Barendd Nobeard
Explorer
Which is really odd since, since only directors decide the Oscar nominees for Best Director. I wonder how much overlap there is between DGA and the Director's Branch of the Academy.Spatula said:
[OT] Peter Jackson Snubbed
- Thread starter ashockney
- Start date
The DGA is the trade union for directors in America, so the barriers to entry aren't that high. They have over 12,000 members according to their website. You can only get into the Academy if you're nominated by a current member, in addition to stricter requirements concerning your body of work. I don't know how many members are in the director's branch, though.Barendd Nobeard said:
Anyway, every member of the Academy's director's branch would be a DGA member but not vice-versa.
Last edited:
Shadowdancer
First Post
The Academy only has 5,800 total members. Not sure on the breakdown (directors, actors, writers, etc.).
Ranger REG
Explorer
I have other hobbies.Umbran said:
And I thought I was a conspiracy theorist
Secretly, they want to give the Best Director award to Roman Polanski but it would look bad for their image if the fugitive from US law would be arrested at the ceremony.
Shadowdancer
First Post
Re: Re
What? Did you not watch "Fellowship of the Ring?" It was full of great performances.
Celtavian said:
What? Did you not watch "Fellowship of the Ring?" It was full of great performances.
Ranger REG
Explorer
I don't give a [BLEEP!] about this Almodovar. If his own people don't like him, tough [BLEEP]!!!Shadowdancer said:
I'd say we this this Almo into the bulls and let them eat his cojones and scream like a little chica.
Peter Jackson, a victim of Academy politics.
* venomously spits on the Oscar statue *
Re
Go watch a movie of Peter Jackson's, then watch a film by Roman Polanski, Ridley Scott, or Martin Scorsese. You will see what I am talking about.
Bits and pieces. Not the most interesting subject matter. I will give it a look. See if I think differently.
Even if I do, I still feel many of the acting performances in both FotR and TTT were poor save for moments when the actors themselves really stepped it up a notch.
Many of the performances were wooden with a few gems, which I mostly credit to the actors themselves.
If you want me to detail the scenes I felt were poorly acted, I can do so. They are plentiful in both and I can tell that the actor was certainly trying, but did not have much direction but their own intution for the character.
Yet, the visuals were so overpowering in both films, that most viewers overlooked certain parts that were poorly acted.
This is coming from someone who greatly enjoyed both films. I am just not a mindless fanboy who refuses to acknowledge certain poor parts of the film.
I hope you have read the book, so that what I say will give you some understanding of why this was wrong.
In the book, Gandalf was infinitely respectful of Theoden king and his hall. So was Aragorn, Gandalf and Gimli.
None of those characters would fight in the Hall of another King, and even on his worse day, Theoden would never allow any of his servants to attack someone in his hall. Period.
As I stated before, PJ chose to add action, when drama should have carried the scene. It was a poor choice on his part that was entirely unncessary.
The visuals were far too powerful in the movie. In the book, the change in Theoden was profound, yet subtle. That could have been carried off better purely by acting and less dramatic visual effects.
Go watch a movie of Peter Jackson's, then watch a film by Roman Polanski, Ridley Scott, or Martin Scorsese. You will see what I am talking about.
Bits and pieces. Not the most interesting subject matter. I will give it a look. See if I think differently.
Even if I do, I still feel many of the acting performances in both FotR and TTT were poor save for moments when the actors themselves really stepped it up a notch.
Many of the performances were wooden with a few gems, which I mostly credit to the actors themselves.
If you want me to detail the scenes I felt were poorly acted, I can do so. They are plentiful in both and I can tell that the actor was certainly trying, but did not have much direction but their own intution for the character.
Yet, the visuals were so overpowering in both films, that most viewers overlooked certain parts that were poorly acted.
This is coming from someone who greatly enjoyed both films. I am just not a mindless fanboy who refuses to acknowledge certain poor parts of the film.
I hope you have read the book, so that what I say will give you some understanding of why this was wrong.
In the book, Gandalf was infinitely respectful of Theoden king and his hall. So was Aragorn, Gandalf and Gimli.
None of those characters would fight in the Hall of another King, and even on his worse day, Theoden would never allow any of his servants to attack someone in his hall. Period.
As I stated before, PJ chose to add action, when drama should have carried the scene. It was a poor choice on his part that was entirely unncessary.
The visuals were far too powerful in the movie. In the book, the change in Theoden was profound, yet subtle. That could have been carried off better purely by acting and less dramatic visual effects.
dravot
First Post
Ranger REG said:
"I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find gambling at Rick's!"
The academy is all about politics. On a regular basis the academy will give an oscar to someone for a weak performance (or picture) as more of a 'lifetime achievement award' than for the film they were nominated for this time.
The best picture is often not what we would consider to be the best picture (and yes, opinions do vary), but the movie that speaks to the national zeitgeist. For that reason, I believe that 'Gangs of New York' will win best picture - 'America was born on the streets of New York' and all that stuff.
If Peter Jackson wins next year, it won't be for RotK. It'll be for the trilogy of films.
(Edit: typo)
Last edited:
Michael Tree
First Post
Normally I would agree, except that in this case Serkis did far more than voice acting. All of Gollum's physical movements (and, IIRC, facial expressions) were performed by Serkis and incorporated into the CG by motion capture technology.Spatula said:
In that case, it's really no different than John Hurt's nomination for The Elephant Man, where he wore such extensive prosthetics that only his body movements and voice really came through.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Guys, I really do not think Serkis qualified under the rules to get an oscar. It has nothing to do with how good he was, or how much work he did. The rules simply cannot handle CG.
The rules section of the Academy:
The rule is unclear what happens when what you see is computer generated, but is based on the movements of a real person, who is also the person doing the dubbing.
In addition, CGI does not appear to qualify as "makeup" under the rules:
So, the Elephant Man can win, but CGI cannot, because it is not applied directly to the performer's face or body. Serkis was doomed, until the rules are changed to accomdate CGI.
The rules section of the Academy:
The rule is unclear what happens when what you see is computer generated, but is based on the movements of a real person, who is also the person doing the dubbing.
In addition, CGI does not appear to qualify as "makeup" under the rules:
So, the Elephant Man can win, but CGI cannot, because it is not applied directly to the performer's face or body. Serkis was doomed, until the rules are changed to accomdate CGI.
Similar Threads
