Main things I'm happy about: LOTR is up for best picture and Johnny Depp was recognized for his fantastic work in "Pirates."
Main things I'm unhappy about: That once again the LOTR actors have been given short shrift, from Elijah Wood to Andy Serkis to--in the most frustrating omission this time--Sean Astin's gut-wrenching, tear-envoking performance as Samwise. "I may not be able to carry the ring...but I can carry you!" Has there ever been a more clear definition of "Supporting Actor" than that? Also, the title song from "School of Rock" should have been nominated, if for no other reason than the notion of Jack Black blowing the place wide open with his performance of it.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 27, 2004 10:49 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingOh, that School of Rock song! That would have been fabulous!
And I've definitely got my fingers crossed for Johnny Depp.
And yet, Satoshi Kon's overlooked while Brother Bear gets a nomination.
No bloody justice.
This is what they get for not casting Billy Boyd as Frodo.
For me the best surprise was seeing Keisha Castle-Hughes get nominated for her luminous performance in WHALE RIDER. PAD, if you haven't seen it, it's one you and your girls would love.
Have we set a record yet for year with the most nominated films with a hyphenated title? Because this year's batch ought to do it...
I'm actually pretty interested in this year's Oscar race: there's a bunch of good films/performances running against each other. There doesn't look to be a clear-cut winner in best picture, though I find "Master & Commander" and "Seabiscuit" to be the weakest of the five.
This is exactly what I worried about three years ago, when "Fellowship of the Ring" was nominated for best picture, and everyone said, "Oh, it's just a placeholder nomination until 'Return of the King' is released. That one's guaranteed to win!" And the 2001 Best Picture Oscar, instead of going to "Fellowship," went to "A Beautiful Mind." Since then, there's been the expectation that "Return of the King" would make some kind of Oscar sweep to make up for the previous three years.
And I looked at the idiotic people who told me that dreck and said, "well, what if some really really really good movie comes out in 2003, and blows everything else away? Or if several really good films gome out? Or if 'RotK' ends up being awful? What happens then?" All I got were blank looks.
Most years, the Academy seems to want to nominate pet projects and obscure stuff for awards, totally bypassing good films and good performances for no discernable reason. I fully expected Johnny Depp's performance in "Pirates" to get shafted, and I'm grateful it wasn't. But for every year the Academy pulls its head out of its ass enough to pay attention to what's going on, there's three years where politics and favoritism get mediocre movies the attention that other movies should be getting.
I could (obviously) go on, but I suspect I'm preaching to the choir. I'm just grateful for a decent round of noms this year.
That OTHER John Byrne
I went to see Master & Commander on opening night, and while I thoroughly enjoyed it, I can't see how it's getting 10 Oscar noms.
But then, when you look at the fact that it's in 8 of the same categories as Return of the King, many of them technical, maybe it isn't all that surprising.
(But how did RotK not get noms for Sound Editing and Cinematography?)
I thought The Last Samurai was better than M&C though.
Love Actually was great, and that didn't even get a Best original screenplay nod!
Ye gads.
People say how the Golden Globes are useless, yet they seemed to be more balanced, in terms of noms and winners, than the Oscar noms.
All in all, the shaft for acting noms shouldn't be surprising - too many actors getting too little screen time.
Maybe it's time the Oscars introduce an emsemble cast award as well.
I just cannot see how RotK doesn't win best film. But then the Oscars and I don't really speak the same language. I cannot stand many of the high-brow period pieces and low-budget films that dominate the awards. But somehow I doubt that genre films will ever get the respect they deserve.
I am thrilled, therefore, about Depp's nomination. And equally nonplussed that the ROtK cast was ignored. So too, though, were the casts of M&C and Seabiscut. Clearly, actors are not that important unless you have a film like Mystic River, which in the hands of a more pretentious director and a lesser cast could have been awful. (OK, without Jackson the LotR films wouldn't even exist, but I think changes in the general cast wouldn't have harmed these films that much.)
Lastly, I find it cool that Michael McKean and Annette O'Toole are up for an Oscar for "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow." Way to go, Martha Kent and Perry White!
I'd love it if, as the news / entertainment shows announce the nominations throughout the day, Johnny Depp's name were accompanied by the clip of him slurring: "I think I d'served that one."!
Hooper
Adding to all the comments above, I'd point out that comics fans who keep track of such things should be duly impressed at American Splendor's nomination in the Adapted Screenplay category, and duly dismayed that neither Paul Giamatti nor Hope Davis squeezed in nominations in the acting categories. (Davis had been nominated for a Golden Globe, but lost out to Renee Zellweger.)
The LOTR acting shutout doesn't surprise me, simply because I thought many of the performances in the two of the films I saw (albeit under duress) were howlingly bad. And even for those who enjoyed the movies, I suspect the ensemble nature and sheer size of the cast works against them when it comes to acting awards.
Nice to see Depp nominated, though I'd also been hoping Billy Bob Thornton would get a nod for BAD SANTA.
I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for LOST IN TRANSLATION and Bill Murray.
Really, 'Master and Commander' is better than 'Return of the King' in every possible way. Better acted, more creatively directed and more effective drama.
Sad that true creativity and brilliance in movies like 'American Splendor,' 'Lost In Translation' and 'Mystic River' is going to be runover by a billion dollar cartoon.
Well, at least 'Titanic' won't be the most annoying camp to ever win Best Picture anymore.
John Popa writes:
Sad that true creativity and brilliance in movies like 'American Splendor,' 'Lost In Translation' and 'Mystic River' is going to be runover by a billion dollar cartoon.
Well, at least 'Titanic' won't be the most annoying camp to ever win Best Picture anymore.
I may disagree with your assessment of LOTR:ROTK, but that aside, I think it's far from a certainty that LOTR:ROTK will take the best picture Oscar. It may well, but IMO, it's not a lock.
Sad that true creativity and brilliance in movies like 'American Splendor,' 'Lost In Translation' and 'Mystic River' is going to be runover by a billion dollar cartoon.
I'd be interesting in knowing how much Master & Commander cost to make, because I'm sure it wasn't a pretty penny either.
Billion dollar cartoon? What a joke.
Atleast it isn't a billion dollars spent on knowing that the ship sank.
Craig J. Ries observes:
I'd be interesting in knowing how much Master & Commander cost to make, because I'm sure it wasn't a pretty penny either.
For what it's worth, www.the-numbers.com cites Master & Commander's production budget at $135,000,000. LOTR:ROTK's is given as $94,000,000
The site also cites a $50,000,000 prints & advertising budget for LOTR:ROTK, but doesn't include a prints/advertising figure for Master & Commander
I can't believe PAD made that "best supporting actor" joke. Wait, he's the writer who had a HULK strip with two women realizing their names were Betty and Veronica -- I can believe it.
My hope is that LOTR will *finally* get recognized for Best Picture. I'm sorry more of the cast wasn't nominated -- Andy Serkis would've been my pick for Supporting Actor -- but Bill Murray is an excellent choice.
If you want a hopeless choice for Best Comic Performance -- and I'm not sure Bill Murray's role in LOST IN TRANSLATION wasn't drama -- I'd go with Bruce Campbell as the fat, old Elvis in BUBBA HO-TEP. Not a chance, but it'd be my pick!
Of course, the Oscars are just another version of the Professional Critic Love-Hate Theory: People love to cite them when the result agrees with their opinion ("I said that movie was the best, and the Oscar proves it!") and dismiss it when the results disagree with them ("They never give the award to the best ones out there anyway!")
As for me, I'll read the results the day after.
Not to rain on the parade of all the RotK lovers here, but the only time in Oscar history a sequel has ever won Best Picture was in 1974 for the Godfather Part 2. I'm expecting a repeat of the last two years, where it gets a bunch of technical awards, but loses the top prize.
First of all: Money wise... master and commander:
Release
DATE: November 14, 2003
Running Time: N/A Production Budget: $150 million
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Est. Marketing Costs: $30 million
That's from Boxofficemojo.com.
Second of all... already my predictions (with a bit of explanation)
Best Picture: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" - Because they kept on putting it off til the third one.
Best Actor: Bill Murray, "Lost in Translation" - As good as Depp was in Pirates, Murray doesn't do as much as Depp. And Depp has many years ahead of him.
3. Best Actress: Charlize Theron, "Monster" - Nuff said.
4. Supporting Actor: Tim Robbins, "Mystic River" - Actually I have no clue on this one... just sniped it from the globes.
5. Supporting Actress: Renee Zellweger, "Cold Mountain." Same as above.
6. Best Director: Sofia Coppola, "Lost in Translation" - Definitely.
Adapted Screenplay: LOTR
Original Screenplay: Sofia Coppola, "Lost in Translation."
Animated feature film: "Finding Nemo" - Nothing really needs to be said here.
Art Direction: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,"
Cinematography: "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" - Peter Weir always has a great cinematographer.
Sound Mixing: "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl", Sound Editing: "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", Film Editing: "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" -
"Seabiscuit." One or the other
These three awards usually go to action pics. Heck, Speed got an Oscar for Sound Editing.
Most seem a rip-off of the Globes, but truthfully, as much as a non-award show it is, they usually pick em close.
Travis
I may disagree with your assessment of LOTR:ROTK, but that aside, I think it's far from a certainty that LOTR:ROTK will take the best picture Oscar. It may well, but IMO, it's not a lock.
There doesn't look to be a clear-cut winner in best picture, though I find Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World and Seabiscuit to be the weakest of the five.
I hate to burst your bubbles, but if you step back and look at this objectively, there's only one conclusion to be reached. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King must be considered the prohibitive favorite to win Best Picture. Overlooking the fact that it got the most nominations, it's won Best Picture awards from most of the critics groups, including two important bellwethers--the Producers Guild of America "Golden Laurel" award and the Hollywood Foreign Press' Golden Globe Award for Best Dramatic Motion Picture. Granted, the winners of these awards don't always win, but they very usually do. If Peter Jackson wins the Directors Guild of America award on February 7th, it's a very, very good bet that ROTK will win Best Picture, and Peter Jackson will get some hardware that evening (either as screenwriter, director, or producer).
That once again the LOTR actors have been given short shrift, from Elijah Wood to Andy Serkis to--in the most frustrating omission this time--Sean Astin's gut-wrenching, tear-envoking performance as Samwise. "I may not be able to carry the ring...but I can carry you!" Has there ever been a more clear definition of "Supporting Actor" than that?
No. In my book, that's a clear definition of leading actor. The only reason people were pushing Sean Astin in the supporting category was that the producers felt it would be easier for him to be nominated there. Unfortunately, the Actors branch of the Academy (along with most critics groups in the country) apparently felt that less acting was required for ROTK than lower budgeted films like Mystic River and Lost In Translation. (If there were no Fell Beasts or Oliphaunts, would Astin have been given the same consideration as Russell Crowe, who undeservedly won an Oscar for Gladiator?) But Astin had just as much screen time as Elijah Wood, and his character was a far more active force. I firmly believe that all things being equal, Sean Astin fully deserved to be nominated as a leading actor. It's up to the Academy's discretion to decide what constitutes a "leading" or "supporting" role. Marlon Brando was nominated for Best Actor in The Godfathereven though his character was only on-screen a very small amount of time. Ditto for (the former Sir) Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. Also, Morgan Freeman was nominated for Best Actor in The Shawshank Redemption even though his character is constructed as a sidekick role to Tim Robbins.
Sad that true creativity and brilliance in movies like American Splendor, Lost In Translation and Mystic River is going to be runover by a billion dollar cartoon.
Well, at least Titanic won't be the most annoying camp to ever win Best Picture anymore.
I pity you. While I would not say it is the best film ever made, Titanic was a masterpiece that fully deserved to win Best Picture in 1997. In fact, one of the biggest weaknesses to the last two films in the LOTR trilogy is that the endings to both The Two Towers and The Return of the King are fairly week. HMKW James Cameron on the other hand crafted a perfect ending to his film, which is why I think Titanic will still be considered a classic film for generations to come.
Edward J. Cunningham
P.S. British subjects use the initials HMQ to refer to their sovereign. These letters stand for "Her Majesty, the Queen." Out of respect for Cameron's achievement, which I doubt will be equalled for many years to come, I preceded his name with the acronym HMKW which of course stands for His Majesty, the King of the World.
(If there were no Fell Beasts or Oliphaunts, would Astin have been given the same consideration as Russell Crowe, who undeservedly won an Oscar for Gladiator?)
I find it odd that actors plying their craft opposite fictional creatures that clearly do not exist are considered less likely to be recognized for their effort than actors plying their craft in real-life situations. Acting is, in part, a case of convincing the audience that you are what you are pretending to be in the circumstance written for you. So why then would it be a shoe-in for the actors of 'Mystic River' to be nominated but not the actors of 'RotK'? I'd say convincing the audience you are a three foot six Hobbit in a life and death battle with a giant spider for your best friend's well-being is something of a more monumental feat than, say, convincing the audience you have angst over losing your daughter. Nothing against 'Mystic River'. It's just a curious point. When do we reach a place where fantasy and science fiction get the credit they are due and the actors breathing life into the mythic and impossible along with them?
I love useless, Oscar sniping, so I'll through my two cents in... :)
While it's nice that Depp got nominated, as he saved the entire movie, I will be monumentally upset if he beats Bill Murray. His work was amazingly great in an amazingly great movie.
I guess I'm one of the only people in the country who really didn't care for POTC. But then again, I didn't see it until it was out on video, so after seeing a million commercials for it when it was in theaters (showing about 90% of the humorous/interesting parts) and then a million more commercials when it came out on Video/DVD (showing the other interesting 10%), I was quite jaded with it by the time my girlfriend convinced me to see it (I got her back, made her watch Evil Dead 2).
I was actually surprised that either of the Matrix movies got a nod for effects. That struck me as odd.
If anyone from ROTK deserves a nod, it's Sean Astin in a supporting role. The others, while all good, didn't stand out that much. Wait, I take that back, there's Gollum/Smeigel/Andy Serkis. I think I forgot about him because all of my disappointment about his snubbing was last year.
But you know what the song says, it's better to have disappointment than no appointment.
Not to rain on the parade of all the RotK lovers here, but the only time in Oscar history a sequel has ever won Best Picture was in 1974 for the Godfather Part 2.
And the last time an American woman was nominated for best director was...er...never.
There was no guarantee that audiences would see Godfather II when they awarded the first film Best Picture. The Academy was well aware that two more sequels were coming, and I'm guessing they hedged their bets that the final movie would be a worthy representative with which to honor the trilogy.
I still like the first one the best, but ROTK is certainly worthy of Best Picture.
Is RotK Oscar-worthy? Sure, but I hate that they have dissed the previous entries knowing the third was coming. It was as if they were thinking, "well, if we give it to FotR, and RotK is better, then we will HAVE to give it later". Since no one wants their hands tied, they left the spot "open".
IMHO, FotR is by far the best entry of the series. I'll admit to bias against TTT because I thought it strayed too much from the book. However, RotK was just not edited as well - it lasted too long. PJs love of battles cost him dearly in this movie. That Oliphaunt Rider? Bleeech. FotR was by far the smoothest and best handled of the three.
(One caveat: the soundtracks. Even though I think TTT was weak, it had the best score. The music from it did more "speaking" than either entry from the other two movies.)
Based upon the audience responses during the nomination announcements, I think its going to come down to "LotR:TRotK" versus "Lost in Translation", since they're both up for best director and best picture.
The actual winner?
If I knew that, I wouldn't be here.
I'm excited by "A Kiss At The End Of The Rainbow" has been nominated. First off all there's the possibility that Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara performing the song in character at the Oscars. Then, as a friend of mine suggested, we have the possibility that they could sit through the whole show in character.
So, let me pick on a movie that I don't think anybody here has commented on yet--the shockingly overrated "In America."
It's garnered almost universal acclaim from critics. Richard Roeper even called it the no. 1 movie of the year and claims he cried through it, for Christ's sake! Well, I cried too; I cried over wasting my 4 bucks on such absolute dreck.
No, seriously, it's cloying, cliche-ridden, and emotionally manipulative to an appalling degree. It also constantly used "E.T." as its touchstone, yet "E.T.", for all its sappiness, is veritably subtle in comparison!
About the only saving grace in this film is the performances by the two young girls, who are both quite good (and this is coming from someone who normally hates little brats in films!)Yet instead of nominating them, the Academy saw fit to nominate Samantha Morton as the long-suffering wife (ick!) and Dijmon Hounsou as the mystical black dude with the heart of gold (double ick!) If this movie wins for either of those by-the-number performances, or for Best Original Screenplay, it will make the Martin Scorsese/Robert Redford travesty of 1981 seem pale in comparison.
My favorite Oscar nomination: Keisha Castle-Hughes. Glad to see that the Academy hadn't forgotten her luminous performance in WHALE RIDER.
And for this year, my favorite Oscar omissions go to Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. :)
"No noms for Comic Book: The Movie?"
Was it even in exhibition? IN any case, I LOVED watching that hilarious panel discussion with Peter and all of those voiceover acting talents (see the special features).
KET
I don't care who actually wins; Sean Astin was the best supporting actor of 2003. He owned that movie. And thanks for reminding me of the School of Rock song; two nominations for Cold Mountain? Geez, Sting and Randy Newman take the year off and they go into a tizzy.
What? No nomination for Rowan Atkinson as "Johnny English"? Say it ain't so!!!!
Best movie of the year was shut out -- Big Fish.
Oscars. Feh.
Gooooo LOTR!!!! and no, I dont watch these PC award shows either but I would like to see that movie get best picture.
And shall we all start taking bets on who will be the big finale to the "Hey, look, we're dead!" salute to 2003's passed-away celebrities...will it be Bob Hope or Katharine Hepburn? I think it'll be Bob Hope.
By a nose.
Craig Ries wrote:
Atleast it isn't a billion dollars spent on knowing that the ship sank.
I have heard this silly statement about TITANIC before, and it makes no sense to me. Whatever you think of the movie, isn't the same basic complaint true about any movie based on a historical event? (Civil War movie: the North won. D-Day movie: The germans got creamed. And so on.)
ROTK will win Best Picture. As well as many other Oscars.
Sean Astin being snubbed is a bunch of crap.
Andy Serkis is the man.
Agreed that either Serkis or Astin deserved some sort of acting nomination for RotK -- then again, it's not like McKellen had any chance of winning for Fellowship, and that was a pretty solid performance as well.
TWL
I don't know what this means, but, for the first time in my life, I had seen all Best Picture nominees before they were announced. I do think RETURN OF THE KING will take the prize.
As much as I would like to see Bill Murray or Johnny Depp win Best Actor, I've got a feeling it's going to go to Sean Penn. The buzz I've heard so far has been for him for two movies, MYSTIC RIVER and 21 GRAMS. I think he's going to get votes for both movies combined into the one he was nominated for.
I think Best Actress will go to either Diane Keaton or Charlize Theron, with the vote tipping to Theron because (1) comedic performances don't win that often and (2) Keaton has already won.
Best Supporting categories are always a pain to guess. I would like to see Ken Watanabe win for LAST SAMURAI, but I could see Tim Robbins winning. (Then again, I have my suspicions that Robbins and Ed Harris are the same person, and Harris keeps getting nominated and not winning. Laugh if you must, but just answer this: Have you ever seen Robbins and Harris together at the same time?)
Best Supporting Actress really has me in a quandry. I've only seen one of the nominees, Marcia Gay Harden in MYSTIC RIVER. I don't think she'll win because she won just two or three years ago. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Shohreh Aghdashioo will win for HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG, just because her win seems the most unlikely, which is EXACTLY the sort of thing Supporting categories go to.
Besides Sean Astin, I was disappointed to see that Bill Nighy wasn't nominated for LOVE ACTUALLY -- or that his song didn't make the Best Song nomination. (ButI guess it wouldn't have qualified anyway.)
Edward Cunninghm please please please tell me that was Sarcasm.
Titanic was Horrible. Technically yes very good. Acting was okay the writing was terrible! which is why it didn't get nominated for screenplay. It won because it was an epic. It made it's money because you had teenage girls who couldn't get enough of DiCaprio.
Cameron did do what people thought was impossible take a movie that was horrendously over budget and make money.
Jackson did something similar he took a set of books that was thought to be unfilmable and yet he did it, and the films were not just successful they were monsters.
I wonder if maybe the acadmey held off on best picture for FotR not because they knew they would give it to RotK but because they wanted to see if he could pull it off. if they gave it to FotR and the sequels pulled a matrix then they have egg on their faces.
JK wrote: Best movie of the year was shut out -- Big Fish.
Actually, it wasn't entirely ignored. Danny Elfman was nominated for Best Score for "Big Fish."
TITANIC may well have been "horrible," but that's not the point.
The point, which I saw people braying long before the movie was even released, was: why would you sit through such a movie when you know that the ship sinks at the end?
I heard this mantra so many times, applied to this one film about a historical event, that I wondered why people would say it about this film and not, let's say, about any Civil-War film.
Not to mention the fact that we know how MOST films end. Most light romantic comedies WILL end with the guy and girl getting together. Most cop films will end with the cop stopping the bad guy. KILL BILL vol 2 *will* end with Uma killing Bill.
So?
It's the journey, isn't it?
Whatever else you think about TITANIC, and I understand you hating it, "three hours learning that the ship sank" is just a dumb comment.
(My own take on TITANIC specifically: the drama and romance are high mediocrity, the recreation of the terror surrounding the sinking of the ship downright magnificent for what there was of it; but though it was made at a time before we knew for certain that the ship had split in two, and therefore did not include that pivotal moment, A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is still a better telling of what actually happened that night. That's a GREAT film. And it still establishes, dammit, that the ship sank.)
Somebody wrote --
Not to rain on the parade of all the RotK lovers here, but the only time in Oscar history a sequel has ever won Best Picture was in 1974 for the Godfather Part 2.
Uh, there was one other. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
Perhaps, but I doubt 80-90% of the Academy had seen or even heard of Manhunter when they were considering Silence of the Lambs. It wasn't nearly as direct a sequel, having been made by a completely different team of people with a completely different purpose in mind.
Geez, Sting and Randy Newman take the year off and they go into a tizzy.
Actually, Sting is nominated for Best Song, for somthing from "Cold Mountain." And I can't wait to see Mike McKean performing at the Oscars, since he's up with Catherine O'Hara for a song from "Mighty Wind."
Posted by Joseph J. Finn:
And I can't wait to see Mike McKean performing at the Oscars, since he's up with Catherine O'Hara for a song from "Mighty Wind."
To clarify, it's Michael McKean and Annette O'Toole that are nominated for having written "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" from "A Mighty Wind," but in the movie, the song was performed by Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy.
As someone pointed out above, it'd be very cool to see O'Hara and Levy perform the song on the Oscar telecast in character--and that's certainly plausible, since it's not always (often, but not always) the songwriters who do the Oscar performances.
"Titanic" would have been a much better movie if the DiCaprio-Winslet forbidden love angle was written out of the script. It's a brilliantly executed, well-researched film with incredible attention to detail. The pathos of the film is overwhelming... there are moments in that film that bring me to tears (the big one for most people I know being the musicians playing that final piece as the water comes rushing towards them; whether it actually happened or not it's just plain moving).
You've got a brilliant movie, based off one of the most easily-recognizable incidents in public consciousness, with moving true stories of people who actually existed, and all of it is set aside to tell the humdrum story of two twits in love? Such a monumental waste. I wish they'd do a DVD version of the film with all the DiCaprio-Winslet stuff either excised completely or minimized to the bare bones basics so that people can appreciate the true nature of the tragic events of that night without equating it with some dippy necklace and a Celine Dion song.
tOjb
"To clarify, it's Michael McKean and Annette O'Toole that are nominated for having written "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" from "A Mighty Wind," but in the movie, the song was performed by Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy."
I hope it wins! Then the WB can have commercials for "Smallville" that boast "Oscar-winner Annette O'Toole" as a cast member.
If memory serves, the folks behind the song get to pick who performs it -- that's how we wound up with Robin Williams performing the song from the South Park movie.
Now for those who haven't seen the movie: both "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" and the title song (which was nominated for one of the other awards, I think it was the Globes) are sort of generic-y attempts at real folk songs, well done on their own level but not the sort of thing that really made this satirical movie interesting. The more upbeat "Old Joe's Place" was more fun to listen to, and in terms of songs that work in the context of the movie, "Never Did No Wanderin'" is brilliant, the funniest thing in an enjoyable movie.
Given the generic love duet romancy-ness of "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow", and given not only the nature of the film but the particular people involved in it, there is just one band I want to see perform it.
Spinal Tap.
And it isn't just for the inappropriately hard rock. I want to see Derek Smalls and David St. Hubbins kiss at the end of it.
Well, I'm going to go against everyone's grain and say that Finding Nemo should have been nominated for -- and deserves to win -- the Best Picture Oscar.
Why? Because in addition to being well-written, emotionally satisfying, humorous, action-packed, and a visual spectacle, Nemo is the only movie of 2003 that delivers all the goodies and that you can see with the entire family. It deftly manages to please everyone while remaining substantive and memorable, a feat few things in life can accomplish.
This is all just blatant anti-animation bias, I tell you! The clownfish wuz robbed!
You know, if "Silence of the Lambs" had come out one year or later, "Beauty and the Beast" would likely have won the Oscar for best picture, and we wouldn't have this 'Best Animated Feature' dreck. Not that it's a bad idea to recognize excellent animation, but as I understand it, there's no possibility of an animated film crossing over to the best picture race the same way a film in the running for best foreign film can cross over to best picture (a la "Life Is Beautiful"). The Academy is just plain warped.
tOjb
BrakYeller writes:
Not that it's a bad idea to recognize excellent animation, but as I understand it, there's no possibility of an animated film crossing over to the best picture race the same way a film in the running for best foreign film can cross over to best picture (a la "Life Is Beautiful").
As I understand it, it's not that there's no chance of an animated film getting nominated in the Best Picture category--at least it's not as if there are rules, regulations, and guidelines that would preclude that from happening. The existence of a "Best Animated Feature" category may well make it unlikely that an animated movie would be nominated in the Best Picture category, but that's not the same thing as saying that it's impossible.
Don Swan wrote:
No noms for Comic Book: The Movie?
Say, didn't someone named Swan, direct Comic Book: The Movie?
But seriously, Don - Comic Book:The Movie was edited and prepared in 2003, but wasn't released until recently in 2004, to the best of my knowledge. Was there a theatrical limited release of it in 2003? If so, sorry I missed it.
I understand that some of the footage was screened in 2003, but I'm not sure if that counted as a "theatrical release."
Currently, there is a thoughful review for "Comic Book: The Movie" in comicon.com's pulse section.
Those who are curious, check it out!
Nemo won't get best picture. animation movies never won and never will. If LOTR doesn't get best picture, I will have lost all respect for the Oscars.
Tommy Raiko: As I understand it, it's not that there's no chance of an animated film getting nominated in the Best Picture category--at least it's not as if there are rules, regulations, and guidelines that would preclude that from happening.
See, I'd heard that when the Academy put together the 'best animated' category, they put it together specifically so that an animated feature could only win in the 'best animated' category, and not possibly be counted in the 'best picture' running. I haven't found anything that lists the relevant Academy guidelines one way or the other, so you could be right, Tommy. In fact, I hope I'm misinformed and that you're correct about the guidelines... it'd be remarkably short-sighted of the Academy to forbid animated films from 'best picture' runs. Unfortunately, that'd also be perfectly in character for the Academy. Sigh...
tOjb
See, I'd heard that when the Academy put together the 'best animated' category, they put it together specifically so that an animated feature could only win in the 'best animated' category, and not possibly be counted in the 'best picture' running.
Whenever I read " ... I heard that ...," I go ahead and assume that the item in question isn't true. Crossover nominations happen all the time. (Note the aforementioned LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL.) The Academy is not "warped"; rather, it's multitude of members have their own opinions regarding these matters, and there is no law that says that they HAVE TO agree with Joe Blogger.
Ultimately, a situation like BEAUTY AND THE BEAST probably is, indeed, the reason the Best Animated Feature category was created, though not for any paranoid "They're Trying To Shut Us Out" reason. How many animated feature-length motion pictures were being released at the time of B&B? Bluth may have been putting out one every several years, but, otherwise, at that time, Disney was pretty much the only game in town. (The category wasn't created after that year ... it took a while for that to happen.) It was Disney's success that spawned animation units in all of the other major studios.
Had the Best Animation category existed at the time of B&B, it would have won an Oscar, one that it deserved (though I am in agreement with the Best Picture nod to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS). Rather than an attempt to shut out animated pics for the Best Picture category, the Best Animated Feature offers the opportunity to honor movies that would otherwise be ignored in favor of a high drama or an exciting art movie or whatever. Let's face it, with 5 nominations out of however the hell many movies come out in a year, your going to be hard set to find a nomination (or a winner) that is going to satisfy everybody.
On the whole, the Golden Globes has a better idea in that respect, given their greater number of categories, which eliminates the possibility of pitting a comedy or a musical against a drama, which is like pitting the Apples versus the Oranges versus the Bananas.
So spare me the paranoia. Best Animated Feature at least allows for a possible (actually, very likely) award for FINDING NEMO, a movie which deserves to be honored alongside, rather than instead of, several very strong contenders.
The only reason the Animated Film category came about in full was because of Shrek.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki's Spirited Away.
This year, it's two Disney movies... boy, that's challenging isn't it?
They shouldn't even have the category this year.
And I thought a Foreign Language Film did get into the Best Picture category in recent years?
What did that Italian guy win? Hmm. Best Actor, which also won Best Foreign Film.
Well, maybe they need to do something about that category. I mean, one of this year's films is from Canada.
Not exactly foreign in my book.
How about calling it the "Not Backed by Hollywood" category?
In Re: The Mighty Wind stuff...
Old Joe's Place isn't eligible - the Folksmen performed it twenty years ago on SNL. Several of the other songs (I'm not sure which) are also old, or at least weren't written for the movie (The Folksmen have been opening for Spinal Tap for a while...)
Their choices were probably pretty limited as to what they could get away with nominating (for the same reason, South Park couldn't nominate "Kyle's Mom's a Bitch" instead of "Blame Canada", for example).
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder what the f* God was thinking when he shouted into the darkness, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
All right, that might be blowing things out of proportion a little, but come the hell on. I can almost hear the thought processes of the Academy judges:
"(thick, nasally voice**) Oh, dear, not one of those APALLING comic-book movies! Give us the majesty and glory of THE ENGLISH PATIENT any day, but for heaven's sake, spare us any more exploits featuring grown adults in pajamas!"
If Disney hadn't been so pushy on getting B&B into the Best Picture category, they would have actually nabbed the award outright a couple of years later when "Lion King" came out. As it was, no one wanted to nominate Lion King since they had just done an animated movie a couple of years before.
I dunno whether you intended this, but THE ENGLISH PATIENT *was* a grown man in pajamas...
Titanic would have been a much better movie if they had killed Kate Winslet's character, too.
Titanic would have been a much better movie if they had killed Kate Winslet's character, too
Titanic would have been a much better movie had Winslet's character been nude earlier and more often.
Paranoia? Feh.
Malvito, if you go back and read what I wrote, you'll note that (a) I made it clear that I could be wrong, (b) made it clear that I hoped I was, (c) openly acknowledged that I couldn't find any sources to prove the veracity of my statements (and if you have such a source, by all means please share it instead of speculating along with the rest of us), (d) was the first guy on the thread to mention 'the aforementioned "Life is Beautiful"' as an example of how category crossovers had happened in recent past, and (e) never tried to imply that there was a law which made the Academy subservient to my opinion. I also fail to see how my disagreement with the Academy's decisions makes me 'paranoid.' You want to disagree with me, fine; but before you go and label me a paranoiac, how about actually reading what I wrote?
My opinion is that, despite the supposed ability of animated films to cross over to the best picture race, the Academy routinely has not allowed that to happen. One has only to look back to "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" to see that bias in play. The only animated film to ever make that jump was "Beauty and the Beast," and it was such a headshaker event that apparently the Academy felt the (heretofore unnecessary) need to create a 'best animated' category. Some Academy members publicly stated their position that an animated film should not have been in the running... which, I would add, is consistent with last year's decision to refuse Andy Serkis' digital portrayal of Gollum entry to the ranks of Best Supporting Actor nominees.
Do keep in mind that this is the same Academy that routinely overlooks stellar performances one year to reward actors and actresses for average performances years later; like Denzell Washington, ignored for his excellent performance in "Malcolm X," and awarded for an above average yet lesser performance in "Training Day" years later. The same Academy which routinely overlooks films with longevity and artistic impact in favor of the flavor of the month... anyone want to debate the relative merits of "Gladiator" over "Crouching Tiger," or "Shakespeare In Love" over "Saving Private Ryan" and "Life Is Beautiful"? Or how about "How Green Was My Valley" over "Citizen Kane" and "The Maltese Falcon"? Come on, how can one look at many of the Academy's past decisions and not come to the conclusion they've got a warped handle on what constitutes cinematic greatness?
tOjb
Posted by BrakYeller:
See, I'd heard that when the Academy put together the 'best animated' category, they put it together specifically so that an animated feature could only win in the 'best animated' category, and not possibly be counted in the 'best picture' running. I haven't found anything that lists the relevant Academy guidelines one way or the other...
The Oscar press release from November that announced the 11 films deemed eligible in the Animated Feature category (see: http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2003/03.11.19.a.html ) reads (in part):
"Films submitted in the Best Animated Feature category also may qualify for Academy Awards in other areas, including Best Picture, provided they meet the rules criteria governing those categories."
Posted by Craig J. Ries:
This year, it's two Disney movies... boy, that's challenging isn't it? They shouldn't even have the category this year.
And the third is Triplets of Belleville, a film that deserves whatever bit extra attention an Oscar nomination can get. Even if one doesn't like the idea of a seperate Animated Feature category, at least the cateogry's existence means that every year there will be a bit of exposure for several animated features; without that category, there would probably be plenty of years without any real Oscar exposure for feature-length animation.
That notwithstanding, when you look at the original list of 11 feature-length animated films deemed eligible in the category, it's easy to think that "Tokyo Godfathers" or "Millenium Actress" shoulda been nominated over "Brother Bear." (According to that press release noted above, there's also apparently a rule that there can only be 3 nominations when there are fewer than 16 eligible films. Go figure...)
And I thought a Foreign Language Film did get into the Best Picture category in recent years? What did that Italian guy win? Hmm. Best Actor, which also won Best Foreign Film.
I think you're referring to Roberto Benigni and "Life is Beautiful," which won Best Actor and Best Foreign Language Film and which lost Best Picture to "Shakespeare in Love."
More recently, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was Oscar-nominated for both Best Picture and Best Foreign Film. It won the latter, but lost the former (to "Gladiator"
Well, maybe they need to do something about that category. I mean, one of this year's films is from Canada. Not exactly foreign in my book.
Well, despire what your book says, Canada is indeed a different country than the United States. Anyway, the I believe the Oscar category is nowadays more precisely called "Best Foreign Language Film" and this year's Canadian nominee is indeed a French-language film.
Posted by Abbott:
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder...
I had the same reaction about "Matrix Reloaded," though I heard somewhere that the film studio for some reason opted not to submit "Matrix Reloaded" for consideration. Don't know if that's true or not...or if Universal similarly opted not to submit HULK for some reason...
Ali- Thanks much for clearing the crossover issue up; I am pleased to be proved wrong.
I still remain of the opinion that the Academy's bias against animated features is both obvious and omnipresent, though. :)
tOjb
The clownfish wuz still robbed.
Just go to rottentomatoes.com and check out the tomatometer for the films in question. No other film of 2003 approaches Nemo's 99.97% critic-approved rating.
But then, animation in the United States continues to be stigmatized...
If memory serves, the folks behind the song get to pick who performs it -- that's how we wound up with Robin Williams performing the song from the South Park movie.
And everybody who saw the South Park movie knows that Blame Canada was nominated only because the Academy couldn't say the title of the song that deserved to be nominated on television.
I dunno whether you intended this, but THE ENGLISH PATIENT *was* a grown man in pajamas...
I ABSOLUTELY intended it, Adam. See, THAT'S the goddamn irony.
\\And everybody who saw the South Park movie knows that Blame Canada was nominated only because the Academy couldn't say the title of the song that deserved to be nominated on television.
\\
You can't say "La Resistance" on television?
You want to disagree with me, fine; but before you go and label me a paranoiac, how about actually reading what I wrote?
I pulled your quote because it expressed the idea in the most succinct fashion. My comment about paranioa was not specifically aimed at you, but at any and all on this blog who seemed to take this theory seriously.
Do keep in mind that this is the same Academy that routinely overlooks stellar performances one year to reward actors and actresses for average performances years later; like Denzell Washington, ignored for his excellent performance in "Malcolm X," and awarded for an above average yet lesser performance in "Training Day" years later.
You might also point to the many Al Pacino performances that went unrewarded, for him to finally take the trophy for SCENT OF A WOMAN. Or the fact that Hitchcock, whose name has become a synonym for a certain variety of suspense cinema, was never honored. Examples of such are legion.
The same Academy which routinely overlooks films with longevity and artistic impact in favor of the flavor of the month... anyone want to debate the relative merits of "Gladiator" over "Crouching Tiger," or "Shakespeare In Love" over "Saving Private Ryan" and "Life Is Beautiful"? Or how about "How Green Was My Valley" over "Citizen Kane" and "The Maltese Falcon"?
The problem there is trying to determine now what is going to show longevity and artistic impact. Many films that we now think of as classics didn't do well when they were initially released. (My favorite examples of this are THE WIZARD OF OZ and WILLY WONKA, neither of which got their classic status until they were shown for several years in a row on television.) And there are many "flavors of the month," depending on which group you are talking to. While I agree that CROUCHING TIGER was a better movie than GLADIATOR, there was quite a bit of hype about TIGER by the time Oscar night rolled around, and many who said that said movie was the flavor of the month. Add to that the fact that, were you to go out there and take a national poll, you'd find plenty who would say that the Academy made the right decision that year. And I was glad that SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE won the Best Picture Oscar, though, in true Golden Globes fashion, I would say that the two should not have been competing against one another, being two different experiences.
Come on, how can one look at many of the Academy's past decisions and not come to the conclusion they've got a warped handle on what constitutes cinematic greatness?
Different strokes, amigo. As I said, it's not warped, it's just their own view.
Fair enough, Malvito; fair enough. I'll concede the point, though I still think my opinion's better than the Academy's. :)
tOjb
And everybody who saw the South Park movie knows that Blame Canada was nominated only because the Academy couldn't say the title of the song that deserved to be nominated on television.
That was my original instinct... but then I realized that the Academy voters are largely members of the various unionized parts of the film trade, and the folks the unions had been negotiating with were likely pointing to "runaway productions" going to Canada as the reason it would be unwise for the unions to ask for more. So "Blame Canada" may have had particularly special meaning for the Academy members.
Not to rain on the parade of all the RotK lovers here, but the only time in Oscar history a sequel has ever won Best Picture was in 1974 for the Godfather Part 2.
Wrong. Although the producers of The Silence of the Lambs vehemently deny this, the fact is that their film which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1991 is a sequel to Michael Mann's Manhunter. It doesn't matter that Silence is a stand-alone sequel that does not need anyone to require anyone to watch Manhunter to understand. It also doesn't matter that many people believe the first film shouldn't count because it didn't star Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector. It also doesn't matter that the producers decided to remake Manhunter a few years ago with Thomas Harris' original title Red Dragon. Silence was a sequel, so The Return of the King will be the third sequel to win an Academy Award for Best Picture.
Not to rain on the parade of all the RotK lovers here, but the only time in Oscar history a sequel has ever won Best Picture was in 1974 for the Godfather Part 2.
Wrong. Although the producers of The Silence of the Lambs vehemently deny this, the fact is that their film which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1991 is a sequel to Michael Mann's Manhunter. It doesn't matter that Silence is a stand-alone sequel that does not need anyone to require anyone to watch Manhunter to understand. It also doesn't matter that many people believe the first film shouldn't count because it didn't star Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector. It also doesn't matter that the producers decided to remake Manhunter a few years ago with Thomas Harris' original title Red Dragon. Silence was a sequel, so The Return of the King will be the third sequel to win an Academy Award for Best Picture.
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder what the f___ God was thinking when he shouted into the darkness, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
I'm not sure which branch of the Academy nominates the visual effects, but you have to keep this in mind---it's certain that when they make these nominations, they take into account how successful the actual movie was. I'm pretty sure that Hulk wasn't nominated because the movie bombed. The only reason it didn't do worse at the box office than it did was that the marketing department successfully got everybody in America to want to see Hulk the first weekend. The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend. Because of this, ROTK is a mortal lock to win this award a second year in a row.
However, I should note that not always does the most successful movie win Best Visual Effects. in 1999, The Phantom Menace did well enough at the box office to become--unfortunately--the second-highest grossing film in history behind Titanic, which deserved both it's success and Best Picture award. However, that didn't change the fact that except for a few Star Wars geeks, The Phantom Menace was not that memorable a movie and didn't have people talking about it's special effects. However, everybody was amazed at what The Matrix did, even though that film did not come anywhere close to grossing as much as George Lucas' film. In that case, the Academy felt the excellence of the effects was more important than how much money the film grossed, and the Oscar went to The Matrix.
In other words, if Ang Lee had actually made a better film (perhaps Peter David should have written the screenplay instead of just the novelization?), I'm sure the special effects in Hulk would have been nominated. I think the effects in the movie and the movie itself would have been much improved if they chose to create a smaller Hulk that was only seven feet tall. It is, however, a film about the Hulk and not Mighty Joe Young.
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder what the f___ God was thinking when he shouted into the darkness, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
I'm not sure which branch of the Academy nominates the visual effects, but you have to keep this in mind---it's certain that when they make these nominations, they take into account how successful the actual movie was. I'm pretty sure that Hulk wasn't nominated because the movie bombed. The only reason it didn't do worse at the box office than it did was that the marketing department successfully got everybody in America to want to see Hulk the first weekend. The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend. Because of this, ROTK is a mortal lock to win this award a second year in a row.
However, I should note that not always does the most successful movie win Best Visual Effects. in 1999, The Phantom Menace did well enough at the box office to become--unfortunately--the second-highest grossing film in history behind Titanic, which deserved both it's success and Best Picture award. However, that didn't change the fact that except for a few Star Wars geeks, The Phantom Menace was not that memorable a movie and didn't have people talking about it's special effects. However, everybody was amazed at what The Matrix did, even though that film did not come anywhere close to grossing as much as George Lucas' film. In that case, the Academy felt the excellence of the effects was more important than how much money the film grossed, and the Oscar went to The Matrix.
In other words, if Ang Lee had actually made a better film (perhaps Peter David should have written the screenplay instead of just the novelization?), I'm sure the special effects in Hulk would have been nominated. I think the effects in the movie and the movie itself would have been much improved if they chose to create a smaller Hulk that was only seven feet tall. It is, however, a film about the Hulk and not Mighty Joe Young.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki's Spirited Away.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn't have seen that film.
And if you are going to concede (correctly) that Miyazaka--not Disney--actually made Spirited Away, give the same credit to the makers of Finding Nemo. Disney didn't make that film. They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features. Say what you want about Brother Bear, it's probably the last "official" Disney animated feature that you will ever see.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki's Spirited Away.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn't have seen that film.
And if you are going to concede (correctly) that Miyazaka--not Disney--actually made Spirited Away, give the same credit to the makers of Finding Nemo. Disney didn't make that film. They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features. Say what you want about Brother Bear, it's probably the last "official" Disney animated feature that you will ever see.
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder what the f___ God was thinking when he shouted into the darkness, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
I'm not sure which branch of the Academy nominates the visual effects, but you have to keep this in mind---it's certain that when they make these nominations, they take into account how successful the actual movie was. I'm pretty sure that Hulk wasn't nominated because the movie bombed. The only reason it didn't do worse at the box office than it did was that the marketing department successfully got everybody in America to want to see Hulk the first weekend. The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend. Because of this, ROTK is a mortal lock to win this award a second year in a row.
However, I should note that not always does the most successful movie win Best Visual Effects. in 1999, The Phantom Menace did well enough at the box office to become--unfortunately--the second-highest grossing film in history behind Titanic, which deserved both it's success and Best Picture award. However, that didn't change the fact that except for a few Star Wars geeks, The Phantom Menace was not that memorable a movie and didn't have people talking about it's special effects. However, everybody was amazed at what The Matrix did, even though that film did not come anywhere close to grossing as much as George Lucas' film. In that case, the Academy felt the excellence of the effects was more important than how much money the film grossed, and the Oscar went to The Matrix.
In other words, if Ang Lee had actually made a better film (perhaps Peter David should have written the screenplay instead of just the novelization?), I'm sure the special effects in Hulk would have been nominated. I think the effects in the movie and the movie itself would have been much improved if they chose to create a smaller Hulk that was only seven feet tall. It is, however, a film about the Hulk and not Mighty Joe Young.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki's Spirited Away.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn't have seen that film.
And if you are going to concede (correctly) that Miyazaka--not Disney--actually made Spirited Away, give the same credit to the makers of Finding Nemo. Disney didn't make that film. They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features. Say what you want about Brother Bear, it's probably the last "official" Disney animated feature that you will ever see.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki's Spirited Away.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn't have seen that film.
And if you are going to concede (correctly) that Miyazaka--not Disney--actually made Spirited Away, give the same credit to the makers of Finding Nemo. Disney didn't make that film. They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features. Say what you want about Brother Bear, it's probably the last "official" Disney animated feature that you will ever see.
Edward Cunninghm please please please tell me that was Sarcasm.
Titanic was Horrible. Technically yes very good. Acting was okay the writing was terrible! which is why it didn't get nominated for screenplay. It won because it was an epic. It made it's money because you had teenage girls who couldn't get enough of DiCaprio.
Cameron did do what people thought was impossible take a movie that was horrendously over budget and make money.
Jackson did something similar he took a set of books that was thought to be unfilmable and yet he did it, and the films were not just successful they were monsters.
I wonder if maybe the acadmey held off on best picture for FotR not because they knew they would give it to RotK but because they wanted to see if he could pull it off. if they gave it to FotR and the sequels pulled a matrix then they have egg on their faces.
It wasn't sarcasm. Although I will not go so far as to say it was the best film of all time, Titanic was the best film of 1997 and fully deserved to win Best Picture and make as much money as it did. I was slightly annoyed with Leonardo DiCaprio because I felt he got too much of the lion's share of the credit that should also have gone to Kate Winslet. (I like Helen Hunt, but there's no way she should have won the Oscar ahead of Winslet.)
As for the writing, I still cannot understand why people think it is so bad. Show me a bad line! I won't quote this in length, but there's a beautiful scene early in the movie when Rose is about to commit suicide by jumping off the stern. Jack tells her about the time he fell through the ice in the lake as a child. That was beautifully written and accomplished two tasks at once. First, it persuaded Rose to climb back over the railing onto the ship. Second, it gave the audience a sense of what it's actually like to be immersed in frozen water since they can only see the characters. (I should note that of all the versions of this disaster I've seen before, Cameron's is the first to note that most of the victims died from the intense cold, not drowning itself.)
Now, Peter David is a good writer and he knows good writing from bad. I doubt he has the time, but maybe he can show what's so "bad" about James Cameron's screenplay. I thought it was good and probably deserved an Oscar more than Matt Damon and Ben AFLAC's screenplay for Good Will Hunting. (It wasn't quite as good as Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson's screenplay for L.A. Confidential.
But if you think God must have punished me for the sin of liking Titanic---you're right. I saw Gladiator beat out Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for Best Picture three years later...
Eddie
Edward Cunninghm please please please tell me that was Sarcasm.
Titanic was Horrible. Technically yes very good. Acting was okay the writing was terrible! which is why it didn't get nominated for screenplay. It won because it was an epic. It made it's money because you had teenage girls who couldn't get enough of DiCaprio.
Cameron did do what people thought was impossible take a movie that was horrendously over budget and make money.
Jackson did something similar he took a set of books that was thought to be unfilmable and yet he did it, and the films were not just successful they were monsters.
I wonder if maybe the acadmey held off on best picture for FotR not because they knew they would give it to RotK but because they wanted to see if he could pull it off. if they gave it to FotR and the sequels pulled a matrix then they have egg on their faces.
It wasn't sarcasm. Although I will not go so far as to say it was the best film of all time, Titanic was the best film of 1997 and fully deserved to win Best Picture and make as much money as it did. I was slightly annoyed with Leonardo DiCaprio because I felt he got too much of the lion's share of the credit that should also have gone to Kate Winslet. (I like Helen Hunt, but there's no way she should have won the Oscar ahead of Winslet.)
As for the writing, I still cannot understand why people think it is so bad. Show me a bad line! I won't quote this in length, but there's a beautiful scene early in the movie when Rose is about to commit suicide by jumping off the stern. Jack tells her about the time he fell through the ice in the lake as a child. That was beautifully written and accomplished two tasks at once. First, it persuaded Rose to climb back over the railing onto the ship. Second, it gave the audience a sense of what it's actually like to be immersed in frozen water since they can only see the characters. (I should note that of all the versions of this disaster I've seen before, Cameron's is the first to note that most of the victims died from the intense cold, not drowning itself.)
Now, Peter David is a good writer and he knows good writing from bad. I doubt he has the time, but maybe he can show what's so "bad" about James Cameron's screenplay. I thought it was good and probably deserved an Oscar more than Matt Damon and Ben AFLAC's screenplay for Good Will Hunting. (It wasn't quite as good as Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson's screenplay for L.A. Confidential.
But if you think God must have punished me for the sin of liking Titanic---you're right. I saw Gladiator beat out Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for Best Picture three years later...
Eddie
I'm not sure which branch of the Academy nominates the visual effects, but you have to keep this in mind---it's certain that when they make these nominations, they take into account how successful the actual movie was.
Rrrright. So explain why Master and Commander, which has done about $85 million in the US (and, while not finished, is in the petering out phase) gets nominated, while Hulk ($132 million... and that's with a smaller production budget) doesn't. And let's not use the "The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend" explanation, as The Hulk did more business in its second weekend than Master and Commander did, a difference which holds up for its entire post-first-weekend run.
With regard to how the AMPAS Visual Effects category nomination process works, a little web-digging turns up the following from the official rules, for anyone's reference:
http://www.oscars.org/76academyawards/rules/rule22.html
As for it being certain that nominators take into account the financial success of the eligible films, although it's obvious that a successful movie has some advantages over a less successful one (more 'buzz', more attention, more marketing, etc.) that will surely affect nominators' perceptions, it's still incredibly cynical to think that a movie's box office business is a overpowering driving force in the nomiation process. As Nat has pointed out above, there are surely ample counter-examples to that notion.
Without a doubt, box office success--making scads of money--is a big thing. But it's not the only thing, and in some cases, it might not even be the most important thing.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn't have seen that film.
Possibly, but I know that a great number of companies wanted the distribution rights for Miyazaki's filmes.
As for the dubbing, so what? It's anime - it's meant to be subtitled.
(Although, I like English version of Princess Mononoke better.)
Rrrright. So explain why Master and Commander, which has done about $85 million in the US (and, while not finished, is in the petering out phase) gets nominated, while Hulk ($132 million... and that's with a smaller production budget) doesn't. And let's not use the "The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend" explanation, as The Hulk did more business in its second weekend than Master and Commander did, a difference which holds up for its entire post-first-weekend run.
Hey, I'm surprised Master and Commander got a Best Picture nomination, too. I guess it boils down to this---the Academy and the Visual Effects Awards Committee really liked Master and Commander, and couldn't care two cents worth for Hulk. I approve of their choice. The transformation sequences in Hulk weren't that spectacular, and a lot of people were calling the Hulk an "overgrown Shrek." On the other hand, I still can't believe that the exterior scenes aboard the Surprise were actually shot in a water tank. (The same water tank where Titanic was shot.) It looks like it was shot in the open ocean, and the effects were very convincing. That's not going to give it the Oscar over ROTK, especially since the entire Academy votes for those awards...
Wait a minute! We've all forgotten the most important thing: who's hosting this year?
tOjb
They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features.
Yes they did. And now that Pixar has separated from the House of Mouse and declared their status as their own individual entity, Disney no longer has two films in the running for Best Animated Feature. Nor, if Pixar's gargantuan success is any measure, will they in the near future unless they figure out how to reclaim the 'The Lion King' and 'Beauty and the Beast' glory days of animation. *shrugs* I don't care what wins Best Animated Feature as I'm probably the only person on the planet who hated 'Finding Nemo' but I thought the Pixar/Disney divorce news was relevent to all the ranting done above.