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?

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

[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: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" ??

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: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: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: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.