io9 made this weird decision that Oppenheimer was not in its remit, despite the fact that it’s a Christopher Nolan biopic about one of, if not the, scientific discovery of the last century that most influenced science-fiction. Io9 covered this kind of scientific biopics in the past, so it was a really weird move.

It’s not a contest, my dude. There’s no battle of will here, nothing to win. You know, once upon a time most people didn’t assume that they were the single smartest person in an environment and felt compelled to prove it. If you like, though, I’ll clarify:

You can absolutely code a game about the Titanic and no one can stop you... You can write novels about people falling in love on the ship, or novels about aliens abducting people away to save them.

io9 made this weird decision that Oppenheimer was not in its remit, despite the fact that it’s a Christopher Nolan biopic about one of, if not the, scientific discovery of the last century that most influenced science-fiction. Io9 covered this kind of scientific biopics in the past, so it was a really weird move.

But what if I make a movie about WW2? That’s a preexisting idea I’m basing my screenplay on.

This was a great retrospective. Also great that it wasn’t shoehorned into a slideshow for no reason!

This doesn’t make much sense. The point of the movie is that Ken was being overlooked.

The real snub here

Why have we all lost our avatars?

The problem is that whenever there were too many good directors in a given year, and it was just a roll of the dice who gets in, and the margins between who gets the nom or not is minuscule, it’s usually the woman who gets left out.

Not to mention, “has this female director been nominated before, and in the last decade? If so, she can’t get another so soon!”

Problem is, the “there were just too many good directors this year” argument gets used *every* year. And it’s usually true that there’s a lot of good directors, but the fact that this happens year after year just emphasizes the fact that the Academy’s approach is “nominate the dudes first, then maybe we can consider…

“ah ah ah, if you’ll look closely you’ll see the Academy has sustained its habit of ignoring women for good reasons.”

Just goes to show how different people are, because I was just thinking that this was one of the worst years in history for film. I agree that both Oppenheimer and Barbie were very high quality productions, but surely we can do better? 2023 was just a weird year.

No, you’re far from the only one:

“Genre” in this case refers to SF/fantasy/horror films specifically, not just ones that can be readily identified as belonging to a recognizable genre.

You two know this website didn’t invent the usage of the word “genre film” to mean specific alt genres like sci-fi and fantasy, right?

Y’all need to copy and paste a little better from other web sites. Poor Things did not “dominate” with 13 nods. It had 11. Oppenheimer, which for some reason wasn’t mentioned at all in the text (other than the copy and paste list of nominees) was the one with 13 nominations. 

Am I the only one who find it a bit weird to call Barbie an “Adapted Screenplay” - like yeah, it’s a movie based on an existing idead, the Barbie toy, but it’s not adapted from an existing story, like a book or an animated movie. It’s an original story about something that already existed.