Oscar Nominations (LotR, Spirited Away, and more)

An anonymous reader noted that the Oscar Nominees are now online. The Two Towers is nominated for Best Picture, and Miyazaki's Spirited Away is nominated for Best Animated Picture (someday an Anime will be nominated Best Picture). Road to Perdition, Spider-Man, and even Star Wars have random nominations throughout the list. Even Eminem's got a nomination now ;) There's tons of other good movies in there too (Adaptation, Chicago) and a bunch of movies I've never seen. Anyway, talk amongst yourselves ;)

Comments

Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a hollywood conspiracy against Scorecese (even though he got nominated), can anyone believe he hasn't won best director yet?

Re:Scorcesse?

[dejaffa]

Not everybody who deserves to win wins -- the system's not perfect. O'Toole, for example, reportedly turned down an honorary Oscar (he's never won a Best Actor, despite being nominated 5 times or so and clearly deserving it) this year because he's still acting and wants a chance to win it outright.

Re:Scorcesse?

[kenshee]

But it's kinda ridiculous that he hasn't best director yet. We're talking about the man that directed Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. But I guess it's wrong to give Scorcese the award just because he hasn't won it yet. Still I'll be rooting for him. Go Scorcese

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant believe that Peter Jackson didnt get nominated for Best Director, nor Gollum :-) for at least best supporting actor....

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen any of his other movies, but if you're saying this because of how "Gangs of New York" turned out, it's because the system works.

Re:Scorcesse?

[GothChip]

can anyone believe he hasn't won best director yet?

Yes.

This is only his fourth nomination in the best directors category. In the other 3 years he got beaten by directors of better films.

1990 Goodfellas beaten by Kevin Costner for Dances With Wolves
1988 The Last Temptaion of Christ beaten by Barry Levinson for Rain Man.
1980 Raging Bull beaten Robert Redford for Ordinary People.

OK. Maybe the last one is a bit dodgy but you can't really describe it as a conspiracy when he was beaten by better films.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dances With Wolves is not a better film than Goodfellas.

What beat Taxi Driver?

Re:Scorcesse?

[blahbooboo2]

Can anyone explain to me why this movie was nominated? It has to be the STUPIDEST movie I have seen in a while. The entire movie is waiting for the kid to kill that guy...boring and silly. And for the blood and guts, disgusting...yeah yeah it was part of the picture bull.

Now, catch me if you can was a FANTASTIC movie and how that was not nominated is crazy. it was much more enjoyable then Gangs (which I have not met one person who actually liked it).

Re:Scorcesse?

[MtViewGuy]

I think the best-known movies Scorses directed (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and now Gangs of New York) are not completely pleasing to AMPAS members because all of the films I've mentioned have a lot of on-screen characters that we can't be sympathetic to.

In order for a movie to get very serious consideration to actually win Best Picture Oscar, you better make darn sure you have characters on-screen moviegoers can relate to. Why do you think Forrest Gump won over Pulp Fiction? Because moviegoers cared for the Forrest Gump character, that's why.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, there is. nobody can spell his name right.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

scorsese wasn't even nominated for best director for taxi driver.

rocky won best picture for 1976.

Re:Scorcesse?

[The_K4]

He sould have gotten one for "Bringing Out the Dead". Unfortunalty he refuses to spoon feed crap to people, he writes good movies that really have some substance to them....so he will never win :(

Re:Scorcesse?

[cheinonen]

Looking back now, you'd be hard pressed to find any film critics, or even regular film lovers, that will say Dances with Wolves was better than Goodfellas or that Ordinary People was better than Raging Bull. Goodfellas was one of the best movies of the 90's, as Raging Bull was one of the best movies of the 80's. If Scorsese wins this year, it's more making up for the huge mistake in not having him win one of those years than because of Gangs of New York being the Best Directed movie of the year.

Re:Scorcesse?

[rodgerd]

Please. Rain Man was *not* a better film that Last Temptation on any level, except acceptability to persons of a certain religious persuasion.

Re:Scorcesse?

[ro-boat]

The only other movie in this list that I saw is LOTR and I would vote for that over Gangs of New York. However, Scorsese grew up in the neighborhood where the movie takes place. When he lived there it was Little Italy and it was ruled by the Mafia (the Irish had long since moved to the Bronx and then to Jersey). Little Italy and the Mafia are what Scorsese so artfully documented and in Gangs of New York he is just going back to the roots of his neighborhood. (It is well documented that the Mafia is descended from the Irish gangs).

As Little Italy - which only exists in vestigal form now and is pretty much gentrified - recedes into the past the old Five Points becomes even more remote. The actual Five Points was bulldozed during a reform movement 100 years ago although many buildings and landmarks still exist - including the old St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Although the story is contrived, the movie fits into Scorsese's canon pretty well and, based upon pictures I have seen and stories that I have read, he really caught the look and feel of 19th century New York.

Re:Scorcesse?

[krugdm]

I don't doubt which films were better overall, but the award is for best director not best film, and that's why he hasn't won.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Lt Razak]

Hey, I'm all for the critical acclaim everyone is giving this guy. But Gangs of New York was no masterpiece.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't know everyone looked like leprachauns back then.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Lt Razak]

Because people like my parents still talk about how stupid Pulp Fiction was. Or how scared bijezus they were of it.

Re:Scorcesse?

[diablobynight]

Ummm I disagree...Goodfellas, was, ummm...lacking Now the Godfather series. That's a great mob movie series

Re:Scorcesse?

[TheKey]

Well, it's not like Forrest Gump is total shit. In fact, it's a pretty good movie. I'd say that it's a pretty close race between the two, and just comes down to personal taste.

I loved both, by the way, and can't really decide which is better.

Re:Scorcesse?

[MtViewGuy]

I think the biggest thing that hurt Pulp Fiction was the fact the movie had quite a lot of quite gratuitous violence. Something like that really turned off not a few AMPAS voters, so it's small wonder why Forrest Gump won. :-)

Re:Scorcesse?

[Jaysyn]

Was I the only one rooting for the bad guy (Bill the Butcher) in "Gangs of New York"?

I doubt it.

Jaysyn

Re:Scorcesse?

[dirtdirt]

is this a troll? flamebait? if you are serious then i am astounded.

astounded!

Re:Scorcesse?

[DaytonCIM]

I do agree that Scorecese should have won an Oscar by now (especially for Raging Bull), but please don't tell me that "Gangs of New York" is the year's best film or worthy of a Best Director award.

I think the historical relevance and Daniel Day-Lewis' performance were brilliant, but otherwise the dialogue was weak, the storyline was weaker, and Diaz should stick to comedy. (Do I need to mention how horribly overly dramatic Titanic boy's acting was?)

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

good fellas was entertaining and possibly better acted/better filmed.

dances with wolves possibly had worse acting...had a universally more compelling theme/story.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Pepebuho]

Not everyone who deserves to win wins, and not all who win deserved to win. Can you make them win? Then do not be too eager to deal winning in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Re:Scorcesse?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know there was violence, much less gratuitous, in Pulp Fiction. Also, before you start spouting off, look up the word in a dictionary.

Re:Scorcesse?

[_damnit_]

OK, I have to disagree with you on The Last Temptation. That was by far the best movie of the year. In fact, it was the Academy's best shot at proving it isn't afraid of controversy.
Even if you grant the performances in Rain Man put it over the top for Best Picture, Barry Levinson's directing was flat and uninspiring. Surely the surrealistic depictions of Christ's internal torment were a far more difficult directing accomplishment than Barry Levinson's scenes of a car ride and casino floor?!?
The directing Oscar should be judged much like diving in the olympics. There is a degree of difficulty involved. How hard is it to direct Rain Man, Golden Pond and other dialog driven flicks? The job of the director is to tell the story without getting in the way. When you step into films that require mental examination of the characters, you find out who the real directors are. Scorcese and Kubrick accel(led) at this. This is also why most Stephen King flicks really suck on film. It took Kubrick to tell The Shining without narration or a 5 night (dull) miniseries. Sadly, Stephen Spielberg failed at this in AI. I had high hopes for him and the project.
Anyway, sorry for the rant.

Re:Scorcesse?

[TheKey]

You didn't know there was violence in Pulp Fiction? Did we watch the same movie?

Too bad for Gollum

[TopShelf]

It would have been interesting (and genuinely deserved) to see Andy Serkis nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Unfortunately, his performance defied conventional categorization. Perhaps they can figure out what to do about this before next year...

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[YourMissionForToday]

I think the Academy can recognize hand-wringing, overwrought scenery chewing. But can they also recognize masturbatory CGI? We shall see if they can step forward and embrace the future of bad cinema.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[pubjames]

It would have been interesting (and genuinely deserved) to see Andy Serkis nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

I was just going to post exactly that!

You are very right. The sequence where Gollum was talking to himself (or Gollum was talking to Smegol, I suppose) was one of the host impressive sequences I've seen in a film for a long time. It's a shame that it will probably get classified as "special effects", when in reality the magic was in the acting. (Although the effects were fabulous too!)

At least we should be seeing Andy Serkis on our screens more often after that performance.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[EEgopher]

A lot of people would give Homer Simpson an award. This is the same thing. Gollum's voice made the movie and defined how the CGI was drawn.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[blandthrax]

Unfortunately, his performance defied conventional categorization.

Why not Best Supporting Actor? Why make a special category when the actor's performance clearly inhabited the character? Neither my wife and I are big LOTR fans, we enjoy them but we don't flock to them and see them repeatedly. However, we were both completely awed by Serkis' perfomance. It was phemomenal. So why not just give him the nod and possibly reward him for an exellent job? It's just silly.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[hiei]

I believe Andy Serkis was also the motion capture actor for Gollum (if you watch the making of specials on the first DVD you can see him wearing the mocap suit and interacting with the other actors), so he's not just voice acting. He was the underlying actor that the CG was rigged to follow.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Mc Fly]

The other day I was discussing this scene with a friend. The problem is that this scene has both superb acting and superb fx, that really helps...
Have you noticed the difference in the pupil's width betwenn Gollum and Smegol? That helps a lot two...

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[gabec]

I never conciously think about awards when I see a movie, but I've had several conversations with people about how Sean Astin, a.k.a. Samwise Gamgee deserves best supporting actor nods... In my opinion, as well as the others that have brought it up, Sean Astin has done a marvelous job by protraying his character genuinely and insodoing added that much more realism to the fantasy that is LotR. I have yet to, while watching LotR, pull back and consider Sean Astin the actor. He's always Samwise on-screen. [blah blah blah.]

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[thatguywhoiam]

A lot of people have mentioned that. It's actually a really tricky problem, in light of how the Academy is set up.

Think; which of the following apply to Gollum's performance in TTT?:

- acting (definitely, so best/supporting actor)
- costume (digital?)
- production design (how Gollum looks.. which is partly Andy Serkis and partly.. a designer..)
- special effects (because he is digital, but also all these other things... and SFX used to be only physical)

I think the Academy is going to have to address some of these multidisciplinary efforts in the future, as it cannot be easily lumped into one category.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[ADRA]

Well, the FX used to enhance the scenes realism can't really be concidered 'Acting'. At best the FX can be borken into a new category like a 'Recreation of Life' award or something. But, I don't think that many voice only roles will be winning many supporting -blah- roles when there are so many talented human actors doing a better job.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree whole-heartedly, I think Astin is even more deserving of a nomination. I can't think of a better Samwise Gamgee. Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing any movie industry ads trying to promote him, so it seems New Line hasn't tried pushing for his nomination. While I doubt it, here's hoping he at least gets a nomination next year...

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[davinciII]

You mean that wasn't Steve Buscemi?

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[malducin]

Well thenI don't see much of the point. There were tons of performances that got snubbed. What about Dennis Quaid and Dennis Haysbert in Far From Heaven. Robin Williams had a couple good performances this, etc.

It would really be tough to clasify it. Who would get nominated, only Serkis, or Randall William Cook and his team or both. It seems more of a flavor of the moment thing and unless there are compelling reasons and rules in place for that I don't see the reason. That's what kept animated films on the fringe for so long. If anything Gollum goes inside the VFX category which they did get. And if Gollum was nominated, why not Yoda, Dobby and other CG characters here. Doesn't make much sense.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[WinDoze]

At best the FX can be borken

De eff-ecks is okie-dokie, bork bork bork!

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[btlzu2]

Hi, Maybe just splitting hairs here, but according to various special effects specials on the DVDs and the web site (I think) the special effects are precisely lifted from Andy Serkis acting as Gollum in the scene in person. The facial features are lifted from Serkis, the motions, the voice. They even showed him hunched over skirting around as Gollum in a couple scenes. It's a shame because he put a LOT of acting skills into the development of Gollum that he should be nominated, but I think the Academy would have had to have an open mind and I don't think anyone in the Academy does (IMO).

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[The_K4]

With the way he kept turning his head that COULD have just been his pupils reacting to the light.....After all the lighting was a good part of what makes that work so well.
;)

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[cafebabe]

Sorry, but I just don't feel it. Although some of the other actors are just as recognizable (Elijah Wood and Ian McKellan, for example), whenever Samwise comes on screen I always think "Hey, what's Sean Astin doing up there?"

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[PMuse]

Don't forget film editing, which is what makes the battle-of-conscience scene come together.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[DohDamit]

Take the plug out of your ass long enough to listen to something very simple.

It's a movie. The effects were not gadgety(masturbatory, in your lingo) and the acting helped tell the story.

Go back to watching your eurotrash art flicks from the sixties and spare the rest of us your opinion.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Mr. No Skills]

Unfortunately, his performance defied conventional categorization.

I think "special effects" defines this category. The performance is analogous to Jim Henson with Kermit the Frog -- the character and performance could not exist without him, but they aren't an actor appearing in front of the audience.

What I don't understand is that the computer generation actually adds little to the movie, outside of meeting the producers image of what Gollum looks like. I think they could have come up with a way of just costuming him in makeup and acheiving the same result, since the performance is actually quite brilliant. In some ways the split personality of Smeagol/Gollum came alive for me better than in the book. The CG effects added little except to provide a technicality as to why this wasn't "acting".

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Ironpoint]

Sorry, but you seem to be voting based on character likeability instead of acting ability. A likeable hobbit whose main function is to be a friend to the protagonist and give emotional summaries of the story so far is the EASIEST role to play in the movie. Now if you are Chris Walken and your bread and butter is playing a scary lunatic/ mobster/ whatever, then you decide to play a likeable father, well thats something special.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[orichter]

I think the problem may be that he did his job too well. They say the greatest honor you can give to a special effects artist is to say you didn't see any special effects. Perhaps this was the problem with Gollum. Until this moment, it didn't really even occur to me that Gollum was played by an actor. He was just Gollum. One thing I will say, however, is that I've read the books three times, and seen the cartoon movie version a few times as well, and while I distinctly remember the scene, I had always seen it as the incoherent ramblings of an insane Gollum. Serkis' performance is the first one I've seen that made it clear to me that Gollum was having a coherent conversation between his two personallities. In my mind I gave Peter Jackson credit for that performance. I'm glad I have now been set straight.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[SpryGuy]

It'll be interesting after this coming year, and The Matrix. Agent Smith is computerized. They scanned in the actor, and created a performance that looks utterly "real", but was never given by the actor himself. If such a performance were extraordinary, who would you give the oscar to?

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Lt Razak]

while watching the academy-release DVD (downloaded on SVCD format) the "For your consideration" text below each scene or actor, I can say there was no such words for Astin.

Mostly Legolas.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Lt Razak]

heheheheh. Fargo has got to be the best ad for visiting your dentist, nationwide.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Lt Razak]

I'm sure the guy got paid. That's the most he should be guaranteed.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if Andy Serkis were nominated, no way would he win against a titan like Paul Newman...

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[LordoftheFrings]

It's true. Andy Serkis did act out each of Gollum's scenes during principal photograpy (he was on the set, doing acting in place of the CGI, but doing what it was to do). After this, he went over each scene a second time! This second time was for the motion capture. During all of this, each of Andy's actions were used to make Gollum's actions. I see no reason why this is different from acting with a costume or mask on.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[kamapuaa]

The sequence where Gollum was talking to himself (or Gollum was talking to Smegol, I suppose) was one of the host impressive sequences I've seen in a film for a long time. It's a shame that it will probably get classified as "special effects", when in reality the magic was in the acting.

The theater I saw it in, people were laughing at that scene. I have to go along with them. It was about as subtle as a kick in the ass. Besides, the scene wasn't defined by Gollum's acting - the way it would be if, say, a sudden change in how he was holding himself revealed changed intentions. Rather, the scene was defined by the film editor quick-cutting an over-the-top monologue.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[ledgeerama]

Having gone to see the Lord of the Rings exhibit in New Zealand (apparently heading overseas once it is finished here) the single most impressive thing was seeing video of Andy Serkis saying gollums lines side by side with video of the animated Gollum. Gollum's facial movements are an (almost) exact copy of Andy Serkis', it showed another reason why gollum was so impressive in the films. The rest of the exhibit was pretty cool as well :)

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[endquotedotcom]

Unfortunately, his performance defied conventional categorization.

Or maybe they just didn't pay the academy enough.

I'm gonna have to go see Chicago now though, for sure. As if Katherine wasn't enough, nine nominations? Neat.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[msaavedra]

A lot of people would give Homer Simpson an award

Actually Dan Castellaneta has won two Emmys for playing Homer Simpson. But I agree with your main point: Andy Serkis also deserves recognition for his work in The Two Towers.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[btlzu2]

Yep, I saw a clip of that somewhere (can't remember exactly if it was the DVD or some TV special).

To risk being OT, BTW, I want to be you! :) After seeing how gorgeous New Zealand is, I think I want to live the rest of my days there (either that, or the Rocky Mountains, but it looks like NZ even has the Rockies beaten). It is amazing how the area where they created Hobbiton really looked like something out of Tolkien's books, I was really surprised at the beauty!

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[ChadN]

Including facial expressions, BTW. They have dots all over his face to catch his expression while he acts to the camera. Really helped make a difference, I believe.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Alan Holman]

That scene was the most powerful drama I've seen in a long time.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they should have released it in England.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor Sean Astin may never get another job in the movie industry. A nomination is probably the least of his worries. A few months ago, he volunteered to do a public service commercial for the Selective Service. He is also outspoken on the right of self-defense. That puts him directly at odds politically with most of Hollywood. Over at the Democrat Underground (democratunderground.org) there were pages of rants about Astin's politics. You can't speak-out on the right to self-defense and hope to get a job in Hollywood.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[DunbarTheInept]

Serkis did more than just supply the voice. He was also supplying the body movements via a motion-capture suit. when you saw Gollum perched up on a rock, crouched over leering into the mist, that was Serkis wearning a black suit with white dots, perched on a crate leering forward to supply the exact right movements to make the character seem so real. When you saw Gollumn singing his little song while happily whacking the fish against the rock, that was serkis singing the song and slapping a prop against a block. What he did was a lot more than just supply the voice.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[DunbarTheInept]

Academy would have had to have an open mind and I don't think anyone in the Academy does

As evidence of this, When TRON first came out, the Acedemy rejected its nomination for best special effects because they thought using computers to help you make special effects is cheating. Now look at the field of special effects. What idiots.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[DunbarTheInept]

They were laughing where I saw it too. I was laughing too. I was not laughing at it, though. I was laughing WITH it. It was quite obvious to me that good Smeagol was intended to look comical in contrast to evil Gollum. I think laughing at the difference was the INTENT in that scene, so it's a good thing the audience was laughing.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[DunbarTheInept]

I think that's just typecasting. I haven't seen Sean Astin in anything else before LOTR, so I just see him as samwise.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Flambergius]

Wouldn't "a coherent conversation between his two personallities" equal "the incoherent ramblings of an insane"?

Just checking

--Flam

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[EuroChild]

I think that the academy may be "saving" andy serkis's performance nom for next year. I would hazard a guess that most of the academy know that Gollum has a big role in the Return of the King. Indeed it wouldn't supprise me to see Sean austin nominated as well next year. RotK isn't going to win any special effects - that's going to belong to the matrix movies judging from what i've seen so far (even though they are sequels) and the voters will be wanting to give RotK at least a few nominations.

So yeah... that's my story.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Rakarra]

What I don't understand is that the computer generation actually adds little to the movie, outside of meeting the producers image of what Gollum looks like. I think they could have come up with a way of just costuming him in makeup and acheiving the same result,

Honestly, I'm not sure if they could have done the same without it being painfully, painfully obvious that it was a guy in a costume. You just can't get that level of gauntness and decrepity with a regular character, and I doubt Serkis wanted to drop down to 90 pounds. He's a pretty big guy.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[namespan]

And I keep waiting, like everyone else, for Elrond to put on sunglasses and a suit, and start talking addressing Frodo as Mister Baggins... and I know that I'm not the only one.

It's not that he's a bad actor, it's that his performance in the Matrix and iconography of the character of Agent Smith overcomes.

Same thing with Samwise, I think. Although I'm not tempted to think of Ian McKellan as any of his numerous other roles, nor Elijah Wood....

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Anonymous Coward]

Where we can, at least, fit our arses into the dentist's chair.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[WNight]

Because Yoda was corny and Dobby was pathetically done.

Doing an unreal character is trivial. Jar-Jar looked good in a still, as would Dobby I suppose, but they both had such exagerated movements and facial expressions that a child could have animated them. They didn't appear human and as such, weren't judged as harshly as Gollum was.

A category for best mo-capped performance might not be a bad idea. We'll see a lot more of it in the future and it is different than on-camera acting. Easier in some ways, harder in others, at least as long as it's done in a studio instead of on-set and filmed over.

The special effects category needs rework too. Eventually 50% of a movie will be special effects, should they be only one award for it? When sets are built in a computer will we have a 3d-Architecture award, a Texturing award, Landscapes, Sunrise/Sunsets, etc? In many ways we should, they're all distinct skills. As different as costuming and set design are from each other.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[orichter]

Not really.
A conversation between two personallities may make a person insane, but it doesn't necessarily make him incoherent. Coherent means:

# Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts: a coherent essay.

Whenever I read the conversation Gollum had with himself, it always came across to me as rambling. I never really looked closely enough at the conversation close enough to realize that there was a dialogue in it. I thought it was just mindless babling. The central test is whether something is coherent is if you can decipher any meaning in it. Take, for example, the string 14159265. Most people would consider this an incoherent string of numbers, but if you look a little closer, it turns out it is quite coherent.

Re:Too bad for Gollum

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be nice and all IF ENGLAND HAD DENTISTS .

Nice try, limey, but I see right through you and your crooked rotten teeth, big ears, misshapen nose, and furry eyebrows.

Wow

[briancnorton]

This'll go on my tivo right after American Film Institute Awards Producers guild British Academy of film & tv Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards New York Film Critics Circle Awards Independent Spirit Awards The Academy Awards National Society of Film Critics Awards Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards National Board of Review Awards Golden Globe Awards Annual Directors Guild of America Awards MTV Movie Awards NAACP Image Awards The Internet Entertainment Writers Association American Cinema Foundation awards Aurora Awards Blockbuster Entertainment Awards Bubakar Awards FOX Teen Choice Awards The Peoples Choice awards Gemini Awards Golden Raspberry Award Foundation Humanitas Prize Screen Actors Guild Awards The Grammy Awards Billboard Music Awards American Music Awards Country Music Association Awards Pulitzer Prize in Music BMI Awards FOX Teen Choice Awards The Peoples Choice awards Blockbuster Entertainment Awards LA Weekly Music Awards Los Angeles Music Awards MTV Video Music Awards Radio Music Awards World Music Awards The Emmy® Awards Daytime Emmy Awards Golden Globe Awards George Foster Peabody Awards Alfred I. duPont Awards Directors Guild of America Awards FOX Teen Choice Awards The Peoples Choice awards Golden Raspberry Award Foundation Humanitas Prize Screen Actors Guild Awards

Re:Wow

[jaseuk]

and one award to rule them all?

Re:Wow

[orpheus2000]

Sorry, this is off topic and you don't have your email posted. Did you grow up in South Texas, Rio Grande Valley?

Re:Wow

[Reziac]

Tho it was funnier all run together.. cuz that's what it feels like sometimes. With all these award shows, how do they squeeze in any regular programming? Oh, wait -- where is the award for "Best Awards Show" ??

Re:Wow

[briancnorton]

THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
"And the award for making a big deal about something that nobody cares about goes to... It's a 35 Way tie!!!"

Re:Wow

[spells]

I think the Academy awards show has won an emmy for best special (or something) a couple of times.
Would they ever give it to the Emmy awards show from the previous year?

Re:Wow

[Verteiron]

I did, but I'm not who you're talking to :P

Re:Wow

[Reziac]

Now you're scaring me! :)

[takes TV outside, puts it out of my misery]

Re:Wow

[Reziac]

I vaguely recall that has happened, but wasn't it for technical merit or something? (Lighting or the like.) Anyway, to people involved behind the scenes. Which is reasonable enough, if they really did that outstanding of a job.

Gods help us if they ever give the MC a "best actor" award!!

Re:Wow

[SamTheButcher]

The Emmys have won for best award show, or best director of an awards show. I remember the director accepting the award while directing the show.

"I just want to thank bla bla bla. Camera 10 (shows that person in the audience, something like that). Camera 3 (back to him). This means a lot, and I'd like to thank my wife and kids at home. This one's for you guys! Camera 8. Cue music. Camera 4. Fade booth audio..."

Something like that. Pretty funny.

Re:Wow

[Reziac]

Gives a whole new perspective on "recursive" :)

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

There is, in fact, a category in the Emmy awards for Best Awards Show. Oscars(R) usually takes it.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so impressive... you padded it out by repeating "FOX Teen Choice Awards The Peoples Choice awards" three times.

Re:Wow

[briancnorton]

Yeah, I had it sorted by movies/music/tv, and there was some overlap. I was too lazy to pare it down

Re:Wow

[Alan Holman]

They should just make a syndicated TV show called "Awards"; it should include all the award shows, and be placed in a single time-slot. The only downside to that would be the summer, december, and february hiatus' in which we'd have to watch repeats of "Awards."

Re:Wow

[Reziac]

I'm not sure if that's a good idea, or the most frightening concept ever to threaten the airwaves!!

No Precioussssss for Andy.

[GothChip]

Despite the campaign for recognition Andy Serkis has not been nominated for Supporting Actor in his role as Gollum.

Television, movies, music...

[Anonymous Coward]

Television, movies, music, and entertainment have become the joke that we made in the 90's about what the future would hold, and nobody seems to have noticed. This list just emphasizes that.

Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Bowie J. Poag]

Thanks to slashdot for stating the obvious.. Yeesh.

And now, the not to obvious:
The Golden Raspberry Awards.

The fact that Gangs Of New York got nominated sort of cinches it for me. I havent seen acting that bad and Irish accents that poor since.... uhh... wait, I've never heard acting and Irish accents that poor! Ever!

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Zathrus]

I've never heard acting and Irish accents that poor! Ever!

Ah... apparantly you're not a Buffy or Angel fan.

To hear Angel use his bad Irish accent is... well... let's just say I wish it was forgetable.

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[pubjames]

The fact that Gangs Of New York got nominated sort of cinches it for me. I havent seen acting that bad and Irish accents that poor since.... uhh

Absolutely. It shows what a farce the Oscars are.

I find it difficult to put into words quite how bad it is. Thankfully, others have done it for me.

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Tet]

To hear Angel use his bad Irish accent is... well... let's just say I wish it was forgetable.

Actually, I thought it was OK. Not great, but OK. I can think of many that are far, far worse. Tom Cruise for starters. And virtually anyone in the US that attempts to do a cockney accent.

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seen Ocean's Eleven (the Clooney/Pitt one)?

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[bill_gates_jnr]

Well, who could forget Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in "Far and away"...

...I wish I could forget it :)

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Day-Lewis is great as Bill the Butcher and there's nothing wrong with the other actors either. And I don't think the accents are supposed to be "perfect" Irish. Actually, nobody knows how they spoke in NYC at that time, so they had to make up/guess the accents.

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Guipo]

did you see snatch? brad pitt had teh best acsent ever. ok, it was quite cokney...but it was along the same lines.

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[gslj]

Bowie J. Poag opined:

"I've never heard acting and Irish accents that poor! Ever!"

Did you see Sean Connery as an Irish cop in the Untouchables?

Sean's in a class by himself in (not) doing accents. As a spaniard in Highlander, an Estonian in Hunt for Red October, an Englishman in the James Bond movies...

-Gareth

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Lt Razak]

The Gangs of New York was missing one guy who could have cinched up the baddest accent gamut: Keanu Reeves. Think back to Dracula.

People argue when I talk about Keanu's terrible acting (don't get me wrong, he is a great type-cast bonehead in such films like Bill & Ted's, and Pointbreak)

But one only has to look as far as Dracula to see the total scene and setting break.

"Exccccelent Drac-dude!"

Oh, but what about Matrix, they say. Well, all I can say is....Keanu...hardly....spoke...a....word...

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[Lt Razak]

but that was when I fell in love with the nude body of Nicole Kidman. But now she's gotten all skinny and disgusting.

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[nigelc]

Umm, Don Cheadle in Ocean's Eleven did a passable cockney accent. At least, I was trying to figure out which if the black actors in Snatch he had been.

But then, of course, there's Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins whose "cockney" accent sounded like Gollum with a head-cold.

Re:Who cares. I'd rather hear about the Razzies...

[simong_oz]

I find it difficult to put into words quite how bad it is.

Well, I'm prepared to give it a go for you. I saw GoNY a few weeks ago. I'm the kind of movie viewer who is pretty easy to please - I just want to see something that will entertain me for a couple of hours. Well, Gangs fo New York failed on every level - it was shit, and I'm trying to be kind here. The only thing I enjoyed about the film was Daniel Day-Lewis's performance, and the fact that I actually noticed shows you just how bored I was.

Leo was shocking, as was Diaz, and why, oh why is Hollywood completely incapable of getting people with real irish accents to play the part of irish people? OK, I can understand that Hollywood thinks that nobody in the world can do an accent better than them (I cringer when they try australian or cockney accents), but if you're going to do an accent, at the very least you could try and make it consistent for the entire film!

Actually, I just checked the amazon link, and almoost laughed out loud at this review:

THis film is a piece of infantile moronic trivia, the first 15 minutes is fine, the rest is a piece of tacky overblown drivel tinged rubbish with absolutely no redeeming merits.

brilliant!!

That should have read

[briancnorton]

That Should have read

That'll go on my Tivo Right after

Movie Awards

American Film Institute Awards
Producers guild
British Academy of film & tv
Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards
New York Film Critics Circle Awards
Independent Spirit Awards
The Academy Awards
National Society of Film Critics Awards
Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards
National Board of Review Awards
Golden Globe Awards
Annual Directors Guild of America Awards
MTV Movie Awards
NAACP Image Awards
The Internet Entertainment Writers Association
American Cinema Foundation awards
Aurora Awards
Blockbuster Entertainment Awards
Bubakar Awards
FOX Teen Choice Awards
The Peoples Choice awards
Gemini Awards
Golden Raspberry Award Foundation
Humanitas Prize
Screen Actors Guild Awards

Music Awards

The Grammy Awards
The Latin Grammy Awards
Billboard Music Awards
American Music Awards
Country Music Association Awards
Pulitzer Prize in Music
BMI Awards
FOX Teen Choice Awards
The Peoples Choice awards
Blockbuster Entertainment Awards
LA Weekly Music Awards
Los Angeles Music Awards
MTV Video Music Awards
Radio Music Awards
World Music Awards

Tv Awards

The Emmy® Awards
Daytime Emmy Awards
Golden Globe Awards
George Foster Peabody Awards
Alfred I. duPont Awards
Directors Guild of America Awards
FOX Teen Choice Awards
The Peoples Choice awards
Golden Raspberry Award Foundation
Humanitas Prize
Screen Actors Guild Awards

Re:That should have read

[Duds]

You missed out the MOBOs....

* runs

Re:That should have read

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No he didn't. There is no place for affirmative action in the entertainment world. It stands or falls on it's own merits.

Re:That should have read

[Stonehand]

Proof that the entertainment industry is utterly full of itself.

I hope I'm not the only one here who takes care to watch exactly zero of these per year.

Re:That should have read

[ari{Dal}]

You're not. I will watch exactly ZERO of the ones listed..
I do admit to watching one awards show per year though: the East Coast Music Awards, which I never miss. The ECMA is a localized, eastern Canada only show, featuring local bands, which I support wholeheartedly. It's the only way I can really keep up with the music scene from where I grew up, now that i've moved "out west".

Re:That should have read

[LadyLucky]

Man do you have too much time on your hands.

Never happen QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

someday an Anime will be nominated Best Picture

This is going to insult some Anime fans, but...

The fact of the matter is that Anime, while definitely a cut above standard American children's fare, is only good compared to that standard. Compared to epic films like LOTR, it simply is not that good. Most of Anime appeals to only a very narrow segment of the population, mostly geek personality types. In short, they're films by geeks for geeks.

For an Anime to win Best Picture, it needs to break out of the adolescent fantasy genres and actually produce serious, adult plots. And I just don't see it happening. For that to happen, you need to have directors and writers that are not stuck in adolescent personalities. All the "real" writers and directors generally move to film, so Anime gets the leftovers.

This is not to say that there isn't some entertaining Anime, just like there are entertaining comic books. But I don't expect a comic book to win the Nobel prize in Literature.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[rasteri]

For an Anime to win Best Picture, it needs to break out of the adolescent fantasy genres and actually produce serious, adult plots.

Have you ever actually seen an anime?

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Columbo]

There are quite a number of adult-oriented anime films produced. And no, I'm not talking XXX-type adult. Ghost in the Shell comes to mind but there are many, many other examples that I could start listing but won't. The anime film industry in Japan covers as much ground as does traditional film here in north america.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to this seems likely to be "Well... I've seen Akira". ;)

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't LOTR part of the adolescent film genre, with dwarves and elves and such running around? Of course, I don't expect LOTR to win best picture either.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[theophilus00]

I'm not going to try to discuss the merits of Anime, because I'm honestly not a fan. Is it cool? Sure. Do I follow it/watch it regularly? Nope.

However, it seems to me that comparing Anime with live-action films is not an apples-to-apples comparison. They are different art forms with different merits specific to those forms, and they should be judged independently. A technical journal would not be placed in a writing competition alongside a fictional novel, for although they are both "writing", the authors have followed completely different disciplines in producing them.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Mononoke]

This is going to insult some Anime fans, but...

No, actually its going to make you look like an idiot for not having a clue what you are talking about.

Go watch something like Grave of the Fireflies and then come back and tell us how that's an adolescent fantasy.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[cryptochrome]

The majority of anime falls under the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre. Most of the rest are Action or Romance or Sitcoms of some sort. There are actually very few anime films that are simply the high-quality non-fanboy adult-level dramas that could win a best picture award. (Note however that LOTR fails this test also).

Two notable exceptions: Grave of the Fireflies and Perfect Blue. The former is probably one of the best films of all time.

I suppose this is because of the money, and because animation lends itself so easily to "effects movies" that would be otherwise unfeasible. Manga, which most anime is based on, caters to a smaller audience and is much cheaper to make, and as a result has a much wider thematic range. But you don't see that variety making it into anime often.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

I was curious how the comparison of tech manuals to novels discredits Anime. i was under the impression that Best Film is a "cross the board" award. the other sub categories are for movies that deserve credit but escaped the narrow lens of 5 films allowed for the Best Film Category. case in point, animated movies have won/been nominated in other categories such as musical score and such. If recipe movies like Titanic can win general category awards, obviously anime movies are not incapable of winning, they just have to gain market momentum and come out of the niche.

I'm sure it will happen. But... the movie must escape the recipe anime mold and come forward as an exceptional movie for "being a movie" and not just "good anime" for it to happen.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Nermal]

Why did you have to remind me of that movie??

Now I have to go kill myself again (not that it's a bad movie, that's just the affect GOTF has on me).

Re:Never happen QWZX

[hey!]

The fact of the matter is that Anime, while definitely a cut above standard American children's fare, is only good compared to that standard. Compared to epic films like LOTR, it simply is not that good.

I think in some ways there probably shouldn't be a "Best Picture", because that will inevitably lead people to make to apples and organges comparisons (Spirted Away to LOTR, in this case). However I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that Miyazaki's works are generally some of the finest filmmaking ever.

Miyazaki's work has three hallmarks, none of which are anime/animation specific:

1. Pacing
   
2. Composition
   
3. Characterization
   

Pacing: Miyazaki has the confidence to let things take time instead of rushing to the payoff. He doesn't need explosions and chases to generate excitement: he uses psychology and timing. He makes you want to know what is around the corner, and then makes you wait as the characters discover it in real time.

Composition: Miyazaki's animation doesn't have the attention lavished on character motion that Disney animation has. It is rudimentary and sometimes jerky by comparison (although this is also used for effect). However, the landscapes he puts the characters in is lavishly realized, almost every frame a masterpiece of landscape painting. Furthermore, these aren't just throwaway backdrops against which the action takes place; the landscape is often another character in itself, telling you about the situations the character is in.

Characterization: It's been said that Miyazaki's characters all look alike from movie to movie. This may be true; I like to think of them as actors that he uses over and over again. However, they are all distinct persons. Miyazaki's stories are character driven; the plot arises out of putting characters in situations. Even while he uses elements of magic and the fantastic, he's most interested in specific human conditions. In Spirited Away, he is interested in what happens to the bond between a child and parent when the child reaches an age where she has the capacity to become independent.

Looked at on these dimensions, Spirted Away is far superior to LOTR:TTT, which in my book is high praise. But it's apples and oranges again. Peter Jackson is somewhat saddled by the nature of his source material. Miyazaki conceives his work specifically for his medium, for what he knows will work in an animated film. For Jackson to try to display the same strengths Miyazaki has would either result in a movie that was several times longer already, or to cut and compress the source material until it was unrecognizable.

I'm glad Jackson did the LOTR movies. But if there were one series of movies I wish everyone would see, it would be Miyazaki's.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[hiei]

I kind of agree and I kind of don't. I don't believe anything like Dragonball, Gundam, or even Macross could ever be regarded highly enough to be an award winner. If anyone can do it, I'd say Miyazaki could. Mamoru Oshi maybe...but I can't stand his stuff. Too long and drawn out and convoluted.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Mononoke]

Now I have to go kill myself again (not that it's a bad movie, that's just the affect GOTF has on me).

Oh, I understand. I even bought the DVD, but I haven't been overly joyous enough yet to dare watch it (having seen the fansub long ago.)

Re:Never happen QWZX

[eunos94]

"I don't expect a comic book to win the Nobel prize in Literature."

Art Spiegelman's Maus has won the Pulitzer. I won't be suprised when others win some major awards too. Nor will I be suprised if Spirited Away wins an Oscar, it is quite deserving.

And Miyazaki in particular deals with very serious issues in most of his movies. Your statement that anime is just "films by geeks for geeks" shows how little of his works you've actually seen.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[truenoir]

Doesn't matter what the NYT says, that movie is not a kids movie. It's not that it has offensive content or whatever, but the story and themes presented just wouldn't interest anyone under say 14 or 15 (in general). Perfect Blue, for instance, does have content restricting it to the 17 and up crowd (as does GiTS). If you don't think that anime is a valid genre for all story types, it really just means you haven't watched much of it (or haven't watched diverse anime). Another "serious" anime might be Wings of Honneamise. However, what seems to be ignored is that though anime does tend to have fantasy/sci-fi surroundings, the themes are often the same as live action films. Heck, even the end of Evangelion starts to get in the same realm as art film. Many people don't like it, however, having seen (or been subjected to, depending on your POV) art film as part of my college curriculum, I can say that it's comparable. So yeah, the plot involves a roughly Biblical scenario involving giant bio-engineered weapons piloted by teenagers...but the themes are loneliness and isolation, social acceptance, self worth, etc. To the point that the end is stream of consiousness style stuff inside the main character's head. No fights or anything (TV ending only here, the movie had some action...because fans complained). Different presentation, same themes explored. I'm not saying that anime is always up to the same level as the better films...but neither are many products of Hollywood. However, it should be recognized when it is, and not simply dismissed as "only for kids".

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Silverhammer]

Blockquoth the poster:

Go watch something like Grave of the Fireflies...

...or 'Wings of Honneamise'.

...or 'Perfect Blue'.

...or 'Robot Carnival'.

...or 'Ghost in the Shell'.

...or 'Jin-Roh: the Wolf Brigade'.

...or 'Serial Experiment Lain'.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[theefer]

it needs to break out of the adolescent fantasy genres and actually produce serious, adult plots. And I just don't see it happening.
Heard about Miyazaki ?
Ever seen a real anime other than DBZ ?

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Z4rd0Z]

No, he doesn't look like an idiot. I've seen lots of anime, and I think Grave of the Fireflies is probably the only one I've seen that isn't a Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action film. I'm not knocking the genre, I like a lot of it, but his point is valid.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Z4rd0Z]

Miyazaki conceives his work specifically for his medium, for what he knows will work in an animated film.

Actually, I don't think this is entirely true. For example, Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, is based on manga, which is far more detailed than a feature film can possibly be given time constraints. This is in fact my biggest problem with anime in general. Movies like Akira or Ghost in the Shell make no sense as movies because so much is cut out from the comic books.

I mostly agree with you about the other points, though. Miyazaki's films are gorgeous. I never thought they were "jerky", however. Quite the opposite. They seem smooth and rich compared to any other animation I've seen. A small example is when they are driving the car through the dirt road at the beginning of Spirited Away, and they go over a rough spot and the car dips down just *perfectly*, it's nearly photographic. Mmmm.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Anonvmous Coward]

"...or 'Ghost in the Shell'."

psst. Ghost in the Shell wasn't that good. It was mediochre at best.

Though the movie had style, the actual story/dialog (at least the English version...) was pretty bland. That might have been what the guy who started this thread was trying to say.

A lot of the fascination with anime is its visuals, sometimes it overcompensates for a weak story. Step away from the visuals for a bit, and Ghost in the Shell is a pretty boring movie. Don't believe me? Close your eyes and watch a few minutes of it.

Does this mean the movie's worthless? Of course not. A movie's good if you like it, simple as that. But the point of these awards shows is to measure a movie on more than just how much people liked it.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[hey!]

I mostly agree with you about the other points, though. Miyazaki's films are gorgeous. I never thought they were "jerky", however. Quite the opposite. They seem smooth and rich compared to any other animation I've seen. A small example is when they are driving the car through the dirt road at the beginning of Spirited Away, and they go over a rough spot and the car dips down just *perfectly*, it's nearly photographic. Mmmm.

Yes, when the time calls for it, he can lavish attention on some animation detail. On the other hand, there are lots of scenes where he scarcely bothers to fill the motion. In My Neighbor Totoro, for example, when the truck is coming up to the new house, it just fades from one position to another like a time lapse photograph. There are some scenes in Princes Mononoke which look like conceptual pieces for what the final animation should look like. They're actually cool, almost abstract, so I guess that's why he left them in.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Silverhammer]

No, the person who started this thread argued that anime will never win because it's nothing but adolescent "chicks with guns" fantasies. Of course, 'GitS' does have a chick with a gun, but at it's heart it is an exercise in existentialism (what makes us human, can we judged by how we treat others, blah blah blah). Sounds pretty adult to me.

Now, whether or not the movie is actually any good is a completely different issue...

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Chris Burke]

For example, Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, is based on manga, which is far more detailed than a feature film can possibly be given time constraints.

True enough, though in this case I think it was pulled off well. The movie focused on only a small part of the manga (instead of trying to cram the entire epic into 2 hours, like Akira). Instead he took a reasonable portion of the story and re-tooled it into a stand-alone piece that was in a number of ways better than the manga. The manga doesn't really take off until the second book, but the movie took the events of the first book and made them more powerful.

So I think the original poster was right -- Miyazaki does create his work specifically for his medium, and I think Nausicaa (both movie and manga) exemplify this.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[buckthorn]

Of the list, I've only seen Perfect Blue and Lain, but neither can be called anything close to kid's fare... I'm not even sure when I'll let my daughter (who is only 2 now) watch Perfect Blue. I don't think PB is worthy of an award, but it's definately an example of the maturation of the genre. Lain is just... Lain. I have a hard time pidgeonholeing that one.

Spirited Away has some good things going for it. Length is one; Over two hours gives it some significant weight, with most animated features being short for one reason or another. Depth of characters is another... we learn so much about Chihiro/Sen, as well as Haku, and learn that there is really nothing like a good guy and a bad guy, just people with their own motives that vary along a grey morality. Chihiro finds an inner strength she didn't know she had, overcomes her (very obvious) fears, and does what has to be done. Great story, great lesson.

Unhappily, since the majority of American beliefs center around monotheism, it's possible that this will run against the grain of Spirited Away. Still, a bathhouse and relaxation spot for weary gods is intriguing at the very least.

I think the real failing of Anime and Animation is in the American psyche, not in Anime. People see Anime and automatically think "a cartoon", forgetting how far animation has come. I think as our generation (20's and 30's, pardon the generalisation) continue to mature and expose our children to the possibilities of real, quality Anime/nation the more likely we are to change the landscape of the film-going public at large, and hopefully soon what the original author said won't happen will instead. Miyazaki is at the forefront of a slow incursion into the American psyche, and for one I welcome him over the mass-produced, kill-the-bad-guy-and-get-the-girl kinda movie.. SA ends with Chihiro going home. Yubaba is chagrined but still in power, Haku is still in service but aiming to get out.. she didn't kill Yubaba or destroy the bath house or anything like that. She solved her problem realistically and that was that.

Oh, to add to the list... Princess Mononoke. With name voice actors in English, even.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[fenix down]

Millenium Actress too. I think it's the same guy who did Perfect Blue, and it's fantastic. Documentary crew talking to this old actress, and they basically tell her life story through her movies. Pretty funny and creative as hell.

Anime usually gets treated as a loophole to get big sci-fi and fantasy stuff out, which is all way too expensive for the Japanese film industry to pull off well. I don't think that's really a bad thing, I'd actually like to see some of that kind of thinking here. Some way for good stuff that can't find a way into the mainstream to be given justice. I'm sure there's plenty of good screenwriters and directors who have stuff they'd like to see realized. Really, I think that's a lot of what the Animatrix is. There's no way the Bros are gonna get to use all this cool stuff they came up with, so they send out about 1/100th of their normal budget and at least get to see some of it in motion.

Anyway, I'd like to see anime do some more stuff like Grave of the Fireflies where the medium doesn't just make the effects feasable, it actually makes the characters work better. GotF wouldn't have been nearly as good if it didn't have that simplistic, washed-out feel to it.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[pHsHsTK]

"Go watch something like Grave of the Fireflies"

If you can stand it, that has got to be one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen.
Be prepared for it.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[malex23]

It's not about genre... the "Never Happen" guy was claiming that Anime could never produce a real movie worthy of serious consideration.

Even if they're the exception to the rule, I would say "Spirited Away" and "Fireflies" are easily as deserving as "The Two Towers."

Re:Never happen QWZX

[fenix down]

God. I'm suprised the NYT didn't get burned for that shit. "HEADLINE: Children! Life a Bog of Misery and Dispair! Remeber to Slit Up, Not Across!"

Re:Never happen QWZX

[fenix down]

The dub of GitS is awful. I can't even watch more than the first few minutes of that thing. First dub I ever listened to. Almost convinced me anime had secretly sucked all along.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Qzukk]

Hm, if you'd like more, go check out Princess Nine (the dvd's released by ADV are relatively cheap, so its not a huge monetary loss if you don't like it), which is a (fictional) story about the first girls' baseball team. There are a number of other sports-based shows, though things like Battle Atheletes might fall under your perception of Action.

There are a few other shows out there that would be more along the lines of general humor (Excel Saga, for instance). His and Her Circumstances is sort of a romance/documentary of student life. If you want historical drama, there is always Rose of Versailles (I don't think this is available in the US). If you enjoy a dash of insanity with your swordplay, you can get Revolutionary Girl Utena (ok, maybe this falls under adolescent fantasy, but it has much deeper concepts than some people give it credit for ;)

For films, you should track down a copy of Memories. The first segment, Magnetic Rose, may be scifi, but the remainder is either thoughtful (Cannon Fodder) or humorous (Stink Bomb). I don't watch that many anime movies, so I can't think of any others that aren't scifi.

For the most part what is released here in the US is scifi/fantasy/action, because thats what people watch. A lot of the stuff exists for escapism, but thats the purpose of a lot of the stuff made in the US, too.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[OblvnDrgn]

I don't think that is really a horrible thing. As you said, animation (and CGI and whatnot) makes it much easier to do movies with otherwise difficult/impossible effects. So there's nothing wrong in using it for that. If it's more effective to use live action for a particular movie, use that.

I'd hope to get to the point where using animation is just another stylistic directing choice, like filming on location or on a set, and is something that benefits a movie, but is not the be all and end all. The right attitude is "See this movie that happens to be animated because it's really good!" And not, "See this movie because it's animated!"

A cynic will note this is where Final Fantasy failed miserably.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

Anime will never be nominated because it's animated. Animated movie can't be nominated for the Best Picture category. That's why a Best Animated Feature category was introduced. For other rules and regs check out oscars.com.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

You forgot "Barefoot Gen" - imho it is the best animated film (storywise) ever.

Given the fact it's about ww2 and tragedy, if it was remade today it might actually win an oscar too :)

Re:Never happen QWZX

[glitch_]

My god...no movie has ever come close to the affect that movie has on me. I don't think I will ever, EVER be able to watch that again.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[fenix down]

I don't know about that. I think you're point's valid, but more in his character design. He takes the anime facial simplification all the way and it makes it a whole lot easier for him to send you their emotions directly, without any noise. In the opening of Totoro he's doing goofy cinematic stuff, yeah, but he puts massive detail into the truck's movement. He jumps to minimalism occasionally, like in Mononoke, usually to make it look more energetic.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Lt Razak]

One of the comics, Sandman, by Neil Gaiman, won the fantasy short story of the year award a few years back.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[TheKey]

Or .. Princess Mononoke .. of course :P

Re:Never happen QWZX

[cryptochrome]

I'm not saying it's bad, in fact I totally agree with you. Perfect Blue, for example, is generally pretty realistic, but has a couple of hallucinatory/dream sequences that subtly but powerfully utilize the flexibility of animation. They were demonstrated things that couldn't be filmed in a conventional manner at all, even with special effects. Animation as an artistic medium made them both possible and within the context of the movie plausible. Those scenes helped the movie, but did not define it. Grave of the Fireflies didn't utilize animation in that regard but was still a good movie, with the stylistic freedom of animation.

Unfortunately, such movies are very few and far between. It tends to stereotype the medium of animation, which is a damn shame. The effect is even worse in the US, where animation is stereotyped as being for children. And in both countries they suffer from producers who think eye candy can make up deficiencies in the more basic elements of storytelling (like FF:TSW).

So what we need is not for people to stop using animation instead of live-action-with-effects, but for people to make movies that aren't based on effects, just because they want to, and to convince the public there's more to animation than they thought.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Z4rd0Z]

I agree with you. There is nothing inherent in animation that makes it somehow lesser than live action. I've actually haven't seen The Two Towers yet, but I saw the first one, and I think Spirited Away and Grave of the Fireflies are easily better films than it was.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Brendor]

Ghost in the Shell wasn't that good. It was mediochre at best.

Though the movie had style, the actual story/dialog (at least the English version...) was pretty bland

And that's just it.

In Art school I saw the subtitled version and was blown away by its hypnotic music, subtle acting and, of course, stunning visuals.

A few years later while watching the subtitle version and could not believe it was the same movie. All of the ambience was lost in the translation, (mostly due to a crappy new sound track in addition to the "acting.")

Re:Never happen QWZX

[deek]

Yep, Sandman won the 1991 World Fantasy Award for best short story. Well, it wasn't the Sandman comic as such that won it, but a section from it called "A Midsummer Night's Dream". This was basically the first time that a comic had won a literary prize.

Unfortunately, there was such a shock from the win, the committee responsible for the awards changed the rules so that NO graphic novel could even be nominated for the award, much less win it.

It just goes to show you how narrow-minded people can be. But I'm sure the Oscars will never suffer from a fate like that ...

DeeK

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

> Have you ever actually seen an anime?

He said adult plots. He didn't say adult content. For anime to get taken seriously in this country, it has to further distance itself from pornography. While obscene material in Japan is accepted as normal, it just isn't here.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[flauntbaby]

But I don't expect a comic book to win the Nobel prize in Literature.

No, just the pulitzer. Now go read "Maus" by Art Spiegelman.

Re:Never happen QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a nitpick, but Miyazaki hasn't done any series. All his movies are stand-alone, AFAIK. If you're saying ".. one _director_ I wish everyone would see.." then you have to compete with the likes of "Dead Alive" :)

Re:Never happen QWZX

[EuroChild]

A nice touch with spirited away was the use of 3D in some scenes - something we rarely get in Anime. This was the best 3d/2d mixing I've ever seen. Some companies *coughdisneycough* go over-board with the 3d in their 2d animated movies, but it just looks crap because it looks 3d. Like the latest one from disney... can't even think of it's name... but anyway Spirited Away used it only sparingly but did it flawlessly. Just brilliant.

Animated Feature Film

[alen]

Why didn't Star Wars get a nomination in this category? It was almost like Roger Rabbit. A cartoon with some real people in it.

Re:Animated Feature Film

[Cappy Red]

I'd agree with you... but I can't find the animated characters in it. There are one or two real people in it, costarring with a bunch of cardboard cut outs. I was actually thinking it should be up for art direction for setting real people in a cartoon world.

*honk*

Re:Animated Feature Film

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Why didn't Star Wars get a nomination in this category? It was almost like Roger Rabbit. A cartoon with some real people in it."

It was nominated Best Demo Reel.

Re:ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

[Mononoke]

The other two I didn't see so let me know what I am missing.

As far as Spirited Away goes, I couldn't describe it nearly as well as these other award presenters and critics can.

Re:ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

[Hast]

I think a 98% at rotten tomatoes is a pretty good indication of what this movie goes for.

It has (as others have pointed out) all the makings of a really classic movie. It seems like a child movie at first as it tells the story from a childs perspective, but it's a lot more complex than anything you'll see from Disney et al. For starters there are no truly evil characters in the movie. And most characters who are nice are just purely nice either, they have motives for what they do. (Not just "it says so in the script".)

If it's available on Region 1 do pick it up, or at least rent it. And while you're at it check out other works by Miyazaki like Princess Mononoke.

Although anime in general isn't geared towards children there's a lot of stuff that children can appreciate as well. And they are probably going to do a better job of adapting to the sometimes very different ideas in the movies. (Compared to western animations and normal movies.)

Re:ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

[Xandar01]

I had checked it out at rotten tomatoes after I posted. I notice the video (VHS/DVD) release will be available April 15th. I plan to keep an eye out for it.

After all the good things that are being said about this movie it would be a shame if it did not win best animated.

Re:ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

[taperkat]

and rotten tomatoes gave a 78% to Treasure Planet... how much do you want to trust them?

(ftr: L&S got 85%, Spirit got 68% and Ice Age got 75%.)

Ice Age having a lower rating then TREASURE PLANET? .. do I really need to say anything to this? :D

Re:ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

[Hast]

You know RT doesn't really give a rating to any movie. They just coordinate all the other sites.

And a movie is considered fresh at 3/5 or similar IIRC. So it's not an average value, but an estimate on how many liked it. (Not how much they liked it.)

Where is Nemesis?

[Mothra the III]

Surely its a better movie than any musical?

Re:Where is Nemesis?

[rasteri]

I think it only really appealed to Star Trek fans, and there simply aren't as many of those as there used to be.

Oh, and by Star Trek fans, I don't mean hardcore Trekkies, I just mean people who watch the show occasionally and know who all the main characters are.

Re:Where is Nemesis?

[alen]

I'm waiting for the dvd. But I have always seen a difference between star trek and real cinema like The Hours, Chicago and other stuff with real emotional and ethical themes.

Re:Where is Nemesis?

[kalidasa]

Surely its a better movie than any musical?

Someone's whoring for humor karma, I see. The only category I can think of for Nemesis is "Best Adapted Screenplay," since it was based so thoroughly on "Wrath of Khan."

apathy

[milktoastman]

I'd geekily start lashing out at the popular entertainment culture and how Hollywood panders to the "lowest common denominator" (whatever that means), but years of sitting at a computer have shriveled my heart into a weak little prune. I haven't the energy left.

Mozilla Freeze.

[Xner]

That bloody page freezes my mozilla-xft solid.

Re:Mozilla Freeze.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww..... poor baby.

Woo-hoo for Kaurism�ki!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eläköön!

Now, if they could kill the damn Salatut Elämät soap-drama from the TV to further Finnish movie productions, things would be perfect...

Re:Woo-hoo for Kaurism�ki!

[10Ghz]

Hopefukky he wins, we could hear his speech :).

FYI: Kaurismäki doesn't hold USA in high regard, and he pretty much despises the Oscar-committee (or whatever it's called). He is a bit anti-social even towards people he doesn't hate :)

Re:Woo-hoo for Kaurism�ki!

[Anonymous Coward]

...but he will not be seen when the movie gets the trophy.

Last fall he said that even if the movie gets a nomination, he won't attend the gala.

but that does not make him any less of a great moviemaker =)

Re:Woo-hoo for Kaurism�ki!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tonight in the news they interviewed some movie person about Aki: "Is it a scandal cause he is not apparently going to show up in the gala as a nominee?" "Well, it is not a scandal, if it is a way to avoid a scandal..." ;)

Bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

Man take a look at the ten actresses for best and supporting roles. I wouldn't touch any of them with a ten foot pole. Of course maybe someone else beat me to it, with a ten foot Ugly Stick.

Re:Bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

Renee Zellwegger (or however you spell her name) is cute.

Re:Bleh

[Pxtl]

Are you kidding? In every movie she's either fat with cottage cheese thighs or so skinny you can see every bone in her body. That woman needs to level off.

Re:Bleh

[Lt Razak]

LOL. Why is it we laud the achievements of a male actor sculpting his body, but when a female does it, she gets criticized.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you on your statements.

However, in Bridget Jones Diary, one of the themes was the pains of being 20 pounds overweight. She easily did that in each cottage cheese thigh. And in Chicago, she was a sack of bones.

Similar to Robert Dinero. He got in fighting shape for Raging Bull and then put on over 50 pounds (by eating the producer's wife's home made pizzas) to act out the overweight fat boxer at the end of the movie. Truly amazing.

Why not Road to Perdition for best pic

[aluminum boy]

I'm really surprised that Road to Perdition was not nominated for best-pic. It may prove that that the release timing of the picture really is important for oscar noms.

Re:Why not Road to Perdition for best pic

[Dagowolf]

I was thinking this myself. Road to Perdition had all the makings of a best picture. The storyline was great, there are some truly memorable lines, and the cinematography was great (not Requim for a Dream or Pi great, but great none the less). It's interesting how quickly movies that were released at the beginning of the year disappear, even if there is an "Oscar buzz" around the movie when it is released. It really speaks to our entertainment oriented society that great movies from a cinematic standpoint is forgotten only becaue it was released early in the year. What's to stop film studios from deciding that they are now only going to release their blockbuster films late in the year, leaving us to wallow through the mediocre offerings during spring and early summer.

Re:Why not Road to Perdition for best pic

[Stonehand]

I rather liked it, for the most part.

However --

(1) It's both unusually violent and amoral, both of which probably count against it for an awards race.
(2) The ending was too predictable, given the opening scene and hints later.

Disappointed.

[DarkHelmet]

What? No Crossroads?

I thought Hollywood had awards for Best Breasts and Best Plastic Surgery... My bad.

Re:Disappointed.

[IsmoVuorinen]

..and the winners would be Cher and Pamela :)

Re:Disappointed.

[NaugaHunter]

Are you thinking of the Golden Globes awards?

<Groan>

Re:Disappointed.

[Anonymous Coward]

That'd be the award for "Breast Supporting Actress"

*ducks*

Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Bowie J. Poag]

Anime wins awards all the time. Fetish film awards, that is.

The American Psychological Association lists Anime as an officially recognized sexual fetish, treatable with medication and cognitive therapy.

Get off it, Rob. Nobody here cares about your obsession with big-eyed pumpkin headed screamers.

Cheers,

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Jezral]

Well, according to Google, you don't have a case.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:apa%2Eorg+an im e (site:apa.org anime) = 0 results.

-- Tino Didriksen / ProjectJJ.dk

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Jerm]

Someone mod this to funny. You are well suited to run PROPOGANDA, sir. A link to the APA does not a legitimate claim make.

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Fruit]

Uh, have you actually seen Spirited Away? It's a children's movie, for crying out loud.

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bowie, you're a pathetic loser. And your old website was filled with vomit-looking wallpaper.
(Haven't wasted my time to see if you ever fixed it - just wished I could have gotten back those few wasted minutes).

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[fobbman]

"Get off it, Rob. Nobody here cares about your obsession with big-eyed pumpkin headed screamers."

That quote right there was priceless. Thank you very much for making me laugh.

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Anonymous Coward]

A fetish, really? That's wierd; Dark Schneider doesn't do anything for me.

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Bowie J. Poag]

That last troll was posted by:


McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net
McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540
United States
(706) 698-5112

Feel free to call this troll. He's lives with his mom, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to troll, another copy of his personal info will be posted immediately afterward.

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Anonymous Coward]

This deserves:

-1 Juvenile Shithead

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers should not be nominated as best picture, it is not an original Idea but a continuation of the first(Which was an original Idea),I Think Only "ORIGNIAL" Ideas for movies should be nominated for best picture. What'll they nominate next Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Two, Harry Potter 18 oh Yea!. Some movie awards there meaningless Nowadays. People watch what you want to watch not what Hollywood Tells you, and just because a movie is nominated doesn't mean its good(Look at Titanic). :)

This is funny:
"Get off it, Rob. Nobody here cares about your obsession with big-eyed pumpkin headed screamers."

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having children in the movie does not make it a movie for children! I've seen plenty of anime with explicit scenes containing nude children. No one in their right mind would claim that those were movies for children.

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Anonymous Coward]

ru an asshole from an everquest server?

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish by the APA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor Bowie. Such a sad little boy.

Do you work for Microsoft? I figure that you might be doing that by trying to make Linux unusable on the desktop with your ugly wallpapers.

I'm trying to figure out if it is swirls of vomit or swirls of excrement. Do you make them by hanging your rear over the edge of the roof, and aim for the paper on the ground? And then use photoshop to make 20 color variations of it so you can fill up your website?

PROPAGANDA Desktop Enhancement Graphics

Shouldn't that be:

PROPAGANDA Desktop Excrement Graphics?

Best Picture Roundup

[MAXOMENOS]

A roundup of the nominees for Best Picture and what I think their chances are:

• The Two Towers. We see a great flick. Self-important Hollywood sees Elves and Dwarves beating up on Orcs, so we can fucking forget it.
• Chicago. A musical. Forget it.
• Gangs of New York. Three hours long, directed by Martin Scorsesie, has a Titanic feel to it, and touches on new ground (civil war era New York). Stands a good chance.
• The Hours. Women with problems. Stands a chance, barely.
• The Pianist. Jewish Artist vs. the Nazis. Should be a shoo-in, but we'll see.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[weepingwillow]

Not that it should matter, but sense the American people are so concerned about morality. There seems to be no mention of the fact that the director of the Pianist was convicted of Raping a 13 year old girl and fled the US be fore he could be sentenced.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Zathrus]

The Two Towers. We see a great flick. Self-important Hollywood sees Elves and Dwarves beating up on Orcs, so we can fucking forget it

I think you can forget it, but not because of "elves and dwarves beating up on orcs" -- forget it because FOTR won last year, and the Academy is unlikely to award the top prize to a sequel.

Of the rest, I've only seen The Hours, and while it was interesting I don't see it as a Best Picture.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[weepingwillow]

Ther is a link to the story about Roman Polanski's

http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.htm l

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Tet]

The Two Towers. We see a great flick. Self-important Hollywood sees Elves and Dwarves beating up on Orcs, so we can fucking forget it.

No, you can forget it because TTT was a poor picture overall. Sure, it deserves to be nominated for visual effects, but little else. It's a significantly worse film than FOTR, and to give it best picture would be a complete travesty. Can't comment on the others in the list because I haven't seen them, but if TTT really is the best film, then that's a pretty damning statement on the quality of cinematic releases this year. BTW, I'm a huge Tolkein fan. I really wanted TTT to live up to (or preferably surpass) FOTR. Sadly, it did neither :-(

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Stonehand]

Um, FOTR did not win Best Picture -- "A Beautiful Mind" did.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[MAXOMENOS]

forget it because FOTR won last year, and the Academy is unlikely to award the top prize to a sequel.

I think you mean that it was nominated last year. A Beautiful Mind (admittedly a good movie even from a geek perspective) won last year.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[00klaDM0k]

Max, you ignorant slut.

Chicago's the shoo-in. Yes, a musical hasn't won since '68 but Hollywood is warming up to the new musical format. If Chicago doesn't win, I'd bet on the Hours.

Pianist may net Brody an Oscar though.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[nefar]

The Two Towers. We see a great flick. Self-important Hollywood sees Elves and Dwarves beating up on Orcs, so we can fucking forget it.

At least Guardian speculates that:

It is widely expected that the Academy will hold off on rewarding Peter Jackson's Tolkien trilogy until it is finished.

Let's wait a year and see whether Jackson gets the recognition he deserves. "Lord of the Rings" is no "One Flew over Cuckoo's Nest" nor "Godfather" for that matter, but we have seen far worse films win the award in recent years *cough*Titanic*cough*.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

> Chicago. A musical. Forget it.

Shouldn't that be called 'Windoze 95'? Hey, it doesn't even deserved to be in Oscar! If Chicago can get to the best picture, then Memphis, Nashville, Neptune, Daytona, Cairo, and Whistler should have won all the awards! Let's not forget Longhorn...

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Two Towers. We see a great flick. Self-important Hollywood sees Elves and Dwarves beating up on Orcs, so we can fucking forget it.

Maybe a great flick if you are into shiny things but TTT is pathetic as far as directing/cut is concerned. It has very few redeeming features indeed:
scenery, costumes, effects (Gollum, orc army).

Jackson is a good producer and should have given someone else the chance to direct.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

Jackson is a good producer and should have given someone else the chance to direct.

Jackson's a good director but I believe his style isn't suited to LotR (purely subjective opinion of course). His earlier films, Braindead etc. benefited from his claustrophobic style but LotR deserves space to breath, which he attempts but ultimately fails -- those long and laboured long range shots smacks of the amateur film maker with a new toy. Ultimately the two LotR movies are poor IMO.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[ADRA]

"Polanski's probation report said he was profoundly affected by the brutal murder of his wife, actress Sharon Tate, in 1969. Court sources said the film director, imprisoned in Auschwitz by the Nazis during the World War II, was repelled by the thought of possibly serving more time behind bars."

Its not like he could have a first hand count on what actually happened. The question you should pose on morality, allow him to be celebrated because of the acurate portrail of Jewish genocide during WW2, or ostracize him for what he did 26 years ago (not to say it is acceptible).

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Lady Lance]

The Two Towers: weaker then the first film, but more importantly, if the series will get recognized, it will be after the final movie is released.

Chicago: The movie is doing tremendoulsy well, and it could well be on its way to reviving a popular genre of the 50s-60s. It definitely stands a chance.

Gangs of New York: Chicago's main contender.

The Hours: Bit of a dark horse.

The Pianist: Forget it. Not enough people have seen it.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[fredrikj]

My feelings exactly.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[BadmanX]

Heh. Now is not a great time to be a Tolkien fan, apparently. We're getting movies, but Peter Jackson is butchering them, reducing characters to composites and changing things to make it more dramatic and play better on the screen! What a plonker!

I am a Tolkien fan. I've read the books and I love them. I think Two Towers was a marvellous film. No, it didn't follow the story exactly. Hell, in the last half of the movie, it diverged entirely. Doesn't bother me one bit. It's not "Lord of the Rings" as much as it's Peter Jackson's take on LOTR. And if he'd made the slavishly faithful movies you want then you'd have had a blast, but the average viewer would have considered them dull and unwatchable and thought, "Man, only geeks can like this stuff."

Peter Jackson has adapted Tolkien, both for the big screen, and also for the mass media. The scope, breadth and depth of Tolkien's work is still there. When Return of the King comes out, millions of people everywhere will cheer Sauron's defeat in the same way we all cheered the Death Star blowing up twenty years ago. If you don't consider that to be a good thing for Tolkien's legacy, then you don't really love Tolkien as much as you think you do.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[bcboy]

Funny, FOTR was much more faithful to the story, and it was compelling to people who hadn't read the books.

I just don't buy they "they HAD to change it" excuse, especially since the changed parts of the plot were just unwatchable. They made no sense; they were ham-handed; the acting was horrible; and they ate up so much screen time that critical parts of the plot were left out. The resulting story was full of plot gaps, and consistency errors; it was cut like a music video. It was more like watching a video from the soundtrack to "Sweet Valley High: The Two Towers" than watching a film adaptation of the book.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[fenix down]

The grand jury charged Polanski with giving a drug to a minor, committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape by use of a drug, oral copulation and sodomy. All the charges are felonies.

I loooove dis country!

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument doesn't stand-up. Some of the changes are entirely unnecessary moves away from the source material. For instance, diminishing the roles of the ents but increasing the roles of the elves undermines one aspect of Tolkien's story, adds nothing, and really takes away a portion of the coolness factor. Another example is Aragorn falling over the cliff. There was absolutely no conceivable need for this scene. It doesn't add to the drama because it's obvious Aragorn isn't dead. And yet another is with Faramir, where he doesn't pass the test of the ring and leads Frodo and Sam on another 20-minute waste of time, wherein we see that Gondor is under attack, but just long enough for Samwise to make a kitschy speech and change Faramir's mind. What was the point of that? How did that make TTT a better movie? Nothing happens and the plot is dragged backwards.

No-one smart is complaining about where Jackson has diverged from the source material to make a better movie. But can you say that these changes made TTT better? We waste 15 minutes with the Aragorn's fallen over the cliff crap, don't get to see the ents in any amount of real action, and then must suffer through the most logically inconsistent bit of the movie: you have a fleet of bow-wielding, badass elves accurately tagging Uruk-Hai in the necks with volleys of arrows from a good distance off, but Legolas can't take down a torch-bearing Uruk-Hai heading straight towards the wall... (And Aragorn doesn't decide he needs help with this task from the other elves, even though he knows the wall's going to blow up if Legolas fails!)

All of that said, I like TTT. But it's nowhere near as good a movie as FOTR -- and it's not because FOTR was more faithful, necessarily. It's in how they chose to diverge from Tolkien. The changes in TTT are, by and large, arbitrary and add nothing to the movie. They do not replace things which could not be shown in the movie. They do not speed up the movie. And they aren't more interesting or practical than what they replaced.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[grammar fascist]

No kidding. I missed Bombadil as much as you did.

/me ducks

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

The Two Towers was one of the best films I have ever seen. If you wanted a book version, READ THE BOOK and use your imagination. Do you know how long and boring a movie that was exactly as true as the book, like Harry Potter (not boring, just looong) would be?? The Two Towers is three hours as it is. seriously folks

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[deek]

Wait until the Extended edition of TTT gets released on DVD. I absolutely loved the extended FOTR, because of the extra detail it gave the characters and story.

While I enjoyed TTT quite a bit, there's so much that P.J. can add to it. And I don't doubt that he will add to it in the Extended edition. Let's hope he really goes for it and adds an hour extra worth of new material. 4 hours for a movie ... it'll be on-par with "Gone with the Wind" for length :).

Just to keep things on topic .... does anybody really pay much attention as to who wins in the Oscars?! We're all aware of how political it has become, and the results are meaningless because of it.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[LPetrazickis]

LOL. I know it's lame, but still...:)

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

*clap* *Clap*

I'm sure that you, sir, will cast your vote just the same.

Whatever, the computer graphics in Lord of the Rings is nothing more than terrible. That's from 2 PhD students in this field that I went to see it with.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shut the fuck up, I'd really like to see you do something better. I'd also like to see you actually read the book more times than Fran Walsh.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[Rakarra]

And yet another is with Faramir, where he doesn't pass the test of the ring and leads Frodo and Sam on another 20-minute

Actually, I'll disagree with that. Faramir -did- pass the test of the ring. He was uncorrupted by it. He didn't take it for himself, which would have doomed the quest. He saw it as a possible weapon, and decided that would be its course. But he was not corrupted as Boromir was.

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[namespan]

A-men.

Seriously, everything that's been said about Gollum aside (because I Gollum was very impressive), I walked out of TTT wondering how they managed to do FOTR so well and get TTT so wrong. It wasn't that they changed the plot here and there. It's that they completely changed who some of the characters were. Not to mention they transmuted actual drama into telegraphed-punch melodrama. Having Merry and Pippin play less of a role in their own escape, but play a greater role in persuading the doped-down Ents. Fine. Playing up Aragorn's reliance on Arwen, and the conflict there, fine. Warg riders? Way cool (don't remember that from the book). Making Wormtongue look like Marilyn Manson without the freaky contact lenses? All right, fine. But having Faramir take Frodo back to Gondor? That completely changed who Faramir was, and the only justification I can think of is that they're compositing Denethor with Faramir and leaving Denethor out, and it's still a damn weak way to change the story. Having a character like Faramir is essential to the experience of the story. And even that is secondary to the fact that Frodo's character development in the film seems entirely limited to sympathy for Gollum. That's important, but there's more to it, and his character seems rather one dimensional.

Gollum is the high point of the film. The effects are second. The rest, well....

Re:Best Picture Roundup

[simong_oz]

This argument doesn't stand-up. Some of the changes are entirely unnecessary moves away from the source material. For instance, diminishing the roles of the ents but increasing the roles of the elves undermines one aspect of Tolkien's story, adds nothing, and really takes away a portion of the coolness factor.

It only takes away some of the coolness factor because you've (I assume) read LoTR so you understand Ents and that whole story angle. But just imagine trying to explain the whole concept of Ents properly to an audience who has not read LoTR (which is the majority of the audience)? There's too much background and complication there which, on film, would have been boring and turned people away. True, the Ents are cool, but there is just so much more to them.

Another example is Aragorn falling over the cliff. There was absolutely no conceivable need for this scene. It doesn't add to the drama because it's obvious Aragorn isn't dead.

I partly agree with this, though it does give them another chance to put Arwen on screen, a character who really doesn't feature at all in the books. Where it does add to the story IMO is in showing the friendship that's grown between Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas.

And yet another is with Faramir, where he doesn't pass the test of the ring and leads Frodo and Sam on another 20-minute waste of time, wherein we see that Gondor is under attack, but just long enough for Samwise to make a kitschy speech and change Faramir's mind. What was the point of that? How did that make TTT a better movie? Nothing happens and the plot is dragged backwards.

I disagree with this - I think it again emphasises how powerful and corrupting just the presence of the ring is. In FoTR, the ring was almost a separate character, but this was slightly lost in TTT because the ring itself was not so central to the plot. I think this whole scene brings the ring back into perspective and reminds the audience just how evil it is. Faramir does pass the test, but only in the end.

Do not know why it got rejected but...

[mirko]

Maya will also get an oscar :
Read about it in my journal...

Re:Do not know why it got rejected but...

[The Jonas]

here's the link to the announcement.

wats up with cmdrtaco?

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this guy doing the all typing? is he posting after pasting the links he got in his mails? geez....just bcoz he loves anime doesnt mean that anime would be the BEST picture. i never think so....

I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[mrs clear plastic]

I hope that 'Chicago' gets the best picture award.

This has been the first musical, that I can recall, that has come out for a long time.

I have longed for musicals such as 'Sound of Music', 'Singing In The Rain', and 'West Side Story'.

I can remember going to those movies as a chile and being 'carried away' by the fantasy and joy they evoked.

I am very dissapointed that these types of musicals are not comming out of the Hollywood machine lately.

I hope, if 'Chicago' gets the award, that more musicals will start to come down the line.

Mark

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

> I hope that 'Chicago' gets the best picture
> award.
> This has been the first musical, that I can
> recall, that has come out for a long time.

Absolutely! It has been a whole year since the musical MOULIN ROUGE was nominated for Best Picture. At this rate it may be a whole another year before another musical is nominated for best picture :-)

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[llamaluvr]

This has been the first musical, that I can recall, that has come out for a long time.

um...Moulin Rouge?

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[bygimis]

I take it you missed Moulan Rouge then?

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[BurntHombre]

"This has been the first musical, that I can recall, that has come out for a long time."

Moulin Rouge?

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[jrsmith]

I can remember going to those movies as a chile and being 'carried away' by the fantasy and joy they evoked.

i always preferred going as brazil :)

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[Rude Turnip]

You act as if "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" (2001) was never made!

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Why it should get any award when it's just a code name for certain Redmond Borg operating system? They should have used Whistler!

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[coke_dite]

Personally, HAIR is my fave :) Can't beat a movie with cute long-haired blond guys singing about masturbation!

Added to that, there's the fact that a number of classic songs came out of that movie/musical.

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[NanoGator]

"I am very dissapointed that these types of musicals are not comming out of the Hollywood machine lately."

Would I be modded down over clever use of the term 'gaydar'?

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Moulin Rouge?"

Geez guys, read the posts. Like 50 of you told him it was Moulin Rouge. I can't believe nobody mentioned South Park!

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Dancer in the Dark
Moulin Rouge
Hedwig and the Angry Itch

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, the best musical made in the past 10 years was Cannibal! The Musical. Starring Juan Schwartz.

Re:I Hope 'Chicago' Gets Best Picture

[M3Chick99]

Yeah, I thought Chigaco was great. The songs really flowed into the movie... it's not like some other musicals, where the movie just stops for the songs.

Really enjoyable film, but I don't know if I'd prefer Chicago or LotR:TTT to get best picture. >;)

News for Nerds

[FortKnox]

The fact that the Two Towers is nominated for best picture is news for nerds... barely. The rest? P'shah!
Its about as newsworthy as the superbowl (and not for the commercials and a comment by michael insulting anyone who is a football fan... which I am, but michael's already commented personally to me, so I don't mind).

Re:News for Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other types of nerds than computer nerds, yanno.

Best:

[psicE]

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
ICE AGE
LILO & STITCH
SPIRIT: STALLION OF THE CIMARRON
SPIRITED AWAY
TREASURE PLANET

So if Spirited Away wins, it will have beat Ice Age, Lilo & Stitch, Spirit, and Treasure Planet.

What an honor.

Re:Best:

[Masem]

Spirited Away is practically a shoe-in for this, but Lilo & Stitch and Ice Age are viable competitors. Spirit, while doing an OK job at the box office, was sorta so-so after Dreamworks' last two big animation features, Road to El Dorado and Shrek. Treasure Planet was considered a flop by most conservative standards, and due to it's failure, several changes appear to be underfoot at Disney, including cutting back on various DVD features (for example, rumor had it that there was planned a 2-disc edition of L&S due out around now, in addition to the single disk that you can get now; reports now say that Disney will be hard pressed to release any 2-disk feature again save for their Classics series (Snow White, B&tB, etc)).

Ice Age does have rough edges but for a first shot full-length feature, it works quite well, though I doubt it'll win (maybe it's there to be the sole CGI-animation representative?)

Lilo and Stitch was probably Disney's best and tightest work since TLM and B&tB: they took out the musical numbers, focused on comedy and timing and plot, and brough together good characters and good voice talent to make it work. (And my understanding is also that this was not a big budget film, pre-marketing/advertizing fees, compared to previous Disney ventures). No, it's not as good as Spirited AWay, but the elements that got B&tB the Best Picture Oscar nomination are there in L&S, and by and far, the race will be between these two films.

Re:Best:

[Anonymous Coward]

waits isn't that catagory basicly disney made with one not created by but rights owned by?

sheesh even for hollywood this is a heavy stacked deck.

Re:Best:

[einstein]

Lilo & Stitch was an awesome movie. Ice Age was good. I haven't seen the others, but I'd probably vote for Spirited Away, if I had a vote. Still, don't knock Lilo and Stitch, that movie was very good.

Re:Best:

[IsmoVuorinen]

Hey, I think Ice Age is awesome movie. I love it :)

Re:Best:

[Have Blue]

I don't care about the other 3, but Ice Age really could give it a run for the money. That was a damn funny movie.

Re:Best:

[RobotRunAmok]

Have you even seen Ice Age or Lilo & Stitch? Seriously, do you know what you're talking about?

Or is your reaction merely a standard-issue anti-Disney karma whoring attempt?

Both of the flicks were wonderful, straying occasionally into the brilliant. As the previous poster mentioned, Ice Age had its rougher moments, but it was still better than 90% of the animation (Western or Asian) produced last year.

Get an informed opinion, dude, or just lurk, 'kay? You'll learn something.

Re:Best:

[Anonymous Coward]

Spirit was a fairly decent movie. Thank god Dreamworks made it instead of disney - then there would have been talking, singing horses. Makes me shudder just thinking about it......

Re:Best:

[fenix down]

Lilo & Stitch kicks mad ass, but I didn't really like Ice Age. I don't know why, I don't hate Ray Romano, and I was all ready to like it too, since the studio's in my home town. (White Plains, NY rep'esent!) I don't know. It just got annoying about halfway through for some reason. It's ok, but not something I want to take home with me.

Best Makeup nominees?!?

[SmokeSerpent]

Frida??? They gave Ms. Hayek a unibrow...

The Time Machine? I've seen better makeup on MutantX.

Re:Best Makeup nominees?!?

[ivars]

That unibrow is actually her own. She grew it for the part.

Re:Best Makeup nominees?!?

[Z4rd0Z]

Man, unibrow or not, Frida Kahlo was a damn sexy woman. You wouldn't know it from her self portraits, though.

The Academy will vote for their own

[pizzaman100]

Chicago or maybe Gangs will win best picture - two movies I won't waste the time to watch. SCI-FI movies(TTT)and comedies (Greek Wedding)won't get the respect they deserve

They'll thow a bone to Jackon and crew with a "Visual Effects" award, and maybe "Sound Editing".

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[fgodfrey]

Chicago is certainly not a waste of time (well, if you like Broadway musicals, anyway). They stayed with the original plot line and music and didn't try something silly like trying to rewrite music and lyrics. Even the people I know who are actors/actresses and do live musicals liked it...

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[pi radians]

SCI-FI movies(TTT)and comedies (Greek Wedding)won't get the respect they deserve

Both have gotten more respect then they ever deserved. TTT I enjoyed, but was (IMO) Hollywood fluff compared to FOTR.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding was not at all funny (and I laugh at almost anything) and was labeled as a tiny, independant film that beat the odds and became a huge hit, too bad it was getting hype from the industry 9 months before it was ever released (Blair Witch Project anyone?).

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[Pxtl]

You know what? I let my girlfriend drag me to Chicago, and I dragged her to TTT. Its really hard for me to say this, but Chicago was better. By a long shot. Its not a cheezy, sappy love story like Moulin Rouge, or some melodrama like Evita - its hilarious, dirty, and fun. The cast is awesome in it - I want Queen Latifah's musical number on video. That being said, Greek Wedding should be on the block for Best Picture as well. Meanwhile, TTT took most of the good character development and plot out of the novels and replaced it with a big battle. And besides - I'm just mad because they made Gimli into comic relief and put Elves at the battle of Helms Deep. Fellowship was better.

But we all know the Pianist will win, because of the automagic WW2 tragedy win: any film that is about WW2/holocaust and tragic will win oscars.

I think Gangs of New York is only there because mainstream films are starting to feel left out. Which is not because people don't want mainstream films to win oscars - its because they suck.

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[blamanj]

Chicago or maybe Gangs will win best picture - two movies I won't waste the time to watch.

It's interesting to see the level of prejudice against "musicals" here. While there are certainly too many than are dated, overly saccharine, nonesense, the best ones stand as real drama.

Chicago is definitely in the class of better musical and it's a delightfully cynical look at the american justice system. Sweeny Todd is another example of a show that trancends the stereotyically musical, as is Dennis Potter's TV miniseries The Singing Detective.

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[SpryGuy]

And besides - I'm just mad because they made Gimli into comic relief and put Elves at the battle of Helms Deep. Fellowship was better.

I agree that Fellowship was better, but to be honest with you, I thought the Elves marching into Helms Deep was one of the high points of the movie. It gave me goosebumps. I think it was an improvement over the book, imho. One of the deviations from the book that I actually enjoyed.

I can't wait for the extended version of TTT, though. The extended version of FOTR was vastly superior to the theatrical release, and I'm certain the same will hold true of TTT.

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting to see the level of prejudice against "musicals" here.

It's just another form of homophobia I think, hiding in one of its many guises. It's not "manly" to like musicals. Or so the internally homophobic and insecure boys think.

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[fenix down]

I excused TTT because the book is just so massively non-screenworthy and because they did Gollum so fabulously. It kept me interested, I liked everything I saw, and I didn't mind the fuckups until after it was over. That's enough for me.

Anyway, Pianist won't get shit because hating pedophiles overrides Holocaust guilt.

I still say Gangs of New York is gonna get it because otherwise Scorsese will go lock himself in the basement again and make another Michael Jackson video.

Re:The Academy will vote for their own

[Anonymous Coward]

any film that is about WW2/holocaust and tragic will win oscars.
Saving Private Ryan?

Gangs of New York

[pubjames]

I cannot believe that "Gangs of New York" has been nominated for best picture. It was the worst film I've seen in ages. But I guess just because of who directed it, and the fact that it was a "Hollywood epic", means that it got nominated. A shame.

Re:Gangs of New York

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly was so bad about it? Care to elaborate?

Re:Gangs of New York

[asv108]

I thought it was really good, compared to what else was released, but it certainly wasn't Scorcese's finest.

Re:Gangs of New York

[Anonymous Coward]

I sympathise. It must be really difficult for you to watch a film without special effects.

Re:Gangs of New York

[celnick]

I think that you and I must have watched two completely different movies. I hate, in general, Leo DiCaprio, his movies in the past have been horrendous pieces of tripe. However, this year, he has been in two very good movies, one a comedic dramatic type thing with Tom Hanks named Catch me if you Can. It was a good movie, not a waste of money, and had some very good acting on the parts of both Hanks and DiCaprio at some points.

Gangs of New York, was a wonderful epic drama. It had love, hubris, a Cathartic ending, action up the yin yang. It was incredibly violent, but the violence didnt detract from the rest of the movie, rather it strengthened it. The historical innaccuracies are quite glaring, but I, for one, didn't go out to see a documentary. Granted this is no Braveheart or Gladiator, but it is an excellent movie.

This years best pictures are a mixed bag. LOTR:TTT was a very well done adapation, I loved it. Chicago, The hours, and The Pianist weren't up to par. So, including Gangs of New York was definitely a good decision on the part of those oscar folks. Even if their mascot is naked.

Re:Gangs of New York

[Anonymous Coward]

Gangs of NY was full of special effects! What, you think they got in their TimeCopter and flew their stedi-cam over downtown?

Re:Gangs of New York

[Anonymous Coward]

You thought Braveheart was like a documentary? :-)

No anime for you!

[nightsweat]

No Anime will be nominated for Best Picture. Ever. OK, maybe one will get nominated (I mean hell, Towering Inferno got nominated), but one will never win.

Popular though the movies are with the geek crowd, they don't hold mass appeal. How much did Akira even make?

I mean seriously, can you imagine your grandmother watching and loving an anime movie? Without having anyone explain the references to her? Well, that's your voting membership of the Academy - a bunch of old farts.

Re:No anime for you!

[nightsweat]

Troll? Oh please. Just because you like Anime doesn't mean it's ever going to have a chance.

You might disagree with me, but it's not a troll, fanboy.

Re:No anime for you!

[xchino]

How much did Akira make? Well it made $150 mil in Japan the day it came out which still stands as the record (In Japan). To this day it is the #1 purchased full length anime of all time. All in all Akira has made more money than 99% of all movies, american, animated, or otherwise. But that's Akira, and Akira is the exception to all anime rules.

Apart from that Anime wins best picture all the time, especially in Japanese award shows.The Oscars are a crock and it amazes me that anyone watches or attends them.

Re:No anime for you!

[nightsweat]

Akira made $150 million in Japan? According to this article it made 800 million yen, or about 6.59 million dollars at today's exchange rate from Yahoo.

Quite a long way from $150 million. To contrast Titanic made 25.5 billion yen in Japan or approx. $205 million.

I stand by my statement that Anime is not ever going to break into the mainstream Oscar race. It might get a win for animated feature, but Best Picture is out of it's grasp for the forseeable future for both fair and unfair reasons.

Re:No anime for you!

[Cirvam]

All in all Akira has made more money than 99% of all movies, american, animated, or otherwise.
Um, if by that statement you mean that Akira has made more then 99% of all American movies, regardless if they were animated or not, then a quick look at imdb shows that 150Million isn't that much. If you look at the all time grosses by the international or worldwide box offices, Akira doesn't appear anywhere on that list. Check out All time international and All time world if you don't belive me. So I suppose that if we look at all the crappy movies and percentage wise then the 200 or so movies there might be the top 1% of movies, but I sorta doubt it seeing how the last entry on the World wide list is 200Million which is a ways to from 150 million.

Re:No anime for you!

[MonkeyDluffy]

And Spirited Away made even more than Titanic in Japan.

Re:No anime for you!

[Anonymous Coward]

You misundertood opening day and total gross sales. Or I did. One of us anyways.

Re:No anime for you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if opening day was $150M (in Japan), then one would think that it could at least make another $50M in total gross sales overall. So it would show up in one of the lists. Although I didn't know if you ment 99% more for opening day or gross.

Re:Anime is considered a sexual fetish....LIAR

[milktoastman]

It isn't on their website ANYWHERE! TROLL! Trying to get the APA slashdotted! Sick boy!

Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[gosand]

Bowling for Columbine, hands down, the best FILM of the year, let alone the best documentary. Too bad it couldn't have been nominated for both, but I don't see how it cannot win best documentary. Absolutely one of the most impactful things I have ever viewed. I saw it when it came out, and I really want to see it again. Even if you disagree with some of the views that it presents, you need to see it.

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[Duds]

It puts its perspective well certainly. Unfortunately an R2 DVD release looks as unlikely as a story only appearing once on slashdot

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[nightsweat]

The only way this will win is if the Academy wants to make an anti-Bush statement. The widely distributed documentaries never win (Cf. Hoop Dreams), because the Academy documentarians are resentful of those pieces that get popular acclaim.

Bowling for Columbine is my favorite film of the year, but I think it's got zero chance.

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[PissedOffGuy]

i thought just the opposite. the video footage of columbine itself was gripping, of course, but the interviews and other parts of the movie were haphazardly strung together. moore made no meaningful points about anything.

the tirade against k-mart was hypocritical; he forced an innocent company's hand by leveraging the wrath of the media, and in the same breath talked about how the media was always picking sides with its stories and creating an atmosphere of fear.

he gets a kick out of putting celebrities on the spot, making them want to end the interview, and then stands there looking meaningful as they drive away (dick clark) or shoo him out (heston). the scene of moore with his "won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!" victim picture and leaving it on heston's doorstep was utterly without value. that sort of "poignancy" appeals only to bleeding-hearts who see the issues only as far as the tears in their eyes.

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[Anonymous Coward]

moore made no meaningful points about anything.

he ... talked about how the media was always picking sides with its stories and creating an atmosphere of fear.

Which one is it? Care to form a coherent opinion?

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[Captain Large Face]

It's a shame you and I aren't on the voting panel. That would be at least two votes. Absolutely fantastic topic.

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[Stonehand]

Gosh, it looks like some moderator doesn't want to be reminded that the word "documentary" comes from "document", and, as www.dictionary.com mentions, must be "presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film". Perhaps the moderator comes from the school that facts aren't important in politics, and instead we should rely on instincts and hormones to make policy decisions.

Sorry, but Michael Moore produces not documentaries, but satires.

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[slutdot]

How in the hell is this flamebait? Someone questions Moore's ability to stick to the truth (which occurs all the time) and it's considered bad taste? Give me a break.

Thanks for the link Stonehand.

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[HasNoName]

Bowling for Columbine, hands down, the best FILM of the year, let alone the best documentary. Too bad it couldn't have been nominated for both, but I don't see how it cannot win best documentary.

There's no reason it couldn't have gotten both, and the studio apparently made a campaign for it.

As for how it could not win, alas, it's quite possible. The only people in the Academy who can vote for documentaries are people who have seen all five of the nominees. Thus, the distributor of any one of the five films can only screen their film to groups of people who would be inclined to vote for them, thus tilting the odds in their favor. At the end of this review of One Day In September, Roger Ebert talks about how the producer of that film pulled tricks like that, and pulled an upset over the better known Buena Vista Social Club. (Luckily, One Day... turned out to also be a much better movie, but still...)

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[sckeener]

Absolutely one of the most impactful things I have ever viewed. I saw it when it came out, and I really want to see it again. Even if you disagree with some of the views that it presents, you need to see it.

I loved the movie, but I didn't understand one part. What's so special about getting a free gun if you open a bank account? Here in Texas yall can get a free shotgun at the Home The4ter Store. Get a 65" widescreen and a shotgun. What could be better!

It was a great movie and I highly recommend it to every American.

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[goldspider]

Mod parent up! Man I wish I had kept some of my mod points for this one.

Anyone who has seen this inflammatory screed (or troll, if you will) or any of Mickael Moore's work, for that matter, knows that anything he says comes from a radical leftist point of view.

Moore is notorious for making up facts when the truth doesn't support his argument, and the parent post hits this RIGHT on the head!

Moderators, if you disagree with him, explain your point of view. Don't be a coward and hide behind anonymous moderation...

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[salvius]

If you did not see EVIDENCE, which is constantly qouted in the movie, are you sure you are being objective yourself?

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely one of the most impactful things I have ever viewed.

I'm sorry, but impactful?!?!? Could you try using a real word next time? Ugh!

Re:Best Documentary - no doubts on this one

[stanmann]

Bowling for Columbine should be taken out and SHOT. I have seen it, and the only thing it presented was mindless anti-gun propaganda.

Far From Heaven was robbed

[jamie]

It's a crime that Chicago got to take up a slot on the Best Picture list when Far From Heaven was easily the best picture of last year.

Of course I say that without having seen The Hours or The Pianist because no place within 50 miles of me has shown them yet.

Far From Heaven did get four nominations (including Julianne Moore, who should win) but not the one it really deserved. Stupid Academy.

I'm glad to see both Spirit and Spirited Away nominated for Animated Feature; either could win, in my opinion. Spirit was a great movie with really beautiful artwork that was marred by Bryan Adams' hideous music. Of course this assumes anyone cares about a category that last year only bothered to put up three nominees and none of them was Final Fantasy or Waking Life, you stupid Academy traitorous rat bastards who are constitutionally incapable of recognizing any films or critically-acclaimed box-office flops.

Adaptation got nominated for Adapted Screenplay, plus three acting nominations. And "if you liked Adaptation, you'll love" (tm) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind -- it didn't get nominated for anything but I think it's a better film. I liked them both quite a lot.

Solaris should have gotten a nod for Art Direction. That's a damn shame.

And I'm really glad to see Bowling For Columbine nominated for Documentary Feature; if it wins, it'll be a good Oscar night no matter what else happens.

Re:Far From Heaven was robbed

[Anonymous Coward]

confessions of a dangerous mind didn't come out until 2003. maybe it'll be up there at this time next year, if everyone hasn't forgotten about it by then.

Re:Far From Heaven was robbed

[Snart Barfunz]

Is this true? Bryan Adams soundtrack on Spirited Away? This is cultural vandalism almost on a par with the Taliban blowing up Buddhas with RPGs or Giorgio Moroder's Metropolis soundtrack. Mr Eisner seems determined to wreck what he cannot hope to emulate. I wonder if he's not the least bit nervous that Miyazkai sent him that Samurai sword one time. Oh and by the way, calling Spirited Away anime, just because it's from Japan, is wrong. Miyazaki's work stands apart from any genre.

Re:Far From Heaven was robbed

[tenton]

He said SPIRT was marred by Brian Adams, not SPIRITED AWAY. Slow down and read a little more slowly.

Re:Far From Heaven was robbed

[Thagg]

There were only three nominees for Animated Film last year because there were only nine films submitted into the category, and the rules say that you need at least eight films to have three nominations, and fifteen films to have five nominations.

I'm more than a little surprised that Stuart Little 2 didn't make the list of five. It falls into a no-man's land between animation and visual effects, I had hoped to that it would get a chance in animation. I don't get to nominate in that category, though.

I'm really quite surpsised that Minority Report didn't get a nomination in Visual Effects.

thad

Re:Far From Heaven was robbed

[Mononoke]

Is this true? Bryan Adams soundtrack on Spirited Away? This is cultural vandalism almost on a par with the Taliban blowing up Buddhas with RPGs or Giorgio Moroder's Metropolis soundtrack. Mr Eisner seems determined to wreck what he cannot hope to emulate. I wonder if he's not the least bit nervous that Miyazkai sent him that Samurai sword one time.

Back down. Take a breath. Read the comment again. Jamie said "Spirit was a great movie with really beautiful artwork that was marred by Bryan Adams' hideous music."

Oh and by the way, calling Spirited Away anime, just because it's from Japan, is wrong. Miyazaki's work stands apart from any genre.

The term "anime" does not define a genre. Anime is simply the Japanese word for animation.

Re:Far From Heaven was robbed

[DohDamit]

I was blown away by the movies that were chosen in its place. Spiderman? Eh. Not completely convincing, but okay. SW:E2? Shocking. Just pathetic.

Re:Far From Heaven was robbed

[fenix down]

Anime isn't a genre. It's the Japanese word for animation. I can call Snow White anime if I want, and I would, if I were in Japan. In common usage though, anime would generally refer to animation created in Japan. Studio Gibli is in Japan. It stayed in Japan while the movie was being made. I would say that makes it anime by the vague misdefinition applied to the word in the U.S.

Eisner's a assface, but I think you've confused your Spirits. Jamie was talking about the one with the horses. I think that sword would be embedded in some little statue of Mickey and dripping with the blood of Disney executives right now if they'd pulled something like that. Bryan Adams. Thanks Canada. Thanks a lot. One more of those and we're sending you Michael Bolton.

The Two Towers soundtrack

[theefer]

Too bad Howard Shore already won the Oscar last year for The Fellowship of the Rings, no doubt he could have won it again with The Two Towers soundtrack.

The big winner this year seems to be Gangs of New York anyway, though it is deserved.

Not the only musical recently

[nightsweat]

Well there was that little independent film with a bunch of no-name actors last year... What was it called?

Oh yeah, Moulin Rouge. D'oh.

Re:Not the only musical recently

[MtViewGuy]

However, Moulin Rouge was totally ruined by that horrible first 20 minutes of the movie. Get past that first 20 minutes and the movie becomes an awesome experience.

Small wonder why this movie was such a polarizing experience for both movie critics and moviegoers.

Re:Not the only musical recently

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for the record, after rewatching it several times, that first 20 minutes really grows on you. It sets up the movie beautifully.

Re:Not the only musical recently

[Sax Maniac]

Uh, she said "I have longed for musicals such as 'Sound of Music', 'Singing In The Rain', and 'West Side Story'". That "such as" part sort of discounts MR.

Moulin Rouge appears a musical on the surface... but it's more like someone took a bunch of music videos, threw in a completely unrelated movie, some amphetamines and LSD, whizzed them around in a blender, stitched them back together, then replayed it at 175% back of normal speed. In musicals, the songs are supposed to advance the plot, and are not just a "fun break from all the talking".

Still a fun movie, tho.

On the other hand, the worst films of 2002....

[klasker]

...are at Rotten Tomatoes.

What, you guys didn't love Juwanna Mann ?

Must be the timing.

[Mothra the III]

There hasn't been much discussion of this film in recent weeks leading up to the nominations. I think it was a much more cohesive and better acted than Gangs of New York.

Hmmm...

[Bendebecker]

No Star Trek... No suprise...

Same old crap

[al_d]

Hey look Hollywood is giving itself awards for churning out another year's worth of the same old formulaic crap.

There are some real stinkers in this year's nominations, e.g. Gangs of New York, and the unbelievably bad Sprit: Stallion of the Cimarron which made the good move of preventing the horses from speaking, but then gave them pantomime-style human facial expressions.

Wait a min.

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to epic films like LOTR, it simply is not that good

But is it OK to see LOTR:TTT as a motion picture, even tho most of it was animation?

Seriously. Try watch a real Anime movie. And an animation like Final Fantasy is one step closer to future motion pictures where you wouldn't know the difference.

Re:Wait a min.

[malex23]

And an animation like Final Fantasy is one step closer to future motion pictures where you wouldn't know the difference. Um no. Final Fantasy was the perfect example of how no matter how detailed or painstakingly animated a digital actor is, the human brain is hardwired to recognize it as not real.

Re:Wait a min.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um no. Final Fantasy was the perfect example of how no matter how detailed or painstakingly animated a digital actor is, the human brain is hardwired to recognize it as not real.

Well.. So good to know that someone actually have been in the future and seen digital created movies and know where it is leading.

Anyway.. Back to the weed.

Re:Wait a min.

[Lt Razak]

Havn't you seen the movie, "S1m0ne", with Al Pacino?

Proof!!

Re:This has been the first musical, that I can ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moulin Rouge perhaps? LAST FUCKIN YEAR.

Angel tries to have an Irish accent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Undetectable is more like it.

Re:Angel tries to have an Irish accent?

[Zathrus]

It's the flashback scenes before he's turned into Angelus (or shortly thereafter). He allegedly hails from Ireland.

Re:Angel tries to have an Irish accent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, I remember that now.. rather easily forgotten.

Filthy, stinking hobbitsess...

[Lethyos]

They're theives! Wicked... false... tricksie... They stole our nomination... and we wants it back!

Re:Filthy, stinking hobbitsess...

[PMuse]

Actually, Golem got his nomination.

Nominations for Achievement in visual effects
"The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" Jim Rygiel, Joe Letteri, Randall William Cook
(New Line) and Alex Funke
"Spider-Man" (Sony Pictures Releasing) John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier
"Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones" Rob Coleman, Pablo Helman, John Knoll and
(20th Century Fox) Ben Snow

And he so truly deserves it. Episode II had some grand scenes, and Spidey was well done, but Golem's internal battle of conscience is perhaps the best acting by a cgi character to date.

Some Thoughts

[Murdock037]

On the whole, it's tough to get particularly pissed off about the nominations on the whole. It's been a very, very good year, and none of the nominations in the major categories is truly ridiculous.

Individually:

Best Picture:
Will win: Chicago
Should win: Gangs of New York, probably
Should have been nominated: Adaptation, Spirited Away, or Punch-Drunk Love, in a perfect world
Thoughts: Not a bad set of nominees. Nothing particularly outrageous, except for The Hours, which was designed for the express purpose of winning year-end awards. But on the whole you can't complain.

Director
Will win: Scorsese
Should win: Scorsese
Should have been nominated: Spike Jonze for Adaptation or Peter Jackson for The Two Towers.
Thoughts: It'll be a Lifetime Achievement Oscar for Scorsese, essentially. Gangs is far from his best work, but he runs circles around everybody else even on a bad day. (Side note: How do you nominate a movie for Best Picture, but not its director, a la TTT? These things don't direct themselves.)

Original Screenplay
Will win: Talk to Her
Should win: Y Tu Mama Tambien
Should have been nominated: Spirited Away
Thoughts: I'll be glad when they send Vardolos back to made-for-TV land where she belongs.

Adapted Screenplay
Will win: Adaptation or Chicago
Should win: Adaptation
Thoughts: A close call-- Condon could win for Chicago if it rides the wave in, even though Adaptation deserves it. Kudos to Charlie Kaufman for figuring out a way to get the first nomination ever for a person that doesn't exist.

Best Actor
Will win: Jack Nicholson
Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Thoughts: Everybody loves Nicholson. But watching Day-Lewis perform is like having ring-side seats for a hurricane.

I don't really care about the other acting categories. Nothing too interesting happening there. Sorry.

In the end, I'm glad overall. Spirited Away got some recognition it deserves-- I'm not an anime fan in the least and it was still my favorite movie of the year. There's not an unworthy film in the bunch, by my reckoning. Like I said, it was a good year. Lots of treats, lots of movies that'll last.

Thoughts?

Re:Some Thoughts

[nightsweat]

I don't think Joack's going to beat Daniel Day-Lewis. Everyone has been saying that Lewis's performance is the best in a decade.

While that might be going too far, it certainly was the best broad ham performance since Al Pacino is Scent of a Woman. I'm curious why Gangs of New York got nominated for best ORIGINAL screenplay when it was inspired/adapted from a book by the same name. The author also wrote about San Francisco's underworld and Chicago's mobs in the late 19th and early 20th century in two companion books.

Re:Some Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

(Side note: How do you nominate a movie for Best Picture, but not its director, a la TTT? These things don't direct themselves.)

The director is merely one of the people who goes into making a film. Not even one of the more important ones, in most pictures.

Re:Some Thoughts

[IsmoVuorinen]

I haven't even seen half of those movies.
Damn It sucks to live in Finland..

Nicholson beats Day-Lewis anytime :)

Re:Some Thoughts

[Murdock037]

I agree that Day-Lewis has absolutely done one of the best performances in years.

In my original post I said Gangs of New York should probably win for Picture, out of those nominees. I don't think it was a great movie-- uninteresting story, and the seams from the massive edits really, really show-- but Day-Lewis made the whole thing for me. I saw it twice, just for him.

I agree that Gangs's screenplay probably belongs in the Adapted Screenplay category. Weird stuff this year: Gangs and Far From Heaven are nominated for Original Screenplay, and are both heavily based on previously-published source material, while Adaptation is nominated for Adapted Screenplay, despite being the most original piece of movie writing in five years.

That'll mess with your head.

Re:Some Thoughts

[branchstudios]

Best Actor
Will win: Jack Nicholson
Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Thoughts: Everybody loves Nicholson. But watching Day-Lewis perform is like having ring-side seats for a hurricane.
Speaking of ringside seats, The Boxer still stands as one of my favourite all time movies. If you're a DDL fan and you haven't seen it, check it out. Nothing against Nicholson, but noone can pretend he lacks recognition. Really.

Re:Some Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, you cant have a good movie without a good director, but you can have a bad movie with a good director too.

Re:Some Thoughts

[Z4rd0Z]

Wrong, I think. The director is practically everything. The producer gets the final say, but in films where the producer allows the director a degree of freedom, the director is what matters. Our local video store, Scarecrow Video, organizes the majority of films in the store by director. When I see a good film, I look to see who the director is, then I go get other movies by the same director. Most of the movies I see are good ones using this method.

Re:Some Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you nominate a movie for Best Picture, but not its director, a la TTT? These things don't direct themselves.)

How do you nominate a movie for Best Picture, but not it's editor? These things don't edit themselves.

I don't mean to be obtuse, but editing is at least as important than direction, if not more so.

Re:Some Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

All the Best Picture nominees this year were also nominated for Best Editing. Where's your argument?

You're a chump, please go home.

Re:Some Thoughts

[decade_null]

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

Re:Some Thoughts

[afree87]

Best Animated Film
Will win: Lilo and Instant Merchandising Opportunity
Should win: Spirited Away
Thoughts: Foreign films have their own category. The only GOOD movies are made right here in the U.S.A.! </sarcasm>

Re:Some Thoughts

[Malcontent]

You left out the pianist. As a rule holocaust movies do very well at the oscars. I think it will win at least one award and I say that even though I never saw the movie.

Re:Some Thoughts

[krilia]

... So what's so wrong with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"? I thought it was hilarious. I went to see it a bunch of times, AND told other people who went to see it AND brought along people to see it. It was wonderful. I loved the way people acted like real people, and the fact that it was a romance that didn't have two picture perfect Hollywood plastic people in it.

Someone else commented about Animated - Lilo & Stitch was one of the best animated movies I've seen. I hate Disney with a passion (okay, as passionate as one should get on such a subject) and I would rank Lilo & Stitch... hmm, say, fourth, behind The Last Unicorn, Shrek and Secret of NIMH. I think I've heard of Spirited Away - what's it about? :)

Oscars are rigged

[Goonie]

There was a article at Salon which discusses exactly why the Oscars are an absolute joke. The voters are subjected to massive marketing campaigns. They don't even have to have watched the films, for fsck's sake! They're also known to be extremely conservative in their tastes.

So don't get too offended when Spirited Away loses to Lilo & Sitch, and The Two Towers gets beaten by Chicago.

Re:Oscars are rigged

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, what amazes me is that you think Lord of the Rings is in the *same league* as Chicago and The Hours. You should be counting your blessings that your for-shit film was even *nominated*. To me, LOTR getting nominated proves your point more than Chicago. Get some class, get some taste.

Re:Oscars are rigged

[bskin]

y'know, one thing that has influenced my view of the oscars...

my freshman year of college, i had a roommate that was from around LA. he used to get screeners of movies all the time. one day i asked him how he got them, and he told me that his friend's mother was a member of the academy. i was kinda impressed, and asked 'oh, what does she do?' he tells me 'she's mel gibson's personal hairdresser.'

now i'm not exactly sure who votes for what, but it really makes me wonder if the people voting actually have any qualifications, or if the majority of them are just regular workers who happen to be involved with hollywood.

Re:Slashdot

[frodo from middle ea]

I am intrested in the Razziee awards. go madonna.

redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just people high up in the movie industry-scene backscratching and voting for each other. They vote for who/whatever is popular amongst their circles, it has nothing much to do with how good a movie is. This has to be the best movie I've ever seen, but I doubt it'll ever receive any awards or recognition from the likes of Hollywood high-fliers.

Bowling For Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an extremely well done (and funny!) documentary on America's obsession with guns, done by Michael Moore. Catch the trailor here.

It includes a great scene of Michael Moore going to a bank advertising "Free Gun With New Account", and sure enough, walks out with a brand new firearm!

Minority Report

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, Minority Report was the best of the year. It deserved a nomination, as did Spielberg for director.

You're just sour on Gangs of New York because...

[mattbot 5000]

it wasn't anime.

A Few Thoughts

[GS11_Pus]

I am by no means a cinematic expert, but like most people, I enjoy movies and I see my fair share. I think I can appreciate an off-beat, artistic movie (Adaption), as well as a solid dramatic piece (White Oleander) or a hard-edged cop thriller (NARC). You might like or dislike any of those movies, but in my opinion they all have appeal and I enjoyed them.

Far From Heaven, on the other hand, was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I saw it with my two closest friends, and we left after 90 minutes of agony. I've only walked out of one other movie in my life (Bloodwork), and the three of us spent the rest of the evening talking about how painstakingly bad Far From Heaven was.

And then I look at the internet. Almost every movie critic thought Far From Heaven was a masterpiece. Why? The dialogue was painful, the story was farfetched and flat out laughable at times, and I thought Dennis Quaid's acting was a joke (I ordinarily like him). What do these critics see that I am missing?

Anyway, I'm glad that Paul Newman received an Oscar nomination for Road to Perdition. I was greatly disappointed by this movie as Tom Hanks is my favorite actor and the movie just wasn't very interesting. But Paul Newman was stellar in his role and very much deserved a nomination.

Another movie that has received critical acclaim of which I do not understand is Gangs of New York. Leo DiCaprio was pitiful in his role, and Daniel Day Lewis spent half the movie talking like Deniro, and half the movie talking like some guy from Brooklyn. The story was flat out boring - revenge stories have simply been done to death, and this added nothing new. Cameron Diaz was especially bad in this (as bad as she is in everything). Yet this movie received tons of critical acclaim. Why? DiCaprio was very good in Catch Me If You Can, where he could play a young, cocky kid who schmoozes his way through life. But he has no edge, and looking angry for two hours doesn't count.

White Oleander was one of the most underrated movies of the year in my opinion. Alison Lohman was just fantastic in this role, and this movie was very interesting and entertaining at the same time. Minority Report was probably my favorite movie of the year, but was dismissed.

Anyway, I don't understand what makes movie critics tick. Adaptation was an inventive movie, that I liked. I can understand critics liking it. But Far From Heaven and Gangs of New York were total throwaways as far as I'm concerned, and I don't understand how anyone could watch them and come away thinking, "that was great!"

Re:A Few Thoughts

[Savatte]

And then I look at the internet. Almost every movie critic thought Far From Heaven was a masterpiece. Why? The dialogue was painful, the story was farfetched and flat out laughable at times, and I thought Dennis Quaid's acting was a joke (I ordinarily like him). What do these critics see that I am missing?

According to reviews on the net, all the problems you cite are intentional. Melodramas from the 50's purposefully had painful dialogue and farfetched plot ideas. Far From Heaven was an ironic update/remake/homage of those 50's melodramas, and thus accordingly had the same problems those 50's films did. You can say you didn't like it (I didn't much like it, but I admired it. I disagree with you on your Dennis Quaid performance, though. This is the best he's ever been, IMO.), but you can't fault a film for doing what it sets out to do.

Re:A Few Thoughts

[GS11_Pus]

...but you can't fault a film for doing what it sets out to do.

Sure I can!! :)

I thought Quaid was great in The Rookie and Innerspace, but neither movie took itself as seriously as Heaven. I understood the movie attempted to take a look at modern issues through the lens of 50's mentality - I don't begrudge the concept of the movie. But my beef was that it was laid on so thick.

I think the musical score is a perfect example of what I mean. Several times in the movie, after a tense moment, the score kicks up with the bright canary-like music that presents life as perfect and lovely, attempting to push you back in time. But the fifth or sixth time this music is just jammed down your throat, it ceases to become a device and becomes a major hindrance.

I thought Pleasantville did a lot of the same things Heaven attempted without making my teeth hurt. You can appreciate simpler times and the inability to deal with real issues openly without resorting to stupid, stupid dialogue and situations that make no sense. One minute Julianne Moore is crying and the next she's surrounded by African Americans in a bar. Come on!!

I respect what you're saying, and I'm willing to admit that maybe I'm just not sophisticated enough to appreciate this movie. However, there are other thought-provoking movies that I've enjoyed or appreciated, and this movie just strikes me as strikingly bad.

Re:A Few Thoughts

[anonymouscelebrity]

i agree, far from heaven was unbearable and nothing but eye candy...i felt no connection between the characters and as the movie went on the 50's imagery became more camp than atmospheric go ahead and flame me but i honestly believe any movie dealing with homosexuality in a serious manner is often given higher ratings than it really deserves

The Emmy's

[wiredog]

IIRC, the Academy Awards have taken home a few Emmy's.

Other recent film musicals

[Burb]

Moulin Rouge Evita

Re:m&m

[Mononoke]

Why the fuck does a homophobic white rapper deserve an oscar nomination? Are they just giving those away now? I'll be standing in my corner waiting for someone to justify rap as "music" to begin with, and middle-class wanna-be white rappers who deserve oscar nominations specifically.

Why don't you go listen to the song, and specifically to the lyrics, and get back to us on how badly this song sucks.

No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[halo8]

Why oh Why Dear Slashdot Editors dose Lord of the Rings not have a Logo? Starwars has a Logo.. the Ipod has a Logo.. why dosent LOTR?

Think about it.. all the Posts that are going to be made over the next +2 Years for LOTR.. Movie Reiviews, Spoilers, Trailers, DVD's, DVD Reviews, Special Ed. DVD's, Cast Interviews, Award Shows, ect.. ect... ect..

LOTR DESERVES its own Logo/Icon

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48383&cid=49 16 794
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49299&cid =4983 792
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49969&cid =5033 027

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[Dracos]

I made an icon for LOTR a while ago, but couldn't figure out where to post it. You can see it here.

Taco, are you listening?

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[The Jonas]

Also, there is no "The Matrix" logo or "Harry Potter" logo. "Potter" will have as many, or more, sequels as Star Wars. Also, the next couple of years will be made up of blockbuster sequels, I predict, with the likes of The Matrix, Potter, LOTR, Star Wars, X-Men, Tomb Raider, Indiana Jones (a fourth installment), Terminator 3, etc... Did I forget any?

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[Gurbik]

You forgot Mad Max.

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[arose]

Titanic 2?

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[FroMan]

In 11 months we'll see like 40 stories about LoTR, then a year from now, 1 more story when Oscar Nominations is posted. Then 1 more after the Oscars are given out. Then 1 more 5 years later when the uber-doober-wicked-cool-and-snazzy LoTR 5 year anniversery set comes out. Then 5 years from that, for the next 10 year anniversery, then 5 years again...

You get the point. We might as well have a 9/11 icon too. But in 5 years we'll all be wondering what is that obscure icon about?

OR we can continue to use the movie icon cause that's what its there for.

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[halo8]

i understand your point, but there is precidents.. Starwars has a logo
and LOTR is a great work of literature and so are the movies (but yes this can be debatable)

also.. the above films dont recive the kind of attention that i mentioned in my post. (awards, film spoilers ect.. thoes are normally slashback posts)

and lets not forget.. news for NERDS.

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[Anonymous Coward]

GOOD ICON!!!!! Will someone with some authority add it to /. ASAP?

Thank you.

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[Grip3n]

USE IT!

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[ornil]

Or at least put it to a vote

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[The Jonas]

I sure did. And, I forgot about any future 007/James Bond releases. Shame on me...

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[Nept]

sweet icon...i'm all for it

So?

[simetra]

I missed the part of the Constitution that says everything has to be fair. It's an event of the industry, by the industry, for the industry. Suck up and deal.

The reason why Chicago will beat Twin Towers is that it's made to appeal to real people, not the 0.1% who wank over imaginary critters.

Re:So?

[Anthony Boyd]

The reason why Chicago will beat Twin Towers is that it's made to appeal to real people, not the 0.1% who wank over imaginary critters.

Wow... over at imdb.com it shows that Towers grossed $316,026,000 (US) by Feb 2nd, 2003. So that's 0.1%? Wow.

Re:So?

[simetra]

0.1% x going to the movie dozens of times, yes.

Re:So?

[gvonk]

Actually, at $1,088 each, 0.1% of the population would have had to see it about 136 times.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reason why Chicago will beat Twin Towers is that it's made to appeal to real people, not the 0.1% who wank over imaginary critters."

Where's Kangaroo Jack's nomination?

Re:So?

[majestyk2000]

Three times here, and three more times for my sister and niece. We're trying, but 136? Don't think I'm gonna get there....I hope someone else makes up for me and goes 269 times.

Re:m&m

[Anonymous Coward]

1 the movie has to be made in a 1 year time line.

2 you should take the lyrics by eniem like the comments of yoru typical slashdotter.

3 his music brings up issuses that need to be delt with in society. they have content even if its ugly content.

4 who are you to consider what music is?

Spirited Away?

[Anonymous Coward]

That movie stunk.

I hope it goes to Lilo and Stitch.

Re:m&m

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogma 99? It would help a little if you knew what you were talking about.

Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[brickbat]

Miyazaki's Spirited Away is nominated for Best Animated Picture (someday an Anime will be nominated Best Picture).

Uh, no. No animated film will ever again receive a Best Picture nomination (Disney's Beauty and the Beast in 1991 is the only time it's happened). For some reason the Academy believes it's inappropriate for cartoons to compete with "real" movies for honors, so last year they created the Best Animated Feature Film category (won by Shrek). Yeah, it's a load of bullshit. But this way Disney's happy; they have three movies up for the award (Lilo & Stitch, Spirited Away, and the wholly undeserving Treasure Planet).

Somebody explain this: If Y Tu Mama Tambien was one of the best movies of the year and earned a Best Original Screenplay nomination, why isn't it a Best Foreign Language Film candidate? Isn't Mexico its country of origin? Instead we get a movie I've never heard of.

And be totally honest with yourselves: did The Two Towers really deserve a Best Picture nomination this year?

The Oscars make no sense these days.

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Foreign countries get to submit one movie of their choosing for the Best Foreign Language Film consideration. Mexico's equivalent of the Academy didn't think Y Tu Mama Tambien was their best film, and they may have been right since another Mexican movie I've never heard of got a Best Foreign Language nomination.

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[rpillala]

I heard on NPR yesterday that Mexico doesn't want to submit Y Tu Mama Tambien because it's already won an award (best foreign film) and they want El Crimen del padre Amaro to have a shot at getting an award. Each country apparently only gets to submit one film for consideration.

Ravi

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. The same thing happens with Spain's nomination. "Hable Con Ella" has TWO oscar nominations this year (best screenplay, best director), but the Spanish academy decided to nominate "Los Lunes Al Sol" for best foreign language movie. The movie isn't bad at all, but the movie is too "local" to interest the american public.

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[Hezu]

Somebody explain this: If Y Tu Mama Tambien was one of the best movies of the year and earned a Best Original Screenplay nomination, why isn't it a Best Foreign Language Film candidate? Isn't Mexico its country of origin? Instead we get a movie I've never heard of.

At least IMDb lists that film's country of origin as USA/Mexico.

And I wouldn't call all the foreign film nominees unknown: Mies vailla menneisyyttä (The Man Without a Past) has already won several awards, including the Grand Prize of The Jury at Cannes Film Festival.

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[sckeener]

And be totally honest with yourselves: did The Two Towers really deserve a Best Picture nomination this year?

Though I love Lord of the Rings, I can't see them giving the award to the middle movie. If they didn't give it to the first part, I doubt they'll give it to the middle part. In a way it makes sense. Do you want it to win when you've only seen 2/3s of it? Let's judge it when it is over.

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[brickbat]

If they didn't give it to the first part, I doubt they'll give it to the middle part. In a way it makes sense. Do you want it to win when you've only seen 2/3s of it? Let's judge it when it is over.

That's how I feel about it. It's truly a monumental achievement, but I think when Return of the King is considered, it will be the standardbearer for the other two as well, and if it wins Best Picture, it won't be on its own merits alone but also for the quality of the previous two films. And I would expect it to sweep a bunch of awards to boot.

Unless, of course, Peter Jackson has hosed it quite badly in the conclusion. But this isn't Star Trek we're talking about here, right? ;-)

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[nordicfrost]

This (in addition to lack of commercial indifference) is one of teh many good reasons the Cannes film festival, the Berlin film festival and the Venice film festival is a lot better than the sell-out Academy Awards. Spirited Away won the Golden Bear (The highest award) at the Berlin film festival, the second animated picture to win it since Cinderella won the first golden bear in the 50's. The oscars suck, and is nothing more than an advertising system for big companies and huge stars.

Re:Animated films won't ever get Best Picture

[Rakarra]

Uh, no. No animated film will ever again receive a Best Picture nomination (Disney's Beauty and the Beast in 1991 is the only time it's happened). For some reason the Academy believes it's inappropriate for cartoons to compete with "real" movies for honors, so last year they created the Best Animated Feature Film category (won by Shrek). Yeah, it's a load of bullshit. But this way Disney's happy; they have three movies up for the award (Lilo & Stitch, Spirited Away, and the wholly undeserving Treasure Planet).

While it's certainly unlikely it will ever happen again, given the Academy's prejudices (and even cluelessness, giving Jimmy Neutron's nomination) concerning animation, I don't think it's impossible for an animated feature to be nominated for best picture, given the precident of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon which could have simply taken the best Foreign Language Film award.

And be totally honest with yourselves: did The Two Towers really deserve a Best Picture nomination this year?

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that one. It deserves it more than The Hours, though.

films by geeks for geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

someday a brickfilm will be nominated Best Picture

The fact of the matter is that most brickfilms appeal to only a very narrow segment of the population, mostly geek personality types. In short, they're films by geeks for geeks. :P

Even Eminem's got a nomination now ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be:

Even Eminem's got a nomination now :(

I would like to thank the academy

[scotay]

I love the Oscar season

The summer season of crappy cams that turn any film into pixelized mess like The Road to Blurdition is replaced by the crispness of winter and it's DVD source material.

The low rez crap, stupid watermarks, and constant subtitles in a language of strange squiggles are replaced by "for your consideration" and "may not duplicate" warnings that pass so quickly they are hardly noticed.

I eagerly join the ranks of an Academy that apparently also never has to pay or even leave the house to see a film. I may not be able to remember all your names, but I would like to thank all of you for being so free and easy with your promos.

Re:Too bad for Gollum, not really

[nedron]

Umm, had he actually been on-screen I would say sure. But (and this is a big but), he didn't! Too bad, so sad. He had nothing more to do with the performance than many other actors who have provided voices for animated characters.

Frequently in Disney's classics, the voice talent actually performed the scenes on film so that the animators could use their mannerisms in the feature. Why wouldn't Robert Patrick also qualify, since he walked around in a Speedo while painted with dots ONSITE for T2?

Also, had Golum actually looked like something other than a CG character I might understand people's motivation on this issue, but it didn't look any better than any other CG character I've seen. I just chalk this up to the JRR Tolkein/Stephen King style sycophantic fan base.

Animated pictures won't get best pic nominations

[hellfire]

The motion picture industry, for one, doesn't respect animated pictures above being cute for kids.

They gave the nod to Beauty and the Beast one year for various reasons, but the industry on the whole didn't like this. My personal opinion was that because there are now more competing art houses for animated films now (Dreamworks and Nickelodeon studios are actually giving Disney a run for their money, and Pixar producing most of Disney's quality anyway) that this animated category was an industry move to satisfy the egos of people who only produce animated films so they can say they made good quality. This might help animated films slightly, because Disney will at least make some small effort to bring one art house animated feature to america a year to try to win this, but for the most part animated films are about getting kids into the movies and separating their parents from their money.

Anime?

[fudgefactor7]

From the initial post: "(someday an Anime will be nominated Best Picture)."

Not freakin' likely. Here's why I feel this way:

(1) Most anime is geared toward otaku fanboys and really don't have much of a story that will pull in a whole family of viewers (which is the category that claims most "Best Picture" awards.);
(2) Anime isn't American, like it or not most "Best Picture" winners are from Hollywood, not outside the US;
(3) Since all the anime characters look roughly the same, it can be argued by Hollywood that all the stories are the same as well...problematic at best;
(4) Bad translations: Nobody should have to learn another language to "understand" or "get it." (For the record, this is a problem with other languages like French and German or Russian as well, it's not a Japanese problem. As proof, take a look at the glowing reviews of movies like "Chloe in the Afternoon" [France] by following this link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0068205, and then watch it yourself and see if this isn't a crap-fest [it is]. Or examine the differences in the dialog of "Akira," for example.)

Re:Anime?

[euxneks]

1) Most anime is geared toward otaku fanboys and really don't have much of a story that will pull in a whole family of viewers (which is the category that claims most "Best Picture" awards.);

it's more like otaku fanboys are more geared towards anime. You do realize that there is a whole other country out there that watches anime regularly, right?

(3) Since all the anime characters look roughly the same, it can be argued by Hollywood that all the stories are the same as well...problematic at best;

I don't even know how anyone can make that leap of assumption. There are MANY different styles of anime, by many different artists. It doesn't take much effort to find radically different styles in animes, and besides, even if they do have a similar look, a space epic is not the same as a drama.

(2) Anime isn't American, like it or not most "Best Picture" winners are from Hollywood, not outside the US;

Unfortunately, that is true. It shouldn't matter, but it does.

(4) Bad translations: Nobody should have to learn another language to "understand" or "get it." (For the record, this is a problem with other languages like French and German or Russian as well, it's not a Japanese problem. As proof, take a look at the glowing reviews of movies like "Chloe in the Afternoon" [France] by following this link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0068205, and then watch it yourself and see if this isn't a crap-fest [it is]. Or examine the differences in the dialog of "Akira," for example.)

This is the problem of the releasing studio in the U.S. It doesn't always turn out that way, but most of the companies state-side realize that Otaku fanboys are pretty consumerist. Just release a cartoon and draw big eyes on them and there will be quite a few who buy it just for the fact of being able to say that they have seen it. It's like some perverse holy grail, to own all anime ever released..?

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

[Xandar01]

Nominations for ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
ICE AGE
LILO & STITCH
SPIRIT: STALLION OF THE CIMARRON
SPIRITED AWAY
TREASURE PLANET

I've seen the first three with my kids. Here's my take:
Ice age is pretty funny, but not exactly ground breaking. I saw it in the theater and liked it enough to buy the DVD.

Lilo & Stitch. Didn't see it in the theater, but bought the DVD after renting it. Again this movie is pretty funny, but not really ground breaking.

Spirit: blah blah blah. Saw it in the theater. My wife will probably get the DVD for the kids sooner or later. While this movie was not the most interesting as it is mostly an hour and a half of horse neighing, it's animation did have some redeeming qualities. The opening scene is grandiose, spacious and beautiful. There are quite a few scenes in the movie where the animation is very well done.

The other two I didn't see so let me know what I am missing.

I Am Not Sam

[PinkStainlessTail]

I'm just glad to see that Sean Penn's "oscar bait" performance as a retarded man in I Am Sam was totally passed over.

Re:I Am Not Sam

[Anonymous Coward]

That was last YEAR, numbnuts, and he DID get a nomination for that piece of shite.

Re:I Am Not Sam

[PinkStainlessTail]

So it was.

Andy Serkis

[Dracos]

....got shafted.

Re:m&m

[reptilicus]

You'd prefer the academy's standard operating procedure, giving the award to yet another piece of Randy Newman pablum from a Disney cartoon written to sell Happy Meals?

Am I the only one who hated Chicago?

[Cappy Red]

I know of only two other people who hated that piece of singing cow flop... aren't there any others?

I feel so alone...

I'm so rooting against it...

*honk*

Re:Am I the only one who hated Chicago?

[Mr. No Skills]

I didn't hate it -- but "best picture"? Seems weak. If it wasn't for editing, the lead actresses would look like they were standing still. The ending was completely lame. It was well filmed, however, and mostly well-connected people in it. It probably has a chance if Richard Gere could keep his mouth shut for a few weeks.

Turnabout is fair play

[nsayer]

The 23rd annual Razzie Awards nominations.

The nominees include Pinochio, Star Wars II and Pluto Nash, among other (very deserving) candidates.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Pinochio was the biggest hit of the year in Italy and since it was the Italians that chose it as their candidate for best foreign language film, you can't say that it's only the American populace that has bad taste in films.

Spirited Away vs... ??

[Myrke]

I am looking at those Animated Picture nominations and I think Spirited Away will win hands down. Lilo and Stitch? The freaking horse movie?? Ha!

Talk about desperately trying to fill in the category with 5 nominees. They should've put Shrek back in there to make it more interesting...

That would be

[DougJohnson]

The best supported actress!

Re:That would be

[EvanTaylor]

oh come on, mod this funny.

Re:Best Documentary - parent not a TROLL

[gosand]

First off, I don't think this was a troll post, you make some good comments. Allow me to rebut...

i thought just the opposite. the video footage of columbine itself was gripping, of course, but the interviews and other parts of the movie were haphazardly strung together. moore made no meaningful points about anything.

Might have been a little haphazard, but it kept me interested. One of the big critisizms of the film was that he didn't seem to have a clear point or opinion. I think that was the beauty of it - it is left up to the viewer to DISCUSS it later. Why should he present it in a nice, neat package? Because that is what we are used to? I think some very powerful points were made in the movie.

the tirade against k-mart was hypocritical; he forced an innocent company's hand by leveraging the wrath of the media, and in the same breath talked about how the media was always picking sides with its stories and creating an atmosphere of fear.

Exactly! I say that is a pretty strong point about the power of the media in this country. he gets a kick out of putting celebrities on the spot, making them want to end the interview, and then stands there looking meaningful as they drive away (dick clark) or shoo him out (heston). the scene of moore with his "won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!" victim picture and leaving it on heston's doorstep was utterly without value. that sort of "poignancy" appeals only to bleeding-hearts who see the issues only as far as the tears in their eyes.

I thought the placing of the picture on the ground was a little too "bleeding heart". I had to roll my eyes a little at that point. But you have to look at the bigger scene with those celebrities. Didn't you find the question to Heston about why he kept a loaded gun in his house relevant? And he didn't accept the "because I have a right to" answer, he pressed on and said "Yes, of course you do, I don't argue with that - but WHY do you keep one in your house?".

OK, so the movie isn't pure documentary, I'll buy that. But look at what this movie does, it doesn't pre-package everything so there are no questions. It makes you THINK and TALK about the topics he brings up. Holy guacamole, what a concept! Come on, would you rather sit around and drink a few beers with friends talking about Lord of the Rings, or some of the topics that Moorer brought up in this movie? And the interview with Marilyn Manson was absolutely phenominal.

"It shows what a farce the Oscars are."

[mattbot 5000]

I think Forrest Gump took care of that in '94. Those amazon reviews are awful. Has it occurred to any of those reviewers that the large, unwieldy nature of Gangs was perhaps intentional? I can agree that Cameron Diaz's performance was weak and even that Leo was distracting (though he was much better than I expected), but to criticise Scorcese's use of foreshadowing, characterization, and plot construction implies a serious lack of audience attention.

Re:"It shows what a farce the Oscars are."

[Anonymous Coward]

The best reviews were the ones where the reviewer was surprised that DiCaprio cut his face with the razor before the final showdown. Guess they missed the start of the film.

Spiderman, Star Wars

[Azureflare]

In my opinion, these computer generated flicks (ok so spiderman was still a decent movie... I'm not bashing that one) should be in the Animated Movie categories. It's no different from Anime with voiceovers. Adaptation...Now there's a REAL film heh ;)

The Pianist

[ADRA]

I just watched this movie a few weeks ago, and if you haven't seen it, you are missing a lot. Think of it like Schindler's List, but from the eys of Polish Jews (genocide) instead of a jewish sympathizer.

The movie's subject matter is obviously very dark, but excellent all in all. I think that it may just get best picture. No offense to LOTR, but I doubt any of the 3 will get best picture when there are movies like the pianist in this world.

Too bad for Howard Shore and Emiliana Torrini

[Scryber]

I'm not surprised, but still disappointed, that "Gollum's Song" performed by Emiliana Torrini wasn't nominated. Her voice is amazing and somewhat other-worldly...perfect for the context of the song.

Sure he won last year, but Howard Shore's soundtrack for Two Towers was widely praised so it does seem like a snub to not even be nominated this year.

Might as well throw in: "Too bad for Peter Jackson," too. If you aren't nominated for Best Director, there's really no shot of your movie winning Best Picture.

The Miramax Money Machine

[EXTomar]

It is interesting to note that Miramax (guess who owns them?) has some 30+ nominations. It is no secret that Miramax pushes heavily on Academy voters to vote for their stuff because an Oscar Award (and lesser extent Nomination) means advertising dollars. This includes the much vaunted Spirited Away...

Miramax in the days of Clerks used to be about a production company that wanted to do off beat and out of mainstream stuff. Of course all of that changed when Shakespeare in Love came along and dumped a huge pile of cash in their laps. Oh well...The Oscars were never for the outside and indie film industry anyway. No one should labor under the delusion that the Oscars are anything but a big advertising gig.

Re:The Miramax Money Machine

[MtViewGuy]

Err, I hate to say this, but Gangs of New York is actually the first time Miramax actually did something resembling an epic film. Both The Hours and Chicago are much more "intimate" style movies more in keeping with what Miramax normally does.

Mind you, Disney CEO Michael Eisner is REALLY happy that Miramax (a Disney subsidiary) has garnered three Best Picture nominations and three Disney-released animated features have garnered the Best Animated Feature nominations.

Re:The Miramax Money Machine

[PovRayMan]

Interesting point I'd like to make. Somewhere early on in the FOTR dvd extras (4 DVD box set) they were talking about the various places they checks out to do the movie through. At first Miramax was the first choice, and they had a semi-deal going on, but they wanted to do it in 1 or 2 movies. Peter Jackson refused saying that there was too much to do in that little work frame and it was all lost. Jackson moved to New Line and it's all good.

Poor Miramax, they lost out big not having the epic Lord of the Rings with their name on it.

Re:The Miramax Money Machine

[haggar]

WTF are you talking about? Miramax is still committed to making artistic movies, unlike all the other labels. Just because they are also commercially viable DOES NOT change the fact that all of their movies are, in fact, original and inspired.

Two reasons I first noticed that Miramax is special: they published some of my all-time favorites "Princess Mononoke", "Il postino", "Chocolat", "Music of the heart"
and the second is: none of their movies is Macrovision-protected. Yes, I do think this company has a lot of good vibes going for them. And no, "Shakespeare in love" didn't change them, except get them some well-deserved boxoffice success.

Whats wrong with Forrest Gump?

[jocknerd]

Its one of my favorite films of all time. Yeah its unbelievable, but its a great story with great acting.

Re:Whats wrong with Forrest Gump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Films about retards just don't work.

My comments on BP nominees:

[MtViewGuy]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers--AMPAS voters will wait till NEXT year after The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King comes out to give Peter Jackson, et al. the important Oscars for Jackson's landmark trilogy of movies.

Chicago--the front-runner, no contest. AMPAS voters are major suckers for any decent musical.

Gangs of New York--the fact the movie has gotten some seriously mixed reviews will conspire against this movie winning.

The Hours--because the movie is a bit of a difficult subject to watch (not to mention the fact it has polarized male and female viewers of the movie), it will probably not win.

The Pianist--it would have been a leading contender, but the Hollywood community has not yet completely forgiven Roman Polanski for skipping out of the USA after being convicted of statutory rape of a minor. If Polanski had actually served time back in the 1970's Hollywood would have forgiven him and The Pianist would be a runaway leading contender for Best Picture.

Re:My comments on BP nominees:

[fenix down]

To be fair, if he'd served time in the 70's he probably wouldn't have gotten out in time to direct it.

Hmm...

[Peterus7]

Two towers for best picture. Who DIDN'T see that coming?

I hope spirited away gets best animated picture. That'd really do wonders for getting anime into America, and increasing American awareness. Plus, imoho, Spirited away is the best thing I've seen all year that's animated. I dunno, maybe Disney's losing their touch. (So they have to leach off Miziaki.)

Re:Hmm...

[glesga_kiss]

Disney's losing their touch. (So they have to leach off Miziaki.)

Been that way for some time. All the good Disney stuff was leeched from somewhere, mainly the public domain.

Can you name anything groundbreaking or inovative that they have done with entirely original work?

Re:Hmm...

[I'm Spartacus!]

Nothing's entirely original. Everything created has roots in something that came before it.

As for your question, I think Fantasia was probably the most original work that Disnay is responsible for. And I do consider it to be innovative and groundbreaking. Same with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, although not as original as Fantasia, IMO.

Re:hmm...

[SpryGuy]

the gollum/smeagol (serkis) debate might be my least favorite scene from a movie last year. i'm just not convinced that it deserved a best picture nod.

I thought it fell flat (and got lots of unintentional laughter) when I first saw it. But I saw the movie a second time (without a full house), and that scene played a LOT better. Did you see the movie a second time? Like FOTR, it improves on a second viewing, probably because there's just so much happening.

Re:hmm...

[Woody]

saw it in an almost empty theatre with my girlfriend. i still thought it was silly. i know i'll still buy the 180-disk supermondospecialdirectorscut edition just to have it, but i'll probably fast-forward through gollum's externalized internal debate regardless. serkis did a decent job otherwise, but overall it just wasn't as good as fellowship, imnsho...

Re:Hmm...

[Peterus7]

I want to say Lion king, even though there was an anime called Kimba the white lion that looked a lot like Lion King, I think that's all coincidence.

That's the beautiful thing about Mizyaki's work is it's all original stuff. Lupin 3rd, Grave of the fireflies, Princess Mononoke, Spirited away, and all the other cool stuff he did is not just cheesy sugercoated adaptations of older songs.

Also, fantasia had it's errors as well, as some of the things in it were based on old stories. One thing that really comes to mind is the little tin soldier in fantasia 2000. Sugarcoated all the way.

Miziyaki has shades of gray, and characters that have real dimention, not the cardboard cutouts commonly seen in Disney.

I could go on, but I won't. I'll just say this: Never... NEVER go to disneyworld. Trust me, it ruins disney.

Re:Hmm...

[Ryan Amos]

Different audiences. Disney is aiming for the under-10 crowd and Miziyaki is aiming for the over-14 crowd. You can't have characters with too much depth in a childrens' movie because it gets boring. You have to tell a simple story with simple, easily identified characters. Miziyaki can get away with more because his audiences will recognize some characters as being neither good nor evil, and even the fragile definition of "good" and "evil." Unfortunately, we Americans tend to think cartoons are just for kids, so a lot of the more complicated stuff is misunderstood. That's life, I guess.

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Miyazaki. You could at least _try_.

Re:hmm...

[SpryGuy]

Yes, but watch it a *second* time is the point. It's a bit "over done" I admit, but it resonated a lot more the second time. Give it at least one more chance before putting it on permanent fast-forward.

Re:Hmm...

[taperkat]

Here's my breakdown of the Animated Category:

Lilo and Stitch should win. Why? because it's some of the best that Disney has put out since.. oh, a long LONG time. It was (afaik) the most successful and definitely the best out of the 5. It used the best animation techniques. The most original, and the best plotline in a Disney movie since they quit yanking old classics (Aladdin, Hunchback, etc) and made up their own. Chris Sanders is a genius. "AN EVIL GENIUS!" (thanks Jomba) Of course, I could be a little biased, or maybe it's my 24 stuffed stitches (yes, 24) that are typing this entry....(struggles to free herself of the duct tape)

Much better.

I liked Spirited Away, but it's not even close to his best work. Period. Ice Age is the only other contender imo in the category, but shabby box office reviews won't help. The other two movies were only nominated because nothing else that was good came out this year.

Re:Hmm...

[Peterus7]

Lilo and Stitch was still the same old same old disney crap, you know. Fat guy and skinny guy humor, 1 dimentional characters, and a sugarcoating that you could choke on.

But then spirited away is the same old same old anime stuff, deep characters, weird plots, pretty lights (and redtinted!)... lol...

Re:Hmm...

[jejones]

Let's see...Lilo's parents are dead, she pummels her classmates, has no friends, argues with and yells at her older sister, from whom she's about to be taken by the social worker, and the older sister's been fired and is having trouble finding work. Yeah, pretty darned saccharine.

eminem

[Anonymous Coward]

eminem is a cheap, fake, sellout pussy. He's weak and he sucks and he needs to just go away.

Anime as Best Picture

[tdunn]

(someday an Anime will be nominated Best Picture)

No, after Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture, they created an Animated film category for that very reason.

Yer dead wrong

[thatguywhoiam]

Except about TTT. :)

Chicago. A musical. Forget it.

No way. Moulin Rouge revived the musical in a big way, as much as I hated and detested that film. It's totally hip in Hollywood right now. I give it a 50% chance at Best Picture. I haven't seen it.

Gangs of New York. Three hours long, directed by Martin Scorsesie, has a Titanic feel to it, and touches on new ground (civil war era New York). Stands a good chance.

Directed by Scorcese. Not good chances. They gave Best Picture to Dances With Wolves, for the love of god, over Goodfellas, his best flick. Wouldn't count on it.

The Hours. Women with problems. Stands a chance, barely.

A period piece, and a drama, AND women with problems, AND with Meryl nominated-more-than-anyone-ever Streep. Excellent chances. The other 50% of my guess for BP.

The Pianist. Jewish Artist vs. the Nazis. Should be a shoo-in, but we'll see.

Shound be, except that it simply wasn't all that good. Meets the criteria for sure.

Re:Yer dead wrong

[ADRA]

"Shound be, except that it simply wasn't all that good. Meets the criteria for sure."

What? Did we watch the same movie!

First Fictional Character nonimated

[thatguywhoiam]

I forget where I scooped this from:

"Charlie Kaufman, a previous screenwriting nominee for Being John Malkovich, scored a first of sorts. He was nominated for adapted screenplay for Adaptation, along with fictional twin brother Donald, who shares the writing credit. It was the first nomination ever for a fictional entity. In the past, filmmakers have received nominations under assumed names, such as Joel and Ethan Coen as Roderick Jaynes, their film-editing pseudonym, or Robert Towne, who shared a screenwriting nomination for 1984's Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes under the name of his sheepdog, P.H. Vazak.

Academy officials say if Adaptation wins, only one Oscar will be awarded, for Charlie Kaufman.

Hired to adapt Orlean's The Orchid Thief, Kaufman struggled with the script, then whimsically wrote an incarnation of himself and a nonexistent twin into the story. Cage plays both characters.

"

I don't understand...

[Seanasy]

...what makes awards relevant or even interesting.

Anyone have any ideas?

hmm...

[Woody]

call me a heretic, but i didn't much like the two towers . don't get me wrong, i love the source material and fellowship of the rings was a beautiful, interesting movie that deserved a nomination. the two towers just seemed overly acted, overly long and, somehow, even more melodramatic than the text it followed. the gollum/smeagol (serkis) debate might be my least favorite scene from a movie last year. i'm just not convinced that it deserved a best picture nod.

what i'm really bothered about, though, is the fact that punch-drunk love didn't get so much as a second look anywhere... it really is one of the most beautiful, sweetest movies that i've ever seen. if you didn't see it or you dismissed it as another pointless adam sandler comedy or as a simplistic look on love and/or relationships then you missed the point. everything in the movie is absolutely pure, and it's ugly and pretty and sweet and overbearing and confusing at the same time. the simplicity belies the fact that it really is a deep, pure movie. to not even get a nod is a slap in the face to p.t. anderson.

adaptation possibly deserved a best picture nomination as well. it's funny, sad and thrilling - it's got everything hollywood loves. i'm surprised not to see it on the list.
----
ryan

Gangs of NY?!

[blahbooboo2]

Can anyone explain to me why this movie was nominated -- other then the entire industry continually kissing the directors ass? It has to be the STUPIDEST movie I have seen in a while. The entire movie is waiting for the kid to kill that guy...boring and silly. And for the blood and guts, disgusting...yeah yeah it was part of the picture bull. Now, Catch Me If You Can was a FANTASTICLY fun movie, and how that was not nominated when that awful Gangs was is crazy. Catch Me was much more enjoyable then Gangs (which I have not met one person who actually liked it).

Gangs of New York (Re:A Few Thoughts)

[fetta]

Another movie that has received critical acclaim
of which I do not understand is Gangs of New York.

I thought that Gangs of New York had a lot of marvelous parts that simply didn't tie together into a cohesive whole. The set design and visuals were amazing, and as another post points out the setting was one that we haven't seen much in movies.

On the whole, it was an ambitious and flawed effort. Too long, and the details and backround were more interesting than the main plot, but I can understand why many Academy members were impressed. While not a great movie, some individuals (both actors and technical folks) involved in this movie demonstrated great craft .

An example of the whole being less than the sum of the parts.

Re:Gangs of New York (Re:A Few Thoughts)

[GS11_Pus]

I think you make some excellent points, and I agree that the movie was visually beautiful and attempted to explore a time and place that really hasn't been tapped much. I would go so far as to say that, had this movie been trimmed to two hours, it would have been somewhat enjoyable.

But I think Day-Lewis' performance is just overrated. There are moments in the movie where he is captivating, and there are moments where you are wondering what accent he will use next. Compare him to Hanks in Catch Me If You Can who manages to maintain the same accent throughout the entire movie. DiCaprio's accent also comes and goes, as do his cuts and scars.

I agree with your assessment, I just don't understand why it receives such lofty praise. Saying some individuals demonstrated great craft is much different (and more accurate) than lauding Gangs as a triumph of cinema and the best picture of the year.

Re:Gangs of New York (Re:A Few Thoughts)

[fetta]

Saying some individuals demonstrated great craft is much different (and more accurate) than lauding Gangs as a triumph of cinema and the best picture of the year.

Agreed - some individual nominations might have been warranted, but the "Best Picture" nomination is an example of some Academy members:

1. Letting their respect for the director cloud their judgement
2. Letting their praise for components of the picture interfere with their assessment of the picture as a whole
3. using their vote to encourage risk-taking and ambitious pictures rather than rewarding excellence

Re:m&m

[slaker]

For the humor impaired, that was a joke.

Forrest Gump

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for a movie to get very serious consideration to actually win Best Picture Oscar, you better make darn sure you have characters on-screen moviegoers can relate to. Why do you think Forrest Gump won over Pulp Fiction?

Uhm ... moviegoers are stupid?

Re:Forrest Gump

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and "The Acadamy" even more so.

Love/Hate the Movie Industry

[Slak]

Ok, Slashdot, I must have lost my schedule; it's Tuesday - do we hate the MPAA's DVD policy today or do we fawn over the cool CGI stuff?

-Slak

Uh-oh

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Spirited Away wins, it will have beat Ice Age, Lilo & Stitch, Spirit, and Treasure Planet. What an honor.

And what if it loses?

Wake up

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot believe that "Gangs of New York" has been nominated for best picture. It was the worst film I've seen in ages.

It was easily the best film I've seen (in a theatre) all year. I can't believe people actually liked "Fellowship of the Ring".

Do you think you have perfect taste, and that everybody must agree with you? Get over it. Welcome to real life.

Sad too

[Kris Warkentin]

I've seen all those animated films (I've got 3 kids) and in my mind there is no question that Spirited Away is by far the best of the lot. Little things like how she wrings her hands or curls her toes are enough to make you swear Chihiro is a real girl. In terms of getting attached to the character, feeling sorry for her and being happy when things go well...none of the other films have that emotional depth.

Re:Sad too

[taperkat]

Lilo and Stitch has a theme that's long been lost in today's society. I admit, i'm L&S obsessed (see my comment in another post in this forum) but no movie has inspired me to WANT to collect all the forms of stitch, and all the merchandise, etc. Granted, some of you may say that's great merchandising, but no movie ever has made me go see it in the theatre over 10 times, and L&S did. It's a beautiful picture with a great message, and it explains it in ways even little children can understand. Spirited Away was good, but it touched on so many things that little kids couldn't understand. Well, if I took myself to being 9 again, I'd still love L&S. I wouldn't understand Spirited Away. L&S is great because of the LACK of complexity. There ARE levels to the movie, but only if you choose to find them. You don't have to, and it's still a cute great flick. Of course, I also cry at the beach scene every time I see it (and I'm 22.)

Re:Sad too

[BayAreaRefugee]

Tricks are for kids... Animated movies don't *have* to be for kids! Sometimes many think that animation is just for kids and should be judged as to how well it works for them to measure how good it is. Anime doesn't always follow those rules, though some folks who only watching things like Pokemon and Dragon Ball Z might not see that. Spirited Away is at least a movie that appeals to many different age groups with different messages. That's what makes great movies (animated or no) like Disney did in the past with Fantasia, etc. too, even though at the time it came out wasn't as highly regarded or attended as the "kid's movies" at that time...

This award is for best "Animated feature", not best "Animated feature for kids". Spririted Away is a great achievement that should be the favorite here.

Though there's a definite bias in the Oscars against films like LOTR in favor of other themes than fantasy, etc., I don't think Spirited Away will have quite the same difficulty others face in getting the award. With Miramax behind it, it already will get some help. Also, I think many of the same Hollywood types that might reject other what they might regard as overly-commercial titles for their favorite niche films might be more attracted to the art house value of Spirited Away vs. the other more commercial movies in this category.

The Cathedral!

[jfedor]

I would like to point your attention to one nomination in the animated short category: The Cathedral.

It's a really nice short, loosely based on a story by Jacek Dukaj, directed by a Polish animator, Tomek Baginski. It won the best animated short award at SIGGRAPH 2002.

You probably won't get a chance to see it in a movie theater (it ran for a some time in a few Polish cinemas before Minority Report and Signs), but you can download a trailer here: hi-res Divx (15 MB), low-res Divx (8 MB), low-res MPEG (9 MB).

Here is the author's page about the film (flash required).

-jfedor

Lilo & Stich was quite a good flick...

[Anonymous Coward]

enough said.

If go to see Spirited Away...

[Anonymous Coward]

... does that mean that Walt Disney Corp.|Inc.|WE. gets money from me?

Damm, it looked like a nice film.

LOTR II had many mistakes

[iplayfast]

I liked LOTR I, but with 2 I kept getting distracted by various things.

For example, did anyone else notice that whenever there was a closeup of human warriors in battle armor, standing at attention, or searching outside the big gate for Frodo and company, that their eyes looked very feminine. I saw this several times in the movie. Is this a case of casting couch casting, or male actors with pretty eyes? I don't know. But it was distracting.

Also the CG in the second one for mob scenes was very fake. Like when Aragon and the King rode out through the orcs. All the orcs fell down halfway off the bridge. That is the body was lying on the bridge and the feet sticking off (straight out). And I guess orc bodies don't bounce... Instead they fall flat and stick to the ground.

Was I alone in seeing this stuff?

Re:LOTR II had many mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, did anyone else notice that whenever there was a closeup of human warriors in battle armor, standing at attention, or searching outside the big gate for Frodo and company, that their eyes looked very feminine. I saw this several times in the movie. Is this a case of casting couch casting, or male actors with pretty eyes? I don't know. But it was distracting.

That would be the worst reason EVER not to nominate a movie for an oscar category. Femine eyes? WHAT?

Re:LOTR II had many mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

BIG BAD WARRIOR

cutsy cutsy eyes!

Makes sense to me.

Re: Not Best Documentary

[PunchMonkey]

There's no way Bowling for Columbine is a great Documentary.... a documentary should not lie, twist truths, or mislead the viewer which Michael Moore often does.

See: Lying for Profit and Fun?

And: Forbes Bowl-a-Drama

A few examples, Michael Moore didn't walk into the bank and get a gun handed to him. The police state that the two kids from columbine likely skipped their bowling class that day.

I was surprised to hear this and quite dissappointed because I felt quite misled. It's still a fantastic movie, which I love along with Michael Moore's other work (film, tv, and books). He does a great job of making you think and motivating people... I just think it's important that this is understood by the viewrs.

Screw the award shows

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all politics and probably all fixed anyway.

The Two Towers should win the awards along with the actor who played Smeagol.

Re: Not Best Documentary

[PunchMonkey]

Woops, forgot the Forbes.com link:

Forbes: Bowl-a-Drama

Because.....

[Ride-My-Rocket]

... the nominations are for the BEST Animated Feature Film. You must be thinking of the Razzies. :)

Better? No. Populist? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm unconvinced of a conspiracy against Scorcese. The Academy's (and Hollywood's, and America's...) tastes are the mirror-image of a French film critic: whereas Pierre will always vote for the most obscure B&W sub-titled foreign film about homosexual freedom fighters, the Academy always supports the very opposite; the expensive, feel-good, lowest-common-denominator Summer hit. Thank God.

'Lord of the Rings' should not win best picture, as it isn't the best picture. It's hideously overlong and dull, with some awful acting and the worst dialogue since, well, anything by George Lucas. Shit, what am I saying? It can't lose...!

You people amaze me!

[Anonymous Coward]

You spend the entire year complaining about Hollywood studios, complaining about how evil the MPAA is, how terrible DVD coding is, and yet, when oscar time rolls around,

YOU BECOME A BUNCH OF DROOLING CHILDREN!

Who cares about the oscars? The only value is looking at some nice T&A wearing skimpy gowns.

Re:Animated pictures won't get best pic nomination

[bushboy]

They movie houses have always played this tactic in one form or another.

The good movies are like gems amongst the crud, just like they always have been - only now, there's so much money at stake, you can buy your film good reviews and spend more money on the trailer than the final production.

Bums into seats mentality.

Re: OT: Diaz (A Few Thoughts)

[Anonymous Coward]

>Cameron Diaz was especially bad in this (as bad as she is in everything).
If you think she's bad in everything then you obviously haven't seen Being John Malkovich and Vanilla Sky or other movies I think she's good in.
Of course she's been in some terrible movies like Charlie's Angels and The Sweetest Thing, but you can't dismiss all her performances by just looking at the trash.

Which role is Cage nominated for?

[ZipR]

He played two roles in Adaptation. Is he nominated for both? Could he have been nominated for best actor AND best supporting actor for the same film?

Re:Which role is Cage nominated for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a better question is, WHY is he nominated?

Whatever

[chad_r]

Honestly, I stopped caring about the Oscars after Clint Eastwood won for Unforgiven. Of the recent tragedies, Shakespeare in Love winning not just best picture but almost everything else stands out among the more painful. By the time Gladiator won over Crouching Tiger, I had already written off the Oscars.

I don't know anyone who liked Gangs of New York. Just because it looked expensive and had an established director doesn't mean it has potential as a "best picture". How did that get in over Adaptation (which still gives me goosebumps 3 weeks later)?

BLASPHEMY!

[E-Rock-23]

I took a look at the list, and why the hell is Andy Serkis not nominated?!?

Now, most people would say "Aww, he just did the voice of Gollum. He shouldn't be nominated for voice acting." Not so. He was also on the sets, hooked up to computers and providing alot of the motion capture data that would be used in animating Gollum.

Gollum is the first character to effectively blur the line between CGI and reality. While he is obviously a computer-generated character, the work Serkis did with both his voice and his motion is astounding. It brings Gollum to life in ways never before thought possible. If you tuned yourself in while sitting in the theater, you could feel the emotion literally dripping from Gollum's frail body. The conflict raging in his head between his original Smeagol persona and that which the One Ring created. Gandalf said it best in FotR: "The pity of Bilbo may decide the fate of the One Ring (yep, I'm paraphrasing)." In The Hobbit, Bilbo was going to kill Gollum, but stayed his hand out of pity for the creature. That emotion was perfectly conveyed through the work of not only the animators, but Andy Serkis.

This proves that the Academy is nothing but a bunch of stale old farts who can only see CGI as a special effects tool, not something that can be used to create a character such as Gollum. And, sadly, the fate of TTT in the best picture category rests in that same outdated judgement process. The Academy has never bestowed a Best Picture honor on a fantasy film such as the LotR series. Sadly, that will probably remain the case this year.

Bitch all you want about story discrepencies and the lack of important parts of the story. As a whole, Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy is a wonder to behold, a truely entertaining film, and an achievement that even Tolkien himself thought wasn't possible. It deserves the kudos...

Re:BLASPHEMY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Andy Serkis deserves a supporting actor nomination as much as say Billy Crystal does for voicing Mike.

Most of his motion capture work was thrown away and reanimated by animators. There was NO facial motion capture, all that was created by animators.

Serkis for best supporting actor was a marketing move. I'm not downplaying the role of Serkis, because he was important in bringing Gollum to life. But all this talk about Serkis really diminishes the hard work of WETA's animators.

Punch Drunk Thoughts

[mattyohe]

I was VERY VERY sad that not a single nom went to Punch Drunk Love. Adam sandler acted supurbly, I think the academy was just to shy to even think of having the name Adam Sandler even be slightly associated with "Best Actor". Also again with the directing/writing... Paul Thomas Anderson's direction was great, and the story was one of a kind. Truly Beautiful.

Something that did effect the movie's impact on the US was the release strategy. Sadly the scheme was to slowly release it and let word of mouth take hold... Unexpectedly the audience didn't enjoy this side of Adam Sandler, and the "word of mouth" was that Punch Drunk Love stunk, thus crippling the box office results for the next week's "wider" releases. It's kindof the Jim Carey syndrome.. Meaning audiences did not applaud his roles in The Cable Guy, or The Truman Show for the good acting, they just wanted to see him say "Excuse me, may I... ASS you a question?".

I guess they are right though.. Sandler should have put a blender on his head and said "Im Crazy Blender man! Gimme Some Candy!"

Re:Punch Drunk Thoughts

[The Salamander]

Maybe they're punishing him for Mr. Deeds.

Sounds fair.

Nemesis ?

[Captain Rotundo]

I am so surprised ST:Nemesis wasn't nominated for best adapted screenplay.

You know from the original text "The Wrath of Khan".

Best Supporting Actress

[Big Sean O]

Here's my pick for Best Supporting Actress, the only category where I've seen most of the performances.

Kathy Bates: Kathy Bates is great. But she's just playing Kathy Bates: goofy old broad. Frankly, she's never been better then her performance in Misery where she played Kathy Bates: scary old broad.

Julianne Moore: She was very good in the Hours. But she was far better in Far From Heaven. If she wins, she should give the Oscar to the little boy who played her son. He was excellent! On par with Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense!!

Queen Latifah: She was great in Chicago, especially Mamma Morton's Song. But her part in the movie and her performance wasn't as significant as her co-star and fellow nominee C Z-J.

Meryl Streep: Excellent work in Adaptation, but not as good as her performance in the Hours. She could have one for this performance, except I didn't like it when she became a <spoiler>gun-toting crazed druggie </spoiler> at the end...

Catherine Zeta-Jones: She stole the show. IMHO, she nearly upstaged Renee Zellweger (and that was hard to do). She can sing, dance, act, and smoulder. She's my pick for the winner.

Here's the voting strategy:

Kathy Bates and Queen Latifah won't get enough votes to win. Their parts were good enough to be nominated but not good enough to win.

Moore will have her votes cannibalized because she's also nominated for best actress.

Streep will get extra votes because she was great (IMHO better) in the Hours but didn't get nominated.

It comes down to Zeta-Jones v. Streep. If you compare both performances, ZJ should win. But I think Streep might get sympathy votes for her unnominated performance.

My prediction heretowith submitted to the permanent slashdot record on this date.

Musicals, blech!

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been two descent musicals:

Singing in the Rain -- Donald O'Connor Roxors
The Blues Brothers

All others make my stomach turn.

1. Stinky Pete's movie about money and sex

[Anonymous Coward]

2. The plot rewritten
3. Horror Film
4. Gangsta punks
5. Period piece
6. English movie
7. Wierd
8. Skiet, Skop en Donder

Those are my 8 top movies for absolutey any year since 1939.

Another pat on the back for the film world

[edstromp]

I swear, no industry pats themselves on the back more than hollywood. It doens't matter what the crap is, it'll be nominated for _something_.

Re: Not Best Documentary

[gosand]

There's no way Bowling for Columbine is a great Documentary.... a documentary should not lie, twist truths, or mislead the viewer which Michael Moore often does

I actually agree with this, but it was nominated for best documentary. I think it should win something. I guess you could say it was filmed in the documentary style, with a slant on opinion. I just think that it was very powerful and brought up an interesting topic that deserves to be discussed amongst Americans. He packed so much information into the movie that I really need to see it again to digest it all. I think that there are few movies that people NEED to see, and this is one of them. Even if you come out of it thinking he is a lying bastard, it is worth seeing.

The Oscars == 4 hour waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a show where you see nothing but short film clips and actors thanking people.

In that 4 hours you could,
1. Watch two entire movies
2. Read an entire book (easy for 200 pages)
3. Assemble a computer and install Linux
4. Run 3 miles, lift weights, shower and still have time for an episode of The Simpsons, Seinfeld, King of the Hill

Final Fantasy was HORRIBLE.

[DaveOf9thKey]

Of course this assumes anyone cares about a category that last year only bothered to put up three nominees and none of them was Final Fantasy or Waking Life, you stupid Academy traitorous rat bastards who are constitutionally incapable of recognizing any films or critically-acclaimed box-office flops.

I am so sick and tired of all these computer animation geeks defending the Final Fantasy movie. Final Fantasy was a HORRIBLE film, and all the eye-popping computer graphics in the world could not save it from a script that felt like something written by pot-smoking fan-fiction authors.

Plus, it was a HUGE mistake to hire known actors to be the voices, because it created a big disconnect in the minds of the audience. Ving Rhames didn't look like Ving Rhames. Donald Sutherland looked like Patrick Stewart on a three-year Nyquil bender. You can get away with this when your characters are toys or animals or furry blue monsters, but when photorealistic humans look one way and sound another, people don't buy into it. It pulls them right out of the story.

Final Fantasy may have looked more gorgeous than any film in recent memory, but you know, Anna Kournikova is gorgeous, too, and how long has it been since she got past the first two rounds of a major tennis tournament? If this thing were a live action film, it would never escape development hell, nor would it deserve to.

On the other hand, we agree on Waking Life. That was a good flick.

Make way for the DVD screeners!

[Alien Venom]

It's about the thing these movie awards are good for!

Best Animated Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, they completely snubbed Episode II. That movie should've definitely been nominated for Best Animated Picture! (The fact that Hayden Christensen is completely unanimated notwithstanding.)

Spike Lee???

[Pyrosophy]

Martin S. maybe hasn't received the acclaim he's due, but Adaptation and 25th hour were FAR better movies. Not as good as The Hours, maybe, but geez...

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'd swear the biggest snub of the year is Spike Lee. 25th hour was much better than last year's Training Day and Lee deserves at least a nomination. Lee directing Ed Norton was AMAZING. Norton was at least better and more subtle than Daniel Day-Lewis in S's trainwreck of a movie.

Not to mention Spike Jonze, who is one of the hottest directors in Hollywood when paired with Kauffman. I liked Two Towers a lot too, but Adaptation deserves best picture nods with the best of them.

I mean, of course these awards don't mean anything, but it's upsetting when Hollywood can't separate out the innovators from the dead wood.

No Cidade de Deus???

[dcs]

Outrage! Let me start this thread so we brazilians can properly complain. :-)

Costume Design

[Sprunkys]

So the costume design for Two Towers was really worse than for the Fellowship? Or were the other movies so impressive that LOTR-TTT didn't get nominated in this category? Odd.

Ultimate Irony

[zenintrude]

Adaptation is an Original Screenplay, not an Adaptation. This is the point of the movie. Kaufman was unable to adapt The Orchid Thief, so he wrote an original screenplay about the fictional process of him attempting to adapt it. It has (mostly) nothing to do with the actual book... well, somewhat, but it can hardly be considered an adaptation of the book.

Tsk, tsk... makes one wonder if the Academy even watches these films.

Re:Best Documentary - Kharma Suicide

[goldspider]

"Absolutely one of the most impactful things I have ever viewed."

Yeah, but only if you're accustomed to believing everything you see in the movies.

I already know this is going to be modded into oblivion, but it would appear that anyone who dares criticize the quality, let alone validity, of Moore's work is automatically modded down. Apparently it's easier to silence a dissenting opinion than to defend one's own.

Michael Moore has made a career of distorting the facts and peddaling wild conspiracy theories as fact. He routinely makes up facts to support his rantings when the truth cannot. And always, his nonsensical babblings are, in the current context, modded up +5: Insightful.

If you truly believe Michael Moore is a visionary, I challenge you to defend that assertion. As far as I'm concerned, he is nothing but a 3rd rate Howard Stern who is out for nothing but attention.

The Pianist. Jewish Artist vs. the Nazis.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can forget it, the director is wanted for having sex with a 13 year old.

"After his conviction for the statutory rape of a 13-year old girl, Polanski fled from America to avoid prison."

-IMDB mini-bio

I hope hollywood wouldn't give this sicko an oscar. But then again, Snoop is idolized for going to prison. Polantrizle iz my nizzle.

I liked it

[diablobynight]

Saw it because a female made me go. And I greatly enjoyed it. i don't think you were catching the ironies in the movie, and the idealogy that they were trying to tell a story that has never been told about New York, a lot better than, "The Animal" or half the other movies that were out. But I also agree that catch me if you can was a great movie, but lets face it, compared to Lord of the Rings, it was a joke.

Re: OT: Diaz (A Few Thoughts)

[GS11_Pus]

I *have* seen Being John Malkovich and Vanilla Sky, and didn't like her in either.

She wasn't _terrible_ in BJM, but she was outright AWFUL in Vanilla Sky. That movie in general was pretty bad. But that's a whole different conversation.

Yelling a lot and curling up your lip isn't acting. Watching her next to John Cusack (utterly underrated) proves just how overrated Diaz is.

But everyone has his or her own tastes :)

Anime's that were way better than current movies

[diablobynight]

What do you mean, a movie starts with a script, both anime and regular, anime is simply acted out through drawings. What's the difference, the voices are done by a human, the emotion in the voices, more importantly the emotion in the charachters can be drawn better than acted I think. I watch a series called cowboy bebop and I have never had a anything force me to think as much as that anime did.

History is usually kinder than the Academy

[cje]

Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, which is considered by many critics to be the greatest motion picture ever made, only received a single Academy Award for its screenplay. This despite the fact that it contained a riveting performance by Welles (and others, notably Dorothy Comingore), unparalleled make-up work, some of the most technically adept cinematography ever seen (before or since), and an inventiveness that influences movies to this day.

It's generally accepted that Kane's poor showing at the Oscars was due largely to the influence of William Randolph Hearst, whose life the film was based on. The reasons are largely irrelevant; the basic fact is that Welles was shafted by the Academy. However, history has judged Citizen Kane rather differently than the fickle and politically-charged audiences of 1941 did. It took Kane several years to get back on the front burner of the American moviegoer's conscience, but since then, it's never left.

The bottom line is that a movie's success (or lack thereof) at the Oscars doesn't necessarily translate into success for how the film is judged as time goes on. This is why in 50 years, people will still be watching Citizen Kane but you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who's even seen Gladiator. (Apologies to Gladiator fans, but it just wasn't that good.)

Re:History is usually kinder than the Academy

[Alomex]

Actually, AFAIK back then Oscars were given to bad movies, 'cuz everybody saw the good ones anyhow, so why not help the bad ones increase their take...

Re:History is usually kinder than the Academy

[cje]

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; float y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

And what would be your suggestion for the value of y? Zero times anything is zero.

Re:History is usually kinder than the Academy

[Alomex]

If you don't thik C should have used "div" instead of "/" to denote integer division, I'll give you 1/2 million dollars, no questions asked.

Re:History is usually kinder than the Academy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't think C should have used "div" instead of "/" to denote integer division, I'll give you 1/2 million dollars, no questions asked.

2004 is Lord of the Rings year

[peter303]

I think Hollywood is hesitant about a serial movie, until it is all shown. But next year LOTR will be competing with the Matrix serial.

yep, same director that did Bringing out the Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

just for directing that POS, he should be banned for life from any Oscar nominations.

I've seen better films in a bathtub.

"Most"

[Efreet]

You know, "most" American TV shows and movies don't compare to LOTR either. Just like any other entertainment industry, anime has its exceptional (Grave of the Fireflies), its good (Nadesico), and its bad (Vandread). I think that in some ways the average anime is better than the average American show/movie; but their are exceptions to every rule, and it is impossible to compare single works to entire industries.

And speaking of a comic book winning the Nobel prize: I think that Kaze no Tani no Nausicaa, a manga by Miyazaki, is easily the equal of any of the Nobel prize winning novels I've read. The medium; comic book book, novel, animated or live action movie; is of trivial importance when measured against the vision of the creator.

Sprited Away

[Pretzalzz]

What I don't understand is that Spirited Away was released in 2001. How exactly is it getting nominated for an award for the movies of 2002? The 2002 release was nothing more than a glorified dub of a foreign film.

Re:Sprited Away

[erveek]

The movie may have come out in Japan in 2001, but it premiered in LA in 2002, which is why it's eligible for the 2002 oscars instead of 2001.

Re:m&m

[fenix down]

Don't worry, it's just a bunch of Scandinavians pretending to be other people and calling it revolutionary. Live Action Role Playing. At best it's a crappy play, at worst it's a crappy hobby, no matter how long a manifesto you write first.

Best Supporting isn't for Supporting actors...

[hcduvall]

Its for people who the execs don't expect to win Best Actor nods, either because the performances might not be strong enough, or it might take away an award from someone else with a better chance in the same movie.

Originally, the award went for those character actors who were never top stars themselves, and the best supporting actress was given to the hot young thing with potential (Marisa Tomei, Anna Paquin, Mira Sorvino- the most dubious choices)- but now that each and every nomination or award can be tacked onto a poster or package for a quantifiable increase in revenues after- all the studios will jigger their nominations for maximum effect. Julianne Moore for The Hours for example.

Miramax is leader in Oscar campaigning, but they all do it now. I don't even want to talk about how the politicking for foreign film nominations, or Oscars and foreign films in general.

On a sidenote- IMO-- Chicago was a decent movie entirely undeserving of any of these nominations. Ah well, I'm less opposed to it than Gladiator or Beautiful Mind

City of God should have gotten a nomination.

[hcduvall]

Oh, the Oscars make perfect sense. Marketing etc as usual. But anyway, each country has a committee that nominates a film for the Oscars, and Mexico voted for a different one this year. Britain had a primarily Hindu language film rejected because of language (apparently having 1.5 mil isn't enough) And Afghanistan, w/o a committee, couldn't nomate one of their highly rated films at all. And Spain went with someone other than Almodovar (because they're tired of nominating him). China wanted Hero nominated for best picture, but since Miramax never made a screening the US, it couldn't- though it means it could qualify next year. So the Best Screenplay Nomination was actually the Academy's way of giving Y Tu Mama Tambien credit since they couldn't give it a best foreign film nod. I think Talk to Her was probably the best movie I saw made last year, but even that has nothing to do with it. best Foreign Film only needs to be released in said country. Ahh... City of God. may'be not he best, but worth a nod at least. Visually dynamic, great juggling of multiple stories, great music- and one of the most gut-wrenching scenes ever. And best/worst part yet- based on true stories. How's that for an adapted screenplay?

Re: Not Best Documentary

[Steve B]

I actually agree with this, but it was nominated for best documentary. I think it should win something.

The Academy should create a "Most Politically Correct" award. That way they could get it out of their system and then give out the other awards based on merit.

Complaint=adulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

So all the people who ranted about the LOTR film want it to win best picture?

Soooo True

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate anime and everything associated with it, but that is beside the point. ANY animated film will never be nominated for best picture, simply because it is ANIMATED!

Check out www.homestarrunner.com
there is a hilarious cartoon about japanese cartoons in "Strong Bad's Emails"

Best Picture...About a Banana.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the first five episodes of BANANA CHAN were made into a movie, it'd be the first-ever Best Picture nomination for an anime [knock-off]...in my opinion.

When's SPIRITED AWAY's moment?

[Alan Holman]

I remember seeing previews on TV for SPIRITED AWAY. I remember the clips I saw on the internet, and the teary-eyed feeling I got from the plot-synopsis I read on an un-official web-site. I remember the burning urge to see it, and the feeling of personal achievement I got when I wrote a fanfic which was based on the plot summary which I read on the internet. I remember seeing ads on network television, and waiting eagerly for it to be distributed nationwide to movie theatres after viewing its official web-site. I live in the biggest city in my province (provinces are the canadian version of states), and NONE OF THE MOVIE THEATRES in my city screened Spirited Away. It disgusts me to no end that the translation of the most popular anime movie of all time did not get screened at all in my city. On a side-note, I rented PRINCESS MONONOKE and KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE, and they were far more fulfilling movies than any of the Disney fare which was available on the big-screen at the time. Mayazaki IS one of the best film-makers of all-time, and his work deserves to be shown on big-screens all throughout North America. The spectre of his panoramic motion-paintings is insulted on the small screen whereas the landscape of the largest movie screen in the world would almost do his work justice.

It's the....

[idontneedanickname]

Why it's the:

AFIAPGBAFTVLAFCAANYFCCAISAANSFCABFCAANBRAGGAADGAAM TVMANAACPIATIEWAACFAAABEABAFOXTCATPCAGAGRAFHPSAGAT GABMAAMACMAAPPIMBMIAFOXTCATPCABEALAWMALAMAMTVVMARM AWMATEADEAGGAGFPAAIDADGAAFOXTCATPCAGRAFHPSAGA

MY GOD! That must be the longest synonym in existence! I can't believe I actually went through the whole thing and did that.... :-)

Got to add this because the lameness fileter won't allow that many caps...aaaaaaaaaaaadfasdfasdfsdf

Re:It's the....

[trib]

Actually... That'd be an acronym .

From the Macquarie Dictionary:

synonym noun 1. a word having the same, or nearly the same, meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad. 2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity. [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Greek: synonymous]

acronym noun a word formed from the initial letters of other words, as radar (from radio detection and ranging) or ANZAC (from Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). [ACR(O)- + Greek: name]
Usage: Acronyms tend to start out in life as capitals which then reduce to lower case as the word formed becomes accepted as a lexical item and people cease to analyse it into its component parts. However, if there is the possibility of confusion with some other homograph, this process is arrested. Thus SNAG became snag, but AIDS has retained its capitalised status, so as not to be confused with aids.

</PEDANT> ;)

Trib

I heard that Miramax founder and Spielberg

[zymano]

are pushing voters to give Scorsece an award. In the land of NEPOTISM and MODELS and dating potential actresses(castingcouch) , I am not surprised at all. The so called grand academy is a fraud that plays favorites. There is no real unbiased voting. A disgusting industry in my opinion.

Re: Spirited Away on DVD

[naNoox]

If it's available on Region 1 do pick it up, or at least rent it.

Just FYI... Spirited Away will be coming out in Region 1 on ("Disney") DVD on April 15th... check it out.

For what it's worth, Nausicaa and Laputa: Castle in the Sky will be available the same day.

//Nanoox

Clarification

[Goonie]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but there seems to be a misinterpretation. My *personal* opinion is that The Two Towersisn't that great (aside from Gollum, who was an extremely impressive creation), and Chicago was quite good (though hardly Oscar-worthy). However, that is irrelevant to the main thrust of my post. The results don't have a great deal to do with the merits or otherwise of the movies, and a great deal to do with what Harvey Weinstein (the boss at Miramax) and a few other studio heavies want.

Lupin isn't Miyazaki

[Drathos]

Miyazaki did a Lupin film (Castle of Cagliostro) which helped boost the popularity of the series, but the characters were created by Monkey Punch. Lupin almost has Dragonball Z longevity and popularity (~230 episodes, 10 TV movies, and 6 theatrical movies). Miyazaki is only responsible for *one* piece of the pie (although a very notable piece).

Chicago was OK

[Goonie]

But in my opinion the strengths of the film were entirely in the source material and had little to do with the screen adaptation.

Catherine Zeta-Jones, to give her credit, is sensational as Velma, and Renee Zellweger is passable as Roxie. Richard Gere is awful as the smarmy lawyer. Even Protools can't fix his singing, and he can't dance (why oh why didn't they cast Hugh Jackman, who aside from being a good actor is a fine singer and dancer). The support cast were fine (particularly Queen Latifah).

The visuals, however, were pretty unimaginative. What really killed it for me, however, was the director' propensity to stick dialogue straight over the top of the songs! He's working with one of the best musical scores in decades and he feels the need to layer inane dialogue over the friggin' top?

Do yourself a favour and go see the stage version instead.

Chiming in with my $0.02

[Nogami_Saeko]

Spirited Away deserves to be best animated feature. While some of the other nominees are enjoyable, they're just not in the same league.

I sincerely hope the Academy doesn't get this one wrong. I really believe that while the studios producing the other movies would be elated if they win, every one of their artists knows who deserves the award.

Mr. Miyazaki's recently visited Pixar during Spirited Away's US release - practically the entire staff turned out to meet him and express how his work has influenced them.

N.

Re:Chiming in with my $0.02

[BayAreaRefugee]

Spirited Away is one nomination I'm really pleased to see happen this year and is a breath of fresh air compared to most of the other categories. Last year, I was wondering why they only had three nominees and didn't get Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade a nomination as well, which also deserved to be up there. Was wondering if Anime movies were getting pushed aside then. As you note, hope they finally bring a worthy anime film the spotlight it deserves on the world stage.

I'm kind of disappointed that a movie like LOTR: TTT didn't get more than Best Picture in the major categories. I take that as a sign that it's nomination for best picture was a "token nomination" and that it doesn't have much chance at winning best picture. You know that some folks would revolt if it didn't get a nomination at least there. It would seem that the Academy would be saying we'll wait until you're "done" until we give you a serious consideration for the Best Picture and other big awards to go with it. At least I hope it's that way and not a complete snub next year. If Matrix sequels do well this year, I wonder if the Matrix trilogy and LOTR trilogy will split votes and have other films shut them both out then!! :(

Best Animated Feature-- your betting odds

[May Kasahara]

I've seen all the nominated films except for Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmaron-- but considering DreamWorks' track record with traditional animation, I'm sure I can overlook it without any repercussions. ;) Still, I'd like to rent it just to see exactly why it got a nom.

Lilo and Stitch: This is the best and most unique film Disney Feature Animation has done in awhile, and Chris Sanders certainly deserves major props for bringing a Brad Bird-style approach to the usual slick and flowy style of Disney animation (Brad Bird, FYI, directed The Iron Giant, created Family Dog, and was a consultant for the early years of The Simpsons). The character animation for Stitch is easily THE BEST I've seen in any film this year (they wuz robbed in the Character Animation category for the Annie Awards), and the watercolor backgrounds, design, etc. was stunning. Major weakness: the flimsy climax and ending.

Ice Age: Instantly gets extra points for being the first feature animated film made ENTIRELY on the East Coast ;) I am really, really happy for Blue Sky for their nomination and I hope it leads to better days for the NY animation industry. But enough of that... Exquisite timing worthy of Pixar, beautiful (and tactile) production design, an "okay" story broken up by some very funny and inspired bits. Major weakness: aforementioned "okay" story.

Spirited Away: The best film ever to come out of the House of Ghibli, and that's not saying much, as they're usual level of quality is as high as that of Pixar and Aardman (It DOES say a whole lot if you're not any one of these three studios, though ^_~). Gorgeous artwork, inspired fish-out-of-water/Alice in Wonderland-type story, overall character animation is humorous and believable. Overall, the best animated film I've seen all year. Oh yeah, and all those critics awards it's already one couldn't hurt ;) Major weakness: the dreaded Anime Stigma (you know, the assumption that all anime is either about hentai tentacle rape monsters or Dragonball Z-type battles with cute characters somewhere in between), though this is becoming less of an issue with each passing year...

Treasure Planet: This is a beautiful film, but unfortunately, it's a typical John Musker/Ron Clements job, which means you've seen it all before... in the likes of The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, etc. The usual fluid Disney animation. Nice Jules Verne-esque background design, too-- and at least it was better than Atlantis. Major weaknesses: Didn't break any new ground in the art of animation, weak musical score.

So, here's the odds, if, like my office, you have an annual Oscar pool:

Lilo and Stitch-- 1:5
Ice Age-- 1:7
Spirited Away-- 1:2
Treasure Planet-- 1:30
Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmaron-- again, haven't seen it, but I'd estimate 1:8

Enjoy :)

enjoyability != good cinema

[SethJohnson]

Many films are written and shot to contain deeper meanings than what is overtly stated within the story. Sometimes this is due to the subtle craftmanship of the director and other times it is to avoid the censorship of unpopular ideas.

Sometimes the Academy recognizes and appreciates the deeper films over the successful films (Unforgiven, American Beauty) and vice-versa. I haven't seen either of the movies you mentioned, but perhaps the Academy voters saw something deeper in Gangs of New York than Catch Me If You Can.

"Enjoyability" is not always the meter by which they're evaluating these works.

Mt. Head

[May Kasahara]

Another notable nomination in Animated Shorts is Koji Yamamura's Mt. Head, which I got the opportunity to see at last year's Ottawa Animation Festival. It's a really incredible piece.

Here's the artist's official website: Yamamura Animation

Re: Not Best Documentary

[CokeBear]

I guess you could say it was filmed in the documentary style, with a slant on opinion.

Well Duh! Every documentary has a slant or opinion, otherwise, whats the point? (And watch out for those that claim they have no bias, because they are often the worst offenders.

If I hear another mention of Moulin Rouge...

[cfish]

Musicals bring back our imagination. In the times when everything can be realistically drawn by computers, it's refreshing to be encouraged to let our imagination to fill out the blank.

Moulin Rouge is completely different from your usual Broadway style musical like "Chicago" or "Sound of music" etc. Do you know that people in Moulin Rouge can't see if thier lives depend upon it? And they really can't dance, either. There are a lot of visual effects that are absolutely non-traditional.

Moulin Rough is an experiment. Chicago is a Broadway type musical. They are two different things.

But I do hope that Chicago got Best Picture and Zeta-Jones gets an Oscar. She's surprisingly talented. And for those who enjoy Chicago, take a look at "Cabaret".

Narc

[roc_machine]

I was really hoping Ray Liotta would get a nod for his role in this film. Jason Patric was solid too. The opening sequence with the foot chase was pretty heart-pounding, very well done with the unstable camera movement. The ending was a bit of a shocker too. I thought it was better (and edgier) than the somewhat similar Training Day from last year, and both main actors got nods in that one, with Denzel winning an award.

A bit of a snub if you ask me. Anyone else enjoy Narc as much as my fiance and I did?

Spirited Away's musical score...

[Akiboshi]

I felt that they should have nominated Spirited Away for the Music(Score) category. Joe Hisaishi's music is absolutely breathtaking and unforgettable. One example is when Sen travels on the train and the subtle piano piece compliment the images of vast nothingness the audience see on the screen. His music can draw out your emotions and make you feel the same loneliness that the main character is feeling. The man is a genius and is considered one of the best composers in Japan. He also wrote the pieces for Mononoke Hime, Tonari no Totori, Nausicaa and others. This man and his music should be exposed to America's ears.

Re: Not Best Documentary

[GuruJ]

Well, I don't know about "what's the point?", but documentaries will have a bias.

They have to, because the act of editing introduces bias whether you want to or not. If nothing else, the bias is on *what the producer thinks is important*. (Think of the Michael Jackson 'documentary' that's causing all the fuss at the moment.)

The only way you can avoid bias in a documentary is to run a camera non-stop, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And even then, you're biased -- how did you decide where to point the camera??

Basically, life is subjective. Deal with it.

Willing Accomplices

[uucee]

Proof that the entertainment industry is utterly full of itself.

No, just proof that they've got an audience that'll watch these shows.

You only win if you don't play: stop going to the movies, watching TV, listening to the radio, going to the theater, reading books, posting on /., ...

Images of Tom Hanks and a volleyball come to mind. D'oh!

Re:Willing Accomplices

[tcr]

You only win if you don't play: stop going to the movies, watching TV, listening to the radio, going to the theater, reading books, posting on /.

There are Slashdot awards?
Who's up for a nomination this year?

Re:Willing Accomplices

[uucee]

There are Slashdot awards?

OSDN probably wouldn't mind. Imagine the ratings spike!

About OSDN:

According to Nielsen//NetRatings' Winter 2003 @Plan data, OSDN is the No. 1 network for delivering people who look for technology news online and the No. 1 network for delivering visitors who have shopped for or purchased software online in the past 6 months, based on composition. OSDN is the home of several popular web sites, including the award winning news discussion site, Slashdot.org, and the world's largest collaborative software development site, SourceForge.net

Unexplainable dislike

[gnarled]

I never have known and will never be able to explain why I disliked that movie, but after I saw it I was left with a feeling that it didn't quite fit together. I wouldn't say I disliked it, and I surely wasn't hung up on its possibly gratuitous violence, it's just it didn't feel right. Did anyone else get this feeling?

is it better than Moore's previous work?

[Trepidity]

After Roger and Me, I'm pretty loathe to see anything else by Moore. He seems to like to take pet causes of the left and turn them into a ridiculous circus of a "documentary" reminiscent of MTV's fine programming.

The Man Without a Past

[lahna]

...in the foreign movie section, is certainly worth watching. I laughed most of the time, just for the comedy that the silent moments create.

The movie is quite historical, as it is the first Finnish movie ever to be a Oscar nominee.
At least it's not hard to translate.

Re:Best Documentary - Kharma Suicide

[gosand]

Michael Moore has made a career of distorting the facts and peddaling wild conspiracy theories as fact. He routinely makes up facts to support his rantings when the truth cannot.

Yes, you are right. Instead, we should believe people whose careers are built around not distorting the facts. Just show me ONE.

So are you saying that the gun-death statistics he presented in the movie are wrong? The people interviewed in the movie were coached? By all means, give some examples instead of making sweeping statements.

If you truly believe Michael Moore is a visionary, I challenge you to defend that assertion.

What, you get to make an assertion for me, then challenge me to defend it? How does that work?
I used my own made-up word (impactful) to say that this film really made me think about things, still to this day. No other movie I have seen has done that. He deserves credit for making this film, if anything for bringing to topic to the American public's attention. Maybe then people will talk about something besides who is dating who in Hollywood, stupid reality TV shows, and sports.

Re:Best Supporting isn't for Supporting actors...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Miramax is leader in Oscar campaigning, but they all do it now. I don't even want to talk about how the politicking for foreign film nominations, or Oscars and foreign films in general.

Where was the Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back nomination back in 2k1?

Re:Best Documentary - Kharma Suicide

[goldspider]

There is a big difference between putting a spin on a fact (which is what most pundits do), and making them up from pure fiction. His "Willie Horton released. Then kills again" line was far more than a distortion of the truth. It was simply false.

And a lie of exclusion is still a lie. The scene where he portrays a Texas bank giving away guns in return for opening an account omitted details that completely altered the perception of the actual event.

One reviewer of the film perfectly summed up Moore's tactics: "Moore's film grabs viewers with the old demagogue's trick of using just as much factual information as is necessary to lead people toward false conclusions."

Artistic lisence ends where interpretation is downright untruthful. If Moore would have accurately promoted his work as satire (a term he frequently uses to justify his distortion of facts), I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But as another post (modded Flamebait, of course) correctly noted, a documentary should avoid distortions and lies. By calling "Bowling For Columbine" a documentary, Moore insults every honest journalist that at the very least tries to get the facts straight.

"I used my own made-up word (impactful) to say that this film really made me think about things"

Me too; the most common thoughts going through my head were "What the fuck is he talking about?" and "What is the point of this film?" Likely, the only reason you are still thinking about the film is because the absurd conclusions Moore draws don't make a whole lot of sense.

"Maybe then people will talk about something besides who is dating who in Hollywood, stupid reality TV shows, and sports."

You don't give us much credit. I'd say that most of the people that read this site (who, generally speaking, are a of the same target audience of Moore's ranting) give a shit about much more important things. What does disappoint me, though, is how many supposedly intelligent people actually buy into most, if not all, of what Moore says.

Re:Best Documentary - Kharma Suicide

[gosand]

There is a big difference between putting a spin on a fact (which is what most pundits do), and making them up from pure fiction. His "Willie Horton released. Then kills again" line was far more than a distortion of the truth. It was simply false.

I don't remember this line specifically, but why is this false? Because he wasn't technically "released"?

Many of the reviews of Moore's movie are right on, both the good and the bad ones. He does present his views through the movie, he does slant the facts, but as you pointed out so does everyone. "The Facts" really depend on how you look at them, and if you think differently then you are only looking at them from your perspective.

What I find sad is that so many people are stuck on picking apart the details of the movie instead of trying to figure out solutions. People complain "Moore doesn't offer any solutions", but that is exactly what I liked about it. He left it up to me (and you) to think about what he presented, talk about it, and come to our own conclusions. That's OK. If you think he was way off on something, then maybe you will discuss it with someone who sees it differently.

Did he walk into a bank in Michigan (not Texas) and walk out with a gun an hour later? Or was he given a voucher and had to go to a gun shop to claim it? If you concentrate on that specific point, which he may have embellished to drive the point home, then you are missing it! What about the fact that banks are giving away guns with bank accounts?! The nitty gritty details don't matter, really.

It is not a pure documentary, but it isn't pure fiction either. It is satire, but not pure satire. I don't care if it is called a documentary for categorizing purposes. I think instead of focusing on the individual lines or points of the movie, it is worthwhile to think about and discuss the theme of the movie. About the Media Machine in this country, about fear, about guns, about politics. At least he presented it in an interesting format. Some of it was over the top, or incorrect, or his slant on things, but that is OK. What is wrong with that? If it gets people interested in the TOPIC, then I think it isn't all bad.

You don't give us much credit. I'd say that most of the people that read this site (who, generally speaking, are a of the same target audience of Moore's ranting) give a shit about much more important things. What does disappoint me, though, is how many supposedly intelligent people actually buy into most, if not all, of what Moore says.

Nope, I don't give the American Public much credit, they have continued to lose my respect over the last 10 years. The tech crowd isn't like the American Public, we do care about things that we feel are important. But how many geeks do you know that talk about gun control/violence/poverty/etc? It is good for them to talk about this stuff too.

I bought into the movie hook, line, and sinker. For a couple of weeks. But that got me talking about it. I have learned a little more about Moore and his tactics (I didn't see Roger and Me), I realized that he does distort things. But I am talking about the topics raised, instead of talking about his movie techniques. THAT might do some good.

Re:Best Documentary - Kharma Suicide

[goldspider]

"I don't remember this line specifically, but why is this false? Because he wasn't technically "released"?"

He didn't kill anybody after he was released.

"Did he walk into a bank in Michigan (not Texas) and walk out with a gun an hour later? Or was he given a voucher and had to go to a gun shop to claim it?"

Again, a lie by omission. What he didn't expand upon about that offer (which I will admit is odd) was the fact that had he tried to claim his firearm, he would have undergone a background check like everyone else who acquires a gun from those stores. That omission paints the offer in a much different light (that not surprisingly supports his "gun-crazed redneck" outlook of gun ownership).

"I think instead of focusing on the individual lines or points of the movie, it is worthwhile to think about and discuss the theme of the movie."

You asked me to cite specific examples. I did.

"If it gets people interested in the TOPIC, then I think it isn't all bad."

If his intention was to simply get people interested in the subject at hand, he would have been more objective. However he's clearly trying to sway people to his point as well, and being dishonest to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree, people are ignorant enough without being deliberately misled.

In case I haven't conveyed this yet, I love debating; just about any topic too! I'm not always right, but my arguments are based on facts that I took the time to research. So forgive me when a person in a position of authority (and unfortunately, in this country, Hollywood types DO enjoy such a position) deliberatly try to misinform people for the sake of getting attention.

Glad we could continue this discussion without moderators getting in the way.

Re:Best Documentary - Kharma Suicide

[gosand]

He didn't kill anybody after he was released.

Are we talking about the same Willie Horton? I was thinking it was the guy who was in prison for murder, was let out on weekend furloughs, and took off on one of those weekends and beat/killed a couple. Sorry, I don't have time to look it up, I am just going off of memory here.

If his intention was to simply get people interested in the subject at hand, he would have been more objective. However he's clearly trying to sway people to his point as well, and being dishonest to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree, people are ignorant enough without being deliberately misled.

Yes, we can agree on that. Sure, he gave his point of view on the facts, and did some creative editing. But I thought he did say that they did a background check on him to get that gun. Anyway, I think the message of the movie is what is important here, and even though things may not be crystal clear to the viewer, it gets them thinking about it and that is a good thing. With Moore's slant on things, I think it is good that he didn't come to any hard conclusions in the movie. How often do movies generate any conversation aside from "that was good - did you see that part when..."

In case I haven't conveyed this yet, I love debating; just about any topic too! I'm not always right, but my arguments are based on facts that I took the time to research. So forgive me when a person in a position of authority (and unfortunately, in this country, Hollywood types DO enjoy such a position) deliberatly try to misinform people for the sake of getting attention.

The movie had many good qualities apart from the misinformation. I would rather discuss topics that don't have cold hard facts. After all, facts don't need to really be debated. I generally don't like debating, I would rather discuss things. I have my opinions, and nobody is going to change them except me. I don't like it when people try to change it for me, as usually happens in debates. Some things I am so sure about that debating them does no good in my eyes, and I don't feel comfortble trying to convince people to change their ideas either. Not that I am not open to seeing things in a different way, or even changing my mind, but it is up to me to do it.

OK, enough of this. I don't think having productive discussions is the purpose of /. :-)

Re:m&m

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how getting the name of a film movement intentionally wrong is humorous, but whatever.

Re:You're just sour on Gangs of New York because..

[Bowie J. Poag]

Of course not. It's cinema, not cheaply produced two-frame cartoon porn.

Re:You're just sour on Gangs of New York because..

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor Bowie. Such a sad little boy. Such a sad LOOSER!

Do you work for Microsoft? I figure that you might be doing that by trying to make Linux unusable on the desktop with your ugly wallpapers.

I'm trying to figure out if it is swirls of vomit or swirls of excrement. Do you make them by hanging your rear over the edge of the roof, and aim for the paper on the ground? And then use photoshop to make 20 color variations of it so you can fill up your website?

PROPAGANDA Desktop Enhancement Graphics

Shouldn't that be:

PROPAGANDA Desktop Excrement Graphics?

Re:You're just sour on Gangs of New York because..

[Bowie J. Poag]

That last troll was posted by:


McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net

McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540, United States
Tel: (706) 698-5112

Feel free to call this troll. He's lives with his mom, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to troll, another copy of his personal info will be posted immediately afterward.

Re:You're just sour on Gangs of New York because..

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an idiot.

Re:You're just sour on Gangs of New York because..

[Bowie J. Poag]

That last troll was posted by:


McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net

McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540, United States
Tel: (706) 698-5112

Feel free to call this troll. He's lives with his mom, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to troll, another copy of his personal info will be posted immediately afterward.

Re:You're just sour on Gangs of New York because..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey moron! You didn't answer the question:

I'm trying to figure out if it is swirls of vomit or swirls of excrement. Do you make them by hanging your rear over the edge of the roof, and aim for the paper on the ground? And then use photoshop to make 20 color variations of it so you can fill up your website?

Compared to what I saw on your website, you should take this as a complement.

Last Post!

[alpg]

After this was written there appeared a remarkable posthumous memoir that
throws some doubt on Millikan's leading role in these experiments. Harvey
Fletcher (1884-1981), who was a graduate student at the University of Chicago,
at Millikan's suggestion worked on the measurement of electronic charge for
his doctoral thesis, and co-authored some of the early papers on this subject
with Millikan. Fletcher left a manuscript with a friend with instructions
that it be published after his death; the manuscript was published in
Physics Today, June 1982, page 43. In it, Fletcher claims that he was the
first to do the experiment with oil drops, was the first to measure charges on
single droplets, and may have been the first to suggest the use of oil.
According to Fletcher, he had expected to be co-authored with Millikan on
the crucial first article announcing the measurement of the electronic
charge, but was talked out of this by Millikan.
-- Steven Weinberg, "The Discovery of Subatomic Particles"

Robert Millikan is generally credited with making the first really
precise measurement of the charge on an electron and was awarded the
Nobel Prize in 1923.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...