MovieChat Forums > Batman Forever (1995) Discussion > Best Cinematography Oscar Nomination?!?

Best Cinematography Oscar Nomination?!?

posted 9 years ago by andrewbaron
11 replies | jump to latest

Can someone please explain to me why the hell did this movie receive a Best Cinematography Oscar Nomination?

[–] Hawkeye-Costanza 9 years ago

Not much to choose from that year. Plus it was shot well, the screenplay and direction wasn't great but the atmosphere created and the artistic framing was effective I thought.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

Not much to choose from that year.

Braveheart? Apollo 13? Casino? Heat? Sense and Sensibility? Babe? Nixon? Twelve Monkeys? Strange Days? Se7en? Crimson Tide? The City of Lost Children? Shanghai Triad?

That's more than five movies that could easily have been nominated instead of Batman Forever (I'm assuming that some of these films were nominated alongside it).

[–] Tresix 9 years ago

It was nominated because it was THAT damned good.

Annoying the world since 1960!

[–] Hawkeye-Costanza 9 years ago

All great films, but not necessarily because of the cinematography. Just because a movie is successful doesn't mean it's an automatic best cinematography nominee. Braveheart won that year which was deserved.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

I specifically cited films with great cinematography. There were other great films released that year which I omitted (because their cinematography wasn't especially outstanding).

RIP:
David Bowie (1947-2016)
Alan Rickman (1946-2016)
Prince (Rogers Nelson) (1958-2016)

[–] Hawkeye-Costanza 8 years ago

Two of the films you cited were also nominated and the others are your opinion. I don't believe they were good enough for a nomination and the academy agrees.

[–] Callahan09 8 years ago

Of all the movies nominated that year, Batman Forever sticks out the worst as not belonging. City of Lost Children definitely should have been nominated instead of this. Either Se7en or Strange Days also probably should have replaced Sense & Sensibility in my opinion.

[–] Times_Up 9 years ago

I guess they loved the dutch camera angles.

We’re trying to pretend as if these comic books don’t exist. - David Goyer on the DCEU

[–] FMT 8 years ago

Because it looked great, with a very distinctive visual style and great use of color...?

[–] torstn 8 years ago

are you blind ?
the movie looks great, whether you like the movie or not doesnt matter, but the look and set design of the movie is pretty much a fact and for everyone to see this so i dont even know how you would discuss this, its fact that the movie has a very moody and effective look and the whole gotham city probably never looked better, the lighting , the set building, its moody , its grand its glamourous its colorful and dark at the same time, its 90s , its fun - try it sometime, remember fun? remember MTV ?

just compare to the recent batman movies where the enviromnent/cinematogaphy is dull/ realistic intead of moody / artistic, but thats todays style, no more artistic lighting, no more softener and filters etc etc , instead digital dullness, keep it realistic (=boring)

i know i had a blast watching this in the 90s on the big screen, was so much fun (as opposite to the new movies)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]