# The Oscar Buzz Thread! (Oscar Nominees Announced!)



## Mark (Dec 7, 2003)

EDIT 01-27-04 - 

howandwhy99 was kind enough to gather the nominees list...

*ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE*
Johnny Depp - PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Ben Kingsley - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Jude Law - COLD MOUNTAIN
Bill Murray - LOST IN TRANSLATION
Sean Penn - MYSTIC RIVER

*ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE*
Alec Baldwin - THE COOLER
Benicio Del Toro - 21 GRAMS
Djimon Hounsou - IN AMERICA
Tim Robbins - MYSTIC RIVER
Ken Watanabe - THE LAST SAMURAI

*ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE*
Keisha Castle-Hughes - WHALE RIDER
Diane Keaton - SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE
Samantha Morton - IN AMERICA
Charlize Theron - MONSTER
Naomi Watts - 21 GRAMS

*ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE*
Shohreh Aghdashloo - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Patricia Clarkson - PIECES OF APRIL
Marcia Gay Harden - MYSTIC RIVER
Holly Hunter - THIRTEEN
Renée Zellweger - COLD MOUNTAIN

*ANIMATED FEATURE FILM*
BROTHER BEAR
FINDING NEMO
THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE

*ART DIRECTION*
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*CINEMATOGRAPHY*
CITY OF GOD
COLD MOUNTAIN
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*COSTUME DESIGN*
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*DIRECTING*
CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER

*DOCUMENTARY FEATURE*
BALSEROS
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS
THE FOG OF WAR
MY ARCHITECT
THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND

*DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT*
ASYLUM
CHERNOBYL HEART
FERRY TALES

*FILM EDITING*
CITY OF GOD
COLD MOUNTAIN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM*
THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
EVIL
THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI
TWIN SISTERS
ŽELARY

*MAKEUP*
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

*MUSIC (SCORE)*
BIG FISH
COLD MOUNTAIN
FINDING NEMO
HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

*MUSIC (SONG)*
Into the West - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow - A MIGHTY WIND
Scarlet Tide - COLD MOUNTAIN
The Triplets of Belleville - THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE
You Will Be My Ain True Love - COLD MOUNTAIN

*BEST PICTURE*
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

*SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)*
BOUNDIN'
DESTINO
GONE NUTTY
HARVIE KRUMPET
NIBBLES

*SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)*
DIE ROTE JACKE (The Red Jacket)
MOST (The Bridge)
SQUASH
(A) TORZIJA ([A] Torsion)
TWO SOLDIERS

*SOUND*
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
SEABISCUIT

*SOUND EDITING*
FINDING NEMO
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

*VISUAL EFFECTS*
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

*WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)*
AMERICAN SPLENDOR
CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

*WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)*
THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
DIRTY PRETTY THINGS
FINDING NEMO
IN AMERICA
LOST IN TRANSLATION

EDIT 01-25-04 - Whoever gets them first, please add the Golden Globe winners to this thread. 

Let's get this started...

Much as I feel RotK should finally get its full due this year, there are some other films and performances that threaten to yank the statuettes away from my favorite.

I'm hearing Charlize Theron os being touted as Best Actress for Monster.

Chris Cooper's turn in Seabiscuit has him as a potential front runner for Supporting Actor.

Master and Commander, Cold Mountain, The Human Stain, The Last Samurai, Mona Lisa Smile, American Splendor, Lost in Translation, 21 Grams, and Mystic River all have some buzz around them either as films or for performances.

What are you hearing and any early predictions?

Edit 01-26-04 - 

Here are the Golden Globe 2004 winners...

*MOVIES*


*Best Drama* - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 

*Actor, Drama* - Sean Penn, Mystic River.

*Actress, Drama* - Charlize Theron, Monster.

*Best Musical or Comedy* - Lost in Translation.

*Actress, Musical or Comedy* - Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give.

*Actor, Musical or Comedy* - Bill Murray, Lost in Translation.

*Supporting Actress* - Renee Zellweger, Cold Mountain.

*Supporting Actor* - Tim Robbins, Mystic River.

*Director* - Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

*Screenplay* - Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation.

*Original Score* - Howard Shore, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

*Original Song* - Into the West, from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

*Foreign Language Film* - Osama, Afghanistan.


*TELEVISION*


*Best Drama* - 24 

*Actor, Drama* - Anthony LaPaglia, Without A Trace.

*Actress, Drama* - Frances Conroy, Six Feet Under.

*Best Musical or Comedy* - The Office.

*Actor, Musical or Comedy* - Ricky Gervais, The Office.

*Actress, Musical or Comedy* - Sarah Jessica Parker, Sex and the City.

*Best TV movie or Mini-series* - Angels in America.

*Actor, TV movie or Mini-series* - Al Pacino, Angels in America.

*Actress, TV movie or Mini-series* - Meryl Streep, Angels in America.

*Supporting Actor* - Jeffrey Wright, Angels in America.

*Supporting Actress* - Mary-Louise Parker, Angels in America.

*Cecil B DeMille Award* - Michael Douglas.


----------



## 2d6 (Dec 7, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> Let's get this started...
> 
> Much as I feel RotK should finally get its full due this year, there are some other films and performances that threaten to yank the statuettes away from my favorite.
> 
> ...




I have heard Cold Mountain thrown around a few times for best picture. I can't help thinking that is sad. Fellowship was passed over at the the 74th awards for "A beautiful mind", there are still two films, Two Towers passed over at the 75th awards for "Chicago", well there is still the last film, my  guess is it will be nominated and passed over for Cold Mountain or maybe Master and Commander. It is widely believed the Academy hates fantasy films.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 7, 2003)

Its funny how so many movies are less than highly regarded 10 or 20 years after they win Oscars, but other movies that fail to win are considered classics. Take for example Star Wars, and Blade Runner.

I put very little faith in Hollywood's ability to properly congratulate themselves. Actually I find the whole awards to be completely overrated and self serving with few redeeming qualities.

Of course if I had to name some favorites, I would give Robert Duvall a nomination for best actor for _Wide Open Range_. I'd nominate the writers for _T3_ and _Revolutions _ for best screenwriter. (yes, call me crazy). Otherwise I have no strong opinions.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 7, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> I'd nominate the writers for _T3_ and _Revolutions _ for best screenwriter. (yes, call me crazy).




You're crazy.  But, give me passionate crazy people anyday over dead, souless people....or as I call them....many Academy voters.

The National Board of Review just released it's list of top ten films of the year and top honors in acting, etc.  Mystic River was the top choice for film. ROTK did not appear on the top ten list, but did get Best Ensemble Cast. So, from that I'm to gather, the writing and directing sucked?   

Trust me, the Academy will not let a fantasy film win Best Film.  I hope I'm wrong, but....

Plus, this Friday, a judge ordered that screener DVDs could go out to Academy members.  This decision will help the smaller films with performances that might not have been seen otherwise, like Charlize Theron in _Monster_. I too am hearing a big buzz on her and Naomi Watts this year for Best Actress.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Dec 7, 2003)

Wow talking about being out of the loop...  I've seen not a single movie mark is talking about. 

Anyhow, CNN had some expect talking about how RotK should clean up and win 11 Oscars.  :shurgs: but who really knows.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 7, 2003)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Wow talking about being out of the loop...  I've seen not a single movie mark is talking about.



I've seen *Seabisquit* and *Master and Commander* (that one you gotta see.)



> Anyhow, CNN had some expect talking about how RotK should clean up and win 11 Oscars.  :shurgs: but who really knows.



Sigh. Are the "experts" ever right?


----------



## Gnarlo (Dec 7, 2003)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Anyhow, CNN had some expect talking about how RotK should clean up and win 11 Oscars.  :shurgs: but who really knows.




Key word there: _should_.  Will it?  No.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Dec 7, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> I've seen *Seabisquit* and *Master and Commander* (that one you gotta see.)




I tried but I married a hermit. 



			
				Gnarlo said:
			
		

> Key word there: _should_.  Will it?  No.



Well the "expert" had everything but geek written on his forehead.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 7, 2003)

I'm pretty sure we'll see The Last Samurai up for Best Picture. I'm not sure that it is (though I really really liked it), but it's definitely the kind of movie that would get nominated. As for Lost in Translation (the other Japan movie), I thought it was funny, but rather slow. I was waiting for it to end. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of the other Oscar-buzzing films. 21 Grams looks weird because the trailer made no sense. "You lose 21 grams when you die...how much does love weigh?" WTF?


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2003)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> 21 Grams looks weird because the trailer made no sense. "You lose 21 grams when you die...how much does love weigh?" WTF?




The title is confusing because it brings to mind drugs, and the advertising was just as vague.  Apparently when someone dies they lose 21 grams of body weight.  Some folks imagine this to be the loss of a soul.


----------



## Tallok (Dec 8, 2003)

Kill Bill had some really good cinematography, and Last Samurai, while very good, isn't probably best picture


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Dec 8, 2003)

A few weeks ago, *Entertainment Weekly* did an "Oscar buzz" issue.

The good news: *RotK* was listed in several categories.

The bad news: (1) It was EW, and (2) they listed about 20 potential nominees in each category.  Hardly an article about "buzz"--more like, we can narrow it down to these 20, but have no clue so we'll just list them all.

What helps *RotK* the most was Peter Jackson getting snubbed last year.  The Academy loves to give out "payback" awards for past slights.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 8, 2003)

The Golden Globe nominations should help clear up some confusion when it comes to the Oscars.  Granted, they are not always that reliable, but more often than not, GG's have been a good precursor for who is emerging as likely nominees at least.


----------



## jester47 (Dec 8, 2003)

Pesonally I think they are waiting to give out the accolades until the "whole film" is released.  If Jackson does not get best director then I think the Academy Awards will loose a lot of thier prestige, and another (percieved to be more fair) award ceremony will take prominence.  

I am expecting a one time "new" category to compensate for Lord of the Rings.  Like "best series of films filmed concurrently" or somthing like that.  

Needless to say the whole series already has six academy awards.  

I would strongly urge people to start paying attention to the AFI awards.  and BAFTA awards.  Their choices seem to make more sense to me.  

From what I hear though, Mystic River is supposed to be a big contender for Best Pictiure.

Aaron.


----------



## KenM (Dec 8, 2003)

IMO the LotR movies are one big movie becuase the filmed it all at once. If the stoped between movies, then they would be considered different films. The one award that i think will be interesting  this year is best visual effects. You have RotK, Pirates, Reloaded and Revolutions.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 8, 2003)

So, what you're really trying to say is...


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2003)

If I was a comspiracy theorist I'd suspect that they squeezed off that last Matrix flick just to deflate some of the trilogy cache LotR had going...


----------



## theburningman (Dec 8, 2003)

> If I was a comspiracy theorist I'd suspect that they squeezed off that last Matrix flick just to deflate some of the trilogy cache LotR had going...




They squeezed one off all right.  Pee-yew!  I had to light a match after that stinker.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 9, 2003)

Here are the people I see as Best Actor front-runners:

Sean Penn - Mystic River
Bill Murray - Lost in Translation
Omar Sharif - Monsieur Ibrahim
Johnny Depp - Pirates of the Caribbean

and the last spot is probably up for grabs between folks like Russell Crowe, Tom Cruise, Viggo Mortensen, and Jack Nicholson.

Personally, I think this might be Penn's year though I'd love for it to be Depp's.

Best Director: Probably going to be between Peter Jackson, Clint Eastwood, and Tim Burton

Best Picture: Return of the King Vs. Mystic River.  Typical Academy Award fodder/well acted drama Vs. culimination of the biggest fantasy trilogy ever.  6 to 1, half dozen to the other, IMO.........and yes, I'm totally biased on this one.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 10, 2003)

What I think is interesting is the relative _lack_ of Oscar buzz this year, compared to the same point in previous years. Not that there isn't some talk, just not as much as in previous years.

I think everyone is waiting for RotK to be released. It's the perceived front-runner.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 10, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Here are the people I see as Best Actor front-runners:
> 
> Sean Penn - Mystic River
> Bill Murray - Lost in Translation
> ...




Depp...nominated for _Pirates_???!!!    Granted, I believe he should get a nod for his fine work.  However, if he pulls off a Best Actor nod for a type of film the Academy's geezers despise, it will be a huge feat.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 10, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Depp...nominated for _Pirates_???!!!    Granted, I believe he should get a nod for his fine work.  However, if he pulls off a Best Actor nod for a type of film the Academy's geezers despise, it will be a huge feat.




He was very widely acclaimed for the role, both by fans and critics.  And it was just an awesome performance!  I don't think he has a shot at winning the Oscar, but the nomination....oh, yeah.  In fact, I'd say Penn and him are the only two who I'm pretty confident are a lock for nominations.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 10, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> In fact, I'd say Penn and him are the only two who I'm pretty confident are a lock for nominations.




I'm holding you to that TiQuinn....the Depp part.  If the Academy pulls another Roberto Benigni moment and fails to nominate him, you will be my shoulder to cry on...or at least offer up those pocket tissue things.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 10, 2003)

just adding *Whale Rider * - Best Foreign Film

actually does RotK count as a Foreign film?


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 11, 2003)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> just adding *Whale Rider *- Best Foreign Film
> 
> actually does RotK count as a Foreign film?



It has to be a foreign _language_ film. Films in English, or that are primarily in English, do not qualify, no matter what country they are from.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 11, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> It has to be a foreign _language_ film. Films in English, or that are primarily in English, do not qualify, no matter what country they are from.




damn well thats my hopes dashed to the ground


----------



## Spatula (Dec 11, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> If Jackson does not get best director then I think the Academy Awards will loose a lot of thier prestige, and another (percieved to be more fair) award ceremony will take prominence.



*snort* In the minds of geeks, perhaps.  But then the Academy has never cared much for geek movies.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 11, 2003)

I think Scarlett Johansson might pull a double nomination: Best Supporting Actress for "Lost in Translation" and Best Actress for "Girl With a Pearl Earring." Or the other way around. Either role could be considered lead or supporting.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 11, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> Its funny how so many movies are less than highly regarded 10 or 20 years after they win Oscars, but other movies that fail to win are considered classics. Take for example Star Wars, and Blade Runner.



_Annie Hall_, which won against _Star Wars_, is most certainly still considered a classic.

_Gandhi_, which won the year that _Blade Runner_ would have been eligible (but wasn't nominated), is also most certainly still considered a classic. 

There's no question that some great sci fi films have been completely overlooked at the Oscars, but there's no way -- in some version of an objective view -- that either _Annie Hall_ or _Gandhi_ are movies undeserving of an Oscar.

In fact I'd gladly argue that every single film that won Best Picture in the last 25 years is a great film and is highly regarded to this day:

1977: _Annie Hall_

1978: _The Deer Hunter_

1979: _Kramer vs. Kramer_

1980: _Ordinary People_

1981: _Chariots of Fire_

1982: _Gandhi_

1983: _Terms of Endearment_

1984: _Amadeus_

1985: _Out of Africa_

1986: _Platoon_

1987: _The Last Emperor_

1988: _Rain Man_

1989: _Driving Miss Daisy_

1990: _Dances With Wolves_

1991: _The Silence of the Lambs_

1992: _Unforgiven_

1993: _Schindler's List_

1994: _Forrest Gump_

1995: _Braveheart_

1996: _The English Patient_

1997: _Titanic_

1998: _Shakespeare in Love_

1999: _American Beauty_

2000: _Gladiator_

2001: _A Beautiful Mind_

2002: _Chicago_

Not all my favorite films, but all great films.

Needless to say I still want ROTK to win.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 12, 2003)

Looking over Fast Learner's list, I'm reminded of why I don't buy the argument of "The Academy doesn't like fantasy movies" as the reason why RotK won't win best picture.

If a genre movie from a genre currently in disfavor with the Academy members or looked down upon by the Academy members can transcend the boundaries of that genre, or can elevate that genre to new heights, or can reinvent that genre, the Academy will embrace it.

"The Academy doesn't like slasher/horror movies." Well, they liked "Silence of the Lambs."

"The Academy doesn't like Westerns anymore. They're dead." Well, they liked "Unforgiven."

"The Academy doesn't like musicals anymore. They're too old-fashioned, too unbelievable for hip, modern audiences." Well, they liked "Chicago."

The LotR films have certainly reinvented the genre (for the big screen, anyway), and have have elevated it to new heights. For some, it even transcends the boundaries. I don't think it being a fantasy will be that big of a hindrance with the Academy. They may dislike it for other reasons (jealousy, jingoism, spite, Jackson departed from the book), but I don't think it will be because it was a fantasy.


----------



## Mark (Dec 16, 2003)

Some of the early awards are giving it best picture but passing it over in other categories.  Strong year for film, perhaps?


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Dec 16, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Jackson departed from the book



Heck, that's almost *never* a consideration.  All the controversy about Akiva Goldsman's* adaptation of *A Beautiful Mind*" didn't hurt the film at all, even in the "Adapted Screenplay" category.





*who also wrote *Batman Forever*, *Batman and Robin*, and *Lost in Space*. {shudder}


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 16, 2003)

Oh, I would definitely argue that the Academy took leave of its senses from 1980 to 1982.

Ordinary People over Raging Bull.
Chariots of Fire over Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Gandhi over E.T. and Tootsie.

I think those were very short-sighted picks, almost on par with when "How Green Was My Valley" was picked over "Citizen Kane".


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 16, 2003)

The academy was doing well for awhile but started to get off course somewhat in the late 90s.

It seemed to start in 1994 when Forrest Gump won after destroying the Box office. While this was a great film it started a trend of rewarding commercially successful films rather than the best film.

1995 Bravehart won over Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postoino and Sense and Sensebility. Any of the other nominees were a better choice. 

1996 English Patient. Best picture IMO was Trainspottoing which was not even nominated.

1997 Titanic beats As Good as it Gets. Here is where I lost all respect. Somehow the movie that wins Best Actor and Best Actress, as well as having IMO the Best Supporting Actor is dissed in favor of $600 million in box office. This is the worst Oscar rip off in decades.

1998 Shakespeare in Love. The academy seems to be trying to make up for the Titanic fiasco. Nothing realy stands out but all five nominies are good.

1999 American Beauty. Finally I trulely deserving movie. 

2000 Gladiator. We are back to box office. This beats out Crouching Tiger, Hiden Dragon? I guess once again the accademy shows that if your film is not in English you can forget it.

2001 A Beatiful Mind. Not sure here but FotR was far better, but was its loss because  it was fantasy or part 1 of a trilogy I'm not sure. Maybe it was once again trying to make up for the previous years choice.

2002 Chicago. I this case I agree TTT was not deserving, but nothing last year really jumped out at all. Overall a weak movie year.

2003? We shall see. I will wait to see RotK before deciding if it is deserving. Even if not the Academy is sometimes willing to make things up later and this is thier last chance for LotR. I will wait to see what is nominated before jumping the gun.


----------



## Wombat (Dec 16, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Oh, I would definitely argue that the Academy took leave of its senses from 1980 to 1982.
> 
> Ordinary People over Raging Bull.
> Chariots of Fire over Raiders of the Lost Ark.
> Gandhi over E.T. and Tootsie.




Hmm, I agree that _Ordinary People_ was not the best call, but the other two?  _Chariots_ and _Gandhi_ definitely stand above their competition...

Of course that is a personal interpretation.


----------



## ASH (Dec 16, 2003)

I do not know how you can ignore RotK this year.  
I have not seen it and dont need to see it to know that it is a great movie. It should win best picture on the merit that it is the last movie in an amazing trilogy.  The fact that the last samuri, and master and command are good movies means nothing. Its usually based on policitcs and the box office. I can see Tom Cruise, or Shawn Penn winning best actor, Crowe will not win agian. The only movie I can see winning over RotK is Mysitic River, and thats because of the hype the movie gets from other actors.


----------



## Pants (Dec 16, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> I think those were very short-sighted picks, almost on par with when "How Green Was My Valley" was picked over "Citizen Kane".



Well, that was one was a blatant case of politics over quality.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 16, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The academy was doing well for awhile but started to get off course somewhat in the late 90s.
> 
> It seemed to start in 1994 when Forrest Gump won after destroying the Box office. While this was a great film it started a trend of rewarding commercially successful films rather than the best film.
> 
> 1995 Bravehart won over Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postoino and Sense and Sensebility. Any of the other nominees were a better choice.



Are you saying that Braveheart won because it was a commercially successful film? Apollo 13 and Babe both did better at the box office that year than Braveheart.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 1997 Titanic beats As Good as it Gets. Here is where I lost all respect. Somehow the movie that wins Best Actor and Best Actress, as well as having IMO the Best Supporting Actor is dissed in favor of $600 million in box office. This is the worst Oscar rip off in decades.



Please. As Good as It Gets is an average movie at best. Of the nominees that year, only L.A. Confidential is arguably better than Titanic. Titanic takes a lot of criticism because of its success, but it is a very good movie.




			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 1998 Shakespeare in Love. The academy seems to be trying to make up for the Titanic fiasco. Nothing realy stands out but all five nominies are good.



Nothing really stands out? Saving Private Ryan getting beat by Shakespeare in Love is the worst Oscar rip off in decades. Shakespeare in Love is good, but nowhere near as good as Saving Private Ryan.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 16, 2003)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> A few weeks ago, *Entertainment Weekly* did
> 
> What helps *RotK* the most was Peter Jackson getting snubbed last year.  The Academy loves to give out "payback" awards for past slights.




How was he snubbed last year?  He should have won for FoTR, but TT was a pale shadow of the first movie in terms of character, story, and action.   If I didn't read the box I'd have sword that someone else had directed TT, let's hope he redeemed himself in RotK, and didn't butcher the story too much this time.


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Dec 16, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Needless to say the whole series already has six academy awards.



Unfortunately the awards that LotR won vs. A Beautiful Mind weren't the 'heavyweight' awards. If you were a director, would you rather walk away with Best Picture or Best Cinematography?

YMMV of course.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 17, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 2000 Gladiator. We are back to box office. This beats out Crouching Tiger, Hiden Dragon? I guess once again the accademy shows that if your film is not in English you can forget it.



CTHD won Best Foreign Language Film, so it seems unlikely it would have gotten Best Picture as well (has that ever happened?).  The other nominees were not so hot IMO.







> 1996 English Patient. Best picture IMO was Trainspottoing which was not even nominated.



Huh, I could have sworn Fargo won that one for some reason.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Dec 17, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> CTHD won Best Foreign Language Film, so it seems unlikely it would have gotten Best Picture as well (has that ever happened?).



No.  It's rare for foreign films to get nominations in the "major" categories.




			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> The other nominees were not so hot IMO.Huh, I could have sworn Fargo won that one for some reason.



Nope; Fargo won Best Actress (Francis McDormand) and one of the Screenplay awards.  The English Patient won Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actress (Juliette Binoche).  I think Geoffrey Rush won Best Actor that year for Shine.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 17, 2003)

Having just seen RotK last night not only does it stand alone as a great movie but it makes up for TT. Definitely the best of the three even holding up better than FotREE (Can't wait for RotKEE). Unless politics conspires RotK could easily win Best Picture and Best Director on its own merits. I definitely see Best Actor and Actress going elsewhere. Not that the cast wasn't stellar but probably not best of the year. Andy Serkis is already getting media buzz for a Best Supporting Actor nomination at least. Jackson includes an opening sequence of Smeagol and Deagol giving Serkis the non-cgi footage he needs. While I would like to see Miranda Otto nominated for Supporting Actress it is hard to judge without having seen the competition (Supporting Actresss nominations often go to smaller films).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 17, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> CTHD won Best Foreign Language Film, so it seems unlikely it would have gotten Best Picture as well (has that ever happened?).




This is the mindset problem with the academy. Both CTHD and Il Postino were deserving films but the academy seems to feel that they can give them Foreign Language honors and this makes up for denying them best picture. Why is it so hard for the academy to get it that something other than an English Language film may be the best picture in a given year.


----------



## theburningman (Dec 17, 2003)

While I think it would be great if RotK won Best Picture, I would still rather see an special Oscar for Extraordinary Contribution to Filmmaking for the entire Lord of the Rings movie.

_That_ would be the kind of accolade this movie deserves.


----------



## Endur (Dec 18, 2003)

Braveheart was better than any of the other 1995 films.  

As Good as it Gets got the acting awards that it deserved.  I don't think it qualifies as a Best Picture.  LA Confidential, on the other hand, was an awesome movie that should have been a Best Picture.

The director's cut of Gladiator probably does inch out over Crouching Tiger, but I agree that the theatre version didn't deserve to win (although Russell Crow certainly deserved the oscar).

FOTR should have won 2001.  I'm certain ROTK will win 2003.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 1995 Bravehart won over Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postoino and Sense and Sensebility. Any of the other nominees were a better choice.
> 
> 1997 Titanic beats As Good as it Gets. Here is where I lost all respect. Somehow the movie that wins Best Actor and Best Actress, as well as having IMO the Best Supporting Actor is dissed in favor of $600 million in box office. This is the worst Oscar rip off in decades.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 18, 2003)

If memory serves, the Golden Globes are announced tomorrow.  Those nominations should give a clue as to how the wind is blowing for the Oscar's this year.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 18, 2003)

Golden Globe Nominations 

I'm curious to hear others comment. So far, I've only seen two of the films nomainted for Best Drama (Seabiscuit and Master and Commander).  But, both were very good and I'm glad to see they were not overlooked.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 18, 2003)

ACK!  No Johnny Depp for Pirates of the Caribbean!

But I don't even have a hat to EAT!   

Oh, the humanity!

EDIT: OOOPS!  Nevermind!  He's in the Best Comedy Actor category.  My Oscar hopes of seeing him nominated are still alive!


----------



## Storminator (Dec 18, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> The director's cut of Gladiator probably does inch out over Crouching Tiger, but I agree that the theatre version didn't deserve to win (although Russell Crow certainly deserved the oscar).




I must be in the minority, but I thought Gladiator was boring. About 2/3 of the way thru I turned it off. I later forced myself to watch the end (couldn't stand to start over from the beginning), but I was thoroughly unimpressed.

PS


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 18, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *In fact I'd gladly argue that every single film that won Best Picture in the last 25 years is a great film and is highly regarded to this day*





You could argue it, but you'd have a hard time doing so. The Acedemy has had some good choices in that time span, but several of their selections are mediocre movies (_Deer Hunter_, _The Last Emperor_, _Shakespeare in Love_, _American Beauty_, _Gladiator_, _A Beautiful Mind_) or outright crap (_Kramer vs. Kramer_, _Ordinary People_, _Terms of Endearment_, _Platoon_, _The English Patient_, _Titanic_).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 18, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> You could argue it, but you'd have a hard time doing so. The Acedemy has had some good choices in that time span, but several of their selections are mediocre movies (_Deer Hunter_, _The Last Emperor_, _Shakespeare in Love_, _American Beauty_, _Gladiator_, _A Beautiful Mind_) or outright crap (_Kramer vs. Kramer_, _Ordinary People_, _Terms of Endearment_, _Platoon_, _The English Patient_, _Titanic_).




We disagree on a bunch of these. _Deer Hunter_ and _American Beauty_ I thought were very good films. _Kramer vs. Kramer_ and  _Terms of Endearment_ were at least above average. And _Platoon_ I think is one of the best most powerful films of the last 25 years.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 18, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *We disagree on a bunch of these. Deer Hunter and American Beauty I thought were very good films.*





We aren't talking about good films. We are talking about films that "will be remembered as classics" (the bar set by an earlier poster). They were okay movies, but nothing particularly special overall.



> *Kramer vs. Kramer and  Terms of Endearment were at least above average.*




I found both to be awful. Boring, unlikable characters, weak script, lousy filming, and so on.



> *And Platoon I think is one of the best most powerful films of the last 25 years.*





It is an Oliver Stone masturbation fantasy with no plot, stock characters, and a weak message.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 18, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> We aren't talking about good films. We are talking about films that "will be remembered as classics" (the bar set by an earlier poster). They were okay movies, but nothing particularly special overall.




From everything I have seen I am under the impression that _Deer Hunter_ and _Terms of Endearment_ are classics. _American Beauty_ is still too new to make that judgement. As for _Platoon_ I am certainly not alone in finding this a great movie.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Dec 18, 2003)

Bah. No supporting actor or actress nods for RotK?

I'm seeing the way the wind is blowing here. RotK will get the same old awards (cinema, effects) and get stiffed on the rest.

My gut says Eastwood or Weir will get Director and Master and Commander will get Picture. (talking academy awards here...RotK will do well in the Globes)


----------



## ASH (Dec 18, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I must be in the minority, but I thought Gladiator was boring. About 2/3 of the way thru I turned it off. I later forced myself to watch the end (couldn't stand to start over from the beginning), but I was thoroughly unimpressed.



I have to agree with you there.
I disliked Gladiator quite a bit and have never really cared for any Crowe movie. It dont know if it has anything to do with him, or if its just the movies he choses to be in.

I have not seen master and commander but my gut tells me that it will not win. Based more on politics than the movie.

After watching RotK I am upset that Sam(Sean Astin) did not get nominated for, at the very least, best supporting actor. His performance was incredible. It was worthy of best actor in my opinion. Its not like he is a new face... I mean he was in the Goonies!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> From everything I have seen I am under the impression that _Deer Hunter_ and _Terms of Endearment_ are classics. _American Beauty_ is still too new to make that judgement. As for _Platoon_ I am certainly not alone in finding this a great movie.




Most definately!  While ToE is a pile of sinking crap IMO, it is considered a classic according to most sources I've read.  Same with the Deer Hunter, though it was at least a decent movie.  

Platoon, well my dad and all his vetran friends thought it was amazing.  I remember my dad crying in the theater when he took us to see it.  It was the first 'nam flick to "get it" as he said.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 19, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Platoon, well my dad and all his vetran friends thought it was amazing.  I remember my dad crying in the theater when he took us to see it.  It was the first 'nam flick to "get it" as he said.




Interesting.  My father also served in Viet Nam (and has bullet riddled clothing and a medal or two still as a reminder) and he thought that Platoon was terrible.  In his words it was, "A buncha crap."

OT, but the bullet riddled trousers mentioned above are absolutely amazing.  After being air lifted out of heavy combat my dad noticed them and counted 36 holes.  He wasn't hit once.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 19, 2003)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> Interesting. My father also served in Viet Nam (and has bullet riddled clothing and a medal or two still as a reminder) and he thought that Platoon was terrible. In his words it was, "A buncha crap."



I think your father's reaction is the interesting one. All of the Vietnam vets I've ever talked to about the movie say it was the first movie to get the experience right. When the movie came out, I interviewed several vets who had seen the movie for a newspaper story. We have a large VA hospital here in town. Everyone I talked to said it was very realistic, and put them right there "back in the s***," as they called it.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 19, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> I'm curious to hear others comment. So far, I've only seen two of the films nomainted for Best Drama (Seabiscuit and Master and Commander). But, both were very good and I'm glad to see they were not overlooked.



Well, I've seen all the drama nominees minus Cold Mountain, and all the comedy nominees minus Big Fish.

Among the dramas, RotK is the best, followed by Mystic River, then Master and Commander. Among the comedies, Lost in Translation is best followed by Finding Nemo, then Love Actually.


----------



## Mark (Jan 15, 2004)

So let's get this thread up to speed...

Can everyone add whatever they know, even if it is just links to other threads with some buzz, so we can hang on to all this in one place for the archives.  (We'll be itching to know what we thoughts at this time when next year rolls around, I'll wager.)


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 15, 2004)

Here is the link to Hollywood Stock Exchange and what people there consider to be the most likely nominees in the major categories.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jan 16, 2004)

*SAG Nominations*

The Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) Nominations, another excellent Oscar precursor, were announced yesterday with some surprises.

SAG Nominations 

Additionally, TiQuinn, I'm becoming more and more a believer that you will prove to be dead on right and Johnny Depp might get nominated for POTC.  I still have that bad feeling in my stomach that the Academy won't do it, but the SAG nomination does show there is still very strong support for him to get the nod.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 16, 2004)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> The Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) Nominations, another excellent Oscar precursor, were announced yesterday with some surprises.
> 
> SAG Nominations
> 
> Additionally, TiQuinn, I'm becoming more and more a believer that you will prove to be dead on right and Johnny Depp might get nominated for POTC.  I still have that bad feeling in my stomach that the Academy won't do it, but the SAG nomination does show there is still very strong support for him to get the nod.




Well, I think the big difference maker here is that PotC was well-received both by critics and the audience, with Depp being the lynchpin in the reviews.  But we'll see!


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 17, 2004)

I think SAG was trying to send the Academy a message with its nominations. SAG appears to be trying to bring attention to some non-conventional acting choices, at least non-conventional in regards to performances that the Academy usually nominates.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 17, 2004)

I really liked a lot of the films that came out this year as opposed to the last couple of years.  Here's the sight I use to scan ahead of time what I might want to go see.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/

It's nice because sometimes I will see a trailer that looks really interesting or just get roped into seeing a movie with friends who are set on certain film.  By checking the scores and those reviewers I tend to agree with at the site I can avoid the really horrible movies.  (like this year's Cat in the Hat)

Here's my take on the general categories:

Best Picture:

BP is a really difficult choice this year with "Lost in Translation" and "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" (RotK) being the two big front runners.   The two films couldn't be more different either.  RotK is a huge fan favorite; a real blockbuster which has been building support for the last two years.  It has quite a bit of financial success behind it, if somewhat of a ballooned (IMO) critical success.  The movie itself is long, but never dull and while I wasn't sure about the theatrical releases, the extended home versions of the film are real deal.  It is an epic fantasy, and though the Academy really doesn't vote for SciFi or Fantasy (see the post on ET earlier), it tends to give up Oscar to the epics most everytime.

Lost in Translation (LoT) on the other hand is more in the tradition of film than movie.  It seems more like a French film masquerading as an American film set in Japan.  By which I mean it isn't trying to so much tell a story as evoke a mood.  If Rotk can resurrect the fantasy genre, than maybe LoT can bring the arthouse film to the masses.  Sofia Coppola writes and directs LoT what might be an autobiographical tale (which she denies), but the similarities between her and the main character are many.  Check Sofia out in Godfather III for the look and style alone.  

The outsider, I think, is Mystic River which Clint Eastwood has been promoting as his last great film.  I actually don't like almost all of his directed work, but the script and sheer quality of acting in the film (not to mention Eastwood's own considerable clout), might allow it to nab Oscar out from under the big two.

Best Actor:

This category really belongs to Sean Penn in my opinion as he has had a breakout year giving two incredible performances in two very good movies (Mystic River & 21 Grams).  The funny thing is that Bill Murray has been picking up more nominations from other societies than anyone else.  I must admit I've found him hilarious in Rushmore where he played um... himself I guess.  But seeing the same portrayal done twice (now in LoT above) it loses somewhat of its charm for me.  Unlike his Groundhog's Day role which I seem to be able to watch over and over and...  Oh well, it's just Oscar.  

Best Actress:

Whew!  I must admit I haven't seen the movie Monster, but it sounds like the award is Charlize Theron's to lose.   Since I still have one more movie to see, I can't really tell you my take, but look for Naomi Watts (21 Grams), Scarlett Johansson (LoT & new Hollywood IT girl), Diane Keaton (Something's Got to Give), and Nicole Kidman (Cold Mountain) to show up in the nominations.

Best Supporting Actress:

If Scarlett Johansson isn’t nominated above, she will be here.  I’m thinking some other nominees will be: Patricia Clarkson (Pieces of April), Renee Zellweger (Cold Mountain), and Hope Davis (The Secret Lives of Dentists or American Graffiti).  I can’t really say who will win in this category either, but who get nominated how and which picture takes home the Oscar is likely to have a lot to do with it.

Best Supporting Actor:

I’ll be upfront and say the I would like to see Alec Baldwin win this for “The Cooler”.  Outside of Sauron, his character might be the most evil on screen this past year.  If you remember seeing him in Glengary Glenross, then you will have an inkling of what I mean.  The critic’s favorite this year is Peter Sarsgaard in “Shattered Glass”.  This is another one I’ve missed, but one the list to see.

Best Director:

Last, but not least, is Best Director.  This is probably the most hotly contested category of them all.  The three main contenders mirror the nominees I mentioned for Best Picture, being Sofia Coppola (LoT), Peter Jackson (RotK), and Clint Eastwood (Mystic River).  I would guess the Golden Globes got it right and Peter Weir (Master and Commander) and Anthony Minghella (Cold Mountain) round out the category.  

I believe Clint Eastwood is really pushing for this, but seeing as he has already won for “Unforgiven”, I believe he hampered by it in such a close race.  Peter Jackson did what many thought impossible by making the “LotR” into a real, watchable film and Sofia Coppola made what might be the year’s best film in only her second effort.  

My guess?  Seeing as in 73 years only 2 other female directors have even been nominated for the Best Director Award (none have won), Sofia Coppola will take home the Oscar.  

My other guess is that giving Coppola the Best Director award means the Academy will divvy up the prizes and give LotR Best Picture.  Given their penchant the last few years for rewarding big pictures while more and more movies are being made on smaller budgets, I think LotR will pull through in the end.


----------



## Mark (Jan 17, 2004)

Here's a site from 1998, but it has a lot of catelogued information from awards shows past (and a list of many other awards besides the Oscars, with links!)

http://members.aol.com/reedyb/oscar/awards/awards.htm


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 18, 2004)

This campaign by Miramax to put Cold Mountain up is absolutely disgusting at this point in Los Angeles.  Anyone else in this area know what I am talking about?

I cannot listen to the radio anymore without hearing an ad for why Cold Mountain is the best picture of the year every other advertising break!


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jan 19, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> This campaign by Miramax to put Cold Mountain up is absolutely disgusting at this point in Los Angeles.  Anyone else in this area know what I am talking about?
> 
> I cannot listen to the radio anymore without hearing an ad for why Cold Mountain is the best picture of the year every other advertising break!




Wait a minute???!!!  A Miramax campaign being called disgusting???!!!

Color me stunned.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 19, 2004)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Wait a minute???!!!  A Miramax campaign being called disgusting???!!!
> 
> Color me stunned.




Yeah, okay, this happens every year.  I can still whine about it like a little baby, can't I?


----------



## Mark (Jan 26, 2004)

Whoever gets them first, please add the Golden Globe winners to this thread.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 26, 2004)

If it makes you feel better Mistwell, I'm really rooting _against_ Cold Mountain.  The English Patient (by the same guy) was a steaming pile of overhyped crap.  Sure, it was a decent story, but not _nearly_ Oscar material.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jan 26, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> I think your father's reaction is the interesting one. All of the Vietnam vets I've ever talked to about the movie say it was the first movie to get the experience right. When the movie came out, I interviewed several vets who had seen the movie for a newspaper story. We have a large VA hospital here in town. Everyone I talked to said it was very realistic, and put them right there "back in the s***," as they called it.




I think it was more the individual characters in the film and the rampant drug use that he didn't care for.  While it may have been a very common thing over there, it wasn't something that he personally put up with as a platoon leader himself.  He was bent on surviving the experience and getting back home in one piece and wouldn't put up with anyone endangering him or the rest of his men.


----------



## Pants (Jan 26, 2004)

*Update*

RotK just got 2 Golden Globes

Best Original Score and Best Original Song ("Into the West.")

Frankly, I don't remember that song at all.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jan 26, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> RotK just got 2 Golden Globes
> 
> Best Original Score and Best Original Song ("Into the West.")
> 
> Frankly, I don't remember that song at all.




Were you one of those folks that left when the One Ring was destroyed?  Or when Aragorn was crowned king?  Or when the hobbits made it back to the Shire?  Or when Gandalf, the Elves, and the Bagginses sailed off to the Gray Havens?  If so, then you missed it.    
It played over the credits.


----------



## Pants (Jan 26, 2004)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> Were you one of those folks that left when the One Ring was destroyed?  Or when Aragorn was crowned king?  Or when the hobbits made it back to the Shire?  Or when Gandalf, the Elves, and the Bilbos sailed off to the Gray Havens?  If so, then you missed it.
> It played over the credits.



Heh, I usually never stay for the credits, no wonder I missed it.

And was it just me or did the score for RotK sound much weaker that FotR and tTT?  I remember being wowed a bunch of times by the soundtrack in them ,but I don't remember that happening in RotK.


----------



## MEG Hal (Jan 26, 2004)

*PJ best director at Golden Globes!!*

PJ best director at Golden Globes!!


----------



## KenM (Jan 26, 2004)

Return of the King Best Golden Globe drama, its about time.    I did think they should have had a little more time for PJ and company to give they're thanks.
Take that, Cold Mountin.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 26, 2004)

And RotK wins for Best Drama!

Damn you KenM, now I must go pay penance to your MAD typing SKILLZ.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 26, 2004)

Sweet!  Who won for best actress? I hope it was Therron. But if not, there are others worthy of contention.


----------



## MEG Hal (Jan 26, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Sweet!  Who won for best actress? I hope it was Therron. But if not, there are others worthy of contention.




Yup Theron.....

What a good night for once, come on Oscars!


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 26, 2004)

Excellent. I loved Monster and I felt it was certainly an Oscar worthy preformance by Theron. She completely steps outside herself, a complete make over and yet you can see her in her eyes.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 26, 2004)

I will admit, tonights Golden Globes certainly ups the odds on LOTR getting the full round of nominations (which I thought was perhaps at risk).  It also was a good night for Lost in Translation (which was a fine movie, but not in my opinion something that should get a best picture nomination).   Cold Mountain and Mystic River both got one award each, but that was less than expected (which is good for LOTRs, since those are both competition for best picture).

I was *very* happy to see The Office get so many awards.  Best show of last several years in my opinion.

And I too was happy to see Theron get the award.  Boy does she deserve it...what a spooky role she pulled off.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 26, 2004)

I was glad to see Fran Walsh win an award, for co-writing "Into the West." And I was glad to actually _see_ Fran Walsh. If I'm not mistaken, that may be the first time she has appeared on television, at least outside of NZ. I was curious what this mystery woman looked like.

I remember reading a story after the first LotR film was released that she and Peter had decided, for the sake of keeping life fairly normal for their children, that he was more or less the public figure of the family, and she would remain in the background. No photographs or news footage of her was ever allowed. That way, she didn't have to worry about being besieged by fans if she was out shopping with their children. I guess her anonymity is blown now.


----------



## Mark (Jan 26, 2004)

Here are the Golden Globe 2004 winners...

*MOVIES*


*Best Drama* - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 

*Actor, Drama* - Sean Penn, Mystic River.

*Actress, Drama* - Charlize Theron, Monster.

*Best Musical or Comedy* - Lost in Translation.

*Actress, Musical or Comedy* - Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give.

*Actor, Musical or Comedy* - Bill Murray, Lost in Translation.

*Supporting Actress* - Renee Zellweger, Cold Mountain.

*Supporting Actor* - Tim Robbins, Mystic River.

*Director* - Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

*Screenplay* - Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation.

*Original Score* - Howard Shore, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

*Original Song* - Into the West, from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

*Foreign Language Film* - Osama, Afghanistan.


*TELEVISION*


*Best Drama* - 24 

*Actor, Drama* - Anthony LaPaglia, Without A Trace.

*Actress, Drama* - Frances Conroy, Six Feet Under.

*Best Musical or Comedy* - The Office.

*Actor, Musical or Comedy* - Ricky Gervais, The Office.

*Actress, Musical or Comedy* - Sarah Jessica Parker, Sex and the City.

*Best TV movie or Mini-series* - Angels in America.

*Actor, TV movie or Mini-series* - Al Pacino, Angels in America.

*Actress, TV movie or Mini-series* - Meryl Streep, Angels in America.

*Supporting Actor* - Jeffrey Wright, Angels in America.

*Supporting Actress* - Mary-Louise Parker, Angels in America.

*Cecil B DeMille Award* - Michael Douglas.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jan 26, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Cold Mountain and Mystic River both got one award each




Two actually for _Mystic River_ as Penn and Robbins were both honored.


----------



## Mark (Jan 26, 2004)

Okie doke, my guesses...

Mystic River is a fine actor's showcase, but it really could be deserving of an Oscar for best picture and best director, too.  It may be that we'll see LotR: RotK get the best picture and best director, then the academy has an excuse to squeeze off a lifetime achievement award to Clint.  I think they thiought he would curl up and die soon after Unforgiven (not that it wasn't a deserving winner).  I'll guess Theron for best actress (not a tough call).  And in keeping with typical hollywood politicing, let's go with Zellweger for supporting (semi-snubbed when the gave Kidman best and Zeta-Jones supporting last year).  Also, by going with RotK for best pic it opens them up to spreading the acting awards around, so look for them to snub Penn in favor of Murray, and I think they might have to go with Robbins if only to make sure Mystic River gets something and legitimizes their voting process.  Oh, and figure RotK for about five or six other technical awards.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 26, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> That way, she didn't have to worry about being besieged by fans if she was out shopping with their children.




Ha.  Keeping her anonymous wouldn't help if she had the children with her.

Given their closeups as "Cute Hobbit Children", as "Cute Rohan Children", and as "Cute Gondorian Children" in all three films...

-Hyp.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 27, 2004)

And the Oscar noms just came out.....


...and Johnny Depp got nominated for Best Actor for Pirates of the Caribbean!


----------



## KenM (Jan 27, 2004)

Sean Astin did not get nominated for best suporting, he got screwed.   Cold Mountian did not get Best picture and Nicole Kidman did not get nominated best actress.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jan 27, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Cold Mountian did not get Best picture and Nicole Kidman did not get nominated best actress.



Which balances out Sean Astin getting screwed. 

Cold Mountain looked like the most boring, over-bloated, hollywood crap this year--it's nice to see the Academy actually realizing that and giving nominations to more deserving pictures.

LotR has 11 nominations, and Master and Commander has 10.  But with no acting nominations, I think this will be a "spread the love around" kind of year once again.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 27, 2004)

*And the nominees are:*

*ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE*
Johnny Depp - PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Ben Kingsley - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Jude Law - COLD MOUNTAIN
Bill Murray - LOST IN TRANSLATION
Sean Penn - MYSTIC RIVER

*ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE*
Alec Baldwin - THE COOLER
Benicio Del Toro - 21 GRAMS
Djimon Hounsou - IN AMERICA
Tim Robbins - MYSTIC RIVER
Ken Watanabe - THE LAST SAMURAI

*ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE*
Keisha Castle-Hughes - WHALE RIDER
Diane Keaton - SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE
Samantha Morton - IN AMERICA
Charlize Theron - MONSTER
Naomi Watts - 21 GRAMS

*ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE*
Shohreh Aghdashloo - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Patricia Clarkson - PIECES OF APRIL
Marcia Gay Harden - MYSTIC RIVER
Holly Hunter - THIRTEEN
Renée Zellweger - COLD MOUNTAIN

*ANIMATED FEATURE FILM*
BROTHER BEAR
FINDING NEMO
THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE

*ART DIRECTION*
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*CINEMATOGRAPHY*
CITY OF GOD
COLD MOUNTAIN
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*COSTUME DESIGN*
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*DIRECTING*
CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER

*DOCUMENTARY FEATURE*
BALSEROS
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS
THE FOG OF WAR
MY ARCHITECT
THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND

*DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT*
ASYLUM
CHERNOBYL HEART
FERRY TALES

*FILM EDITING*
CITY OF GOD
COLD MOUNTAIN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

*FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM*
THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
EVIL
THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI
TWIN SISTERS
ŽELARY

*MAKEUP*
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

*MUSIC (SCORE)*
BIG FISH
COLD MOUNTAIN
FINDING NEMO
HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

*MUSIC (SONG)*
"Into the West" - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
"A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" - A MIGHTY WIND
"Scarlet Tide" - COLD MOUNTAIN
"The Triplets of Belleville" - THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE
"You Will Be My Ain True Love" - COLD MOUNTAIN

*BEST PICTURE*
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

*SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)*
BOUNDIN'
DESTINO
GONE NUTTY
HARVIE KRUMPET
NIBBLES

*SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)*
DIE ROTE JACKE (The Red Jacket)
MOST (The Bridge)
SQUASH
(A) TORZIJA ([A] Torsion)
TWO SOLDIERS

*SOUND*
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
SEABISCUIT

*SOUND EDITING*
FINDING NEMO
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

*VISUAL EFFECTS*
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

*WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)*
AMERICAN SPLENDOR
CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

*WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)*
THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
DIRTY PRETTY THINGS
FINDING NEMO
IN AMERICA
LOST IN TRANSLATION


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jan 27, 2004)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> And the Oscar noms just came out.....
> 
> 
> ...and Johnny Depp got nominated for Best Actor for Pirates of the Caribbean!




And props to you for being so right!    I think I counted 4 o 5 nominations overall for _Pirates of the Caribbean_. Not bad for a summer film.  So okay Swami TiQuinn, since you were so right about Johnny, willing to make some predictions already?


----------



## Liquid Snake (Jan 27, 2004)

*Johnny Depp & Open Range*

Wow Johnny Depp for Best Actor, I really wasn't expecting that. He was hilarious, and the role was like nothing he had ever done, but is it really worth a nomination?

Hmm, 'Open Range' is nowhere to be seen and that's pity, because it's a great movie. I'm no Costner fan, but that movie has a great story, a pretty good directing, an excellent climax fight -for the action-seekers- and a superb acting from Robert Duvall -an excellent potrayal of a non-paladin lawful good character by the way-.


----------



## Mark (Jan 27, 2004)

Thanks howandwhy99!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 27, 2004)

I hope Bill Murray gets the award.  A man of his genius should be showered with awards IMO.


----------



## CSB046 (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid Snake said:
			
		

> Wow Johnny Depp for Best Actor, I really wasn't expecting that. He was hilarious, and the role was like nothing he had ever done, but is it really worth a nomination?




I was shocked at the nomination too, though I thought he really did deserve it.  Yes, it was a comedic performance (which the Academy often overlooks), but he just "inhabited" that character to such a degree...every bit of speech, every mannerism, every move.  Definitely Oscar worthy in my opinion.

Mind you, I don't think he has a chance to win (go with Sean Penn or Bill Murray in your Oscar pools), but I'm really glad to see his name on the list.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 27, 2004)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> And props to you for being so right!    I think I counted 4 o 5 nominations overall for _Pirates of the Caribbean_. Not bad for a summer film.  So okay Swami TiQuinn, since you were so right about Johnny, willing to make some predictions already?




Thanks, Sirius!  Let's see....actual predictions....

Best Pic: Return of the King
Best Director: Peter Jackson, though I have a sneaking suspicion that Sofia Coppola might grab this.
Best Actor: Sean Penn
Best Actress: Charlize Theron
Best Supporting Actor: Tim Robbins
Best Supporting Actress: Renee Zellweger
Best Visual Effects: Pirates of the Caribbean


----------



## KenM (Jan 27, 2004)

I'm sorry, TiQuinn, but IMO RotK will take best visual effects.  I am a little surpised none of the Matrix movies got nominated for any of the the Tech. awards.


----------



## Starman (Jan 27, 2004)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> Which balances out Sean Astin getting screwed.
> 
> Cold Mountain looked like the most boring, over-bloated, hollywood crap this year--it's nice to see the Academy actually realizing that and giving nominations to more deserving pictures.




Kind of harsh, don't you think, for a movie that you imply you haven't seen. I thought it was excellent, much better than Minghella's previous big winner _The English Patient_. 

I was also disappointed to not see Sean Astin nominated in the Supporting Actor category. On the other hand, I was very pleasantly surprised to see Ken Watanabe nominated for _The Last Samurai_. Cruise was good but Watanabe made the movie for me.

I think Nicole Kidman deserved a nomination over Diane Keaton. That said, however, I believe Charlize Theron deserves the win for her outstanding performance in _Monster_.

I was disappointed to see _Seabiscuit _ get a nom for Best Picture. While it was an alright film, it was too trite and formulaic. _The Last Samurai _ or _Cold Mountain _ were far more deserving of nods.

Of course, like many others I was ecstatic to see Johnny Depp get a nod for his role in Pirates. Maybe the Academy is losing some of its snobbery. Maybe.

Starman


----------



## Starman (Jan 27, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, TiQuinn, but IMO RotK will take best visual effects.  I am a little surpised none of the Matrix movies got nominated for any of the the Tech. awards.




The Academy can be quick to overlook a film's technical achievements if the film was not very highly regarded, i.e. the Matrix sequels.

Starman


----------



## Liquid Snake (Jan 27, 2004)

I can't believe '21 Grams' wasn't nominated for Editing. The editor from that movie did a superb work to make the movie understandable even though it wasn't linear at all.

This reminds of the tiem 'Black Hawk Down' beat 'Memento' on that same category. That sucked.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jan 27, 2004)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Thanks, Sirius!  Let's see....actual predictions....
> 
> Best Pic: Return of the King
> Best Director: Peter Jackson, though I have a sneaking suspicion that Sofia Coppola might grab this.
> ...




I concur with all of them save for Visual Effects where LOTR might pull out that win.  Murray might have a chance to beat out Penn, but I doubt it.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 28, 2004)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Best Director: Peter Jackson, though I have a sneaking suspicion that Sofia Coppola might grab this.



Coppola will win an Oscar, but not for best director. She'll get one for best original screenplay.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 28, 2004)

Starman said:
			
		

> The Academy can be quick to overlook a film's technical achievements if the film was not very highly regarded, i.e. the Matrix sequels.



Hollow Man and The Phantom Menace still got nominated.  Excluding Matrix Revolutions while giving the nod to Master and Commander is just silly.  Not that it matters since ROTK beats them all by a long shot and will obviously take the gold statue, but still, M:R at least deserved a nomination.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 28, 2004)

Wow, these noms are huge news for LOTR.  
Cold Mountain's lack of a nom for best picture is a massive blow to Miramax.  Those bastards flooded the radio airwaves with ads for that movie so much I suspect it sickened the academy members into not voting for it.  That's sad for the makers of the film, and a fine film it is.  But it does send a good message - stop trying to buy nominations.

This was also bad news for: House of Sand and Fog, Big Fish, and In America.  All were expected to get more nominations than they did.  

Big surprises were Pirates and Master and Commander.  Both got a LOT more noms than predicted.

I was really happy to see Triplets of Beliville in best animation.  I thought it was a great film.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 28, 2004)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> *ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE*
> Keisha Castle-Hughes - WHALE RIDER




13 yrs old youngest best actress nominee ever! woohoo go Keisha


----------



## Starman (Jan 28, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Hollow Man and The Phantom Menace still got nominated.  Excluding Matrix Revolutions while giving the nod to Master and Commander is just silly.  Not that it matters since ROTK beats them all by a long shot and will obviously take the gold statue, but still, M:R at least deserved a nomination.




Oh, I agree that Matrix 2&3 should have gotten some sort of nomination. I'm just not _too _ surprised that they didn't.

Starman


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 28, 2004)

I think Matrix 2&3 hurt themselves in relation to nominations by both being released in the same year. There was quite a bit of discussion about whether they should be considered one film or two for the possibility of nominations. I think many Academy members decided the best way to avoid the whole issue was not to nominate either film.


----------



## Endur (Jan 28, 2004)

I heard a rumor that the Matrix people didn't fill out any of the forms to apply for Oscar nominations.



			
				Starman said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree that Matrix 2&3 should have gotten some sort of nomination. I'm just not _too _ surprised that they didn't.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 28, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Coppola will win an Oscar, but not for best director. She'll get one for best original screenplay.




Yep, I forgot she was nominated for that.  I figured one or the other, Coppola would be up there on stage, and I thought maybe at Jackson's expense.  But you're right, she'll probably win for screenplay.

All in all, I don't see any upsets, really.  I think it's going to mirror the Globes.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Hollow Man and The Phantom Menace still got nominated. Excluding Matrix Revolutions while giving the nod to Master and Commander is just silly. Not that it matters since ROTK beats them all by a long shot and will obviously take the gold statue, but still, M:R at least deserved a nomination.



Just Silly?  Why so?  Maybe you should pick up the lastest issue of Cinefex, and see why it isn't.  Master and Commander is a hugely-effects laden film.  The fact that you think it isn't probably shows how good the effects actually were.  When you consider that it's a film that takes place almost entirely on a ship at sea, and they only filmed about a handful of shots actually on water...that's quite an accomplishment.  In fact, they asked for Weta's help, when they saw what they'd accomplished with 'bigatures' on Fellowship.

The Matrix 2/3 had some great digital work...but it wasn't terribly ground-breaking or outstanding, per se.  There was just a high volume of it.  There's more to f/x than just lots of blue-screen and green-screen shots.  I suspect the academy is starting to view CGI-based effects as, well, *lazy*.  Matrix 2 and 3 also had some very transparently CGI effects, that were very clearly effects and not actors...and was criticised by some for it.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Wow, these noms are huge news for LOTR.
> Cold Mountain's lack of a nom for best picture is a massive blow to Miramax. Those bastards flooded the radio airwaves with ads for that movie so much I suspect it sickened the academy members into not voting for it. That's sad for the makers of the film, and a fine film it is. But it does send a good message - stop trying to buy nominations.



Personally, I suspect that it's being snubbed because of Miramax's hubris.  it's commonly believed that "Shakespeare in Love"'s win was owed primarily to Miramax's very agressive marketing of the film to academy members, and Miramax announced it would be doing a blitzkreig of marketing for Cold Mountain.  I think that resulted in a backlash for the movie and for Miramax in general.  I've seen that very accusation on these boards recently, and I think it may convinve Miramax to cool their jets for a while.


What I find more interesting is how many films expected oscar nods...nay, were _depending on them_, so that they could improve their fortunes.  Normally, a film that makes $83 million at the box office wouldn't be a failure...unless it cost $140 million.  Many of the films that didn't get nominated for the big categories, like Big Fish, were depending on that buzz to improve ticket sales.  Hollywood needs to rethink that process, along with the whole marketing of blockbusters that they've been doing for the last few years, IMHO.


----------



## Mark (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The fact that you think it isn't probably shows how good the effects actually were.  When you consider that it's a film that takes place almost entirely on a ship at sea, and they only filmed about a handful of shots actually on water...that's quite an accomplishment.




I'm surprised that I haven't seen it compared (and contrasted) technology-wise to _A Perfect Storm_ anywhere but I don't get the trades.  Have you seen such discussion?


----------



## Ghostwind (Jan 28, 2004)

My wife read somewhere that the filmakers used the same equipment and setup for Master and Commander that had been for Perfect Storm -- hence the similarities.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

Mark said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that I haven't seen it compared (and contrasted) technology-wise to _A Perfect Storm_ anywhere but I don't get the trades. Have you seen such discussion?



I think it was discussed briefly in the Cinefex article (which runs thirty or so pages), but I'll admit I skimmed it.  I was there for the 120 pages of Return of the King coverage (and it's outstanding, if you're interested in hearing that sort of thing).  They used the same water tank/shooting stage that they used in the Perfect Storm, I believe...located in Mexico.  Consequently, they used many of the same techniques for filming some of the storm sequences...but the effects went considerably beyond that.

They apparently saw Fellowship, and then called Weta and asked for help, as they realized that the bigature approach would yield better results than just using CGI compositing the whole time.  They couldn't afford to go the Galapagos islands, so they used CGI effects like Weta did for the Pellenor fields to _make_ the Galapagos islands appear in a mexican desert.  They used variable size models for some of the ship-to-ship battles, and digital composoting like LotR to make it appear that the ship was at sea, when they did very few location shots for it.

I am suprised that no one's really made that comparison...but I assume it's more due to the thematic differences than the technological ones.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I think it was discussed briefly in the Cinefex article (which runs thirty or so pages), but I'll admit I skimmed it. I was there for the 120 pages of Return of the King coverage (and it's outstanding, if you're interested in hearing that sort of thing). They used the same water tank/shooting stage that they used in the Perfect Storm, I believe...located in Mexico. Consequently, they used many of the same techniques for filming some of the storm sequences...but the effects went considerably beyond that.



Wasn't that the same tank they used in Titanic?



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> They apparently saw Fellowship, and then called Weta and asked for help, as they realized that the bigature approach would yield better results than just using CGI compositing the whole time. They couldn't afford to go the Galapagos islands, so they used CGI effects like Weta did for the Pellenor fields to _make_ the Galapagos islands appear in a mexican desert. They used variable size models for some of the ship-to-ship battles, and digital composoting like LotR to make it appear that the ship was at sea, when they did very few location shots for it.
> 
> I am suprised that no one's really made that comparison...but I assume it's more due to the thematic differences than the technological ones.



I did know about the FX in M&C and certainly thought it deserved a nomination.  I also agree with your above assessment of Matrix 2/3 concerning the visuals.  I wasn't blown away by the FX in either film, especially 2.  Matrix 3 was a bit better, so I'm thinking that if the nomination were limited to 3 films then the Academy got the correct 3 films.  If it wasn't limited to 3 then a case could be made for Revolutions to be nominated.  But not over any of the other 3.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Just Silly?  Why so?



Because digital naval ship extensions and water compositing was pioneered in 1997 and polished nicely in 2000.

No one had _ever_ pulled off a live action mecha battle _or_ a Dragonball Z fight convincingly before Matrix: Revolutions, and M:R did both in the same film.



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I suspect the academy is starting to view CGI-based effects as, well, *lazy*.



Which is contradicted by the Oscar recognition WETA's Gollum and MASSIVE digital battles have received and will receive.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 28, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Because digital naval ship extensions and water compositing was pioneered in 1997 and polished nicely in 2000.
> 
> No one had _ever_ pulled off a live action mecha battle _or_ a Dragonball Z fight convincingly before Matrix: Revolutions, and M:R did both in the same film.



I would contend that the Academy doesn't care about the distinction between "mechs" and "robots."  Hence, Attack of the Clones did it first (large robot battle that is).  But that aside, I loved the hanger stuff and was truly impressed by it.  That is the most obvious part of the film that would convince me to put it in the running for visuals.  There were other scenes that workes as well, but that stuff was more subtle and non-action oriented like the train station and the approach to the Machine City.

As for the "Dragonball Z" fight, it wasn't my favorite part of the film (that would be the tunnel chase/hanger battle) nor do I think it should receive any accolades.  It wasn't all that impressive and it has been done before (although in a much shorter sequence) in Clones, with the Yoda fight.  The over-the-top action with lots of water effects just doesn't scream "give me an award."  The martial arts fights in the original Matrix were more impressive, to me.  Those were worth awards.

Overall, the parts that didn't work (for me) don't matter - there were enough impressive visuals in Revolutions to give it a nomination (but as said before, not over the 3 chosen).  I wouldn't have voted for it to win, not with Return of the King in the mix, but it could have easily been in there.


----------



## KenM (Jan 28, 2004)

Miramax must be feeling pretty good right about now. They were the studio that gave up on PJ's LotR films before New Line decided to go with it.


----------



## KenM (Jan 28, 2004)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> 13 yrs old youngest best actress nominee ever! woohoo go Keisha




  No, Jodie Foster is still the youngest to get a nomination for Bad News Bears. She was like 11 or 12.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> No, Jodie Foster is still the youngest to get a nomination for Bad News Bears. She was like 11 or 12.



An impressive feat for Foster, since she wasn't even in the film.  You're thinking, perhaps, of her nomination for Taxi Driver, when she was 14 (born in 1962, film in 1976) when it was made, and 15 at the Oscars themselves.

Tatum O'Neal did get the youngest for her work on Paper Moon, with her father, Ryan O'Neal.  That was when she was 10 years old...but that was for Supporting Actress, not Actress in a Leading Role.  She also won two golden globes for that same performance.  She was not nominated for Bad News Bears, which was also in 1976, when she would have been...13.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Because digital naval ship extensions and water compositing was pioneered in 1997 and polished nicely in 2000.
> 
> No one had _ever_ pulled off a live action mecha battle _or_ a Dragonball Z fight convincingly before Matrix: Revolutions, and M:R did both in the same film.
> 
> ...



What film in 1997 pioneered naval ship battles using bigatures and CGI compositing?  Titanic and The Perfect Storm used some of the effects, but different ones were called for in M&C.  It was more than just, "look, we're on the water!" 

Personally, I thought the final showdown between Smith and Neo to be pretty weak.  At that point, you're just watching a rendered cinematic from a video-game.  It didn't really work that well for me, particularly as a Dragonball Z fight, as they didn't really seem to do much more than brutal punches and kicks with little of the previous finese for which the series had distinguished itself.

And more importantly, as I said before, many of the effects in M2/M3 were very obviously effects, however skillful they were.  At several points, I was pulled out of my suspension of disbelief, because I was aware that Neo had become a CGI character....and that defeats what the effects were supposed to be doing.

Gollum is the exact opposite.  The motion capture technique and the combination of Andy Serkis' acting combined with weta's digital magic made you forget or ignore that Gollum wasn't real.  I don't recall MASSIVE winning any awards, but if it did (and it should) it was due to, again, not looking like a special effect.  When they show you the seen in TTT where there are NO live orcs as they approach Helm's Deep, and I had assumed they were ALL real...well, that's amazing.  Shiny CGI Neo...wasn't.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 29, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> No, Jodie Foster is still the youngest to get a nomination for Bad News Bears. She was like 11 or 12.



The youngest person ever nomiated was Justin Henry, 8, as best supporting actor for "Kramer vs. Kramer" in 1979.

The youngest person to win was Tatum O'Neal, 10, as best supporting actress for "Paper Moon."

Keisha Castle-Hughes, 13, is the youngest person ever nominated in a lead acting category.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> They couldn't afford to go the Galapagos islands, so they used CGI effects like Weta did for the Pellenor fields to _make_ the Galapagos islands appear in a mexican desert.



It's not really a question of being able to afford to go to the Galapagos Islands. The govt. of Ecuador, which owns the islands, very stricly controls access and use of the islands, to preserve them without damaging the fragile and unique ecosystems there. People are allowed to go there, but only a limited number each day, only under close supervision, everything has to be left the way it was found, and all trash has to be taken with you when you leave.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 29, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Wasn't that the same tank they used in Titanic?



Yes it was.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 29, 2004)

> Wasn't that the same tank they used in Titanic?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Yes it was.




But not the same tank they used in _Goldeneye_, right?

-Hyp.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> What film in 1997 pioneered naval ship battles using bigatures and CGI compositing?



Titanic pioneered convincing seagoing effects with neither an actual ship or an actual sea.  Bigatures are irrelevant.  CGI compositing is irrelevant, regardless of whether or not Titanic used a different form of the technology.

Its been _done._  Several times over the last seven years.  Achieving the same end result with a WETA trademark "bigature" will never be as impressive as achieving something that has not been established, or even possible in years past.

You may scoff at the digital Neo and Smith in Matrix: Revolutions, but those effects were literal _impossible_ in 1997.  The degree to which they are actually close to appearing real (even if they often don't), is a _collosal_ advancement in effects over just refining tried and true seafaring ship polishing.

And while I wouldn't have included Matrix: Reloaded in the nominations (Revolutions' effects were much better), I was shocked to learn that it was a digital Trinity who crashes through the glass out of the building at the beginning, with Carrie-Anne Moss' face composited onto the body.  Filling the screen, slow motion, and it _still_ looks real.  But I digress.  Revolutions should have gotten the nod (and only a nod, as ROTK easily takes the cake.)



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Personally, I thought the final showdown between Smith and Neo to be pretty weak.



"I'm not really interested in your opinion, 3PO."  



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Gollum is the exact opposite.  The motion capture technique and the combination of Andy Serkis' acting combined with weta's digital magic made you forget or ignore that Gollum wasn't real.  I don't recall MASSIVE winning any awards, but if it did (and it should) it was due to, again, not looking like a special effect.  When they show you the seen in TTT where there are NO live orcs as they approach Helm's Deep, and I had assumed they were ALL real...well, that's amazing.



Good, so you do recognize that the Academy isn't "starting to view CGI-based effects as lazy."


----------



## Mark (Jan 29, 2004)

Some years you look at some of the films that have been nominated and you think about the ones that are not and you wonder what they are thinking.  This year I think that there are a number of films that might have made it if the ones that were nominated weren't as strong as they are.  It's been a good year for films across the board, IMO.

Tough break for Cold Mountain but one of the reasons I purposefully didn't see it was because I was turned off by the media blitz.  It might be a great film but chances are I won't be able to confirm that for myself until it makes it to cable.

Thanks for the info on the water tank, btw.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 29, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But not the same tank they used in _Goldeneye_, right?
> 
> -Hyp.



Right. I believe that tank was first built for Titanic. Or did Cameron use it for The Abyss?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 29, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Right. I believe that tank was first built for Titanic. Or did Cameron use it for The Abyss?




So which were the tanks they used in _Courage Under Fire_?

-Hyp.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 29, 2004)

From IMDB.com -

Penn To Attend First Oscars

Actor Sean Penn will attend the Academy Awards for the first time ever this year - to support his film Mystic River. Penn, who shunned Sunday's Golden Globe awards in favor of a night in with his daughter, has refused to attend the Oscars in the past, despite three previous Best Actor nominations for I Am Sam, Sweet And Lowdown and Dead Man Walking. However, the 43-year-old - who created controversy in Hollywood last year for his high-profile Anti-Iraq War stance - will now go to the glitzy ceremony in Los Angeles next month after being nominated for his leading performance in the Clint Eastwood-directed movie. A friend tells the Pagesix website, "(He) wants to stand up for Mystic River." 


Oh, BS.

So, he didn't want to stand up for "Dead Man Walking" or "Sweet and Lowdown"?

He's there because this time he thinks he's actually going to win.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 29, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Good, so you do recognize that the Academy isn't "starting to view CGI-based effects as lazy."



No, I recognize that outstanding and completely new uses of CGi aren't viewed that way.  The Matrix had some great CGI work, and some not so great CGI work.  I'll admit that I never thought that Trinity was CGI in that shot...but every time, I thought something was odd about it, visually.  Now I know why.  

I'm not arguing that you're wrong about M2 being impossible a few years ago, but because I'm ignorant...what did they do that was not previously possible?  AFAIK, all the f/x work were possible previously, just not as quickly, due to the limitations of rendering time.

It sounds like what you're saying is that M&R wasn't the first film to do water-based f/x, and even though they invented new techiniques, it wasn't valid...but M2/M3 invented new CGI techiniques, and that _was, _because it didn't copy the same films that M&R did, thematically.  Which sounds somewhat biased, to me.

Of course, I think we both agree that RotK kicked both films collective butts, so it doesn't matter that much.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 29, 2004)

bah....Best Picture should go to "Pirates".


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jan 29, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> The youngest person ever nomiated was Justin Henry, 8, as best supporting actor for "Kramer vs. Kramer" in 1979.
> 
> The youngest person to win was Tatum O'Neal, 10, as best supporting actress for "Paper Moon."
> 
> Keisha Castle-Hughes, 13, is the youngest person ever nominated in a lead acting category.



Not quite.  Before these nominations were announced, the only minor ever nominated in the lead acting categories was Jackie Cooper, born in 1922 and nominated as Best Actor a 1931 movie based on a comic strip called *Skippy*.  

That makes him still the youngest lead acting nominee (age 9), and Keish Castle-Hughes the second youngest (age 13).

Jackie Cooper is known to more modern audiences as Perry White in the Christopher Reeve "Superman" movies.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jan 29, 2004)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> From IMDB.com -
> 
> Penn To Attend First Oscars
> 
> ...





Sean Penn is a daym good actor, but I wouldn't go to any movie just to see him act. IMHO, I think he only takes on Academy Award Generated roles and to me, that's cheap. Can you imagine Sean Penn as Captian Jack Sparrow? No, because he's not that GOOD of an actor. As much as I think that Captian Jack Sparrow was a perfect role for Johnny Depp to rediscover himself, I also think Sean Penn would have never taken the roll because it wasn't "Oscar Material". Does this mean that Johnny Depp should win over Sean Penn, no, but I do think he was willing to risk more than most actors/actress's do for a movie that he was passionate to make, and that right there, is more of a reason for me to respect him as an actor over others.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 30, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So which were the tanks they used in _Courage Under Fire_?
> 
> -Hyp.



Those tanks were provided by a British company which specializes in providing large military vehicles for movies. IIRC, the were surplus Centurions modified to look like Abrams.

They used the desert near El Paso for the Middle East.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 30, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Those tanks were provided by a British company which specializes in providing large military vehicles for movies. IIRC, the were surplus Centurions modified to look like Abrams.




And none of them were the tank used in _Master and Commander_?

Just getting it clear in my head.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mark (Jan 30, 2004)

All actors have options when taking scripts and you only get offered a part when you have the chops to play the role.  Penn turned in two great performances this year, according to almost every critic.

Depp is a fine actor but playing a character that is over-the-top is not something that generally gets recognized by the academy unless there is significant growth in the role and the growth is integral to the plot of the film.

Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest (75) is a fair example but let's not forget he had been nominated the two previous years for Chinatown (74) and Last Detail (73).

Some similar roles that were nominated but didn't win might include Dustin Hoffman for WAG THE DOG (97), Billy Bob Thornton for Sling Blade (96), or Nigel Hawthorne for The Madness Of King George (94).  Excellent portrayals but do they really challenge the actor to bring more than an extrordinary amount of energy to the part and a unique perspective (arguably, in the case of Hoffman and Depp, for the performance being "novel" because we all know who it is playing the part)?

A perfect example of this mindset when roles of both those natures go head to head would be in 1985.  F. Murray Abraham won for his role in Amadeus over his fellow nominee Tom Hulce who played the over-the-top titular character.

One could contrast Dustin Hoffman's winning performance depth in Rain Man (88) to Depp's in Pirates in that Hoffman had to rein it in while Depp put it all out there.  More than a few folks believed that Edward James Olmos should have won that year for Stand And Deliver, but I think Hoffman's performance was highlighted even more strongly by Cruise's role in the film.

1991's winner, Sir Anthony Hopkins for The Silence Of The Lambs, fits the Depp/Pirates mold but if you look at the competition that year (Warren Beatty for Bugsy, Robert De Niro for Cape Fear, Nick Nolte for The Prince Of Tides, and Robin Williams for The Fisher King) you could make an argument that some of those roles were cut from a similar (outrageous) cloth making it easier to give the nod to Hopkins.

You could point to 1992's winner, Al Pacino in Scent Of A Woman when it comes to over-the-top, but the character does show growth and the competition had other obstacles (Robert Downey, Jr. in Chaplin, Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, Stephen Rea in The Crying Game, and Denzel Washington in Malcolm X).  Washington may have deserved it most, but the academy likes to snub actors who play actual people.  Crying Game suffered the same fate as The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense, IMO, having the film hinged on one main twist, and the Academy can be snubby to all involved in a production that revolves around a perceived gimmick.  Eastwood was getting best picture and director, and the Academy doesn't often like to allow a directing-actor to walk away with too many in the same year.  Downey is going to have to a lot more on screen to get the older voters to forgive him for what he does off screen, and it is a real person portrayal.

Anyway, that's how I see it but who knows who will carry off the little man when Oscar night comes.  I'm guessing that Penn's double whamy is simply to good to deny despite some folks who would prefer to snub him due to his politics.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 30, 2004)

Mark said:
			
		

> You could point to 1992's winner, Al Pacino in Scent Of A Woman when it comes to over-the-top, but the character does show growth and the competition had other obstacles (Robert Downey, Jr. in Chaplin, Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, Stephen Rea in The Crying Game, and Denzel Washington in Malcolm X). Washington may have deserved it most, but the academy likes to snub actors who play actual people. Crying Game suffered the same fate as The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense, IMO, having the film hinged on one main twist, and the Academy can be snubby to all involved in a production that revolves around a perceived gimmick. Eastwood was getting best picture and director, and the Academy doesn't often like to allow a directing-actor to walk away with too many in the same year. Downey is going to have to a lot more on screen to get the older voters to forgive him for what he does off screen, and it is a real person portrayal.



You left out the most important factor in your analysis -- Pacino had never won an Oscar before, despite being nominated 7 or 8 times! He didn't win for that performance, probably the worst of all his nominations, but because the Academy voters realized they needed to give him an Oscar. Basically a career achievement award and a makeup award all in one.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 30, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And none of them were the tank used in _Master and Commander_?
> 
> Just getting it clear in my head.
> 
> -Hyp.



Right. Tanks for playing.


----------

