Movie Fan Polling On Star Trek Academy Best Pic Omission – But Orci Says ‘No Snub’ |
jump to navigation

Movie Fan Polling On Star Trek Academy Best Pic Omission – But Orci Says ‘No Snub’ February 3, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Not long after yesterday’s nominations for the Academy Awards were announced, many in the media started calling the omission of a Best Picture nod for Star Trek a ‘snub’ or a ‘surprise’ (see previous report). Now a couple of polls show many movie fans agree. However, Star Trek exec producer and co-writer Roberto Orci doesn’t agree.


Polling for a snub?

Yesterday we ran a TrekMovie Poll on the exclusion of Star Trek, and the results were about 50/50, although most agree the film was more deserving than The Blind Side.

Was Star Trek Snubbed for Best Picture Nom?

* Yes – Robbed! (52%)
* No – but more deserving than “Blind Side” (29%)
* No (21%)

But it isn’t just here that polling here, a couple of other polls show many feel Trek was snubbed

Box Office Mojo

What was the biggest surprise omission from the Best Picture Oscar nominees?

26.3% Star Trek
19.0% (500) Days of Summer
13.1% Invictus
12.9% The Hangover
6.1% Other
4.8% Crazy Heart
4.4% The Lovely Bones
4.1% A Single Man
4.0% Nine
3.2% The Fantastic Mr. Fox
1.0% The Messenger
1.0% The Young Victoria

Access Hollywood

What was the biggest surprise from the Oscar noms?

* ‘Star Trek’ not up for Best Picture:  28%
* ‘District 9’ getting a Best Picture nod: 23%
* Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Best Supporting Actress nod:  20%
* No Best Director nod for Clint Eastwood for ‘Invictus’: 29%


Blind Side came out of nowhere

It appears that the omission of Star Trek (or one of the other films considered in contention like (500) Days of Summer, Invictus or The Messenger) combined with the inclusion of The Blind Side is causing most of the scratching of heads. Awards Daily has an interesting analysis chart showing how (unlike Trek and the other films being talked about) The Blind Side came out of nowhere, not being nominated by any of the precursor events (guild awards, critic groups or other awards like BAFTA, Golden Globes, etc). And according to the LA Times, even the Academy wasn’t ready for the nod (shown by not being able to identify the appropriate producers):

…the most likely reason why the movie was stigmatized by being lumped into the "to be determined" purgatory: The academy simply didn’t think "The Blind Side" would earn a best picture nomination, so they hadn’t gotten around to fully completing the vetting process.

Orci says ‘no snub’

Of course there is no rule to say that Academy has to nominate any one film over any other based on past events. Surprises happen and that’s that. Star Trek did pick up four Oscar nominations, which matches the franchise record. Plus it has been nominated by almost all of the  Hollywood guilds and picked up many other honors as well. It is fair to say that the 2009 Star Trek film has the most accolades of any film in the franchise, along with it being popular both with Trek fans and the general movie going audience. 

Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci dropped by TrekMovie yesterday and commented on the whole ‘snub’ thing, saying:

Agree with those who say Star Trek was not snubbed, but appreciate so much those who feel that way on our behalf.

May we all live long and prosper

Maybe next time

And of course there is always the ‘Star Trek: Something Something’ sequel. According to reports, the Academy’s expansion of 10 nominees rule was made because many felt that last year The Dark Knight was snubbed and the Academy was ignoring popular and genre films. The Batman Begins sequel was a huge success with filmgoers and with critics. People at Paramount and on the ‘Trek Supreme Court’ liked to point at Batman Begins as a model for the first Star Trek. All indications are that they succeeded in meeting (and possibly exceeding) that standard of re-invigorating a franchise. So now the challenge for the team is for them to make that great second movie, like The Dark Knight (or Wrath of Khan, or Empire Strikes Back, etc).

No pressure guys

Can Trek keep the trend?



1. dmduncan - February 3, 2010

May the academy be attacked by a ravenous horde of vampire tribbles.

2. Lt. Bailey - February 3, 2010

The Academy Awards are Hollywood’s insiders appreciation of their own kind. We can only enjoy the fact that a new ST film was made at all. Most of us will feel it is the Best Picture without the Academy given it an award.

3. Hugh Hoyland - February 3, 2010

Im not sure I agree with Bob on this one, I think it was a snub. But thats the stigma of being Trek. ST 09 went a long way to knock out that stigma, and perhapes the sequel will do even better.

4. Surak - February 3, 2010

5. Kirk's girdle - February 3, 2010

Have we forgotten what the Oscar is supposed to represent? Star Trek was a good movie. It brought juice, energy, and mainstream credibility to an ailing and geek infested franchise. It made a lot of money.

However, it had no real social relevance or message, broke no real new ground in cinema, did not showcase any phenomenal acting performances or dialogue, and although popular, did not become a major event where it became a must-see film.

In short, it was not BEST PICTURE material.

6. Kirk's girdle - February 3, 2010

So zip up, I can see your geek from here.

7. CmdrR - February 3, 2010

Movie goers vote with their bucks. If they want an “important” movie, they’ll makeit number one. If they want a movie that takes them away from their worries for a few hours, they’ll go see Avatar and Star Trek.

Oscar is empty calories. It’s no reflection on the quality or popularity of a movie. Hollywood is the least qualified creature on Earth to judge its own work.

8. Hugh Hoyland - February 3, 2010

# and ANY of the movies nominated had true social relevance or message that the average person could actually relate to or even give a flip about? The only ground breaking done was by Avatar, mostly because its a visual masterpiece.

9. Kirk's girdle - February 3, 2010

And just to clarify: you don’t have to meet all those criteria (Avatar didn’t), but you have to meet some of them (Avatar certainly did).

And for what it’s worth, I thought The Hurt Locker was a pretty good film, certainly gritty with “in your face” realism, but structurally there’s not much story there and only a few small tidbits of strong acting. It has the look of an important film, but it’s really not. The other nominees must really be duds.

10. Kirk's girdle - February 3, 2010

Re: 8 Which is why the film is only nominated for Best Picture and Director – purely for its technical achievement and it’s world-shattering event status.

11. Kirk's girdle - February 3, 2010

Re: 7 – That’s called the “People’s Choice Award” or better yet, “The MTV Movie Awards”. Where else can Ben Stiller win Best Actor?

12. Harry Ballz - February 3, 2010

Listen, the Academy Awards have always had their head up their ass. Look at 1974…..the Best Actor Oscar went to Art Carney for Harry and Tonto, beating out Jack Nicholson in Chinatown and Al Pacino in Godfather II.


13. dmduncan - February 3, 2010

In all seriousness, I never imagined I’d ever see a Star Trek film even seriously MENTIONED as a best picture nominee, so I am elated that it was considered. And that many people outside of a fan site like this apparently feel the same way is staggering.

14. Vulcan Soul - February 3, 2010

Sorry, anyone who thinks that movie deserves a “Best Pic” nomination with its dumb 30s scifi serial plot really is delusional. I mean, even Hollywood is not *that* creatively bancrupt yet, and especially in the sci fi genre there were many many better movies this year, with less formulaic, more exciting and *cough* even deep plots.

15. spb - February 3, 2010

Oy, vey… TREK 09 never even came within spitting distance of THE WRATH OF KHAN. If ever there was one single TREK film to be mentioned in the same breath as the Oscars, it’s that one.

TREK 09 was fine for what it was. Best Picture caliber, however? Even with 10 slots? Pardon me, but NO EFF-IN’ WAY. Come on, folks.

16. spb - February 3, 2010

Hey, at least K&O’s TRANSFORMERS 2 got plenty of other nominations!!!

Um, for Razzies anyway…

17. Kirk's girdle - February 3, 2010

Yeah, Pacino couldn’t get a break. This was his third loss in 4 back to back nominations. Nicholson got it the next year though.

18. Julie - February 3, 2010

I agree with #5

Let’s break some ground with the next one like they did in TOS. That’s really what Star Trek was supposed to be about.

19. Kirk's girdle - February 3, 2010

Re: 16 – And before Avatar spoiled it for them at the 11th hour, that thing would’ve been the biggest film released in 2009.

20. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - February 3, 2010

All the Voters of the Awards shows will be put into the Agoniser booth for a period of no less then 2 weeks. How Dare they ignore Trek.

21. dmduncan - February 3, 2010

@12: lol. In 1941 Citizen Kane was nominated 9 times and won for best original screenplay. While it LOST to John Ford’s “How Green was My Valley” in 1941, it NOW surpasses “How Green Was My Valley” on most top critics’ all time best movies list.

22. Forge Lindin - February 3, 2010

You can’t say that most people think blind side should not have been nominated. The 52% who say that star trek was robbed may prefer blind side, for all we know. They are not necessarily saying that blind side shouldn’t have made it, so its not correct to say that most people think blind side was more or less deserving – you simply cannot tell on that question and set of answers.

~ Statistics geek

23. Kirk's Girdle - February 3, 2010

Hehe, true to your name, Captain Mike.

24. Oh No, Odo - February 3, 2010

Please stop with the Dark Knight analogies. The next Star Trek film does not and should not need to be dark, depressing, unbalanced or an hour too long. Keep it light.

25. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - February 3, 2010

Trek 09 was a lot better then most filmes. I don;t think it would have won. But is at least number 2 or 3 on the list. So me and my frends in the Terran Empire will hunt down those voters and make the spend some quality time in the Agoniser booth.

26. "Check the Circuit!" - February 3, 2010

For thso of you with the holier than thou attitudes about geeks, fan base and social relevance…Locke laid out the FACTS best on Tuesday.

Tomatometer Scores:

Avatar: 82%
The Blind Side: 70%
District 9: 90%
An Education: 95%
The Hurt Locker: 97%
Inglourious Basterds: 89%
Precious: 91%
A Serious Man: 87%
Up: 98%
Up in the Air: 90%

Star Trek: 94%

It deserves to be there.

It wouldn’t be a critcal darling if Star Trek was a piece of fluff popcorn movie…as some of the vocal minority suggests. It was a great movie that SHOULD have been in the 10 nominations. For that matter, it should have been included in the “short list” of 5….if it was just about critical acclaim. But it’s the Hollywood elite that turns up their noses because it’s that silly old 60″s TV show.

SNUB! Plain and simple.

27. spb - February 3, 2010

Good Lord, just STOP with this ROTTEN TOMATOES nonsense!!!

You do realize that a majority of “fresh” reviews can constitute reviews that judge a film as merely “okay?” Not every single review in that 94% means the reviewer thought TREK 09 was the Second Coming. A lot of them were merely, “better than your average STAR TREK film.”

28. Anthony Pascale - February 3, 2010

Kirk’s Girdle, stop spamming. 1 out of 3 posts is from you. at least stop commenting on your own comments

29. Boborci - February 3, 2010

Well, to those Trekkies who disagree with me that all is fair, take comfort in the fact that it is truly an honor just to be snubbed.

30. Anthony Pascale - February 3, 2010

RE: Dark Knight

I am not saying that the sequel should have similiar themes or plot to The Dark Knight. Abrams has already made it clear that when they made Star Trek they didnt want it to be dark. The comparison is merely how both franchises have ‘come back’ and had success with critics, general film goers and fans. So the point on TDK is that it is considered a successful sequel. And like Empire and Wrath of Khan, it is even considered better than the first.

The film makers themselves put Batman Begins out as a model. I am only extending that to say, can they keep it up and do something as good as The Dark Knight? (although I doubt a Trek film can ever make $1B), but something that is as good and layered.

I have heard Orci and Kurtzman talk about 2nd films before and how they are often the better films, like Empire Strikes Back. They talked about that pressure at the recent WGA event.

31. Valar1 - February 3, 2010

The next one just needs to have a socially relevant message, I mean that’s the only reason Avatar can be laughingly included in there, it’s that hamfisted bludgeoning over the head environmental message that has gotten it the nod.

32. TheHomegaMan - February 3, 2010

I swear, the feeling of victimhood on the part of the “Trek was snubbed!” camp is somewhere between astounding and hilarious. #5 got it right. ST09 did nothing to deserve a best picture Oscar, let alone a nomination. Most of its strength came from re-invigorating a known franchise. It did nothing new. It did nothing groundbreaking. It was a textbook “get the band together and beat the bad guy” story.

Was it nice to see Trek on the silver screen again? You bet. Was it nice to see hope for the franchise? Of course. They don’t give Oscars for rehabilitating something on life support. It has to stand on its own, regardless of franchise, as one of the best films of the year. Movies with plot holes you could drive the Enterprise through tend not to be recognized as such.

That said, if anyone here would like to make the case for ST09 deserving an Oscar, and thus be nominated, I’d be interested. Try to do so without crying “bias” or acting like there some debt owed to Star Trek by the Academy, as doing so would only undermine whatever intelligent points you may or may not make in the process.

33. Jesustrek - February 3, 2010

Hello Bob two important questions ¿STXI this planned for a conclusion in three parts? and the fan with me love the enterprise of will be a culminating point appearing in “the BIG SCREEN”?

Saludos, y bueno esperaba ver nominada STXI a mejor pelicula, ojala el oscar a maquillaje y esfectos visuales se logre.

Visitanos por

34. Dan - February 3, 2010

Bob better say he was not snubbed if he wants to get future nominations or wins.

35. Jesustrek - February 3, 2010

Enterprise of TOS hehe sorry, to the big jump to Tv at Big Screen

36. VZX - February 3, 2010

I liked Batman Begins more than The Dark Knight, but that’s just me.

By the way, I think it could be cool if the Star Trek sequal was titled without “Star Trek” in it, similar to how The Dark Knight does not have “Batman” in the title.

Maybe call it: “To Boldy Go…” or something.

37. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - February 3, 2010

Hey. Bob Orci. You have a point. But. Still we were Snubed. I think we should all go Terran Empire on them and teach them some lessons.

38. ryanhuyton - February 3, 2010

Some people really need to settle down. Yes, “Star Trek” was “snubbed” based on the number of positive critical reviews as well as the fact that “The Blind Side” wasn’t as well liked apart from Sandra Bullock, but this is nothing new. (A) great movie(s) get “snubbed” every year. This year was no different. But as disappointing as this may seem to some, the biggest snub (possibly ever) was against “The Dark Knight”. As much as I loved “Star Trek”, “The Dark Knight” was a better movie. As for this year’s nominations, the only one I don’t get was “The Blind Side”. Maybe “Avatar” as well. But no one can argue against “District 9″, “The Hurt Locker” or even “Up”. As for the others, I haven’t seen them but from what I have heard, “Precious” is a masterpiece, albeit one that I have no interest in seeing. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter that “Star Trek” didn’t get nominated. Awards are mostly subjective. No one is going to agree on what constitutes “best picture”. If you look at many of the greatest movies in history, a lot of them weren’t even considered for a best picture Oscar.
“The Empire Strikes Back”, “Indiana Jones And The Lost Ark”, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, and “The Dark Knight”. Movies that won that probably shouldn’t include “Shakespeare In Love” and “Crash”. Its just the way it goes and is why all awards shows should be taken with a grain of salt.

39. Harry Ballz - February 3, 2010

Hey, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Star Trek deserved an Oscar nod….I just don’t think, in general, that the Oscars have any merit or integrity. Look at all the actors who didn’t get one for their best work and then, years later, get one for some substandard performance simply out of sympathy/sentimentality!

Utter nonsense!!

40. jim (kirk) w - February 3, 2010

I am surprised by the snub comments.. the movie was huge at the box office but that alone does not make it academy award worthy, even among star trek fans this movie is not considered the best star trek movie, so how can we believe it should be academy worthy.. if any film that came close to being all of the things an academy award film, it probably would be Wrath of Kahn..

I am just happy that more fans have come and embraced this movie and I expect that the next one should improve with a little more content, a lot more character development and be fun..

41. Hugh Hoyland - February 3, 2010

#29 Bob all’s fair but just a nod would have brought more attention and maybe a little legitimacy. IMO perception is a big part of reality. Even if something is a lie, if enough people believe it, its “true” to a certain extent. By and large the general public think of Trek as being a geek fest IMO. Thats something that hopefully will change with the new movies.

42. trekker77 - February 3, 2010

sorry Anthony. Maybe to YOU Empire was better than Star Wars. Not to everybody.

43. AJ - February 3, 2010

“Star Trek 09″ is a terrific film. Can’t wait for the next one…

44. somethoughts - February 3, 2010

When I close my eyes, I see a epic sci fi tale that has yet to be told, one filled with wonder, adventure and mystery. Give us the grand epic space film we all deserve.

Show us Scotty in the silence of space fixing the warp nacelles upside down, side ways out, spinning and working his magic on the Enterprise while inside a nebula cluster hiding from the enemy.

Show us Spock mind melding with some alien technology.

Show us Kirk kicking ass in the command chair.

Show us the moon, mars and how the future solar system would look like, one filled with starships, starbases and trade routes.

More bar scenes filled with aliens of all types.

More torpedo cams and cool realistic shots of ships in space.

Lots of debates between, Kirk-Spock-McCoy.

Problem solving between crew.

Ethical/Moral Dilemma.

Cool looking monsters/aliens.

Advanced civlilzations, no more pre industrial or pre warp societies that love peace.

2.2-2.5hrs feature film with 3D option.

200million budget utilizing the more recent special effects or create new special effect technologies.

New ships we have not seen, ones that look as cool as the Enterprise, historical TOS style ships but with incredible style and detail added.

Red Shirt Death.

Distress Call while x.

He’s Dead Jim, line.

Refit the Enterprise.

Cameo from Guardian or use it as a plot device.

Show us new Vulcan.

New Sets for the engineering section.

Someone important dies, remind us that this is a new reality and peoples lives has changed. The person can be brought back but at a expense to morality or ethics by use of x technology. The resurrection of soul/astral energy.

Time Travel, Vulcans preparing to time travel to save their home planet/prime directive issues.

Cloaking technology research/Treaty of Algeron/Sector Iowa (secret federation intelligence)

Enterprise sent to investigate a mystery/missing starship, they find the starship imbued into asteroid, realize that the Federation has been experimenting with cloaking technology. Survivor on board is found and his name is x.

45. Red Skirt - February 3, 2010

This is the most ridiculous discussion ever. Star Trek was most definitely not snubbed. With all due respect to the esteemed journalistic publications of Entertainment Weekly and serious investigative journalism of Access Hollywood, there was no conspiracy in the Academy to purposefully exclude Star Trek from the Oscars. Seriously. There’s more likely to be a conspiracy by Paramount to compensate these tabloid “journalists” for running such stories.

46. Federali Aundy - February 3, 2010

Okay I haven’t read what everyone else had to say above, but if no one has said this then I shall be the first:

It’s a shame that the Oscars do not have an award for Best Ensamble. Certainly Star Trek could have won this. I believe there was some hope that this kind of award would have been created after all three Lord of the Rings movies were nominated for Best Picture but failed to win any acting awards. And it wasn’t that there weren’t any outstanding acting in the Lord of the Rings – there was just no single character that was the “main” character. While Star Trek did have a couple main characters, the heart of the movie was the crew and their mission. That’s what Star Trek is all about – an unbroken “Fellowship” (please pardon the LOTR reference…). Maybe next go round something can be done regarding this matter.

Oh yes, Avatar was all eye-candy with no compelling story. If a good sci-fi movie was going to get nominated, it should have Star Trek.

47. drtaylor - February 3, 2010

The Oscar decision is a mistake, for the same reason Titanic winning best picture was a mistake, and for the same reason leaving Dee Kelley out of the tribute video was a mistake. Star Trek may not have a new plot (how many plots are new, anymore?) or be super super relevant to our present situation, but that wasn’t really why they made the movie they made, was it?

This was the movie that had to be in order to save the franchise.

Hollywood saw it, Hollywood made it, they pulled it off, and now they’re failing to toot their own horn.

Shoulda coulda woulda.

48. MC1 Doug - February 3, 2010

One thing you have to admit is that Roberto Orci is definitely a classy guy. His comments are truly representative of grace and charm.

Better luck on ‘Star Trek something something something!’

49. Chris Fawkes - February 3, 2010

It would be completely tasteless to suggest that it was a snub.

Robert Orci clearly is a man of grace.

50. Will_H - February 3, 2010

Id say it deserved it a lot more than something like blind side, but honestly it was not best pic material. It still lacked the depth that a movie needs to obtain that. On top of TWOK I think First Contact would have deserved a best pic nom more than 09. Each had better acting and just a depth that this movie lacked. I hate to say it but I also think District 9 deserves an award in the visual effects more than Star Trek. They blended the CG with what was real far better than 09 did. Still, the Trekkie in me hopes 09 wins.

51. captain_neill - February 3, 2010

the debate goes on as if Star Trek XI was the equivalent of Ghandi.

Its a great film and was one of te top films of 2009 but I was unrealistic to get a Best Pic nom.

It would have been nice but if it had I would be thinking about some of the past better movies of Trek and how they never got this honour.

52. captain_neill - February 3, 2010

TWOK and First Contact and Undiscovered Country deserve the Best Pic nom more as they were better movies than this new one.

It annoys me when people treat this movie as the best ever when there is loads of better Trek stuff out there.

The same goes for Doctor Who, when the classic gets overlooked in favour of the new one. Why can’t both get great insteead of the new over the classics?

53. I am not Herbert - February 4, 2010

29. Boborci: “Well, to those Trekkies who disagree with me that all is fair, take comfort in the fact that it is truly an honor just to be snubbed.”

Well, I salute your humility, Sir! and your pragmatic, realistic POV!

just make the next one more realistic, and the ultimate accolade will come…

54. U.S.S. Manila NCC-99232 - February 4, 2010

I wonder why some or many Trek fans aren’t satisfied of Trek ’09’s many noms in the Guild Awards. I’m a real Trekkie myself but I’m already satisfied.

55. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - February 4, 2010

I recently watched ST VI TUC, man! that movie dosn’t work too well now, it looks so dated.
as for the plot and the acting?………..I was waiting of an Angela Lansbury cameo

56. captain_neill - February 4, 2010


Whatever but I don’t agree

Undiscovered Country has better acting and a much better plot.

I liked the whodunnit aspect of VI

Oh and Nick Meyer is so much better than JJ Abrams

57. captain_neill - February 4, 2010


Whatever but I don’t agree

Undiscovered Country has better acting and a much better plot.

I liked the whodunnit aspect of VI

Oh and Nick Meyer is so much better than JJ Abrams

58. captain_neill - February 4, 2010

sorry for duplicate post

59. captain_neill - February 4, 2010

Guess at times the new movie gets overrated on this site as if it were the only good Trek ever made.

I find that annoying

60. Sergio - February 4, 2010

UP, UP !!! You must be kidding, ok is a good movie, but probably must win by best animated film!

and The Blind Side! no comments

Star Trek, NINE, Invictus and others deserved to be nominated
would win??? probably not, but would have at least the recognition they deserve

61. somethoughts - February 4, 2010

We all know it was a snub, the reason for increasing nominations to 10 was to get films like Star Trek nominated but not win. Bob Orci is a very humble person and will never say it was a snub although we all know it was. If Avatar had not come out late last year, Star Trek would have easily been nominated.

The Academy just doesn’t like having sci fi films in the best film category and I am sure with Avatars positive reception the Academy wanted more normal everyday dramas in their top 10. Star Trek to them is no different than what Twilight is, they view Star Trek as a cult and not a film that can be rewarded.

Bob Orci is a class act like Wayne Gretzky and will never admit the opposition cheated him or is bad in any way.

62. somethoughts - February 4, 2010

The Academy doesn’t respect Trekkers/Trekkies they view us as basement dwelling nerds who have nothing better to do than fantasize about the future and hug trees. This is a snub, it is a slap in the face.

I thought JJ and crew changed that perception with the 2009 Movie. Star Trek is suppose to be cool and hip now and had garnered positive reviews from critics and audiences, it deserves to be nominated but was suppose to lose to Avatar or Up.

snub (snb)
tr.v. snubbed, snub·bing, snubs
1. To ignore or behave coldly toward; slight.
2. To dismiss, turn down, or frustrate the expectations of.
3. Nautical
a. To check the movement of (a rope or cable running out) by turning it quickly about a post or cleat.
b. To secure (a vessel, for example) in this manner.
4. To stub out (a cigarette, for example).
1. A deliberate slight or affront.
2. Nautical A sudden checking, as of a rope or cable running out.

snub [snʌb]
vb snubs, snubbing, snubbed (tr)
1. to insult (someone) deliberately
2. (Transport / Nautical Terms) to stop or check the motion of (a boat, horse, etc.) by taking turns of a rope or cable around a post or other fixed object
1. a deliberately insulting act or remark
2. (Transport / Nautical Terms) Nautical
a. an elastic shock absorber attached to a mooring line
b. (as modifier) a snub rope

63. captain_neill - February 4, 2010

why not take solace that Trek is back in public conscience again?

64. somethoughts - February 4, 2010

This act is no different than not inviting that weird kid/co worker to the party of 10. To not allow certain folks to eat in a restaurant or to take a bus, they view Star Trek as inferior and beneath them, shame on you Academy!

Academy snubs their noses against cult type films, ie. batman/twilight/harry potter/star trek, these films will never get nominated for a best picture.

65. "Check the Circuit!" - February 4, 2010


Until you come up with a better way to average the critical scores…I’ll stick with Rotten Tomatoes. The “issues” with the fresh scale apply to ALL FILMS…not just Star Trek. So with a level playing field, Star Trek’s average rating with professional critics (I discount the average schmucks “reviews”… like you and me) is in the top 5 of all films released in 2009. It’s fair and balanced….so I put a lot more stock in it than I do with the many of the irrational “I-hate-it-because-it-isn’t-TOS” comments here.

BTW, no other Star Trek film even comes close to the 92% from Top Critics. Wrath of Khan could only come up with 83%.

66. BillyLone - February 4, 2010

The Academy hates Sci-Fi. Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture back in ’77 but lost to Annie Hall. Which movie had a bigger impact on our culture? Which movie made space-based sci-fi credible? I can tell you that it wasn’t Annie Hall. If it weren’t for Star Wars, there would not be any Star Trek movies which led to the creation of the franchise. No BSG as well.

67. ensign joe - February 4, 2010

Just watched Moon last night.. Thought it was waaaaay better than District 9.. if something got snubbed it was Moon..

68. The Disinvited - February 4, 2010


I agree.

Besides it is not as if we can’t turn the whole conspiracy theory on its head and make the following ridiculous assertions:

It was an inside job! Giacchino purposely wrote a better score for UP.

Blindsided by THE BLIND SIDE? Who brought Bullock to the Academy’s attention with her most successful film EVER?: Orci and Kurtzman!

Orci confesses, “It’s not the Academy’s fault!”

Man, I love a good conspiracy in the morning.

when you need them?

69. somethoughts - February 4, 2010


We actually wouldn’t have Star Wars without TOS, TOS came out first in the 60s on TV. George just took something good and made it awesome in 77.

70. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - February 4, 2010

Great comment! I second!

71. dmduncan - February 4, 2010

@68: Except as far as I can tell you are the only person both mentioning and then mocking the conspiracy theory, which makes it a straw man.

Just about every year we hear about this movie or that one being “snubbed.” It’s just the peculiar parlance of entertainment news reporting. Conspiracists and their detractors can take their unrelated fight into the street.

But if I wanted to make a case for the snub I would attribute it to a species of groupthink, that is being sensitive to the general mood of the industry you are a part of and simply following it, which is also what happens in political elections where certain regions trend toward certain candidates in their voting habits. Which is not to say that those beliefs are not genuinely held, but that there is more to the story about why so many people think alike in the same regions than that they are randomly and independently coming to the same conclusions based on their own private reflections, in isolation from the people around them.

No cabals or conspiracy theories needed.

72. somethoughts - February 4, 2010

as Spock has said on many occasions, “If I were Human, I believe the logical reply would be, go to hell, if I where Human.”

or Quinto’s Spock would say, “Live Long, pause/stare and Prosper!!!….”

73. dmduncan - February 4, 2010

There was a fascinating study where researchers put an unsuspecting subject in a room full of actors and they then went around the room asking for the answers to simple arithmetic problems. All of the actors kept giving the same obviously wrong answer to the problem which at first made the subject laugh as he disagreed with the others and gave the correct answer. But as the experiment went on the subject became increasingly uncomfortable giving the CORRECT answer in opposition to the rest who were giving the same wrong answer.

Can you guess the outcome? Yes. It didn’t take long for HIM to start giving the same wrong answer as everyone else even though he KNEW he was giving the wrong answer. He didn’t have to be TOLD to give the same wrong answer. He did it on his own to fit in. That’s group dynamics.

74. TheHomegaMan - February 4, 2010

Maybe some people just don’t get it… you can’t simply cry “SNUB!” without making the case for why ST09 deserves to be nominated and rewarded. I’ve yet to see anyone really do that here.

I, too, love the franchise, but that doesn’t mean that it deserves an Oscar for being Star Trek.

75. The Disinvited - February 4, 2010

In my dictionary a snub is a far more active word than the case you made. It also carries with it the connotation of “intentional.”

Your case seems closer to a “shun” in its group participation aspects. Although I’m not entirely certain that that too isn’t far too active a word for the passive engagement that you appear to be describing.

76. The Disinvited - February 4, 2010


that was directed toward 71 and 73.

77. Red Skirt - February 4, 2010

#74, oh yeah baby. Right on!

#75, exactly! If the academy were say a Borg collective, then “snub” or “shun” might be appropriate.

Since every single member of the academy doesn’t get together in some cabal hall to be influenced by the others’ group behavior, such speculation is merely that. Most academy members I know aren’t even interested in how their buddies are going to vote, taking their own contribution very seriously, seeing it as an opportunity to voice their individual creative vision for Hollywood. To suggest the entirety of the Academy amounts to a group of lemmings seeking to curry the favor of the group by leaping off the cliff with the rest of the misguided masses does these enormously talented and creative people a huge injustice.

Without making any kind of value judgement, Star Trek simply did not fit the criteria of the Academy this year for a majority of the members. The WGA nominations make for a good litmus test. Essentially the same people voted for the Oscar’s, but about half the nominees for each category were different. This may be in part because some of the screenplays nominated for the Oscars were not eligible for the WGA. Meaning, the WGA nominated the next best script. Clearly no snub by this group, merely a different preference for what was the better script. Star Trek would have probably not made the list if the other films had been eligible. But the fact it did make the WGA list suggests no snubbing was involved, or they would have picked something else in order to keep it in its place.

78. Pyork (JE) Productions - February 4, 2010

# 26

I agree, but “major” film critics are like film class professors. They don’t know Jack from shit

79. ML31 - February 4, 2010

I consider it somewhat of a snub only in that Avatar made the list. Avatar, while visually stimulating, was otherwise a big heaping pile of horse dung. If that kind of genre drivel can make it, Trek surely should have.

80. "Check the Circuit!" - February 4, 2010

Again, until a better system comes along…I’ll stick with the “professors” at RottenTomatoes. They may not know Jack….but I have to believe they’re more qualified and unbiased than anyone here.

The system seems to work for movies outside of Star Trek too. The highest ratings of the year? Hurt Locker and Up. (The worst of the nominees, that seems to have left EVERYONE but Sandra Bullock scratching their heads….The Blind Side, at a meager 58% positive.)

And that critical acclaim does a lot to drive a wedge between a financial successful film….Transformers 2…and a good film…Hurt Locker, Up, Up in the Air, et al.

81. "Check the Circuit!" - February 4, 2010

@74 HomegMan

Read post #26.

I’m a franchise lover too….but I wasn’t suggesting/lobbying for a Oscar nomination for NEMESIS. (ugh!) But Star Trek 09 reached critical heights we may never see again. (Hopefully that’s not the case.) So yeah, I was excited about the prospect of finally seeing the franchise recognized with the film industry’s highest honor.

82. P Technobabble - February 4, 2010

In some sense, I’m not sure this is a question of whether or not Star Trek is an award-worthy film. Some are going to say YES, others will say NO. That’s how things go, so what, it’s no big deal. A more significant question, I think is: did movies like “The Blind Side,” or “Up,” or, perhaps, “District 9,” deserve a nomination MORE than “Star Trek?”
History is full of questionable choices for Academy Award nominations and wins. I think “Star Wars” deserved a win more than “Annie Hall,” for example. Does the fact that Star Wars became part of our modern-day mythology justify my thinking? How many “Annie Hall” die-hard followers are there? One could certainly make a case that “Norma Rae” deserved to win over “Kramer vs. Kramer.” I loved “Amadeus,” but a win over “The Killing Fields?” I could go on, but the point I’m making is that the films that end up winning are not NECESSARILY deserving of the award, that other films could easily have won. This is the main reason why I, personally, do not put a lot of stock in the awards.
I’d have been happy if Star Trek were nominated, but I also don’t care that it wasn’t. I loved the film, and I’m glad we still have Star Trek, which will certainly outlast any statue.

83. dmduncan - February 4, 2010

@75: Honestly, when the media uses the word “snub,” I really don’t think they’re too interested in finer distinctions like that, and when commenting on what they are reporting, neither am I, hence the bit about “parlance” with respect to the sorts of entertainment news reporting in which the word comes up.

The word also expresses the feeling that this person or thing was unfairly ignored or disdained, whether the unfairness was intentional or not.

Every nominated movie which I saw I liked. UP was a good film; it had a great 5 minute montage that told the life story of this couple in a cinematically brilliant way, and the rest was standard Pixar animated feature fare. It was an entirely good movie, but if it deserves a best pic nomination, then so does Star Trek for an equally brilliant opening 10 minutes, and lacking funny talking dogs is enough in my view to catapult Star Trek above UP on that list.

The difference is that as an animated feature UP has its OWN category in the Oscar ceremony, so that crossing over to grab at award titles which live action features are vying for seems so funny given that they are pushing an “envelope” which they created just to generate some faux tension between illusions, one being that there actually IS an envelope, the other being that they are heroes for pushing it.

Commendations to Bob for maintaining his humility amongst the nonsense. That’s extraordinary. And it’s more important than getting a golden idol.

84. dmduncan - February 4, 2010

77: “Since every single member of the academy doesn’t get together in some cabal hall to be influenced by the others’ group behavior, such speculation is merely that. Most academy members I know aren’t even interested in how their buddies are going to vote…”


If I say it’s not A or B to a person who thinks its either A or B, then I get accused of saying it’s A while they say it’s really B.

For the record, if anyone misunderstood the research example I gave as a literal example that applies to AMPAS, it is not. It was merely an example to show the complexities of social dynamics.

We don’t need conspiracies, cabals, closed door brow beatings, or personal interviews to absorb influence when we are bombarded with messages though TV shows, bill boards, nightly news, movies, tabloids, blogs and other websites, trade journals, newspapers, phone calls, email, casual conversations, overheard conversations, rumors both true and false, parties, text messages, twitter, youtube, facebook, myspace, career building maneuvers, insincere smiles, genuine smiles, reproving frowns, desperate restroom pitches, empty promises, etc, etc, etc. The number of ways information is communicated is staggering.

So the cabal thing is a non starter.

85. Anthony Pascale - February 4, 2010

Just to be clear, the notion of ‘snub’ in the media is not based on a conspiracy theory or anything like that. It is just based on pre announcement buzz expectations not being met. The whole expansion of 10 thing was announced in the Summer and all the MSM immediately pointed to “Star Trek” as the “Dark Knight” of 2009, as in a popular film that was also well regarded by critics. Also the guild nominations, especially the PGA nominations set up an expectation. Star Trek was one of two films nominated by the PGA that didn’t get the Academy Award nod (the other being Invictus).

Hence the MSM and others run their ‘snub’ articles. This kind of thing happens every year. Last year the Dark Knight Snub meme was so big it seems to have caused the Academy to change their rules. I have run these articles just to report on how Star Trek is being discussed in the media, which is something that this site has done since the beginning. As someone with a marketing background I am personally interested in seeing the repositioning of the Star Trek brand over the last few years.

There is no right or wrong here, they will nominate who ever they want. However, I do find it interesting that Star Trek can spark this kind of ‘snub’ reaction from so many. It shows that the franchise has come a long way. As pointed out in the article, Batman Begins was a model, but I really don’t remember much ‘Batman Begins snubbed’ buzz. And I really do think that Bob and the gang have set up a platform for storytelling that has a lot of potential in the sequel. They have already talked about how the first one was about getting the family together and the second one is going to go deeper, have allegories, etc. I do agree with the comments from some observers that the Academy does like a ‘message’ or clear theme, and that could benefit the sequel.

So lets hope that three years from now we are talking about ‘Star Trek: Something Something” and its pile of nominations, including Best Picture.

Again, no pressure Bob (and Alex, JJ, Damon, Bryan, and the gang)

86. Red-Shirted Monkey - February 4, 2010

Let me count the ways… Spock and Uhura hooking up; The Kirk/Pike relationship stolen from Maverick/Viper; Scotty with an Ewok companion; Trans-warp beaming; The bridge set; The brewery engine room set; The Enterprise exterior; Delta Vega moving across the galaxy; Spock Prime’s void response to experiencing Vulcan implode; The faulty science; Kirk wandering into Spock Prime’s cave; Chekov’s perm; Need more? I could go all day.

There was no snub. Period.

87. somethoughts - February 4, 2010


I think you are missing the point, you are confusing what you did not like in a Star Trek movie to whether or not Star Trek is a top 10 film in 2009.

All the reviews, box office numbers and sequel plans suggest it was a top 10 film. I am not saying it should win best picture, but a nomination in the top 10 is not out of the question. Do you think people would be debating it if being nominated was such a stretch?

Surely you know the Academy never likes cult films like comic book heroes, twilight, harry potter and star trek. They feel these films are outside the spectrum to what should be reserved for other films like Forest Gump or Slumdog whatever, they want to come across as being sophisticated and cultured, not die hard fans of a series.

To deny that is simply ignorant.

88. The Disinvited - February 4, 2010


You are aware that RT makes no pretense whatsoever that what masquerades as “data” there is collected with either mathematical or scientific rigor?

It’s much ado about nothing. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

89. TheHomegaMan - February 4, 2010


The critical heights that another Trek may never reach is wholly irrelevant to whether or not this film is Oscar worthy. Most of the Trek movies haven’t been all that good, barring WoK, TVH (perhaps), TUC, and FC. It doesn’t matter how ST09 did in relation to the other Trek films. What DOES matter is whether or not it was one of the best films of 2009, and whether or not it’s better than the others out there.

90. The Disinvited - February 4, 2010


Not quite. Worldwide STAR TREK didn’t make the top 10 in the B.O. and The Academy voters consist of members who make motion pictures the world over.

91. somethoughts - February 4, 2010

I think if there never was a Star Trek in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and Star Trek 2009 was simply called Space 2233, I bet it would take home the best picture award.

Star Trek comes with too much baggage and the Academy has a pre conceived notion with what it is. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the voters never even bothered to watch it on their special for your consideration disc.

92. somethoughts - February 4, 2010

Some of the voters simply judged a book by its cover. Star Trek? pfft next, I’ll vote for blindside which made less than Star Trek and was less critically acclaimed.

93. Red Skirt - February 4, 2010

#87, and yet back when there were only 5 films “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” won best picture in 2003. “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” was nominated in 2002 and “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” was nominated in 2001. “Star Wars” was nominated in 1977. Then there’s “cult film adjacent” like “ET”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, “Beauty and the Beast”, and “The Fugitive”.

Yeah, it must be a conspiracy to keep a cult series like Star Trek for being in the top 10 where it belongs as evidenced by its commercial success. NOT. And the people debating it are Star Trek fans, so no surprise there.

94. somethoughts - February 4, 2010


How do you explain having blindside being nominated over Star Trek? It is a simple case of the Academy not wanting too many sci fi films in their precious top 10 and their voters simply over looking Star Trek because of it’s history and name.

95. somethoughts - February 4, 2010

fyi Box Office Mojo and Access Hollywood are not star trek fan sites lol

96. "Check the Circuit!" - February 4, 2010


You’re not reading my earlier posts. The whole point was about the better critical acclaim of Star Trek 09 than most of the 10 Best Picture nominations.

97. TheHomegaMan - February 4, 2010


Oh…. crap.

My bad. Long couple of days.

98. dmduncan - February 5, 2010

Here’s a random idea! What if the SC treated the remaining sequels in the rebooted franchise following the model of parallel storylines that we see in the great film, The Godfather II?

Wouldn’t it be cool to start off the remaining movies in the future and tell the stories in flashback?

That is, the sequel begins with an elder Captain Kirk, played by William Shatner — BUT, he’s not playing Kirk Prime, he’s playing an elder Kirk PINE!

And maybe Starfleet suspects that Kirk is planning something sneaky in the last years of his life, and they send an elder and now retired Admiral Picard to try and coax it out of him what he’s doing.

And then the next series of movies unfolds in flashback, so that we see the alternate universe crew facing their new stories AND they are all tied together somehow by the end of the rebooted franchise when elder Kirk Pine’s plan is finally revealed.

And it doesn’t end with Kirk anywhere near dying in a ravine in the nexus.

Just a thought.

99. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


I think this would work, however, the SC has stated they wanted a uncertain future. The fact that elder Kirk Pine is alive and well goes against the element of danger and surprise in the reboot of uncertainty.

I believe that is the problem with not having a regular star trek series on tv, where they can explore all these great ideas. The SC is confined to 4+hrs more of story telling and imo that is not enough time to tell all the fabulous stories and ideas at their disposal.

100. Red Skirt - February 5, 2010

#94 & #95, *sigh*

You have absolutely no proof of your accusation in #94. It is all conjecture implying the ridiculous notion of a conspiratorial cabal against Star Trek, by whatever means, electronic, back-room, or otherwise.

Moreover, the “Academy” is made up of respected individuals in their field, all of whom take great pride and their individual votes seriously. It is not some elitist group consciousness that governs their votes, but a sincere desire to honor the best work of the year. And yes, just like any democratic process, there are those with bad taste, poor judgment, and some politics and cronyism. But the membership is simply too vast to conclude every single member is so inept or corrupt as to mark their private ballot based solely on the influence of others, or an equal aversion to Star Trek.

Also, while I was referring to the debate on this site, I’m_sure_no Star Trek fans have ever visited Box Office Mojo and Access Hollywood.

Either way, I see little “debate” in the sites referenced in these articles. The two listed here are polls. The related Trekmovie article’s references merely lists Star Trek among a dozen other films which a particular critic felt was overlooked, mostly unofficial Blog entries and not primary publication content. And very little specifically discussing Star Trek exclusively or at length. It is only the fans I see running with that particular ball.

There was no “snub”. At the very most, one could say Star Trek was not given enough consideration, which is more than generous considering the quality of the other films which the media has also included in that “snubbed” category they have been promoting. Nothing special about Star Trek’s exclusion from that estimable list, in that all the evidence points to the fact the Academy simply made other choices, not a targeted effort to thumb their collective noses at Avatar.

101. Red Skirt - February 5, 2010

… not a targeted effort to thumb their collective noses at “Star Trek”.

102. somethoughts - February 5, 2010

It’s ok Red Skirt we all know you loved blindside more than star trek 09 that is your opinion and I respect that.

I consider Star Trek 2009 as being a top 10 film in 2009 that is why I consider it a snub, no other reason, no conspiracy here. It is ok to call a spade a spade and Star Trek 2009 was snubbed.

I think your problem is hammering home what your opinions are to others and your opinion is the final and absolute opinion on the matter lol relax.

103. Red Skirt - February 5, 2010

#102. LOL, yup, you certainly aren’t trying to_hammer_anything.

For the record I haven’t even seen Blindside. So, hammer anything you like, just don’t hit your fingers in the process. ;-)

BTW, the word “snub” carries with it the bias of disdain, which implies a willful act on the part of the omission. To apply that definition to an entire group invokes conspiracy. It may all be semantics to you, but we either use words correctly or we don’t. The media uses the word because it is a hot button sensational headline. Why do you use it?

“It is a simple case of the Academy not wanting too many sci fi films in their precious top 10 and their voters simply over looking Star Trek because of it’s history and name.”

… sounds like a conspiracy to me.

104. Nivenus - February 5, 2010

Metacritic’s a better guage than RT, because it measures actual scores rather than the on/off, positive or negative method of doing things at RT. Not that RT’s bad. It’s just that Metacritic’s a more accurate analysis.

105. I, Mugsy - February 5, 2010

Today’s recipe:

Take the epic sci-fi nature of The Motion Picture, add the drama and quality of acting from The Wrath of Khan, add the perfectly balanced humor of The Voyage Home, plus today’s special effects work and show something NEW and THOUGHT PROVOKING…. THEN you’d be talking a possible Star Trek best pic nomination/win….

As it is I’m afraid we’re very much in with the ‘great popcorn flic’ category. Star Trek 2009 is an awsome start/re-start to the series, but the next film really needs to smash ALL the barriers and break away from being a merely good popcorn flick. It needs to get back to what Star Trek really was about – GREAT stories, and sci-fi… the characters are tools to tell a compelling story, NOT the story is there to serve the characters, as has been h ecase for far too long….. Trek needs to stop aping itself, and to TELL stories again……

Hope some of the above makes sense to someone ;)


106. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


I love to hammer ;)

Check out this link, it’s about Michael Bay sending a letter to the Academy.

107. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


I think you should watch Blindside and make a judgment if it deserved to take Star Trek’s nomination as top 10 picture of the year. Anyone can confirm Star Trek 2009 a) made more money and b) was a more critically acclaimed film than Blindside.

One can also make a argument as to why is there a animated film in the final 10 for best picture where there is already best animated category.

Zoe also deserves best supporting actress nod for her work in Avatar, no? All I am saying is you can snub someone without a conspiracy.

snubbed, snub·bing, snubs
1. To ignore or behave coldly toward; slight.
2. To dismiss, turn down, or frustrate the expectations of.
v. con·spired, con·spir·ing, con·spires
1. To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
2. To join or act together; combine:
To plan or plot secretly.

Snub and Conspire are different.

With 2 sci fi titles (Avatar and District 9) already in the top 10, and having ET as the only previous sci fi winner, one can conclude the Academy are scifiphobes.

108. Mikey1091 - February 5, 2010

To be honest, I think the grammy’s are joke, along with pretty much all the other awards things. Hence why I refuse to watch any of them. And I do agree, they really did screw Trek out of any awards whatsoever this year.

109. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


I agree with you Mikey1091.

Star Trek 2009 got screwed, is that better Red Skirt? :)

I wish we can find out who didn’t vote for Star Trek 2009 so we can all throw tomatoes at them and make them watch blind side for all eternity.

110. dmduncan - February 5, 2010

@106: Michael Bay has a point about the lack of technical nominations for Transformers 2. It did have some amazing sound and SPFX, so I would agree with him that his film got snubbed in those categories. Even if nobody was going to give him an award the film still should have been nominated in those two categories.

111. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


Yea, I agree. Perhaps they should review the nominations process and have 3rd party folks verify nominations and omissions and hold a panel to corrections to omissions etc. Money talks on every level, look at the Olympics it’s all about the best handshake wink wink

112. Red Skirt - February 5, 2010

#107. I give up.

“I think you should watch Blindside and make a judgment if it deserved to take Star Trek’s nomination as top 10 picture of the year.”

The Blind Side did_nothing_of the kind. I don’t have to watch it to know that. I do have to watch it to decide if I think it deserved an Oscar nomination.

You keep insisting The Blind Side was nominated_instead_of Star Trek. But all of the other news outlets reporting the story also mention several other films that were “snubbed”, including “A Single Man”, “Where the Wild Things Are”, “The Hangover”, “Invictus”, “Julie & Julia”, “The Messenger”, “Nine”, “This Is It”, etc.

Now I’ve seen a number of those other films and I would pick them over Star Trek any day. “A Single Man” was a phenomenal film that I would easily pick over Star Trek and definitely deserved a nomination. But that’s my opinion. I’m not trying to force it on anybody, and I’m definitely not going to say it was “snubbed” by the Academy.

It’s fantastic that you are so enthusiastic about the franchise and would prefer to see Star Trek on the list over The Blind Side. But I’m sorry there’s no basis to the claim that it was “snubbed”. The majority of the academy voters simply preferred other films over it. However you want to define it, there was no intentional effort by the collective Academy to deny Star Trek its “rightful” acknowledgement. In fact I know a few Academy members and they are huge Star Trek fans. But even they agree there were more deserving films that earned some recognition despite not being huge box office grossers.

But the way you chose to evaluate Star Trek’s merit using Rotten Tomatoes and box office grosses to make your argument is flawed. In fact Star Trek does not make RT’s top 20 list, much less it’s top 10. By your reckoning, then the only thing that puts Trek in contention is that it is in the top 7 US box office earners. And by the way “The Blind Side” has not stopped earning yet and is a mere $17 million under Star Trek and gaining every day (what happens if it makes more money?). But based on your logic, there’s no need to hold an Academy awards at all. The movie that is the best reviewed by Rotten Tomatoes and earns the most automatically wins without consideration of any other aspect of its quality. And you know which movie that was? “UP”. That’s the best movie of 2009 based on your formula. So if they simply had an awards ceremony using your method, they wouldn’t even mention Star Trek, no need for nominations after all. And no need to talk about the Hurt Locker at all, just because the critics thought it was one of the top 10 films of the year, it didn’t earn enough. So we’re done. No need to talk about Star Trek at all.

113. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


No need to give up, you are entitled to your opinions :)

“You keep insisting The Blind Side was nominated_instead_of Star Trek. But all of the other news outlets reporting the story also mention several other films that were “snubbed”, including “A Single Man”, “Where the Wild Things Are”, “The Hangover”, “Invictus”, “Julie & Julia”, “The Messenger”, “Nine”, “This Is It”, etc.”

At least we can agree there are other movies that should have been nominated instead of Blind Side.

Perhaps you should tell your Academy member friend voters to watch the first 10mins of Star Trek again, the movie should have been nominated just for that scene :) IMO, Star Trek should have been on the list over, Up in the air, Blind Side, and Up (Up does not belong in the non animated section, it has it’s own category, animated). I can only judge based on my own experience and enjoyment of nominated films.

Why don’t they just create a sci fi category then? Star Trek can always be nominated and lose out to another movie like Avatar 2 or 3 :)

The reason why folks including non Star Trek fans believe it was snubbed was because of the expansion of the nominations from 5 to 10 which allowed more quality films to be nominated and Star Trek 2009 in my books is a top 6 and definitely a top 10 movie for 2009. I know I would be far out and unreal to suggest Star Trek 2009 would win Best Picture because we know there are other films out there in 2009 that are more deserving, but not to be nominated in 10 slots is robbery.

114. boborci - February 5, 2010

Should we go collect our Razzie in person?

115. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


lol boborci, you are so humble and far more deserving of a nomination then blind side.

Keep up the excellent work, you don’t need awards or nominations, keep doing what you are doing, cheers.

If you can make a Klingon Warrior dual wield this in the sequal, I will love you long time.

116. I am not Herbert - February 5, 2010

114. boborci: “Should we go collect our Razzie in person?”

Hell YEAH! Take Megan Fox! (She IS pretty hot…)

…plus, you gotta be able to take a joke, right?

117. somethoughts - February 5, 2010


Good idea

118. Dan - February 6, 2010

114# You guys definitely deserve your Razzies for Revnge of the Fallen!

119. Hugh Hoyland - February 6, 2010

I liked ROTF, and one of the reasons is I have never seen the original Transformers, yet with the sequel I really didnt have to, it kind of explained itself while it went along. Maybe thats something to shoot for with Star Trek 2. And I dont think Im the only one that liked it, its in the Top Ten all time domestic gross list, and WW made almost a billion$, thats nothing to sneeze about.

120. dmduncan - February 6, 2010

I think Michael Bay deserves a Razzie Lifetime Achievement Award.

But you’d probably have to wheel him in strapped to a hand truck with a leather face mask like Hannibal Lecter to give it to him.

121. dmduncan - February 6, 2010

@114: YES! And you should practice getting all verklempt, so you get it right on the podium, and then whip out a scroll of all the people you’d like to thank, and the tail end of the scroll rolls off the stage, it’s so long, and the only name on the scroll, written over and over again is Michael Bay.

122. P Technobabble - February 6, 2010

114. boborci

There should at least have been a special award for “Best Franchise Brought Back to Life After Having the Blood Drained Out Of It.”
As far as I’m concerned, you guys are Miracle Workers.

123. Anthony Pascale - February 6, 2010

Sandra Bullock says she is going to pick up her Razzie i she wins

you guys are kind of in the same boat, getting a WGA nom and a Razzie nom in the same year. There must be some kind of short list with people who get a guild/oscar nod and Razzie in the same year

i think you should go Bob, that is if you win!

124. Red Skirt - February 6, 2010

#113, “Perhaps you should tell your Academy member friend voters to watch the first 10mins of Star Trek again, the movie should have been nominated just for that scene :)”

And that is the only legitimate argument I have ever seen presented for Star Trek’s Oscar worthiness. Perhaps those 10 minutes of Star Trek should have been entered into the Best Short Film category. But since the entire film has to be considered … ;-)

125. somethoughts - February 7, 2010



Perhaps your friend should watch the lecture scene between Pike and Kirk and when Kirk gazes upon the Enterprise as she is being built while the sun is rising.

If you add in there the Michael score of Hela Bar Talk surely it is one of the memorable scenes of 2009! Up was a good score, not sure why they again overlooked Michael’s score in Star Trek 2009.

“4 Years? I’ll do it in 3!”

I can go on and on, scene with McCoy, scene with Spock debating with Kirk, yes it was not a perfect film but it still deserves to be in the top 10 for 2009 :)

The other issue is that the Movie was released in May whereas Blind Side was released in Nov and perhaps was more fresh in the voters mind or the voters was sick of watching Star Trek for the 10th time or never at all ;)

126. dmduncan - February 7, 2010

@125: Although the opening of ST.09 was the most emotionally powerful part of the movie, the rest of it, unlike UP, was a tapestry of great scenes, one after the other.

127. Red Skirt - February 7, 2010

#125, since this article is not about what criteria you and I think are deserving of an Oscar nomination, I’m not going to debate the individual merits of Star Trek (about which we clearly disagree). What this article is about is whether Star Trek was “snubbed”. To that end, I would imagine that you agree with Star Trek’s inclusion in The National Board of Review’s top 10 films of 2009?

But let’s take a look at that accolade:

NBR listed 10 films (Oscar matches with an *):

(500) Days of Summer
An Education*
The Hurt Locker*
Inglourious Basterds*
The Messenger
A Serious Man*
Star Trek
Where the Wild Things Are

But these are only runner’s up. Up In the Air* was the 11th film in their list which won.

But wait, they also had a Top 10 Independent film category which listed District 9* and as an aside Moon, which has also been reported as “overlooked” by the Oscars.

So what’s missing from NBR’s lists? Well for starter’s Avatar, for the main reason that it was not eligible when the list was announced on December 3. Excluding Avatar then, the NBR matches 7 out of 10 Oscar noms. If you assume they would have included Avatar (and there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t have since every other award has) that’s 8 out of 10.

But wait! Including Avatar, that’s 14 potential contender’s for top 10, not counting the other 8 “independent” and 5 foreign films which were probably on some Academy member’s short list as well. This means, they considered at least 6 films not included on the Oscar list as top 10 films of the year. Between the NBR and Academy, that’s at least 16 films they both consider top 10 worthy, not even counting The Blind Side! Not only that, but Up made BOTH NBR’s top 10 list and won best animated feature – just like the Academy’s and the Producer’s Guild.

It’s easy to see Star Trek fall off NBR’s top 10 list if Avatar is added and they had to consolidate them like the Oscars, in fact it seems to mirror the Oscar nominations in many ways, only differing in two nominations (Precious being a notable omission from their lists), just like the PGA’s (omitting A Serious Man).

So the idea of a “snub” dissipates rather quickly by anyone’s standards once you look at the sheer number of top award worthy films being considered for 2009, whether you think Star Trek was better or not. It’s not about you, but rather the criteria of the the evaluating group(s). If you place such importance on the Oscar’s that their failure to nominate Star Trek based on their selective criteria amounts to a “snub”, then that’s on you, not the Academy members. But nobody at the academy discounted Star Trek merely because of its name. If that were true, it would not have been nominated for anything.

As for why The Blind Side was nominated? Since I haven’t seen it, anything is possible, including it being fresher in people’s minds. It could also be, and most likely, because there were at a minimum, 8 other highly praised films that split the votes for the 10th spot and Blind Side got in by a single vote or two. This seems the most logical explanation to me (especially since we have seen exactly these kinds of victories in 3 party political races), rather than immediately assuming Star Trek was maligned in some way and looked down upon by the Academy members. At the very worst, it may have been a political move in the minds of some of the Academy members to include a comedy, after two SciFi films were already nominated, combined with the diluted votes. But you give Star Trek entirely too much credit to assume that even if that were not the case, that it would have still been nominated based on historical voting patterns.

If the academy had 20 nominations, then Star Trek would most likely have been on it, for better or worse. But even expanding the list to 10 nominations was a mistake in my opinion as it dilutes the importance of that particular award. Save the expanded lists for addendum publication. I really hate to think how long the Oscars will be this year with 10 films … they just got it down to a manageable time with just 5.

128. James H - February 8, 2010

Should we go collect our Razzie in person?

Yes, oh yes, oh yes indeed. Bit o’ trivia here:

Pay particular attention to Brian Helgeland and his attitude on the “quixotic nature of Hollywood.”

But, most of all, go accept your Razzie so the world knows you have a sense of humor.

129. Robert - February 28, 2010

I’m not capable of a professional opinion as to why a movie gets to be nominated or not. However, I am a man who has a surprising track record of watching and knowing TV shows that turn out to be Emmy winners. In addition, I saw more than half of the 2009 Oscar nominated movies. And clearly, though I like “The Blind Side” very much and think Sandra Bullock truly deserves to be on the Best Actress list, I feel that the movie as a whole falls short of it being considered in the “Best Movie” category when compared to the likes of the other movies nominated, that are on par with Star Trek…

130. Tomas Senechal - April 21, 2011

It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d without a doubt donate to this fantastic blog! I guess for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to brand new updates and will share this website with my Facebook group. Talk soon! is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.