The Oscar Buzz Thread! (Oscar Nominees Announced!)

[Mark]

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

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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!]

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]

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.