Two Towers Oscars

[Nightfall]

Chun,

You and me both pal. Oscar politics are only overshadowed by bad home politics...but we'll not get into that. In any case I've kind of given up any chance/hope the LotR trilogy will get any significant recognition since it's pretty much a "private" club. Take Denzel Washington. He's had some terrific films. Yet he's only won what? Two awards? Pretty shabby if ask me.

 

[Ranger REG]

The Academy Awards are voted by the Academy members. You know how those people are not of the common folks like us.

I prefer award shows in which the public can vote for their favorites.

 

[jonesy]

The Academy Awards are voted by the Academy members. You know how those people are not of the common folks like us.

So how do you define common? These are people who have been
working in the movie industry and have shown expertise in their
own area of film making. That's anything from directors to sound
editors to cameramen. Some of them might be famous but most of
them are only recognizable by other people in the movie industry.
And they are from all over the world, not just the U.S.

 

[Endur]

I think Braveheart was way better than Gladiator for many reasons, especially because Braveheart was based on historical characters. The acting and directing was also very good in Braveheart. Mel Gibson's finest work, in my opinion. Definitely deserved best picture.

Gladiator was close to being a great movie. It came very close. I would compare it to Spartacus, and say, that other than Russell Crow, Gladiator didn't have first rate acting. Whereas in Spartacus, there were a number of first rate actors besides Kirk Douglas. I would have given Russell Crow Best Actor for Gladiator, just wouldn't have given the movie best picture. Of course, the hard thing about a best award, is someone a "Best Actor" because of their acting job, or do they look great because they have an awesome part. And I'd say that for Gladiator, Russell had an awesome part, it might not be his skill that made the part awesome. Also, the uncut version of Gladiator makes much more sense, as much of the politics was cut out of the screen version (which made the story difficult to follow for some of the plots and counter plots).

For LOTR, I thought the Fellowship was perfect. The perfect fantasy movie. TTT was disappointing (too many deviations from the book -- Aragorn being thrown off a cliff, worgs attacking while they travel to Helm's deep, Elves showing up for the battle of Helm's Deep, the orc with the bomb, etc.). I'm withholding judgment on Return of the King until I see it.

Tom

Granted, Braveheart and Gladiator both won for best picture, and Lord of the Rings is hardly a lesser film to either of these (especially Gladiator). But Oscar voters tend to like tear-jerking, life changing dramas that are done here in the U.S., and by big names or up-and-coming talents. And there's SO much politics involved.

Take Gladiator, for example. Just about NO film critic thought it was worthy of Best Picture, and many (like Roger Ebert) didn't even rank it on their Top Ten of the year. The #1 pick by film critics was Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Gladiator won due to politics, nothing more. And those politics, I'm guessing, will work against Lord of the Rings.

I would love to see Lord of the Rings get something significant (and technical awards are not). But the cynic in me seriously doubts it will happen.

By the way, Steve Martin is, IMHO, by far the best Oscars host of the past, I don't know, 10 years or so (I wouldn't remember any before then).

 

[Ranger REG]

So how do you define common?

The teamsters, food caterers, personal assistants, carpenters, security guards, laborers, etc.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I think Braveheart was way better than Gladiator for many reasons, especially because Braveheart was based on historical characters.

Gladiator was based on historical characters as well.

 

[Shadowdancer]

So how do you define common? These are people who have been
working in the movie industry and have shown expertise in their
own area of film making. That's anything from directors to sound
editors to cameramen. Some of them might be famous but most of
them are only recognizable by other people in the movie industry.
And they are from all over the world, not just the U.S.

There aren't many people who are members of the Academy who aren't Americans. There are less than 6,000 members of the Academy. Not even a large percentage of Americans who work in the film industry are members of the Academy. To become a member of the Academy, you have to be invited to join. They don't invite a lot of people -- usually you have to win an Oscar before you are invited. It's a weird little clique.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I don't think Return of the King will win any of the big awards, either. It will be nominated for Best Picture, and maybe a supporting actor. But I don't think it will win. Lord of the Rings has achieved a great deal, on many levels, but, as you were saying, fantasy and sci-fi movies are rarely even considered for nomination.

Granted, Braveheart and Gladiator both won for best picture, and Lord of the Rings is hardly a lesser film to either of these (especially Gladiator). But Oscar voters tend to like tear-jerking, life changing dramas that are done here in the U.S., and by big names or up-and-coming talents. And there's SO much politics involved.

By the way, Steve Martin is, IMHO, by far the best Oscars host of the past, I don't know, 10 years or so (I wouldn't remember any before then).

Oscar voters also like big sweeping epics, like "Braveheart," "Gladiator," "The Last Emperor," "Lawrence of Arabia," and many others. The voters tend to vote in cycles: "We voted for an epic last year, let's vote for a personal drama this year." Next year, they will be ready to vote for an epic. I think RoTK has a very good chance of winning next year. Peter Jackson has an even better chance of winning best director.

I agree about Steve Martin being a good host. He also hosted two-three years ago. The two times he has hosted are the only times in recent history that the awards ceremony finished in its projected 3 1/2 hours. I say let him host ever year.

 

[Eridanis]

I would love to see Lord of the Rings get something significant (and technical awards are not).

That is a very offensive statement. A statuette is a statuette. Anyone who has ever worked on a film in a technical capacity is just as much a part of making a film as the people on-screen, even if their only thanks is given in the credits (that 99% of moviegoers walk out on, instead of watching them).

Remember that the Best Picture/Best Actor type awards are voted on by their acting and directing peers (thus the clubbish and subjective nature of voting), while the technical awards are voted on by their technical peers, people who actually have a clue about the amount and quality of work put up by the nominees.

IMO, tech awards are based on merit alone, while the others are far more likely to be influenced by emotional considerations.

 

[Chun-tzu]

That is a very offensive statement. A statuette is a statuette. Anyone who has ever worked on a film in a technical capacity is just as much a part of making a film as the people on-screen, even if their only thanks is given in the credits (that 99% of moviegoers walk out on, instead of watching them).

I apologize if I offended you, but few people consider all Oscars equal. There are the big awards, and the "lesser" ones. Some of them get put on the televised broadcast, and some don't.

There is huge significance in a sci-fi fantasy movie winning Best Picture or Best Actor. There is little significance in a sci-fi movie winning a technical award.