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?

[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?

[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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[davinciII]

You mean that wasn't Steve Buscemi?

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

[PMuse]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

No Precioussssss for Andy.

[GothChip]

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

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.

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

[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 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.

Where is Nemesis?

[Mothra the III]

Surely its a better movie than any musical?

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.

Disappointed.

[DarkHelmet]

What? No Crossroads?

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

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,

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

[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.

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

[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!

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[klasker]

...are at Rotten Tomatoes.

What, you guys didn't love Juwanna Mann ?

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: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.

Filthy, stinking hobbitsess...

[Lethyos]

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

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: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.

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.

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!"

The Emmy's

[wiredog]

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

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?

[arose]

Titanic 2?

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

[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

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.

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

[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.

That would be

[DougJohnson]

The best supported actress!

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.

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'.

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: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.

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.)

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.

"

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

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

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?

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)?

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.

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.

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?