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?

[Lt Razak]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[PMuse]

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

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

[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

[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: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" ??

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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: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: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...

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

[mattbot 5000]

it wasn't anime.

The Emmy's

[wiredog]

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

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: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.

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.

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: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.

eminem

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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.

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.

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.

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?