Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Shadowdancer said:
So which were the tanks they used in Courage Under Fire?
-Hyp.
The Oscar Buzz Thread! (Oscar Nominees Announced!)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
So which were the tanks they used in Courage Under Fire?
-Hyp.
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.
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
Adventurer
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.Kai Lord said:
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.
Barendd Nobeard
Explorer
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.Shadowdancer said:
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
First Post
TiQuinn said:
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
First Post
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.Hypersmurf said:
They used the desert near El Paso for the Middle East.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Shadowdancer said:
And none of them were the tank used in Master and Commander?
Just getting it clear in my head.
-Hyp.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
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.
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
First Post
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.Mark said:
