Todd, this article reeks of hypocrisy. Obviously, you think that TDK deserved nominations (and presumably victories) for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. Don't go all sour grapes at the end of your article pretending like you didn't want the Oscars for the film. Either the Oscars are important or they're not. You can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, let's not pretend like genre movies always get snubbed. All three Lord of the Rings movies were nominated for Best Picture as was Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm not saying that the Academy is always right, but you're just making weak argument after weak argument with this article because you have no idea why TDK didn't get nominated for the big boy awards. Oddly enough, you seem to have no grasp of academy voting procedure and that may actually clue you in to this grand mystery.

Furthermore, The Dark Knight was only in the running because A) it was a weak year and B) films like WALL-E and Man on Wire (which were both better reviewed than TDK) can't get a Best Picture nod because categories like Best Animated Feature and Best Documentary basically function as prisons.

You could also do some, you know, reporting, and try to find some Academy voters, and get their thoughts about The Dark Knight. But speculation is a lot of fun.

I don't get the hostility towards the writer Matt; he made one of the points you retorted with, in his article.

ie. the academy doesn't always snub these types of films.

I think he makes it clear that he feels that prejudice is the root of the TDK snub.

ie. "There remains one likely reason that the academy didn't nominate The Dark Knight for major Oscars. A movie about a guy dressed up like a bat gives members the heebie jeebies. I mean, it's one thing to single out a performance as brilliant as Heath Ledger's without celebrating it as a "Batman" role. But maybe the academy just feels it would be going too far to give its highest award to a movie about Batman, no matter how brilliant Nolan's movie.

After all, we all have our prejudices and are reluctant to let go of them."

---

Myself, if I take issue with this article it's that I can't agree with either Your or Matt's imo insufficiently supported point about the Academy _not_ snubbing ..well here's the problem.

Snubbing or Not snubbing what?

I think the answer is "genre films" (science fiction, fantasy and horror) and they do indeed have a historical prejudice against them. They look down on them.

Brad Pitt is A-List Hollywood, it's not a "Genre" film in the eyes of the academy members, it's seen as an A level Hollywood film with an eclectic bent.

Star Wars heralded a major shift in film-making and back then it was not considered genre, even Lucas was quoted as saying, "it's NOT science fiction".

Once again, the reason the academy embraced it was because they did NOT see Star Wars as a genre film.

The were focussed on the shift in movie-making it represented and the Joseph Campbell slash philosophical elements of Star Wars, at the time.

Also the fans of Star Wars were originally comprised of -everyone- in America. It was a mainstream blockbuster.

It would only become considered "genre" years later when (we) geeks took over hard-core SW fandom.

Lord of the Rings, the academy considered a technical achievement in film-making with an air of respectability because it was based on a famous British literary work.

I can't agree with these as examples of the academy supposedly overcoming their prejudice because these are simply NOT examples of the Academy putting its prejudices against "genre" films aside.

These are examples of the Academy NOT SEEING these films as genre films to begin with.

I think the conclusion of the article is 100% correct, there is prejudice in the Academy against "genre" films, and that is the biggest part of why TDK was snubbed.

Outside of Ledger's phenomenal performance, the film will be seen by the academy as "genre" and worse, as the lower respectable end of "genre": a comic-book based movie.

If you asked people what TDK is, the public will tell you "it's a comic book based movie", and that is how the academy will likewise see it.

Part of TDK's problem with the Academy is that there was no other framing of the film out there.

And given that it's a "comic book based movie" the Academy members can't bring themselves to put it in the same light as "serious" films.

I'm not necessarily arguing that they're wrong to think that way btw, TDK made a lot of money and had no shortage of coverage, and there were better "films" out, some of which didn't get much coverage, and the academy can help them get re-discovered.

But I don't think we need to poll Academy members and ask them why they snubbed this year's genre film.

Because they've always done it.

There's a point at which asking em (and listening to either confirmations or worse, denials) becomes irritating.

Michael X.

I agree very much with the sentiments of Matt Goldberg's comment, though as a pure fan outsider to the "industry" I've no idea of the mechanics of the Oscar process.

What was PAINFULLY clear to me & many many others like me, was that "The Dark Knight" was simply a STEAMING pile of 'kebab meat'..

Batman Begins was REVOLUTIONARY, it single handedly saved the franchise, and let me make myself CLEAR about what this means: NOTHING to do with big actors or deaths or ANYTHING LIKE that..

First: the STORY... was spectacular in scope and feel. Compare that whole beginning, rich, history brought by the writer in the first movie, to this piece of mediocre at best (more likely plain dumb, at worst) storyline of "the dark knight" a true and utter REGRESSION in engrossing STORY..

Second: the basic subplots, all wonderful: the down and out guy aiding the outsider bruce wayne, and by the end of the movie REPLACING the greedy corrupt CEO of Wayne Enterprises, the love story & an understandable and strangely satisfying way in which it was realistic AND refreshingly different to the usual hollywood "story of love"

Third: The dark and sinister visuals, & feel of the movie. Sure MOST of that returned with this second installment, but thats as close as The Dark Knight ever gets to the stellar achievement of the first movie.

Fourth: the Character interactions: The detective and the gangsters etc etc and the way they all interacted with Batman and eachother, the lawyers too. again this comes back to a freaking MILLION MILES better STORY in "Batman Begins" compared to "The Dark Knight". The first a rich and deep world created by all these characters.

What else is there to say? Oh yeah the VOICE! What the HELL was Bale (a really AWESOME actor usually) THINKING when they up and changed the voice???

Maggie Gyllenhall was a terrible skinny badly acted replacement to the first girl.

Really the only shinning character was Two Face, and the Joker was a solid performance too. The others seemed TOO MUCH to be just going through the motions, NOT reinventing those STUNNING performances of the first movie. Sadly despite the death of a good actor, the bad guys also did NOT add up to those found in Batman Begins..

I'm sorry, CLEARLY it would seem the STORY and some of the performances GREATLY lacking compared to the first Batman by Nolan, this is just a steaming turd...

and it says to me that the Oscar people seem to know what they are doing in THIS instance!

Heheh nice rant DCpro.

loved Batman Begins -too-.

But uh, the bottom line in relation to the topic here, seems to me to be this:

Batman Begins Academy Award Nominations: 1
Wins: Zero.

Not only was TDK snubbed this year, but your superior Batman Begins was snubbed even worse by the Academy.

Wasn't that Todd's Point?

RE; Was The Dark Knight robbed?

FIRST, you say;

"We've seen in recent years that film groups have become more willing to embrace fantastical adventures...'

THEN, it`s;
..."one likely reason that the academy didn't nominate The Dark Knight for major Oscars. A movie about a guy dressed up like a bat gives members the heebie jeebies"

---Well, which is it, Sparky ?

You postulate that the academy is more receptive to 'fantastical adventures'...What? 'Batman is NOT a 'fantastical adventure' ??

Frist you argue a point, then you obviate it.
Make up your mind.

With all due respect, perhaps the reason people think it's overrated, is because, it is overrated. Am I one of the only people out there who actually thought that this film, while it was very good, had some major flaws? Well, I guess I have some friends at the Academy. I will probably be judged for saying this, but I think that Batman Begins was a far superior film than The Dark Knight. Sure, Begins only got one nomination. It also didn't have the hype surrounding it.

And there was hype surrounding The Dark Knight. I've never seen so much hype before. The movie would have had to have been terrible for it to have not been accepted by the public as 'brilliant!'. The movie was actually pretty good, so of course that helped. Even the score was hyped. Since when does a soundtrack have its own website? Did anyone listen to the Begins score? It's kind of similar.

Sure, it was a good film. Was it Oscar worthy? Maybe. Best Picture, Best Director, or Best Screenplay worthy? Probably not.

Finally, what's wrong with getting nominations in the 'technical categories'? Eight nominations is a lot, and the categories it got nominated in are not throw away categories. No category is. The work of the editors, sound editors, sound mixers, art directors, cinematographers, makeup artists, and visual effects artists, is being recognized, and to demean the value of the Oscar nominations, is an insult to their work and career.

I mightily favor the first film - it painted a dystopic but nearly recognizable world that infused its myth with reality, and passed young Bruce Wayne through it, on his way to becoming a talented and able fighter of the darkness (that was his own).

This second installment was garish in its viciousness, strained even sci-fi credulity, over-burdened itself with an unnecessary secondary villain (Aaron Eckhart's Two-Face), whose existence and character became giggle and gross-out silly. In the end, the movie seemed only to dare the audience to hate it for its heartlessness.

The late and greatly missed Mr. Ledger's unnerving yet ... well...lovable performance as the Joker was the high-point of the enterprise. (And it was - he was the most honest character in the film, who showed the truest intentions and most 'heart' - and he was a psychopathic, amoral monster - that's what makes it disturbing). It was an irreproducible performance. Really something to see, and the actor will be missed, on many counts.

On the other side, the invulnerable, 'drop-proof' hero, and his 'drop-proof' girlfriend (who can both fall 50 stories unharmed, as long as they land on a car?), and the rest of the 'good guys', were rendered uninteresting, a drag, a bore, and distraction from what should have been the ongoing center of the piece - the dual construction of hero/anti-hero, as embodied by the bad angel (batman) and the death angel (joker).

It was nice to see the remarkable Gary Oldman, who plays 'good guy' (Commissioner Gordon) as well as he plays bad (see his filmography - he's a gifted performer, truly).

Critiquing the Oscars is fair - they're a lousy enterprise, too often; but this movie was too often a rubbery grotesque, and not as psychologically penetrating, as it was purposely ugly and repellent.

ISSUE 1: Does The Academy Have a Knee-Jerk Prejudice Against Comic Book And Genre Films?

ANSWER: Yes. You'd have to be a moron not to have noticed that by now.

ISSUE 2: Was Batman Begins Robbed?

Are you kidding? the academy didn't even acknowledge it existed. 1 nomination, no wins? if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, nothin will.

ISSUE 3: Are Technical Oscars Important?

ANSWER: Yes, of course.

ISSUE 4: Was TDK robbed for not getting a nomination for Best Picture and Best Director?

Best Picture? no. I don't think so, that's a broad category with lots of contenders.

Best Director, yes. Nolan should have at least been nominated.

This concludes this debate.

Now Go Home.

:)

What a lot of fancy tap dancing......haven't seen this much since 'Singing In The Rain'.

How about a simple question: is it even remotely conceivable that Hollywood might, just might mind you, be (gasp) politically motivated?

(No, say it ain't so!!)

I've read reviews from various sources that have compared TDK to the terrorist struggle.

Ok, before you melt down your keyboards responding, hear it out.

Batman fights a war against the Joker, with the blame slowly being placed on Batman for all the trouble. (If he weren't around, would the Joker even exist? If Batman backed off, would the Joker stop his violence?)

Sound familiar?

Come on, guys......any movie that even HINTS, in any way at all, that terrorism is bad, is gonna get reamed by the media. Forget that its the biggest hit to come down the road in years.
If you make any kind of message about (dare I say it) fighting back against those that do us harm, you may as well kiss that statue goodbye.
(Don't believe it? Check out how may 'nominations' Gran Torino got,)

In my poor, misguided opinion, that's also the reason Batman Begins got the short shaft too.

Well, take it for what its worth.....you may now begin the hatchet job.

The film was not well written. It is a banal--grim film, absent of joy, or any real human emotions. Visually, it was technically executed properly, but I must say that fight choreography in the Batman films, is poorly filmed...always has been. Hopefully they will hire the stunt team from Bourne Indentity franchise to design the stunt sequences for future Batman films.

Wow, I love the internet... First, come one people, you're going to complain about a Batman movie having problems with a character who can fall 50 feet in a technologically advanced suit but not the batcycle or various other implausible continuities in both films? How about Lord of the Rings? How about ANY scifi/fantasy movie? Seriously, move on.

There was also a comment about Wall-E getting a better review. First, it wasn't a landslide better than TDK. Second, it was an animated KIDS' movie. Of course the warm fuzziness, combined with a good story, means critics will like it. Pixar hasn't faltered yet.

There is plenty of other 'stuff' I could respond to, but here's the bottom line: This film, while not as well reviewed as Wall-E, was still VERY WELL REVIEWED! It's not as if only 60% of critics hated it or even found it mildly distasteful. It is obviously also loved by many people. The reason it wasn't as big as Titanic? It didn't have the scope of tragic love that Titanic had, nor did it have nudity. (A bit oversimplified, but still shows why many females didn't see it 10 times and a lot of guys who don't care about Batman.) The voice of Batman, despite the haters, is really not that bad. It works as a voice disguise and because it was so strange, was one of the only reasons critics could nitpick on the film. The story was amazing. For ANYONE to say that it wasn't complex, cohesive, and well done as portraying the realistic tone within its own world doesn't know what a good story is. For those who disagree, please, write me an original batman screenplay that would have been more complex, would have economized the time of the movie as it related to relevant moments of the plot better, and actually WOULD have garnered Oscar nods in the "major" categories.

Now, all that said, I will agree that in general, the main actors were only 'standard' in their acting. They weren't bad, by any means, but I wouldn't have given any of them a nod over some other movies this year. However, as the one person above mentioned, Nolan deserved a directing nod and the movie was worthy of a Best Picture. I would agree with the assessment that there were a lot of movies that could be considered and there were several that weren't put in because of it.

So, did it get snubbed? Some, but not as completely as I imagine a lot of people think. Some people don't seem to recognize certain facts about the movie or even movies in general either.

I didn't care for the film and don't buy into the whole "Oscars snubbed so-and-so" thing. Many good films never get Oscars. That's a reflection of Oscar voters, not the films.

TDK didn't get those nominations because it was a mediocre-to-merely-good film and it didn't deserve them. The Oscars are far from perfect, but the films that were nominated (except for The Reader, which I haven't seen) are far better movies than TDK. If anything got snubbed, I would argue for Wall-E, which is so good that they should have broken it out of the animation category and nominated it for best film.

they hate spandecs.sure a lord of the rings will slip through sometimes.but costume superheros no matter how rich in depth will get overlooked.the academy will always pick a movie like milk over a dark knight.but if it were'nt for heth's great performance DK would get less oscar buzz.

Spiderman 2? SPIDERMAN 2???!

You think THAT film was snubbed for an oscar for best picture?

Couldn't it possibly be, simply, that the movie just wasn't that good? I haven't seen it yet, but everyone I've talked to that has said it wasn't that good; and that the only reason to see it is to see Ledger. It seems to me only the people in this movie, deserving of a nomination, got one.

Couldn't it possibly be, simply, that the movie just wasn't that good? I haven't seen it yet, but everyone I've talked to that has said it wasn't that good; and that the only reason to see it is to see Ledger. It seems to me only the people in this movie, deserving of a nomination, got one.

It was a GREAT movie - one can hardly criticize if one has not seen, no? Ledgers performance was most certainly the high point of the film - but then so was the story, or at least a close second.

How does the academy's selection have any bearing on whether anyone enjoys the movie or not. Anyone with any sense will tell you that the Oscars are political in nature. Besides, even a slew of oscars wouldn't do that much to pad the already-stuffed pockets of the makers of TDK. A win (or loss) is meaningless for this film.

Face it American movies have sucked the big one since Woody Allen was raped by the press for sleeping with a girl that

1. was not his daughter.

2. was of legal age.

3. that he married.

He was one of the only hopes we had for decent intelligent American films (that the public would go see) and he was lynched. So now the public don't go see intelligent films anymore.

Face it, People are STUPID, they will believe whatever the media tells them to believe.

Currently the media is telling them to believe that TDK didn't deserve an Oscar for best Picture or best Director, because it's a comic book movie.

And stupid people are echoing the argument.

That "it's too negative and dark" argument is also crap, when you're trying to say that relates to quality.

Reminds me of the argument people made against Star Trek: Deep Space Nine when it was on the air. "It's too dark".

NOW that it's off the air DS9 is recognized as containing some of the BEST writing.

You can dislike it because "It's Dark".

you can say "it doesn't mesh with Roddenberry's vision"

and few would argue with your right to do either.

but when you say "it's dark therefore it's crap" then you need to have your arse handed to you, because there is NO CORRELATION between dark & crap.

Quite the opposite most popular stuff is bright and cheery and loved, but often devoid of substance.

Most of the darker stuff is of course dank and disliked by the masses, but often has MORE substance than the bright'n'cheery work.

Sorry but Dark does NOT equal crap.

Not by a long shot.

The person that noticed the political allegory and parallels in TDK is spot on. The film was riddled with subtext about the war on terror.

How far should you go to protect your people? How far would you go? Would you step over the line? if you did, would you go further or step back?

Those are _the_ SERIOUS issues of our time, that they were in a film about a flying rodent, shouldn't have any effect on one's judgement of how well handled they were.

TDK SHOULD BE in consideration for the big Oscars, not because it was popular, but because it tackled serious issues in an intelligent manner.

Which is something that most Oscar worthy films have in common.

But like I said, people are STUPID, they will believe whatever their prejudices and the media tell them to believe.

OK, I liked The Dark Knight, but is it really an Oscar-worthy film? Seriously? I mean, if Heath Ledger hadn't passed away would the film still be garnering so much attention, not to mention his performance? I don't think so. Moreover, I also don't think Ledger's performance would have been as noticed had it not been for his death. Now, I do think Ledger is deserving of an Oscar -- he deserved it for Brokeback Mountain -- so if the Academy wants to belatedly honor an actor who was only just beginning to shine, then I'm for it.

Actually the problem with the film was Christian Bale, he didn't get nominated because he is a bad actor. MIchael Caine -brilliant, Heath Ledger - brilliant, Maggie Gillenhall - yuck, leading lady? Who picked that? They blind? I think the lack of Oscar nods came more from bad casting, simply put the film didn't deserve it.

It doesn't even matter that The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated for Best Picture or any major Academy Awards. Iron Man didn't get nominated for those awards, Watchmen won't next year either. That's just the fate of comic book movies. However, it's really not hate, it's just the Academy wants to recognize some other films that maybe you didn't get to see or won't go see that are good movies. If that's not good enough, just remember this: In not even five years, people will still talk about The Dark Knight and how good it was, but no one will remember who won what at the Academy Awards.

They can't nominate The Dark Knight but they can nominate and allow to win bullshit movies like Al Gore's propaganda horse crap global warming movie a few years back? The Dark Knight is probably the best movie to come out all of last year and it got the shaft, I guess this really shows us that these morons who get to vote wouldn't know a good movie if it bit them in the rear end. What a shame, at least they gave credit to the late Ledger who was an outstanding Joker and nearly stole the show from Bale, wouldn't it be b.s if Ledger didn't win? With the way this film got snubbed honestly it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

It's amazing to see this kind of article, yet THE movie that received the most critical acclaim of the year, THE movie that broke the glass ceiling at the LAFCA, OFCS, and many others for animated films is getting little-to-no recognition as having gotten robbed (and it did). That film is WALL-E and it is the best-reviewed wide-release of the year, outdoing even The Dark Knight. While these articles continue to pop up, maybe you writers out there could show some recognition to the fact that the film that has been recognized as the best by more Top 10 lists and critics than even TDK got snubbed outside of the Animated and Screenplay Oscars. And we all know WALL-E is better than the Animated category, competing against kids' fare like Bolt and Kung Fu Panda. If anything WALL-E should be up for Best Picture and Bolt and KFP should be vying for the animated spot. Sadly not only is The Academy out of touch in this case, so are the bloggers and news writers of the world who are ignoring it in favor of giving fanboys a place to complain about TDK not getting nominated for Best Pic.

yeah, boy, poor Wall-E only got nominated and will only win in the animated film category. i can't believe more people aren't writing about that travesty. shocking. shocking i say. hang on, i'm calling the NYTimes.....

That is why the people who do these award shows will never speak what the people like.

I think the reason The Dark Knight didn't get nominated for Best Picture, Best Screenplay or Best Director is because it really wasn't a very great movie. Good, yes. Oscar-worthy?....Not really.

TDK, while good, was nowhere near as good as what some would have you think. WALL-E, a much better film, was the REAL snub at the Academy Awards.

TDK wasn't snubbed - with the exception of heath ledgers performance, the acting did not generally stand out as anything exceptional. the directing was so-so, even a little convoluted in places, and the whole film could have benefitted from a little more editing...(about 10-20 minutes lighter). most of the fanboy types seem to categorically think the newest favorite film of theirs is more worthy of recognition than they usually are. Face it, for all the positives of any spiderman, batman or iron man movie, none of them have been good enough for a real nod in the serious award categories, plain and simple. I'm not a fan of the academies as I think they're way too political, but still, TDK wasn't as good a movie as many make it out to be, except for the late Mr. Ledger.

I'm tired of all this "TDK was snubbed" talk. Although I don't always agree with Oscar picks, TDK was never a contender. It simply wasn't one of the years 5 best pictures.

Say...if any of you want to go see a seriously good movie...well acted, well written, not over-produced like TDK and not including the talents of any over-paid hollywood actors/actresses...go see slum dog millionaire...a truly great movie...

had to make one last comment...can't believe some of the posts i've read replying to this article...no doubt most of the responders must be very young in age and life experience...i digress...the problem w/ movies is american audiences...they have the attention span of a gnat and the depth of a teaspoon...movies that don't go bang-bang or aren't filled from opening to ending credits with either action, sex, violence or some combination of the 3 barely get any box office reception...i get sick of people always blaming the media when other people have media, too. most societies and cultures just don't hang on the word of what the media says like we do here. so the problem is not them, it's us. our comedy has become dumbed down by the likes of sandler and myers, we lose IQ points everytime we watch a reality TV show and unless the plot of a movie smacks us upside the head, we collectively have difficulty grasping it. and nobody reads a damn word anymore unless it's on a myspace page. duh!!

*Gag*

Only after award nominations start hitting the masses, do TDK naysayers of the hater bandwagon emerge. I will not be watching the Oscars this year, and I've watched religiously every year before, because I feel the TDK was snubbed. 20 years from now, TDK will be remembered and cherished more than any of these other "Best Picture" nominated movies will. Why, because nobody watched them.

It seams the only way to get a movie nominated for best picture now is to:
1) film a movie about the holocaust
2) Have Sean Penn (The most over-rated actor to ever grace the screen) in a leading role
3) dress up all your actors in white wigs and pale white makeup
4) Put the 3 people in the audience to sleep with a borefest masquerading as a masterpiece
5) Apeal to 60 yo jewish decision makers who pull all the strings.

To hell with the Oscars, they will not be having my advertising dollars this year.

There was nothing wrong with any of the casting for this movie except Maggie Gyllenhaal. We should all blame Tom Cruise's crazy Scientology ass for keepin his wife on a leash and not letting her out of the house.

Christian Bale was GREAT in Batman Begins and gave a solid performance in TDK. He just happened to be outshined by Heath Ledger. Heath Ledger's Joker portrayal was nothing short of phenomonal and would have been given this oscar nod whether he died or not. Have you seen the movie? As to whether he would have won the oscar might be a different story.

Yes, I believe the ticket sales might have been boosted by his tragic death but as a lifelong fan of batman, I believe Heath Ledger's Joker portrayal blows Jack Nicholson's performance out of the water. The tight rope of portraying the Joker as an "agent of chaos" that meticulously plans out every move speaks to Ledger's acting chops as well as the screenplay by the Nolan Brothers.

I can't say TDK was the best movie of 2008 because I haven't seen many of the other contenders. However, there's no doubt it was the best film I've seen, which includes Benjamin Button.

Also, there's no doubt that Christopher Nolan should have gotten a Best Director nod. His transformation of Bruce Wayne from comic book character to a realistic, believable hero was no ordinary task. His ablility to maintain the realism he strived for as well as stay true to the comics on a movie of this enormous scale and hype is simply brilliant.

I have add one more thing. Any award for the best or greatest anything is a completely subjective decision. So for all of you saying that according to rotten tomatoes, so-and-so movie has better ratings and therefore is obviously better liked forgets one thing. Most of those other movies have been seen by NO ONE compared to the magnitude of people who have seen TDK.

The people that have seen other best picture contender movies are people that enjoy that certain genre or who avoid large production movies due to prejudices. (The academy)

Now I use rotten tomatoes as a pretty good indicator of a movies worth. Having a math degree, I can appreciate that TDK having a 94% fresh rating is a lot harder to accomplish than a movie with a 95% fresh rating with less reviews. When you appeal to a larger audience, like TDK does, it's alot easier to find people who did not like the movie.

So if you decide what movie should recieve best picture based on an aggregate of the views of the American public, (which is obviously not what the Academy involves) I would say TDK wins hand down.

Droppin Knowledge since 86
John Johnson

Would everyone - fans, critics, writers, television talking head - stop lumping all of the movies with the character "Batman" in together? You cannot judge nor consider the 1960s 'camp' Batman movie (and TV show) alongside Tim Burton's brilliant films, Joel Schumacher's terrible movies or the two new films by Christopher Nolan. Each director brought a reinterpretation of the character, their style of film making, cinematography and focus. This is similar to comparing the most recent James Bond movies with the Sean Connery Bond films of thirty years ago. The character name, backstory and some gadgets are the same, however, the behavior and setting are dramatically different. They deserve to be considered separately.

Having said that, Christopher Nolan deserved a Best Director and Best Screenplay (with his brother) nod and the film absolutely deserved a Best Picture nomination. I am not a rabid fan blinded by faith and passion. Rather the film was outstanding for all of the reasons that have been so thoroughly dissected and mentioned by reviewers and fans across the globe.

The Academy has done itself a disservice and has insulted movie goers.

I'm really a bit perplexed by a lot of the comments I've read here. I think TDK is suffering from the backlash phenomenon which a lot of cinematic greats get when they get talked about too much.

I've seen all the best picture nominations apart from Frost/Nixon and they're all good (some are significantly better than others) but none of them is quite The Dark Knight good, although one of them has a claim to coming close.

I haven't talked to a single person who's seen The Dark Knight who doesn't think it should have been nominated for best picture. I can't understand where some of these commenters come from. Is there a committed gang of you who seek out Dark Knight articles specially just to slag it off?

Jug -

I think you are on to something there...Mr. Weinstein hires them.

Two things: maybe "comic-book movie" isn't the problem, but "franchise sequel" is. Only a handful of sequels have been nominated for anything, and only three have ever won (if you include "Silence of the Lambs" as a sequel).

Someone stated that "The Dark Knight" was not Oscar-worthy. "Crash" was Oscar-worthy. "Chicago" was Oscar-worthy. "A Beautiful Mind" was Oscar-worthy. "Chariots of Fire" was Oscar-worthy. "Kramer vs. Kramer" was Oscar-worthy. "Oliver!" was Oscar-worthy. "Around the World in Eighty Days" was Oscar-worthy.

Will people remember nominee "Apocalypse Now" and non-nominee "Alien" from 1979 or best picture "Kramer vs. Kramer"? Will people remember non-nominee "2001: a space odyssey" or best picture winner "Oliver!"? I barely remember "A Beautiful Mind" and I went to see it in theaters. "Crash" might be mentioned in a footnote in a chapter devoted to Robert Altman.

The Academy Awards really don't make any difference. Great films endure and good films with an award to their names air on TMC years later to a few curious viewers.

Two things: maybe "comic-book movie" isn't the problem, but "franchise sequel" is. Only a handful of sequels have been nominated for anything, and only three have ever won (if you include "Silence of the Lambs" as a sequel).

Someone stated that "The Dark Knight" was not Oscar-worthy. "Crash" was Oscar-worthy. "Chicago" was Oscar-worthy. "A Beautiful Mind" was Oscar-worthy. "Chariots of Fire" was Oscar-worthy. "Kramer vs. Kramer" was Oscar-worthy. "Oliver!" was Oscar-worthy. "Around the World in Eighty Days" was Oscar-worthy.

Will people remember nominee "Apocalypse Now" and non-nominee "Alien" from 1979 or best picture "Kramer vs. Kramer"? Will people remember non-nominee "2001: a space odyssey" or best picture winner "Oliver!"? I barely remember "A Beautiful Mind" and I went to see it in theaters. "Crash" might be mentioned in a footnote in a chapter devoted to Robert Altman.

The Academy Awards really don't make any difference. Great films endure and good films with an award to their names air on TCM years later to a few curious viewers.

Why is everyone saying that TDK had bad acting? That is so ridiculous. Christian Bale did a superb job mixing the darkness of Al Pacino/Godfather with the action charm of Harrison Ford/Raiders of the Lost Ark. Heath Ledger is of course brilliant and I never imagined the depth he has even from Brokeback Mountain to create something so fresh and make such an impact.
Aaron Eckhart had the most complex and tramsformative role of them all. To watch his progression from hero lawyer to sociopath takes some real chops to make believeable and Eckhart does so. The way his character is written and the way he presents the role and the choices that confront the character build to a more than satisfying conclusion for the character and its difficult as well to make a some-what cgi character have live let alone a thirst for vengeance.

I am glad that TDK was nominated was nominated for the technical awards. It so does deserve them. And it did deserve some of the other more prestigious nominations as well. Listen Chris Nolan has been making some of the smartest and most visually stunning film of recent years. Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige. The man is gunning for an Oscar nom. He righty deserves one.

Listen take The Reader and Milk off the awards for best picture because they are the ones that do not deserve to be on list. The Reader is just an excuse to see Kate Winslet nude for half the movie. If anything all it deserves in a Best Actress Nomination and thats it. Milk is the biggest joke of all. It's the story of the first openly gay public official to the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors. Are you serious? They made a movie because soem guy who lives in San Fransisco the most liberal city in the nation was elected to the board of supervisors. Not mayor or senator or governor? I mean if it was President of the U.S. then yeah wow interesting movie. but board of supervisors? in San Fransisco? Was it really that diffucult? I mean if a homosexual cant be elected to public office in San Fransisco than how the heck is a colored guy supposed to elected president... oh wait....

Why is everyone saying that TDK had bad acting? That is so ridiculous. Christian Bale did a superb job mixing the darkness of Al Pacino/Godfather with the action charm of Harrison Ford/Raiders of the Lost Ark. Heath Ledger is of course brilliant and I never imagined the depth he has even from Brokeback Mountain to create something so fresh and make such an impact.
Aaron Eckhart had the most complex and tramsformative role of them all. To watch his progression from hero lawyer to sociopath takes some real chops to make believeable and Eckhart does so. The way his character is written and the way he presents the role and the choices that confront the character build to a more than satisfying conclusion for the character and its difficult as well to make a some-what cgi character have live let alone a thirst for vengeance.

I am glad that TDK was nominated was nominated for the technical awards. It so does deserve them. And it did deserve some of the other more prestigious nominations as well. Listen Chris Nolan has been making some of the smartest and most visually stunning film of recent years. Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige. The man is gunning for an Oscar nom. He righty deserves one.

Listen take The Reader and Milk off the awards for best picture because they are the ones that do not deserve to be on list. The Reader is just an excuse to see Kate Winslet nude for half the movie. If anything all it deserves in a Best Actress Nomination and thats it. Milk is the biggest joke of all. It's the story of the first openly gay public official to the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors. Are you serious? They made a movie because soem guy who lives in San Fransisco the most liberal city in the nation was elected to the board of supervisors. Not mayor or senator or governor? I mean if it was President of the U.S. then yeah wow interesting movie. but board of supervisors? in San Fransisco? Was it really that diffucult? I mean if a homosexual cant be elected to public office in San Fransisco than how the heck is a colored guy supposed to elected president... oh wait....

nobodies mentioned the oscar nomination process... it's pretty odd. Dark Knight could've been on every voters top 5 list and still not been nominated for best picture...
see here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/618925/academy_awards_update_the_oscar_nomination.html

I had been waiting to see the Dark Knight since I first heard it was in production. Batman Begins was a good movie and I was ready for more. TDK in fact exceeded my expectations and I truly enjoyed it every part of it, it looked great on IMAX.

I believe some of these comments are all about being part of the anti popular crowd, its cool to dislike things that most people like, get a rise out of other people. To say it was anything less than good means you should not have seen the movie in the first place and should STOP wasting our time with your clearly distorted opinion. For a dark comic book character based movie, TDK is as good as it gets.

Nolan should have been nominated for sure, a true talent, not nominating him was a mistake. Best Picture is debatable, its really tough to pick only 5 top movies, I am sure TDK was up there, just not top 5.

Christian Bale has been good to watch ever since Empire when he was just a kid. Beyond him resurrecting Batman, I have enjoyed every movie of his I have seen up until now.

Heath was amazing and the rest of the supporting cast was top notch. Maggie was the weakest but she was acceptable.

Final Note: If you don't like HYPE, stop paying attention to it, it's really not that hard.

Spiderman movies sucked, never mention them again.

First of all, if you're comparing Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, you're missing the point. TDK was meant to be seen, of course, after Begins. The first movie was more intimate and introspective to establish an emotional connection with Bruce Wayne and the other characters, which in turn allows us to enjoy the in-the-moment thrill ride of TDK without needing to slow down and deconstruct Batman again. Another thing to keep in mind of course is how much the hype and expectations played a role in how each film was perceived.

In reguard to the Oscar snub, what it comes down to is context. You go see Batman to be purely entertained and anything more you draw from it is icing. On the other hand, with a movie like Milk, you're watching something made with a social purpose and reason, and is suppose to "enlighten" you first, then entertain. The Academy prefers the Milk formula. Sean Penn was great, and I enjoyed the film, but I won't see it more then once. The Dark Knight is a different story.

Also want to say I agree 100% with Damon. Spot on analysis.

The Oscars are a joke!
The film had it all. Everyone knows that it's Academy policy NOT to nominate really good films, that perform well in the box office. If the TDK made 10 million, it would be a different story. The Academy votes in favor of small, cheap and boring movies to raise the awareness of the public. The same is the story with the score of the film from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard. It was disqualified, because of technicalities. After formal protest, the case was reviewed again and the score was up for voting again. And now - it has not been nominated.

A day will come that the so called Academy gives all the Oscars away to a film that is basically a black screen with no sound and runs 90 minutes.

That's what international viewers think about the Oscars.

Man, most of you people suck so much. Backlash is such a funny thing. Something becomes insanely popular and then everyone and their mother starts slagging it off, almost like they're jealous of it or something. The Dark Knight is a GREAT movie. I mean really, really, really GREAT. If you don't like that movie your head is seriously messed up. But what happens is you have this choir of retards that start badmouthing the movie, which makes a ton of other people join in because most people are sheep. And then the picture gets all distorted and the fans start getting scared to admit that they liked it. Well, that movie is a classic, and to the haters, I say you know what isn't a classic? Your face.

more Gays, more Minorities, more left wing agenda's and more dancing would definitely have helped them nab a major award.
let face it people, a comic book movie will never win best picture. this was perhaps the best comic movie ever made and it still was snubbed. its just not going to happen.

To be honest, "The Dark Knight" wasn't a great film. It actually was pretty boring. I didn't think that Ledger gave a great performance, either. One of the problems with "Knight" is that, like all "Batman" sequels, it tried to do too much. Balancing the Joker story with Dent made it way too long and unable to concentrate on one valuable storyline (sort of like having too many stocks in an investment portfolio).

It was, however, a highly successful film financially, so maybe I'm out of touch. I think, though, that on repeat viewing, people will get what I'm saying. I remember watching "Independence Day" and thinking the same thing -- what are others seeing? Today, though, I'd be shocked if those who helped power the box-office success of that film way back when still enjoy it ("Day" literally has to be one of the worst movies ever lensed).

ok, this might sound crazy, but maybe the dark knight didnt get a nomination because it did not deserve one. I know that there is a predisposition in the academy for comic movies, and i did enjoy TDK, but at the same time...it really wasn't that amazing. it talked around itself a lot, the ending was completely dragged out and could have been cut off at about five different points, and Arron Eckhart, while a convincing Harvy Dent, was a not so convincing and at times laughable two face. Don't get me wrong i thought the film was very good, but it had a lot of hole and i dont think that it was oscar material, but then, im not a critic and im not on the academy. im just a college kid who loves films. thats my opinion

The whole "Oscar Snub" notion is ridiculous really. It's not as if a small room full of people sit around and pick out the five best in each category... it's a huge two-round voting process with ballots cast by MANY people that results in a small maximum number of nominations out of endless candidates. Certainly SOMETHING(S) is (are) going to get edged out, if even by a small margin. It's not like the head of the Academy said, "screw Batman!" or any other movie, performance, screenplay, etc, in history.

It's a vote... or a poll... of a large section of people in the industry. It's considered a big deal, but really it's very "of the moment" for everyone but those big fans of movies that didn't get nominated that hold onto their bitterness for 20 years.

Has every great performance been recognized with an Oscar or Oscar nomination? Absolutely not. It's not even possible. Awards and Best-of lists are a sort of sport, really, that are actually intended to celebrate what someone (or sometimes large groups of people) thinks is great.

I'm sure this sounded condescending to some who know how the Academy works, but that wasn't my intention. It's a reminder that there is no way for the Oscars to "get it right" for everyone... and there is no such thing as an Oscar Snub.

Quite frankly, it sounds to me like most of you have your "opinions" spoon-fed to you by the critics rather than coming to a logical conclusion on your own. This includes the "fanboys" and the "haters" (I love how you tend to label yourselves - it's very dignified) alike. If you're going to rant or rave about something like this, you should at least state your own reasons for it and not echo the sentiments of someone else (who probably was also spoon-fed their "opinion" to be honest).

You know what it all boils down to, however? It all boils down to "opinion" (a concept most of you seem to be unable to grasp). 94% of the reviews collected on RottenTomatoes are positive OPINIONS, and the other 6% are negative OPINIONS. The OPINIONS of the voters at the "Academy" seem to show that they believe that The Dark Knight is not worthy of receiving the "honor" of certain awards.

But to bet your own personal views on the opinions of numerous critics or the whims of an organization is just stupid. Why should you care what some critic thinks about the movie? If you liked the movie, that is fine. If you did not like the movie, so be it. But no organization, website, newspaper etc. should be allowed to decide that for you.

So in the end, it means nothing whether or not The Dark Knight receives an "award", because the reasons behind issuing such an award are purely subjective - as are the numerous reviews given by the critics. If you can grasp this concept at all without resorting to name-calling or "nitpicking", then you have clearly learned something here today.

That is all.

TDK IS worthy of the nominations it did not recieve.

Ledger's PERFORMANCE, not hi tragic death earned him the nomination he recieved.

Movies based on comics as source material will not be taken seriously by the Academy.

Even if TDK HAD been nominated, it likely would not have won much of anything.

Remember, this is the same bunch who named SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, a nice romantic comedy/period piece Best Picture the same year SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was in nomination. SIL was a nice pleasent evening at the movies, while SPR was a powerful film that was and still is xconsidered by many to be the best film of its kind ever made!

The only thing solid about The Dark Night was Heath Ledger's performance. The movie itself was pretty terrible - you can go on ahead and admit that to yourself. No sense creating a false world in your head.

Frankly, genre movies almost always *do* get snubbed, and the fact that The Dark Knight - a great movie in it's genrea dna pretty great movie over all - was pointedly snubbed for other movies that are inferior in their own genres (let alone overall) underscores just how prejudices and irrelevant the Academy is as an arbiter of good film. It's clear that this is all politics, and the genre films that won simply had the political clout to get themselves in the battle. The year (the God-awful) Crash won for best picture over the three orders of magnitude better Brokeback Mountain was the last year I cared about the Oscars one way or the other.

I love that people can still console themselves with ideas like "There wouldn't be so much fuss over TDK or Heath Ledger's performance if he hadn't died." Apparently, short-term memory isn't much these days. Seems everyone's forgotten that TDK was one of the most eagerly anticipated films in recent memory, and that people were throwing around the words "Oscar nomination," when Heath Ledger was STILL ALIVE.

Now that it's all come to pass that this film that so many expected to be a massive success WAS a massive success, and that the Oscar nod (and win) that so many predicted was granted, it's easy for naysayers to chalk it all up to "Oh, it's because Ledger died." Funny. I guess all the people who saw this coming before Ledger died must have time machines or something.

TDK at least deserved nods for Director and Screenplay. In those categories, at least, yes...it was absolutely snubbed.