundles Firefox... the whole pissing contest is unneeded and a waste of time. The ONLY thing Microsoft should have to do is give an option to install/uninstall at will.

I wrote a calculator application, does this mean that I can go after Microsoft too? Or how about my custom Explorer.exe? Hell no.

Dumb as that comment was, it was modded "insightful". I answered

I haven't tried Ubantu, but I've tried several other distros including Red Hat, Suse, and Mandriva (my favorite so far). They all give you half a dozen choices of which browser to install when you install the OS.

But to answer your question, neither Ubantu nor Apple are monopolists who use their monopoly position to crush competetion. If Apple had 90% market share and abused that market share like MS does I imagine the EU would go after them as well.

That comment was modded "troll". A factual, honest answer to an ingnorant question.

In fact, about the only time I get modded "flamebait" or "troll" is when I say anything at all negative about Microsoft or the former US President or his administration.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[Jonboy X]

Graphic novels are now mainstream.

Cite?

Re:Not news for nerds.

[mcgrew]

Slashdot ceased to be a proper "news for nerds" site some time ago when the FOSS community started using it as a prime astroturfing territory

You obviously don't understand what "astroturfing" is.

Astroturf is fake grass. Astroturfing is when a company sets up a fake grassroots campaign. By definition, the FOSS community can't astroturf. FOSS is a true grassroots movement. Red hat can astroturf, but members of the FOSS community can't.

Microsoft has been caught red handed astroturfing time and time again.

See here for an answer to another commenter who asked about the same as you just did. It quotes and links an incredibly ignorant comment that was modded "insightful", and my factual answer to his stupid remark that was modded "troll".

Re:Not news for nerds.

[daveime]

Oh, I tend to blame kdawson for everything. In the long run, it saves a lot of time, as false positives are minimal.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[GundamFan]

unfortunately I have to agree that Dollhouse is doomed to cancellation. The sad part is the only thing likely to save it is the "sci-fi hooker" motif.

Why can't I just have more Firefly?(I know all the reasons but sometimes the world just isn't fair.)

Re:Not news for nerds.

[mattack2]

I was going to mention that the first person complaining should have turned off Entertainment in their customized settings.. But the sections choices apparently aren't all of the sections. e.g. Entertainment isn't listed.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[TheoMurpse]

I was proud of being a geek/nerd when it meant being a computery person who is passionate about science and technology and who therefore sometimes seems odd to people who are not into those things.

Well, nerd hasn't meant that in a very long time. I direct you to "Revenge of the Nerds," where there were copious "nerds" who didn't touch computers or technology: Booger, Toshiro, all the Mu Mu Mu girls, etc.

In fact, nerd has the etymology of a "stupid or crazy person." Geek is similar.

I think the current nerd is more of a person with a broad, deep knowledge, while a geek is someone with a specialized, deep knowledge.

For example, we have the verb "to geek out." You geek out over something when you are really interested in that thing. You don't geek out over everything. You geek out over tabletop games, MTG, Star Trek, anime, etc.

In my opinion, a "computer geek" is someone with a deep knowledge of computers, but not necessarily anything else. See the Geek Code, in which you specify certain areas you are proficient (although there is a GAT--geek of all trades--choice).

I also think nerd tends to imply a bit more social skill than geek. Then you have spaz, dork, etc., that don't necessarily have any skill, just social awkwardness.

A computer nerd would be someone who is a nerd and also likes computers. The distinction is that "computer" is a nonrestrictive adjective, while in "computer geek," "computer" is a restrictive adjective.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[penguinchris]

I made another post to this effect, in which basically I agreed with you.

We could have taken this opportunity to discuss in our own way the technical categories - the stuff most people don't even notice, like sound design, cinematography, and special effects. Unlike most of the bigger categories, they usually do a decent job awarding the technical categories.

And by the way, to others: Slumdog Millionaire really was great, and I recommend that people see it. Nerds are especially in a position to appreciate it, I think. It's vastly different from Hollywood fare, and it isn't a "heart warming rags to riches story" at all, despite what some may have you believe.

Re:Not news for nerds.

[bersl2]

Waitaminute... there's an Entertainment section?!

*does double take on URL*

Holy shit, it has its own third-level domain. When did this happen? Was I just not paying attention or something?

Re:Not news for nerds.

[Rakarra]

In addition to what the other commenter said.. I think you mean the FOSS community started using Slashdot as a prime group-think territory.

Cheers!!

[ulsci]

Slumdog is millionaire and award winner now.. think i should add "slumdog" to my Firefox dictionary..

Ledger for Best Supporting Actor

[zygotic mitosis]

The Joker is a starring role, and they know it. It doesn't seem quite right. Also, editors - you forgot a comma in Go ahead movie nerds

Re:Ledger for Best Supporting Actor

[XcepticZP]

Not only that the editor/s wrote "Talk amongst yourself". What, are "movie nerds" all schizophrenic? Did I miss a memo on that?

Re:Ledger for Best Supporting Actor

[XcepticZP]

Typo.

Not only that, but the editor/s wrote "Talk amongst yourself". What, are "movie nerds" all schizophrenic? Did I miss a memo on that?

Re:Ledger for Best Supporting Actor

[Amazing Quantum Man]

No, but I'm verklempt.

Re:Ledger for Best Supporting Actor

[bigstrat2003]

Ledger getting this award is ridiculous anyway. He did great, but in that movie alone, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Aaron Eckart, and Morgan Freeman were all better than him. He's getting the award because he died, not because he merits it.

Re:Ledger for Best Supporting Actor

[zygotic mitosis]

I apologize.

Re:Ledger for Best Supporting Actor

[The MESMERIC]

Rubbish.

When I went to see the film Batman, I was extremely impressed by the performance of the Joker and:

1- Had no idea who the actor was

2- Had no idea he had died.

Had anyone suggested he would win the Oscar - I would have replied: Great! Whoever that guy is - he is absolutely brilliant!

The other actors however paled before him. He did steal the show.

But the problem is that once he died, opinions got divided. People who haven't seen the film went to see it now with very critical pendantic eyes. Looking for - or imagining any - flaw. It's a bit like it's hard to have an unbiased jury if the accused has an article about him written in the press. Or finding a woman of another race attractive when you are racist. Or acknowledging Hitler's watercolours were incredibly beautiful

So his acting was hyped.
Making it harder to be objective.

Heath is an actor's actor. If you ever trained yourself to be one, you would appreciate the incredible talent.

But if you try to find any fault - because of some emotional bias - well you will find many.

I have a feeling that most people that think his acting was over-rated or bad, would have a second more honest / sombre opinion had he: not been famous or dead.

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[Laxitive]

Oh no! You were exposed to the same information from two different sources!

Call homeland security! This gross indecency must end!

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[Anonymous Coward]

I added this to my /etc/hosts.deny file:

entertainment.slashdot.org

but I think I got a virus because when I restarted firefox, I heard Christian Bale "Oh, GOOD for you, and how was it? I hope it was fucking good because firefox is useless now isn't it? Fuck's sake man, you're amateur..."

If you're actually interested...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscar.nominees.full.list/index.html For a proper listing of the nominees and winners. Posting AC because I don't care, but I also don't want someone to see my UID attached to this post.

Robbed for the sound oscar?

[damn_registrars]

I may be missing something, but how is it that difficult to do sound for an animated film? I would say if anyone was robbed regarding sound-related categories it was slumdog millionaire. With animation you have all the time in the world to do the sound effects any way you want. Some of the scenes in slumdog were shot on handicams in crowded slums by comparison; how many times can you redo a take with thousands of extras and still achieve some sort of continuity?

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[FatalTourist]

So animated films have no deadlines? Sound for animated or live action is often done the same way. In post. Rarely do you actually use a sound that you recorded on set (aside from dialog).

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[Benzido]

I think you are overestimating how much of a difference there is between the processes for animated and live film. Any major film now has a soundtrack that is almost entirely pieced together in the studio. Also, you hardly ever reshoot a scene because the sound was bad... you keep the take with the best visuals and fix the sound later.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[abigsmurf]

You could argue it's much much harder to do sound when none exists whereas a crowded street provides them all for you.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[gEvil (beta)]

Rarely do you actually use a sound that you recorded on set (aside from dialog).

And even a lot of dialog is either redone or touched up in post.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[pz]

Most live-action movies have overdubbed sound. Not all, but it is the norm. So the difference between a live-action film and an animated film, in terms of creating a soundtrack, is quite small. Both have massive sound effects -- in a live-action film, each footstep, each door opening, each paper crinkling, each jingle of keys, each car passing, and every single uttered syllable, is likely dubed. And even if you do have live sound (which, nominally, you do), there's lots of manipulation that needs to be done to turn it into a soundtrack. Just like with an animated film, except you lack the live sound recording.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[anomnomnomymous]

You make it sound as if there's no post-sound production in (non animated) movies: Every realised how much your ears get cheated in those?

Nonetheless, Slumdog Millionaire was an excellent movie, and I hope this extra exposure will get the whole 'orphan'-subject in the picture again. Don't think the sound was deserving an Oscar though.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[spydabyte]

Slumdog Millionaire won the Oscar for Sound Mixing. - source, TFA:

But it was "Slumdog Millionaire" that carried the evening. At one point, Resul Pookutty, who won for sound mixing, seemed overwhelmed as he accepted his Oscar.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

you keep the take with the best visuals and fix the sound later.

I sense... a great disturbance. It's as if millions of mixers, boom ops, and sound editors screamed out in frustration and were suddenly silenced.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

and every single uttered syllable, is likely dubed.

That's where you lost it. Most sound effects are dubbed, yes, but there's an entire team of people on a film set dedicated to keeping the dialogue clean and usable. Dubbed dialogue can rarely match the intensity of a real, live recording of a scene and using it almost always robs a performance of some quality.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[mzs]

I disagree. Barring anything stupid like bad sync, dubbed does not rob anything. The sound mixers can do wonders, and they do. If a producer or director wants it to sound crappy to match the feel of other footage, they can add that right back in.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[porcupine8]

From an actor's point of view, I have a hard time believing that you'd be able to get anything near the same emotions standing in front of a mic that you would in the scene, especially if there's any movement involved - the movement not only changes how you feel, it changes physically how the sounds come out of your body. They'd have to basically re-enact the scene exactly to get the same intensity of emotion - or even just the same emotion - that they'd get in the original.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[Bohnanza]

The point is that the soundtrack for WALL-E is basically nothing BUT sound effects. Truly amazing on a good sound system.

I agree that Burtt got robbed.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[Benzido]

I sense... a great disturbance. It's as if millions of mixers, boom ops, and sound editors screamed out in frustration and were suddenly silenced.

I don't mean to minimize the skill or effort involved in getting a good recording. I've done a good amount of professional sound editing myself. But nobody can deny that modern films have most of their sound painstakingly put together in a studio from various recordings and foley sources, rather than recorded in a single take on set. Film critics used to complain about the hyper-real sound in new movies, but now it is the norm.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[Hork_Monkey]

Not true. When TNT played Die Hard, I was taken aback by the quality of the dubbing when John McClain said, "Yippie kay-a, my friend."

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[TrekkieTechie]

Have you ever actually done any film work? Sound design is hugely important in achieving audience immersion -- sound designers work hard to create an aural environment, and if they fail, the film fails. End of.

WALL-E deserved the Oscar because unlike Slumdog Millionaire, it's a fantasy world. There are no Waste Allocation Load Lifters or Axioms or hover lounge chairs for the sound team to listen to and recreate; they have to come up with every single sound you hear from scratch.

And someone else already mentioned this, but it's extremely rare for any film to use 'live' sound recorded on-site -- so much so that when I did this in one of my film production student projects, I was graded down; anyone in the industry (including my professor) will tell you that's not how it's done. Essentially everything you hear in any film is created later, either by technicians recording 'wild' tracks in the real world or Foley artists recreating sounds at the studio. Either way, each individual sound is isolated on its own track (if you have a car driving down a road, at minimum there's be wind, car engine, tires on pavement, but for it to be good there'd also be birds, car radio, insects, etc.) allows the sound designer full control over the final mix of the film.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[Deltaspectre]

I'll fix them later

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

That's what I tried, and failed, to say up there. From a performing standpoint, dubbing is a very different and less authentic process than being on a set and interacting with other performers and colors the final result.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[mzs]

I see now your point. The thing is that I think that good actors are good, and that is just acting. When I watch a particularly good movie, I watch it a few times. Then I wait for the DVD and I watch the commentaries. In almost every case during the commentary there was something to the effect of, I needed to rerecord this dialogue, I am happy with how well it turned-out. If I had never heard the commentary, I would have never even noticed. In fact there are some cases where words were changed, and the effect was so good I did not notice during repeated viewings until I heard it in the commentary.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

In fact there are some cases where words were changed, and the effect was so good I did not notice during repeated viewings until I heard it in the commentary.

That's a worst-case scenario, but yes, it happens. If you're changing dialogue in post it means that you're using editing to change the script (not great,) you let your actors get way off-script and didn't realize that you missed a key bit of dialogue (bad,) or that you never got a clean recording at all and didn't schedule time with your actors for dubbing and now have to cut around your mistake (*very* bad).

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[t0rkm3]

As a sometime voice actor (mostly dramatic narration for short films) who's married to a theatre and film actress... It's all about professionalism. If you're a professional it makes no difference as to where you perform. You produce the emotional and performance characteristics that elicit the desired response from the audience.

Dubbed or not dubbed... Your job is to make it flawless.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

You got marked down for using production sound? Wtf? Unless you were doing an assignment that was solely designed to teach the creation of FX that seem natural, I really can't see why in the world that was done. I learned sound recording and design from a guy with almost 90 credits on IMDB as a sound designer and we spent tons of time studying how to get the best sound on a set/location just so you didn't *have* to build it all up later.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[ebuck]

If dubbing robs the film of it's sound quality, then they wouldn't do it in the first place. Dubbing is done to improve the sound quality, whether the improvement is the traditional signal / noise ratio, or to alter tone and volume to enhance the intensity of a scene.

While you might lose a little of the "on-site" feeling by dubbing, that's the entire point. The on-site sound sucked. If it was so superior, then there wouldn't be sound stages, dubbing, or any kind of post-shooting clean up done at all.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[TrekkieTechie]

I thought it was bullshit too, actually. A lot of the shots involved the talent running through the woods (brush, dead leaves, all that crunchy goodness), and as first-year students in an intro to film class we didn't exactly have our own Foley studio or access to a huge library of prerecorded stuff. Apparently he hadn't bothered telling us to not do that because he'd assumed no one would think to, which is kind of sad... (Even sadder is I'm the only one who did.) Ah well.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about sound quality and I'm talking about performance quality. You take all possible care to make sure that the production sound is good, because it's very difficult to replicate a performance when you're standing in a booth talking into a mic and not interacting with another actor.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[porcupine8]

I'm sure that it happens occasionally, but clearly it's out of the ordinary if they comment on it. If they regularly redubbed entire movies (or even several scenes every movie) then it wouldn't be worth noting.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[Backward Z]

Speaking as someone who worked briefly as a sound designer for a major video game studio:

From a sound designer's standpoint there's little difference. It's easy to think that a lot of the sound will come from shooting the scene, like when I take my handicam outside and shoot, I have a soundtrack automatically from the microphone, right? Turns out that soundtrack is mostly unusable, as a lot of background sounds (movement, wind, etc) will come out a ton louder than you want them to. What ends up happening is you'll rebuild all of the elements either from foley sessions or archived material and then rebuild the scene from scratch just as you would in animation.

I guess the differences would be more like in an animation, there's a lot more freedom to use strange sounds or big sounds that might seem out of place in reality. Also, not to discredit a scratch audio track when shooting a scene: sometimes it can be very useful for a sound designer to listen to the source audio to get a feel for timing or whatever that obviously isn't available when working in animation.

But really, I don't see it as very different, overall. There are no shortcuts in sound design.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[HumanEmulator]

I may be missing something, but how is it that difficult to do sound for an animated film?

First of "do sound" could mean mixing or editing. Editing includes sound design which means creating sound effects from scratch. I would argue that sound design for an animated film is more difficult because you have no recorded track from set to use as any kind of reference for what things should sound like. Especially in a movie like Wall-E where you have to create believable sounds that a non-human character communicates with.

That said, Slumdog Millionaire won for sound mixing which is closer to what you are talking about: Making the recorded sound from set coherent and flow smoothly as if it were recorded live on set in a single take. The Dark Knight won for sound editing because they created sounds for any number of things and situations that never existed in real life, but were totally believeable when heard.

Some of the scenes in slumdog were shot on handicams in crowded slums by comparison; how many times can you redo a take with thousands of extras and still achieve some sort of continuity?

The type of camera used has virtually no impact on sound recording. It's difficult to get clean vocal tracks in a crowd, but you can always go in a studio and rerecord the dialogue later if it's that bad. Of course in the shots of kids running through slums, most likely none of the sound you heard was recorded on set. (Except the occasional kid's squeal.) Remember: They don't mic door slams and footsteps. What you heard probably wasn't even recorded in India.

Re:Robbed for the sound oscar?

[Rakarra]

"Get that melon-farmer out of there!!"

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[caluml]

I added this to my /etc/hosts.deny file: entertainment.slashdot.org

hosts.deny is for listing hosts (and services) to deny connections from. You're thinking of /etc/hosts.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[cayenne8]

This Slumdog movie won all these awards?

That blows. I was rooting for Apu in the Simpson's Movie.

Much more compelling performance....

Apu was robbed!!!

What's an Oscar?

[nyvalbanat]

In any case, if it's by Microsoft I automatically hate it, and if it's for Linux I definitely love it.

Re:Browning of America

[Benzido]

OOh, how scary, a British film about Indians won an American awards ceremony! First the president, now this! Soon EVERYONE will be brown! The extinction of the goths is imminent!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[ghoul]

Would Slumdog have been even noticed had it not been made by a British Director? Thousands of movies have been made about poverty in India. They get as much attention as movies made about drugs in American cities. People deal with this shit in their everyday life and dont want to watch it when they pay to enter a theater for some relaxation. Only people who have never seen poverty get their rocks off by watching something like Slumdog. Then again probably why Rambo and Die Hard were so popular outside the States was that guns are a big deal in countries with gun control.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[clickclickdrone]

>Would Slumdog have been even noticed had it not been made by a British Director?
It nearly went straight to DVD so possibly not. However, it's the first film I can remember in years where I would hear people talking in the office, on the train etc saying 'you must go and see Slumdog'. That just doesn't happen these days so the buzz was very much word of mouth initially.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[owlnation]

Would Slumdog have been even noticed had it not been made by a British Director?

Your point is very valid. But in this case it's not the director. Danny Boyle wasn't a bankable name, or, indeed, a successful director. Or indeed, a good director. He's a hack who steals ideas from other movies. Slumdog would have been much better with a talented artist at the helm.

Note also that he had an Indian co-director who's had absolutely no credit whatsoever.

No. In this case it's the producer who got it its success-- multi-millionaire Paul Smith, realty TV hack, and expert publicist. Cashing in nicely on India.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly suggest watching Ram Gopal Verma's film "Satya" and/or Madhur Bhandarkar's "Chandni Bar"
instead of slumdog for a better exposure to the same subject.

Satya and CB portray the genuine trials and tribulations of Mumbai's different peoples without degrading or dehumanizing an entire country of people like Boyle did with slumdog.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[mzs]

Thank you for those suggestions. Slumdog was a gangster movie with a love interest and a game show hook. It is by the numbers. If it had not been set in India everyone would have seen it for what it was. I was very disappointed to see it do so well. I saw it and Coraline on Saturday and Coraline was the much better movie, and Coraline had much potential that it did not take advantage of in the closing third. As I was watching Slumdog I could not stop thinking that this movie must be incredibly offensive to Indian people, and I don't know that much about India. I am glad I am not the only since everyone I have talked to seems very strongly opposed to me when I mention my point of view.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Anonymous Coward]

..slumdog I could not stop thinking that this movie must be incredibly offensive to Indian people

It is, actually. It's an extremely racist and orientalist movie that intentionally degrades and stereotypes/scapegoats Indians in the same way that "Birth of Nation" scapegoated African-Americans, or "Africa Addio" dehumanizing Africans.

Many Indians (both native and diaspora) ranging from Salman Rushdie to Shyamal Sengupta have pointed out these things and criticized this film. Film critic Matthew Schneeberger has likewise criticized the film's stereotyping and scapegoating.

Some rich and powerful Indians who subscribe to the Marxist school of thought (and control much of India's media) have colluded with similar elements in the western-liberal media to glorify this film for the explicit purpose of cultivating racism against the Indian diaspora in western countries (whose relative success they resent).

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Hogwash McFly]

without degrading or dehumanizing an entire country of people like Boyle did with slumdog.

Can you educate me as to how Boyle did this?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Anonymous Coward]

Slumdog was a gangster movie with a love interest and a game show hook. It is by the numbers.

Oh, absolutely. I can't tell you how sick I am of the unending stream of gangster romance movies set against game shows.

As I was watching Slumdog I could not stop thinking that this movie must be incredibly offensive to Indian people, and I don't know that much about India.

How very enlightened and noble of you. I'm sure that the world's 1.1 billion Indians will sleep better knowing that you've taken time out of your day to be offended on their behalf.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[funkelectric]

It is not degrading. It depicts vibrancy, spirit, hustle and bustle. Have you actually seen it? For an interview with Loveleen Tandan, the co-director, see http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/oscars/article5772395.ece The crew that made the film very much seems to have lived and worked together as a team. Storytelling is universal and knows no boundaries, and movies are not tourism commercials. Have you seen trainspotting, a movie more in the director's backyard? I think it is pretty impressive that Slumdog went on to win Oscar accolades, and that those voting looked beyond their own backyard. I'll make sure to watch the movies you mention though.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[cptnapalm]

One possible reason why no one has said "you must go and see Slumdog" before is because never before has a movie been called slumdog.

All, jackassery on my part aside, nobody flipped you knew flipped out over Dark Knight?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[phyrz]

Aside from the poor naming of the film, I wonder what else you thought would be offensive to Indians? I've spent some time over there and from my understanding it seems reasonably accurate, at least as far as action/adventure movies go.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[frission]

having grown up in a 3rd world country (Ecuador), I can say that I have been exposed to some level of poverty (my family wasn't poor, but you saw all the little kids in the streets, like in Slumdog). I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and not because I was exposed to something I hadn't seen before (poverty), but because it was actually a great movie. What's not to like about a kid who overcomes so much to be with the one he loves?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Anonymous Coward]

But in this case it's not the director. Danny Boyle wasn't a bankable name, or, indeed, a successful director. Or indeed, a good director. He's a hack...

We are talking about the same Danny Boyle aren't we, him off of Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, The Beach, 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Millions?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[frission]

that's funny that you should mention that. When I saw the movie with my mother (who grew up in Ecuador), we talked about how easily the movie could have been set in any 3rd world country, and it would have been just as good. have you seen City of God? It takes place in Brazil, I recommend it.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[SoupGuru]

If I recall correctly (and I'm at work and can't verify), I thought the producers of the film and Boyle were so thankful to their casting director for rocking their socks off with such talent that they gave her a co-director credit. It was purely symbolic since that goes against "the rules" of the director's guild or whatever. Maybe that's the co-director you're thinking of?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[warrior_s]

And just so that people outside India know, movies far far far better than slumdog are made every year in India...
An also, I think other movies in the best movie nomination were a lot better than slumdog.. seriously..what the hell was there in slumdog to get the best movie award... i may never understand.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[vitaflo]

Thank you for those suggestions. Slumdog was a gangster movie with a love interest and a game show hook. It is by the numbers. If it had not been set in India everyone would have seen it for what it was.

This is pretty much right on. While I enjoyed the movie, I wondered if it would have gotten all the hype (or any at all) if it was set in a ghetto in America, rather than in India. People would have most likely looked at it as relatively cheezy had that happened. As it is, it struck me as Hollywood finally recognizing Bollywood, yet doing it with "one of their own". It seemed rather cheap.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[mzs]

It seemed pointed in such a way so that the western movie goer would think, "I'm glad I'm not in a backwards place like that." I would not like the rest of the world thinking my home was like that. Also except for four characters everyone was 100% stereotype, many of them not a good one. Finally it is western cinema at its core and takes none of the good qualities of Indian cinema, in fact it has a farce of a Bollywood dance number during the end credits that is completely out of place.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[0xdeadbeef]

Then again probably why Rambo and Die Hard were so popular outside the States was that guns are a big deal in countries with gun control.

Actually, those movies are popular because they show what a real man does in the face of adversity. Those cultures with gun control are so subservient to their governments that they are shocked to see an individual asserting himself against evil. That is also why there is nothing wrong with "western centeredness". The West is the light of the world. It was Western values that abolished the caste system, it was western science that brought industry to the subcontinent.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[mzs]

Yes I have seen City of God and that was a very fine movie. That movie had very better acting and much more fleshed-out characters in comparison to Slumdog.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[glwtta]

Thousands of movies have been made about poverty in India.

Slumdog Millionaire is not about poverty in India.

Academy Awards are not give based on choice of subject matter or quantity (well, usually).

Yes, people usually tend to see movies made in their own Hemisphere.

Movies about things blowing up (including the Die Hard oeuvre) are also extremely popular in the US.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[clickclickdrone]

>All, jackassery on my part aside, nobody flipped you knew flipped out over Dark Knight?
Not at all. A few people saw it and said it was OK/pretty cool but only if you asked them. Most people I knew put it on the 'Buy the DVD when it comes out' list and didn't bother seeing at the pictures. Maybe I just move in wierd circles ;-)
OTOH, Slumdog has had people talk about it the way nothing else has in recent years (in my experience). It's been like when I was a kid and there were only 3 or 4 TV channels - at school you pretty guaranteed the topic of the day was whataver single prog the night before was good - and nearly everyone had watched it.
FWIW, I thought Slumdog was a good film but very depressing and I'll be happy if I never see it again. Being a parent, I'm now very susceptible emotionally to children having a rough time in films and tend to avoid it when I can. I'd heard Slumdog was bad but it was worse than I expected.
Next film on my list is Kite Runner which I understand is more of the same but everyone I knew that saw it said it was essential viewing so....

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Bobfrankly1]

He's a hack who steals ideas from other movies.

Who doesn't?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[MightyMartian]

Whole industries grow up around accusing films of every kind of evil. You had a bunch of thin-skinned twits demanding that distribution of Blindness because supposedly it showed blind people to be savages. In that case, it was pretty clear that most of those complaining either had not watched the film or had decided to smash themselves on the heads with rocks to reduce their IQ to that of an encephalitic two-month old chimpanzee.

The same thing with Tropic Thunder, where Robert Downey Jr.'s hilarious "full retard" speech, which is in fact panning the way Hollywood uses disabilities to create "Oscar-worthy" moments for the Academy voters, but that didn't stop a bunch of self-serving handicapped service organizations really looking to get their names in the papers from demanding people not see it.

The common thread always seems to be that either people have not in fact seen the film or have gone to the film to see what they want, ignoring context and in some cases the entire point of the film. Most importantly, they won't pick on the countless other films out there that probably do fit the bill in stereotyping certain people, because most of those films are so low on the pole as far as potential distribution and profitability that they're not important enough. Countless low-class films directed at the adolescent and early-20s demographic truly do heartlessly mock the blind, the mentally handicapped, those of certain racial or ethnic groups, and so on and so forth, but the parent would hardly look so important declaring a film like that racist because people would go "Wasn't that a direct-to-video flop?" No, it's a much better bit of intellectual snobbery (read "masturbation") to attack something like Slumdog Millionaire, which had the Oscar buzz.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[HumanEmulator]

Danny Boyle wasn't a bankable name, or, indeed, a successful director.

He directed Trainspotting, The Beach and 28 Days Later..., all of which were commercial and critical successes, with some other moderately successful movies in between.

Note also that he had an Indian co-director who's had absolutely no credit whatsoever.

A movie has a director who is responsible for every phase of production from casting actors, to picking shots, to picking music, to directing actors and directing editing. Just because there was an assistant director on set in India to communicate what the director was saying to actors in their native language, does not mean there was a "co-director". That's just not how movies are made. There are multiple assistant directors on every movie. (Even when there's no language barrier.)

No. In this case it's the producer who got it its success-- multi-millionaire Paul Smith, realty TV hack, and expert publicist.

So basically you're saying that once someone has made money from putting out crap, if they create something good we should call it crap too, right? Does that make any artistic sense?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Kotukunui]

Danny Boyle wasn't a bankable name, or, indeed, a successful director.

I think you must be talking about a different Danny Boyle. Maybe his profile isn't so high in the US but maybe you should look him up on IMDb. He has directed a number of successful movies. If that doesn't make him bankable then I don't know what does.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[tuxicle]

People deal with this shit in their everyday life and dont want to watch it when they pay to enter a theater for some relaxation.

Odd, by your logic, a gay man would not want to watch a movie like Milk, or an African American wouldn't want to watch Malcom X, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[TheoMurpse]

You mentioned Coraline. Did you think Dakota Fanning (Coraline) and John Hodgman (the father) were good voice actors? I thought Dakota sounded, well, like a child trying to voice act, and I thought John sounded like a literary critic/agent-turned-comedian who was not meant to be a voice actor. I know he's the darling of the Boing Boing geek crowd, and I think he's very hilarious, but I'm not a fan of his voice acting in Coraline.

On the other hand, it was a gorgeous film, directed well, and the other voices were very good.

On the back of that film, I finally got around to buying Fragile Things and Stardust, two Neil Gaiman books (I've already read American Gods).

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[TheoMurpse]

Wasn't it based on a book written by Vikas Swarup, a diplomat from India? Is he an Indian Marxist?

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[TheoMurpse]

Duh. Because the only movies that are any good are slow-paced dramas with barely any sound, and a bunch of gay cowboys with amnesia being taken in by British aristocrats during WWII.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[dgriff]

Your point is very valid. But in this case it's not the director. Danny Boyle wasn't a bankable name, or, indeed, a successful director. Or indeed, a good director. He's a hack who steals ideas from other movies. Slumdog would have been much better with a talented artist at the helm.

How on earth did this ridiculous troll ever get modded up to "5, Insightful"? Have you actually seen Slumdog or any of Danny Boyle's other films?

When I went to see it I thought it was probably over-hyped and was expecting it to be slightly dull but worthy. I came out of the cinema just gobsmacked by the sheer verve and originality. I've never seen a film like it before.

BTW I'd love to see your version with a "talented artist at the helm". Maybe they could have introduced some CGI to add a bit of drama - a Tsunami for instance, and maybe a geeky American backpacker who has it all figured out but nobody listens to him, etc etc.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[ghoul]

Oh really you spent time in India? How many times did you find somebody jumping into a tank of shit to get an autograph? To put it simply Slumdog is as realistic a depiction of India as Die Hard is of America. If you are the juvenile type who believes things like Die Hard happen than sure you might believe Slumdog too. Actually if Danny boy had stuck to pure dark comedy it would have been better. Here he tries to parody the Hindi film industry but the parody is too subtle and ends up offending by appearing to be a serious movie. Of course when most of the people(B list directors and technicians mostly) who vote for these awards have not even got passports (their idea of a foreign country is Canada) it is too much to expect cultural sensitivity.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[ghoul]

Oh cmon Rambo 1 may have been about fighting the system but by Rambo 3 it was following the official CIA approved line on Afghanistan.Incidentally Osama was doing the same thing then as now , preventing the education of girls but as it was schools started by Russians CIA felt it perfectly legitimate to provide C4 for suicide bombing the schools. And Die Hard was just blowing up things and people dying in new and creative ways. How does that have ANYthing to do with standing up to the system.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[mzs]

John Hodgman was flat as the father. This was not a bad thing. There was not a range of emotion necessary for his part and it fit well for his sort of down persona. Then when he was the other father he sounded a bit creepy, again with a nice effect. The only sound that bothered me with regards to the other father was when it was obvious suddenly that he became the singer of TMBG. That broke the suspension of disbelief.

Dakota Fanning had a range of emotions to express and she did fine. I got a vibe that was refreshing. Most kids are played totally sweet or completely at the other end of the spectrum.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[TheoMurpse]

That is a fair assessment, and I tend to agree. However, I think I am used to adults playing young people in voice acting (anime in Japanese (which I speak), Disney's Ghibli dubs, most US animation), so I expected more. For a child, Fanning was good. I just would have liked to have an adult playing a child's voice, which is what typically happens in animation (I think).

I think the father shouldn't have been played as flat as it was, but it was a fair artistic choice on his part. But yes, the TMBG rendition was not that good.

Maybe his performance just doesn't gel with me rather than it being a poor performance.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[phyrz]

No but considering the whole cinema laughed at that moment i think people realised its a joke. People really LOVE Amitabh Bachchan in that country.

Slumdog Millionaire is at its core an action / adventure movie, and while it is unlikely that 1 person would experience a life like the protagonist, all those things occur in India (and in many other countries across the globe).

The Bollywood dance scene at the end seemed really toungue in cheek, I thought it was a bit of fun after such a tense ending - I walked out of the cinema smiling. The A R Rahman soundtrack was excellent.

My biggest gripe with the movie was changing the name from Q&A (and also rebranding the book!) and not calling 'Who Want's To Be A Millionaire' by its true Indian name, or at least 'Who Wants To Be A Crorepati'.

Anyway I'm glad that it won the award. Hopefully more Bollywood movies will get western release and we will get to see India's take on the US. Chandni Chowk To China got released in major Australian cinemas about a month ago and seeing it here was great.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[cptnapalm]

Hmm, our experiences seem to be completely different. I didn't even know Slumdog had been in theaters until people started talking Oscars.

Re:Oscar betrays its Western centerednes

[Rakarra]

However, I think I am used to adults playing young people in voice acting (anime in Japanese (which I speak), Disney's Ghibli dubs, most US animation), so I expected more

I'm used to adults doing childrens' voices, which is why this is so refreshing. Adults usually sound awful when trying to portray children! The Japanese usually do it semi-decently, but American dubs of Japanese cartoon are uniformly terrible when it comes to childrens' voices (yes, including the Ghibli dubs). Nothing beats a good child actor in the role.

Can't find any real news?

[schwit1]

How about watching Marc Andreeson on Charlie Rose

http://www.jacklail.com/blog/archives/2009/02/marc-andreessen-the-game-is-co.html

Excellent discussion of technology, economy, kindle, newspapers and social networking.

Ben Stiller

[tsnorquist]

Was the highlight of the night.

Danny Boyle

[elrous0]

I'm glad to see him finally get some recognition. But honestly, he should have won for Shallow Grave or Trainspotting (his best films). The Oscars are too conservative and often don't recognize filmmakers until they're way past their prime (like Spielberg and James Cameron, who didn't win Oscars until their best work was actually long behind them). The Independent Spirit Awards are much better, IMHO. And they're much more likely to recognize the work of young and audacious filmmakers. The Oscars almost never recognize first time directors, no matter how brilliant their debut work. Chris Nolan, for example, deserved and Oscar for Memento. But it took a Batman sequel for him to even get slightly acknowledged.

WHY SO SERIOUS???

[RobertLTux]

I mean really the guy died for the role so the 20 seconds to post that yes he did get his statue and that whatever movie got the rest of them is fine.

obviously you didn't see the movie :P

[ctk76]

we got to see a glimpse of indian tech support call center in that movie. next time they put you on hold for 30 minutes, you know what they're doing.

fuel for thought...

[pig-power]

Slumdog won more Oscars than the Oscar Awards had viewers

At last

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

CmdrTaco, are you fucking PROFESSIONAL? Why didn't you fucking THINK? Me and you are done professionally, man.

Dear Mr. A. Coward, At last you're giving up. Goodbye.

Re:At last

[RabidMoose]

Woosh!

How about the Sci-Tech Awards?

[jasenj1]

The main Academy Awards may not be news for nerds, but the Sci-Tech Awards are certainly full of /. fodder.

- Jasen.

Re:How about the Sci-Tech Awards?

[gEvil (beta)]

Kinda funny that in 1-1/2 hours, your post has been modded up to +5 Insightful (as it should have), yet there isn't a single comment or discussion about it (at least not directly in response to your comment).

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[dintech]

You say that now, but you'll change your mind when Twitter and Co get all deep and meaningful about The Hottie and The Nottie

Sci-Tech Awards

[nameer]

Wouldn't a better /. story be about the Sci-Tech awards?

Anyone else think....

[the-matt-mobile]

Anyone else think that the Oscars are pretty much irrelevant? Anymore it's just about the movie industry patting itself on the back, and not at all about what was actually praiseworthy. Count me in the buck of "didn't watch, didn't care". What happened to news for nerds and stuff that mattered?

Re:Anyone else think....

[moosesocks]

Actually, 4 of the 5 films nominated for best picture went relatively unnoticed in the US, despite all being critical successes. Only 'Benjamin Button' received a widespread release, or could have been considered a "blockbuster" by any measure.

If nothing else, this makes this year's ceremony a bit more noteworthy than years past. Even the industry seems to acknowledge that the films that did well at the box office this past year were by and large awful, in spite of there being some legitimately good films to choose from.

Re:Anyone else think....

[ivan256]

Do that 100 more times, and maybe - maybe - they'll have made up for "Titanic".

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[drinkypoo]

I wouldn't want to see much entertainment news on Slashdot, but I think it is OK to post annual articles on the Academy Awards and Grammys to discuss films and music in a Slashdot way.

Discussing films and music in a slashdot way is discussing the technical and legal ramifications. Who won a bullshit popularity contest designed to keep the masses of asses interested in media which pisses on their minds is not repeat not worthy news for nerds. Anyone who thinks it is obviously needs to take a deep breath and step away from the fucking television.

Los Angeles is going to be underwater soon anyway (not soon enough for me, but whatever.) The WB will have a hard time broadcasting shit from the Arizona Bay.

Obviously you have no idea ....

[jotaeleemeese]

... about how movies are made.

And your ignorance is impudically exposed like if it was a badge of honour.

For example, Slumdog Millionaire has revolutionaized how movies can be made by taking advantage of digital film making technciques.

I could bore you with the specifics, but I don't want to dent the pride of your lack of curiosity.

Watch it first !

[spynode]

OK so noone here has seen the movie. Fucking retartds watch it, then review it. Movie really wasn't bad. Something different comparing to everyday Hollywood crap.

So culture is not stuff that matters?

[jotaeleemeese]

The asinine amount of replies to this topic is completely mind boggling.

From all the fine arts, cinema is the most accessible and for the same reason the art that most matters, since all of us are exposed to it in a way that sculpture, classical music, literature, dance or architecture can only dream about.

This form of art awards prizes in different festivals and ceremonies, and undoubtedly the Oscar is the most important prize in the English speaking world, which in case you didn't know, dominates the movie industry worldwide.

So it is stuff that matters, movies are very often the only exposure that multitude of people will have to multitude of topics, for which they would otherwise not care at all.

Check this year's movies: now people know more about poverty in India, or gay activism, younger people can revisit the disastrous years of the Nixon presidency or can explore the surface of how the Nazi machine worked.

These topics are important, and it is vital that people, who don't read as much and are watching less TV nowadays, get exposure to diverse topics by means of intelligent entertainment.

The cultural apathy shown today on this thread is frankly dispiriting, it has only confirmed the stereotype of the nerd that hasn't got a life beyond the bloody computer in front of them, in spite of movies today being one of the most fertile grounds to use all kind of great gadgets and technology.

Are the Oscars an exercise of industrial wankery? Well, yes, maybe, why not. But at the very least the prize will point people out in the direction of worthwhile cinema they would have not watched otherwise (hands up who has watched "Frozen River". "Revanche", or even "Doubt", I am sure lots of people will now watch movies with a certain modicum of quality that they would have not watched otherwise).

Good to see that screwing over children paid off

[bgerlich]

Sweet justice that governs this world doesn't cease to astonish me. The kids from the slums that played main parts in the movie get paid with chump change, the movie is a success, gets 8 Oscars, the kids get a plane trip to the US for the Oscar gala and get dumped in the slum afterwards, producers sip lattes and count the profits, people are touched by a beautiful story of love while stuffing their faces with nachos, the kids are forgotten, continue to live in poverty.

Ahhh, the circle of life.

Examples please.

[jotaeleemeese]

Which ideas has he stolen?

From where?

Re:Examples please.

[0123456]

"Which ideas has he stolen?"

Pretty much the whole of '28 Days Later'?

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[cbreaker]

Right? I sometimes don't think that people really appreciate Slashdot when it comes to that stuff. Overall, you'll get a better discussion and less bullshit on Slashdot than many other sites of this nature.

Some of it has to do with the fact that the readership for Slashdot has gotten older along with the site, and some of it is that sites like Digg.com have sprung up to pull away a lot of the kiddies.

It's not all roses here, but I continue to use Slashdot because you actually can get some decent discussions going here, and there's a lot of actually funny responses too.

Whup der FOOK am dis bein on TiltedLineDot

[Quiet_Desperation]

Why do you know when Brittany's tour kicks off? Hell, I didn't know she was out of the loony bin yet.

What's a Brittany? Is that a new phone?

Re:Whup der FOOK am dis bein on TiltedLineDot

[AttillaTheNun]

It's a Linux distribution.

Re:Whup der FOOK am dis bein on TiltedLineDot

[mattack2]

Wouldn't that be Blitzed Brittany? or Blotto Brittany?

Cultural Marxist?

[jotaeleemeese]

Vested interest in undermining the country?

Well buddy, you better back up those claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikas_Swarup

Re:"News for Nerds..."

[jotaeleemeese]

So digital filmaking techniques and postproduction work (in computers) is not for nerds?

How the heck are nerds involved in making movies going to learn about the craft if they are cultural ignoramus?

Anybody involved in the movie industry should care about the Oscars, because the movies selected fro prizes show where the industry is nowadays.

And the word making the rounds is "digital". This is hughe news for all nerds, since new sources of work will be opening thatnks to this.

Bur of course we shouldn't care.

eh...

[Carcarius]

... not a big Oscars fan, but the only thing I was disappointed about was Roarke not winning BA.

Re:Out of all the stuff on the firehose..

[RabidMoose]

Um...because enough people thought it was worthy of the front page, and modded it there?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How is this news for nerds?

[phyrz]

Yeah, It reminds me of that exploit-Aussie movie, 'Australia', that came out last year. Disgraceful.

Huh?

Re:"News for Nerds..."

[ivan256]

I completely agree with you.

Too bad the summary tells us who won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Song, and Best Supporting actor, and leaves out practically every nerdy award there is...

So, the parent is right. EPIC FAIL.

Oscars != Technology

[mmaniaci]

I hate to hate, but there's a lot of flack being shot at people who don't think this story is /. material, and I agree with those people. The Oscars are not related to technology or science, so cannot be main-stream nerd worthy material. Yes, movies are, but the article is about the Oscars, which I won't even dignify with an insult. And if you think winning the award actually signifies good movie making/acting/work, you're wrong.

Re:Oscars != Technology

[Carcarius]

Don't read the article or posts :) Do you really have so much time on your hands to provide a negative response to a topic you don't even care about?

Re:Sympathy Oscar

[xouumalperxe]

The thing that bothered me about Heath Ledger was that it was a no-win situation. Did he win a sympathy Oscar? Had he lost it, would it have been out of reluctance to attribute it posthumously? No matter what course of action was taken, his death would always cast doubt on the decision. So I suggest you compare him with the competition instead.

Now, I haven't watched The Reader or Milk yet, so I can judge his performance against Michael Shannon's or Josh Brolin's. But compared to Robert Downey Jr's performance (which I liked) and Phillip Seymor Hoffman's part (which I really loved), I can't really say the award shocks me.

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[Ihmhi]

Apu was robbed!!!

That's nothing new, really. The Kwik-E-Mart gets robbed all the time.

Re:Browning of America

[Ihmhi]

To be fair to the GP, he could just be talking about the ever-growing hole in the ozone layer above our country and everyone getting sweet tans.

Re:Good to see that screwing over children paid of

[shanmuha]

do analyse a little bit before posting! The producers have setup a trust fund(huffington post, first hit in google for "the fate of slumdog millionaire kids") setup which will help them get out of the rut their family is in.... And by the looks of it, the distributors (fox searchlight) might make more money than the original producers (film 4 UK)

Last man standing...

[geekmux]

Give me a fucking break. I'll never understand the fascination that a lot of my countrymen have with Hollywood and the culture surrounding movie stars/other celebrities.

Don't worry, with the current state of financial affairs going on today, the only thing left to talk about will be Hollywood, since they seem to be one of the few out there still spending (and making) millions.

On a semi-related note, Slumdog who??

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[Wandering Wombat]

Captain Obvious is obvious!

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[Wandering Wombat]

I'm sure Bill Hicks is thrilled to hear you malign his much-beloved movies in such a fashion. "I love the fuckin' movies. I go see EVERY MOVIE THAT COMES OUT, because I love the movies more than life itself, and you can quote me on that."

Arizona Bay was lost on you.

Wow, 8 oscars!

[Hailth]

I knew that SAG was for the Hollywood people to love the other Hollywood people. I thought the Oscars considered the public interest even just a little bit... Anyway, my point is, it took me until SAG to hear about this movie, and I still haven't seen it.

On the retail forefront, this movie does not exist, because the only means I have to see it are torrents and probably Amazon. But if it really is so worthy of all these awards (like 10 or 11 this year?) how come I haven't seen it sold at any physical location?

Re:Wow, 8 oscars!

[TheoMurpse]

how come I haven't seen it sold at any physical location

Maybe because it's still in theaters. Typically films don't show up on DVD until they've left theaters.

Re:Good to see that screwing over children paid of

[bgerlich]

The term "substantial" trust fund, coming from the same person saying that the few hundred quid the kids got paid is a lot because it is three times the average salary of someone living in the slum, doesn't mean much, does it? Also the trust fund will be available to the children actors only if they stay in school until they are 18. Too bad that until then they will be living on one meal a day in makeshift shacks, one can only wonder if they will last until their 18th birthday to enjoy the "substantial" amount of money that has been put aside for them. Interesting, that Fox doesn't setup funds like that for their child actors in the States...

Yes, let's all be merry and celebrate the distributor's generosity. The fact is, that the kids still live in tents while the movie is making copious amounts of money (almost 160 000 000 $ so far).

Also, the diffusion of responsibility is a wonderful thing: those guys made more, those guys made less, those guys just work here, those guys have mortgages to pay and those just followed orders.

So which is it?

[snowwrestler]

Was Slumdog the co-creation of an Indian director who is not getting sufficient credit? Or is it a Western director degrading India for profit? Both criticisms cannot be simultaneously true.

The idea that Slumdog Millionaire "degrades" India is offensive. It implies that any movie that shows the negative aspects of a society is inherently degrading. Thoughts like that come from a perspective that we have to treat some countries like "special" children--keep them from all harm and make sure they wear their helmet and kneepads all the time. Give me a break. No one would be complaining if this exact same movie was set in the U.S., where there are plenty of slums and gangsters and game shows. That betrays a subtle racism of low expectations toward India. In comparison I do not recall similar outcry when Western filmmakers began to use Hong Kong cast, crew, and concepts to make movies.

India has slums and violence, as many, many Indian movies have portrayed. Note that much of the production and acting crew of SM come directly from the Indian film industry, and are happy about their work in the movie. Including the Indian co-director.

Re:So which is it?

[DNS-and-BIND]

When the United States, an oppressor country with a history of exploitative imperialism, observes that a victim country like India has problems, then it is most certainly not "low expectations". Indians themselves may make movies observing this, but the USA has no business whatsoever doing it. The Americans should concentrate on fixing all of their own flaws before ever, EVER criticizing a victim country for ANYTHING.

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[Vexorian]

Weren't you supposed to request him to return his geek card?

Slashdot. News for nerds. Stuff that matters...

[Jawn98685]

Matters?
To whom, exactly, and how many of them read /.?

Re:How is this news for nerds?

[MightyMartian]

Now Mumbai is not just taking contact center jobs, but also movie ones too. Which would be fine if Slumdog was the best movie of the year -- which it most certainly wasn't. Just the most hyped by UK reality TV producer's money (Paul Smith from Who Wants to be a Millionaire). It's just an exploit-asian movie. UK producers and crew mostly, skimming profit off of Indian industry.

Yeah, I bet all those Indian actors, grips, electricians and so on were just so damned angry to be involved in a Hollywood film.

India has a large, thriving movie industry all its own, and it's not the first time Western and Indian crews of come together to make films. WTF is so incredibly special about Slumdog Millionaire that has you're panties in a knot?

Re:These movies are bad.

[zymano]

Exactly. Weak class of movies. Yet not one single movie reviewer mentioned it at all.

The knowledgeable regular messageboarders are right. They are posting the same thing as you are. These movies were average.

And Sean Penn chooses his roles just Oscar-bait? Seems to go for the most pitiful sympathetic parts that can't be overlooked by academy.

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[jlarocco]

I guess it is a nice break from the monotony of "OMG Copyright is Evil" and "LOL! Windows has Viruses" articles, but there *are* entire sites dedicated to talking about this crap.

They could at least try to look at the technical side of it. I have no idea what "Slumdog Millionaire" is, but maybe it has neat CGI or something that they could have focused on?

Re:Am I the only one??

[skelly33]

You set yourself up for disappointment any time you show up at a theater with expectations. Couple that with advertising that "you don't get it" in a public forum, and I'm not sure I see the point of your post. *shrug* I rather enjoyed the show.

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Who won a bullshit popularity contest designed to keep the masses of asses interested in media which pisses on their minds is not repeat not worthy news for nerds.

But since nerds are a subset of human beings, and these awards are worthy discussion points for human beings (even if they don't have some grave consequence in life), I submit that they are worthy discussion points for nerds.

Seriously though, what's with the vitriol? It's entertainment. In moderate amounts, it can be, y'know, fun. Sometimes, even nerds like to have fun (sometimes).

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[lewko]

It's not all roses here, but I continue to use Slashdot because you actually can get some decent discussions going here, and there's a lot of actually funny responses too.

I fully agree with you, and recommend this link which is relevant only to older users..

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[busybox]

So do I! Slashdot is way better than most of the sites of this kind.

Re:Good to see that screwing over children paid of

[TheoMurpse]

I just saw on the news today that the kids are moving to apartments with their families. Source was Nightline on ABC.

We're not all TV nerds...

[penguinchris]

Guess what - I see a lot of movies, but I don't watch TV. I love sci-fi as any good nerd does, but not in TV form (besides Quantum Leap and Star Trek TOS.)

Why do you assume that everyone here is interested in television shows, and that no one likes movies? We're all nerds, but we're not all sci-fi TV show nerds. I ignore or "mod down" stories about TV shows - which pop up frequently - because I'm not interested.

I personally was not that interested in the academy awards - I saw 3/5 of the best picture nominees and many of the other nominees, and it was pretty obvious what was going to win most of the biggest categories.

There's more to it than that, though. There's a definite technology-nerdy side. The more "technical" categories are far more interesting than who wins best actress (though there's no reason nerds can't appreciate fine acting, directing, etc. - I certainly do.) The nerdy stuff that most people don't pay attention to, like cinematography, sound/sound editing, and special effects. Unlike the big categories, they usually do a pretty good job awarding the technical categories to films that deserve it.

Why shouldn't slashdot be host to a discussion about sound and special effects techniques? How is that not as nerdy as discussing TV shows (with little of the discussion likely being about technical aspects)?

I think the article is poorly written. It is sort of digg-like. But I think the backlash against it is ridiculous.

Re:We're not all TV nerds...

[squiggleslash]

Why do you assume that everyone here is interested in television shows, and that no one likes movies?

Why do you assume I assume any of that? Lighten up.

Re:OK, how do I ignore the ENTERTAINMENT section?

[Doggabone]

Discussing films and music in a slashdot way is discussing the technical and legal ramifications.

Or to discuss the discussion.

USA criticizing?

[snowwrestler]

The movie is based on an Indian novel and was made by a British director working closely with Indian filmmakers and actors.

Re:These movies are bad.

[Rakarra]

Mmmm, much as I hated Prop 8, "Milk" was made long before election day in California.

Re:Sympathy Oscar

[Rakarra]

I didn't see The Reader either (who did?). Josh Brolin was fine in Milk, but I'm not sure I'd say it was really Oscar nomination-worthy, much less deserving of the win.