Oscar nominations

[Ben]

LotR leads with 13 nominations. I'm glad that in addition to the expected tech noms, it garnered the "real" Best Picture, Director, and an acting nod to McKellen.

Ian McKellen - Best Supporting Actor

Peter Jackson - Best Director

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Film

Best Film Editing

Best Costume Design

Best Cinematography

Best Art Direction

Best Makeup

Best Score

Best Song

Best Sound

Best Visual Effects


So, do you think it can beat "A Beautiful Mind"?

[LuthienTinuviel]

hmm ya think it can?

is there any truth to the rumour about if it wins any one of the awards, that FotR will be re-released with TTT footage?

i was just reading about all the nominations today, ive got a good feeling, but hey.. im partial, ain't i?

[Hapira_Brandybuck]

well.... the only real competition it has is HP and as far as credibility, HP LotR

_









_


see my point?

[jerseydevil]

I've seen A Beautiful Mind - and I think LOTR is going to have a hard time beating it.

I'm not sure if LOTR can win the top 3 oscars (Best Picture, Best Director and Best Supporting Actor). But I think LOTR has a good chance of winning the other ones though - especially visual effects, score and costuming.

[Anthy Rose]

Considering the academy seems to have something "against" sci-fi and fantasy films, it has an uphill battle for the Best Picture nod. When's the last time a film in one of these genres got the award. ::sighs::

I'm really pulling for Enya to win best song with "May It Be". That song has found a lot of playtime in my CD player.

[Renille]

I really don't know who will beat out whom. I never saw A Beautiful Mind, but my mother has, and she fell in love with it. But I feel quite sure LOTR will win something...at least I hope so. But really, is it possible to get 13 nomininations and not win anything?

[Starr Polish]

::shrug:: I think Sean Bean should have gotten a nomination as well. His acting was AMAZING...okay, I'm done.

Huzzah!

[Liviaine]

I think Viggo Mortensen deserved one too. I'm sure it'll win in the technical stuff.

[Gerbil]

I'm pretty sure there are precedents (sp?) for being nominated that many times and not winning anything.

But it is highly unlikely it that it comes away with nothing.
Which is great :)

Did Harry Pantser get any? How about 'longest film without a plot'? Or 'most annoying use of child actors'?

:)

[barrelrider110]

Harry Potter got 3 noms in common with LOTR- Art Direction, Costume Design, and Music. I thought Potter Music was Pablum, probably got a nom just on John Williams rep alone. No visual effects nom either which I agree with. The VE in Potter were lame.

RE "A Beautiful Mind" I just saw it and can tell you that Russel Crowe did a terrific acting job, but I don't think the movie will win. It won Golden Globe best pic and GG winners rarely win Oscars. I thought LOTR had flaws but was a better overall achievement than "Mind." Didn't see any of the other contenders.

[jerseydevil]

gerbil -

I liked HP. I know that you didn't even see it -because you got into an argument with HOBBIT in another thread over that very issue, so you really have nothing to base your statements on.

Emma Watson was awesome as Hermione and Danielle Radcliffe was great as Harry and Rupert Grint made a great Ron Weasley. All the actors that played the teachers were great too. Also - I'd hate to say it - but Richard Harris as Dumbledore played a MUCH BETTER Gandalf than Ian McKellen.

Also there was a plot to the movie - which was for Harry Potter to prevent Lord Valdemort from getting the Sorcerer's Stone, thus preventing him from regaining his strength and living forever.

[barrelrider110]

Dear Jersey Devil,
I saw HP too, and liked it, although it didn't hold a candle to LoTR, particularly in visual effects or music (I listen to both soundtracks often).

Gandalf in Fellowship and Dumbledore in Sorcerer's Stone were similar characters that played different roles. Where Dumbledore is more an observer, Gandalf is an active participant. In short, McKellen had much more work to do, and comparing the two performances is like... comparing Hobbits and Dwarves.

I too thought also that Richard Harris would have made a better Gandalf than McKellen, but only because I was more familiar with him. After seeing LoTR I was pleasantly surprised. I thought Sir Ian did an outstanding job as Gandalf, worthy of an Oscar, and practically nailed the essence of Gandalf the Grey. It will be interesting to see his performance in TT and ROTK, because the character of Gandalf has undergone a subtle change.

P.S. I live in South Jersey, birthplace of the legend of the Jersey Devil. You a Piney?

[aldesign]

WOOOOOOOOT nominations are classy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cant wait till we get at least 9 of them in our Entmoot trophy cupboard

[Gerbil]

I liked HP. I know that you didn't even see it -because you got into an argument with HOBBIT in another thread over that very issue, so you really have nothing to base your statements on.
I do love it when someone accuses me of something, and by the very act of accusing me makes themselves guilty of pretty much the same thing :)

Go back and re-read the thread since it appears relying on your memory isn't such a good idea.

I HAVE seen the film.
I HAVE NOT read the books.

Nor, from the film, do I have any desire to read the books.

Emma Watson was awesome as Hermione
Yup she was cute, although a little too young even for my tastes ;)

and Danielle Radcliffe was great as Harry and Rupert Grint made a great Ron Weasley.
Really? I found them to be stereotypical to the extreme, amazingly badly acted (even for child actors), and quite simply annoying.
Daniel was the most stupid looking and wooden actor I've ever yet to see, and Rupert was playing a role that even Charles Dickens would have balked at for cockney twatness.
If they accurately portrayed the characters in the book then I am indeed glad I haven't read them.

All the actors that played the teachers were great too.
Nope, they were merely satisfactory, and didn't get much screen time anyway. The old woman teacher was very good, but then again she's a class above the rest anyway.

Also - I'd hate to say it - but Richard Harris as Dumbledore played a MUCH BETTER Gandalf than Ian McKellen.
Then don't, because you are wrong. At least, you would be if I understood your point. Dumbledore was a better Gandalf? Que?

Also there was a plot to the movie
Yes, there was. Eventually. The plot itself would have fitted nicely into a half hour, although it would still need padding.
As I understand, a lot of the film was spent building up characters, history etc. - the plot is really minimal. The characters were NOT built up, the history was non-existant (bar maybe a teeny-tiny bit about Harry's past) and the plot so simple and at the end stupid (they had nothing to worry about because anyone who searches for the stone couldn't find it!) it was just boring.

All in all HP was not bad, it simply wasn't good. It was too long, effects were minimal and mostly average, the plot was bad, the cast were annoying (apart from whom I mentioned earlier and the good Robbie Coltrane who rocked in his part), and I left feeling the best thing about the film was the Lord of the Rings trailer at the start :)

[jerseydevil]

No - central New Jersey, by Princeton. But I did live on the shore on the edges of the pine barrens in Bricktown by Pt Pleasant. And I do go through the Pine Barrens a lot to go to Seaside, Atlantic City or Cape May. Maybe one of these days I'll get to camp out in them.

See I didn't like Gandalf in the movie at all. A lot had to do with the script as to why I didn't like Gandalf though - he came off as a weak bumbling old man most of the times - including trying to push the Gates of Moria inward - when they opened outward. Not to mention that he was talked down to by Elrond and he acted like a whipped dog walking with his tail tucked between his legs begging for his master's forgiveness when he was walking in Isengard with Saruman - before the ridiculous and laughable wizards duel.

I just think that the Richard Harris' Dumbeldore was more wise than the way Gandalf was portrayed.

[Gerbil]

Must admit, there's things I don't like about Gandalf in the film, but much of it is only evident from having read the book.
Also, none of the characters are perfect but I can deal with it.

Once again it all boils down to it being a film and PJ's adaptation.
It's NOT the books, and in some ways I've found having read the books is detrimental to seeing and understanding the film, but at the end of the day, I love the books and the film for different reasons.

Which makes me lucky, since there seem to be so many who don't.

I wonder how many people after having seen the film went and read the book for the first time and mentally are criticising Tolkien for not sticking to the book :)

[jerseydevil]

Then i am sorry for having accused you of not seeing the movies. I didn't feel like looking up the thread to check.

If you were bored with the movie then you should have walked out of the theater.

I also was not basing Emma Watson's performance on her looks - I'm not shallow (I hope you weren't basing it on her looks since she was 10 while she was filming). I thought she played Hermione really well and was funny. And true Rupert Grint did have some rough edges - but he had never even been in a movie before or on TV.

I will continue to say that Richard Harris's Dumbledore would have made a better Gandalf than the way Gandalf was portrayed in LOTR.

Okay - half the movie is about setting up the characters - but once they discover that someone is trying to get to Sorcerer's Stone (which happens soon after arriving in Hogwarts) - it's a mystery that they're trying to solve. I was sort of disappointed that the beginning was rushed through and that the ending was happy. I wanted HP to end with Harry being dragged back to his miserable life at the Dursley's. Instead of the Hollywood feel good ending that it has.

I thought it was a pretty good film. I can't even say whether I like it more or less than LOTR - because they are different films GEARED toward DIFFERENT audiences. I'm very disappointed with LOTR - I don't care if it did get best picture nomenation - which I don't think it will win against A Beautiful mind. What bothers me more is that it got noimenated for best adapted screen play.

At least with HP I got to know the charatcers a little better. There were a few minor characters that weren't fleshed out and I kept forgetting who they were in the movie - even though I had read the book twice.

[jerseydevil]

Well I'm looking at the movie from both sides. Just because it's Jackson's "adaptation" doesn't mean that I have to accept his changes and praise the movie. I didn't hate LOTR - I thought it was a good action adventure movie, which is the same way my friends that have not read the books view it. Not everyone is running out to the bookstore to read the books.

From a lot of the posts I've read people just are happy that the movie got made. It could have almost have been anything and just the fact that it is Lord of the Rings makes it a great movie. If I was Christopher Tolkien and I had seen the script - I would probably have been against it being made too. I don't care if it was nominated Best Picture or not.

[Gerbil]

If you were bored with the movie then you should have walked out of the theater.Ah, but that doesn't make sense to me - the ends of films are usually the good bits. No point on walking out and missing what might be a great film. Also, I am a bit of a fantasy fan as well as a CGI fan. Both reasons that made me want to see the film. In the end I was disappointed, but I've not yet walked out of a film yet (came close watching Deep Blue Sea though - it's AWFUL!).

I also was not basing Emma Watson's performance on her looks - I'm not shallow (I hope you weren't basing it on her looks since she was 10 while she was filming).She's cute :)
Heh, I just have certain reputations to play up to - if I hadn't come across as a pervert I'd have had FrodoFriend complaining :)
I actually did like her character - she'll make a great stroppy stuck up woman when she's older. Which of course for the adults is the point - they get to see something they recognise as an adult trait. Unlike Harry 'low-IQ' Potter and errr...... the cockney git who is just plain annoying. Oh and while I'm on it, the 'evil' boy couldn't have been more stereotyped if they'd tried. They were so OBVIOUS - everything they said and did you could see coming a mile off. This was why to me the film had no suspense and was ultimately boring.

And true Rupert Grint did have some rough edges - but he had never even been in a movie before or on TV.Then what is he doing in the film? Sorry - that's a casting mistake, pure and simple.

I will continue to say that Richard Harris's Dumbledore would have made a better Gandalf than the way Gandalf was portrayed in LOTR.I think this one I'm happy to accept is down to personal taste :)
I think IM was fantastic - and the fact he was dumbed down slightly is a fault of the script, not his acting ability. Roll on TTT and RotK when he should get some serious meat to play with.

I wanted HP to end with Harry being dragged back to his miserable life at the Dursley's. Instead of the Hollywood feel good ending that it has.How does the book end?

I'm very disappointed with LOTR - I don't care if it did get best picture nomenationIt's not perfect, I'm quite happy to admit. But I think that the only way to stop people being disappointed in a film of LotR is simply to not make it - when something is so close to so many peoples' hearts, you'll never be able to get it 100% right for everyone.

What bothers me more is that it got noimenated for best adapted screen play.True, it's one of the more unlikely awards it's up against, but because I want the films to be a success, I'm happy to take it having a bit of fortuitious luck in some of the nominations :)

[jerseydevil]

Well the films are made anyway - so irregardless of whether they even were nominated for an Oscar - it's too late. It's not like the standard sequel (since it isn't a sequel) where the studio first sees how the first film makes out at the box office to determine whether the others will be made. The movie studios don't really care that much about the Oscar, they do of course - mostly for advertising purposes, but not as much as the bottom line. Since I saw LOTR 6 times - I don't think they'll be complaining even if they come away with none - except for maybe visual effects - which I think they deserve.

I think a little bit less of Jackson's vision replacing Tolkiens - would have been nice. I am aware that you can't make a movie verbatum from a book - but there really is not much left that Jackson didn't change - other than the underlying plot of taking the Ring to Mordor. Look at Aragorn - Jackson completely "adapted" or "interpreted" his character into a whimp that has abandoned his heritage.

I am hoping that Gandalf does become more of the wise wizard in TT. If he's still making those STUPID faces I'll scream. I did point out, in a post above, that my problems with Ian McKellan was mostly because of the script and probably director/direction. Actaully I think my whole problem is with the script. Every problem I have is with that. The acting was great in the movie, the scenery, the special effects, the music.

I did figure your perverted comment about Emma Watson was directed at FrodoFriend. I just felt the need to point out that she was ONLY 10 when she filmed HP.

ENDING FOR HP: after the train arrives in London, Harry's uncle meets him at the train station and drags him back to the car and won't even say anything to Ron or Hermione or their family. The movie ends too happy in my view. I wanted them to show that Harry may have been everything at Hogwarts - but at home he still does not have a life or anyone to talk to and is basically lonely.

[Gerbil]

Yup PJ turned Aragorn into basically a wuss who can't tie his own shoelaces without Arwen there casting her special shoe-tying spell on him, but hell, if I am completely honest, I fill in the story with how I think it should be. BUT I've been remarkably quick to 'borrow' PJ's scenery and special effects to pad out my own imagination - for this reason alone I'd love it, but I do love some of the characters, namely Gandalf, Saruman, Gimli, Legolas, Frodo and Sam.
I love Viggo as Aragorn, and can only imagine how good he'd have been if given the proper Aragorn to work with :(

As for HP - why am I not suprised they changed the ending? :(
Typical bloody Hollywood ****! Equate 'changing ending' to, say, 'changing Ford of Bruinen scene' :)

And as for Emma Watson, she'll be a babe when she grows up :p

[olsonm]

The character interpretations were valid given one thing; time. The movie was only three hours long. The charaters in the movie were surprisingly similar to the books. The problem was the time constraints. With so much cut out they still tried to capture the full flavor of the characters. They chose to do this by folding certain character traits that got cut into scenes they kept in.

jerseydevil, Aragorn may have been 'weakened' in some scenes but I disagree that he was a weak character. Elrond's whole "He has chosen exhile" speech was obscure and wasn't said by Aragorn so I don't think it proves Aragorn had rejected his heritage. I'm not saying that your wrong about him being weak, I just disagree.

[LuthienTinuviel]

i think that harry potter is the kids version of LOTR.

even if you don't agree with me, you have to agree that the movie is hardly comparable to LOTR and that it is a kids movie


read: A KIDS MOVIE


last time i checked, kids books/movies weren't really up to par with the intelligence (or at least comprihension skills) of a movie/book like LOTR.

now im not saying that you have to be kid to enjoy HP or an Adult to enjoy LOTR. i am neither, and i love them both.

so now that that is over:D

i never saw harry potter. never really wanted to..

yea, so does anyone know the answer to my question ???
about the re-release? now that the noms are out, gerbil's theory was a bit off? anyone hear anything new?

[Nibs]

If you aesthetically enjoy Harry Potter and are easily offended, continue reading, write a wrathful reply, and I guarantee my opinion will not change.

Personally, I've not seen Harry Potter the movie because I read the book. I felt cheated of my time (even though I read it within about 20 hours [not straight!]). I sensed attempts yearning to yield my pathos for this boy, treated like a burdensome pet, forced to live with the ludicrously abhorrent "muggles". All of these elements left a rather bitter aftertaste in my head, especially the end... I would be very highly surprised if this doesn't make you feel like a donkey being led by someone on your back leading you with a carrot on the end of a fishing pole...

Misnomer: The following quote may be slightly altered in one or more ways. However, the overall intent of the passage has in no way been diminished.
Dumbledore: "Alas, the first thing you ask me, I cannot tell you. You must purchase the equally ill-concieved, overpriced sequels to this book to discover the answer to that crux. [to reader] Don't forget to see the movie!"

I'm probably being a little too overbearing on ol' J.K. I think it was a clever little book, solely for those in the single-digit age group. Anyone older and still infatuated with it, I recommend repeated viewing of that screensaver with the flying toasters in thirty minute intervals until the desire fades. Repeat as desired.

Well, let me just end by saying that this is merely my opinion, and I don't wish for it to alter anyone else's toward Harry Potter. If I could have you get only one thing out of this reply, it would be for a vivid image of an extremely hairy guy sitting at a potter's wheel, making an obscenely deformed pot mentally resounding within your own imagination whenever you further hear the phrase "Harry Potter".

[HOBBIT]

Erm ok, thats nice guys. Leave it to Gerbil to get almost any topic on the subject of Potter bashing. Nottice that he is banned (no I didn't ban him, but I totally agree with the admin who did) now. (he is banned for 1 week, turning this topic into a lets flame potter discussion is only part of his ban).

Just because this is a lotr board DOES NOT MEAN that you automatically have to flame Harry Potter.

No, you are 100% incorrect whoever said that Potter is a kids version of lotr. It is a completely different film, plot, and story. They cannot and should not be compared. They are seperate works.

If you would actually fairly read the books, all of the books, you would discover that they are actually quite good. No, they are not the best books ever written. Yes, there is something wrong with an adult who says that they are the only books they read. But if you enjoy the books, that is 100% ok, because they really are good.

Now, unless you want a similiar fate to that of Gerbil, I would suggest that you stop these childish antics immediately and return to the topic which was about LOtr getting Oscar nominations. Ok? Thank you. :)

[FrodoFriend]

Um.....yeah, I'm actually rather interested in the Oscar nominations. 13 of 'em!!!!! Woohoo!! That's one for each of the dwarves in The Hobbit!! :D I just saw the trailer for it. Ian McKellan for Best Supporting Actor! I think Sean Bean deserved it more, personally, but oh well. And if LotR doesn't win cinematography and special effects somebody will get hurt . . .

[Starr Polish]

I liked all four of the Harry Potter books, but I'd have to agree that I am enjoying LOTR much more, and that's just a matter of personal taste. I actually do not think that Harry Potter is appropriate for younger children, because some of that stuff is pretty freaky.

And about the entire 'Christians think Harry Potter is evil' thing: I'm a Christian, and I believe that if parents fully explain to kids that Harry Potter's world isn't real (some kids have beenasking where Hogwarts is, et cetera) there is nothing wrong with it. There are also a few parrallels (though I'm sure they are unintentional)

I have yet to see the movie, but I"m far more excited about TTT!

[jerseydevil]

I'm not offended - it's your opinion and my opinion doesn't change.

I like many different movies - from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to Dr Zhevago to Scream and Friday the 13th to, yes, Harry Potter. Harry Potter is a different kind of movie than LOTR. The two can not be compared. They were made for two different audiences.

Everyone needs a movie they can watch and just forget about lifes problems. That's the type of movie that HP is. And it is made for a younger audience - but that doesn't mean adults can't like it either.

I have also read many books - including Dostoevsky and Charles Dicken and Shakespeare. But sometimes I like to read or watch a movie like Harry Potter.

[FrodoFriend]

Harry Potter's cool. :D I loved the Quidditch match! Especially Oliver Wood (what is it with people with the last name "Wood"?). And I really can't see how it's inappropriate, but that's just me.

Can we talk about Oscar nominations now? Please? Are there any Hollywood insiders who know how much of a chance LotR has?

[Arathorn]

On HP:

It took me 2 weeks after the movie was released to atcually watch it out of curiosity. I got interested in the books and saw a copy on the net in txt format which I downloaded, read, and finished in a week. Quite light and riveting until the end, I might say. I watched the movie again and didn't like it anymore; although I am still waiting for the next episode because I enjoyed it.

On LOTR and FOTR:

I first read the books right after college 9 yrs ago and read passages ever so often when I have time. I was part of the general fandom who both were excited and shudderred at the thought of someone actually making a film about it. I also said "yeah, they could've done this or that...darned, why did they do that??" but found myself watching it 4 times the first week it came out and 3 more times since then. On the 13 nominations, I agree with giving best supporting actor nom to Sir Ian. Though Sean Bean had such wonderful emotional moments, Sir Ian made me forget the wizard as a cliche and that such a person could be "real". The others will surely be allowed chances to rise to the moment on the next 2 films.

What the heck, I'll be rooting in the most biased manner for all 13 with the limited exposure I had to other movies since january. Woohoo!

[mirrille]

Sean Bean's performance was really amazing. But he was unlikely to get a nomination. Boromir just isn't important enough for that. There are too many characters in that movie and not enough time to develop them all, so there's not really a chance for someone to do enough to get a nomination.
I think Beautiful Mind is going to win the important awards though. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like the type of movie the academy likes. I wanted to see it at first, when I though it was a math movie, but then I found it was a schizophrenia movie and lost interest. Maybe I will rent it eventually.
This all goes back to the traditional prejudice against genre movies.
But 13 nominations is already a huge achievements. Isn't that about the number of nominations that movies like "'Gigi" or "Gone with the Wind", and maybe "West Side Story" (I used to remember these things, but I'm guessing now) got? well, ok. maybe i got the names wrong, but the point is that there have been very few movies to get more than 11 nominations at a time, so this is already very big, win or lose.:D

[Arathorn]

yup I also saw on video online on theonering.net PJ's interview reaction to the nominations. He said that the crew in NZ which numbers a couple of thousand or so already feel that they've won simply by getting all those nominations. He even said that it'll be interesting next year because people will start comparing the 2 movies and they feel like their competing against themselves.

[anduin]

Two movies have received more nominations.....All About Eve and Titanic.

LOTR will not receive Best Picture, that honor will probably go to A Beautiful Mind. Like someone already said, Oscar likes movies like that better. Actually I will be surprised if it wins anything. Perhaps some of the technical awards, but that is it. And if it does win any of the major awards like director or best supporting actor I will be amazed....elated, yet still amazed.

[coolismo]

i agree, PJ sitting in NZ giving interviews in his oldest jumper belies the tremendous lobbying that NewLine have done with the academy to get this movie nominated. 13 noms is worth a best picture oscar even if you dont get the award itself. It will rake in the bucks in the Easter season so Oscar will have done his job even if PJ doesn't get his grippers on one.

[bropous]

*extremely offensive and uncalled for remark edited out by admins*

However, on point, thirteen nominations is incredible! On another thread I bemoaned my premonition that FotR would be snubbed outright by the Academy. I was wrong. as someone pointed out, only two other films in history have been nominated for more Oscars.

But them's nominations.

As for winning, who can say? I have not seen "A Beautiful Mind" nor or "Moulin Rouge" nor "Amalie", but considering all the hype about, "Mind" will probably get the nod for best film. The two categories I am REALLY pulling for are Ian McKellam for Best Supporting Actor and Peter Jackson as Best Director. I do, however, think that Sean Bean should also be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. His depiction of Boromir was captivating, in my EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMEDDCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO opinion.

Who knows, maybe, just maybe, the Academy is filled with secret EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMEDDCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO's who will vote for FotR and sweep Best Picture.

All I can say is, for the first time in nearly twenty years, I will be sitting through the entire Academy Awards, looking specifically for LotR nods. What makes me wanna hurl though is what the "entertainment" will do with LotR. Some big stage production of Fellowship would make me violently, copiously ill [no offense, hama!!!].

[HOBBIT]

Watch it, Bropous.

[bropous]

Warning heeded.

[Evenstar]

I definite;y think that they deserve an Oscar...I was so annoyed when they didnt' win one....
Is Moulin Rouge nominated...cause that was also a really good movie!!!:) :( :mad:

[FrodoFriend]

I'd really like LotR to win soundtrack, but it's pretty much a given that that'll go to Moulin Rouge. Haven't seen A Beautiful Mind, but my parents and every reviewer I read said it wasn't that good (except Russel Crowe's performance - there's the Oscar for Best Actor). It'll probably win anyway, though. :mad: I also think it deserves Best Adapted Screenplay, they did a good job of keeping Tolkien's words in there.

[Ben]

Actually Moulin Rouge wasn't even nominated for Soundtrack, so that kind of puts it out of the running ;).

[FrodoFriend]

No kidding? I thought since it is a "musical" it would be nominated for the music............oh well, that gives LotR more of a chance!

[Pailan]

Found these fun tid bits on theonering.net thought this might help fuel some debate.

1. The movie receiving the most nominations has won best picture for the past 9 years.

2. In the past 20 years (I was too lazy to go back farther), the movie receiving the most nominations won best picture 90% of the time.
[Caveat: the two exceptions are 1981 and 1991...so, 2001?]

3. In the past 20 years, when only one of the movies up for best picture has double digit nominations, it wins 87.5% of the time.

4. In the past 20 years, when a movie has 3+ nominations more than its nearest competitor (it's happened 6 times), it wins 100% of the time.

Nice to know but how will these facts play out in March?

[bropous]

Interesting stats, pailan, but somehow the winds seem to be blowing away from Fellowship. I would love to be again pleasantly surprised by an Academy for which I have little or no respect. Isn't there some inherent hatred of fantasy movies in the Academy? Oh well, I will personally freak out and give birth to a bovine if Fellowship wins best picture.

[coolismo]

simple really: BM is a much better picture than FOTR

[jerseydevil]

I agree - A Beautiful Mind deserves to win. It is a much better picture. I also think that Ron Howard should win for Best Director and that Russel Crowe, although I don't like him personally, should win Best Actor. Russell Crowe's performace was spectacular.

[Comic Book Guy]

Moulin Rouge was disallowed in the Music catagories because it already had pre-existing material that were written for other movies I.E 'Come What May' was written for Romeo and Juliet. In light of this, Howard Shore and Enya have their Oscars locked.

[eowyn144]

i`m just gonna say that i`ll b happy whatever they win and it won`t make much difference to me because I love the film and have seen it at least 5 times and it will remain the best film of my time(about 14 years) in my mind and thats all that matters.
also i`d like to say that if they don`t get best sound track then something has gone seriously wrong somewhere. it is truly amazing and has the proud honour of containing the only piece of music to actually bring me to tears.
howard shore is a genius.
and enya has the most beautiful voice around.do u suppose enya could actually be an elf?

[Arathorn]

speaking of enya, I first got hooked on her music when I heard Lothlorien playing at a friends house about 10 yrs ago. I told her it reminded me of mallorn trees, elves: Lothlorien.
I was shocked to find out that that was the title of the song.:eek: very creepy

[Evenstar]

I really want LotR's to win an Oscar...any Oscar!!! But I also want A Beautiful Mind to win...(or mainly Russel Crowe) I gotta suport my fellow Australians!!!!
Maybe LotR can win best picture....and Russel Crowe can win best Actor..(cause he sooo is) :) :D :p

[Aragorns Dimple]

I'm really pleased that Sir Ian Mc got a Nom for Best Supporting Actor......but what about Elijah Wood as Best Actor? I think perhaps the Academy is being age-ist by not nominating him, seems you have to be at least over the age of 30 to have any credibility there.

I mean, come on, Denzel is a great actor, but "Training Day" isn't such a stand-out kind of movie, bit of a cliche really, the 'tired cop' routine. And who the heck is Tom Wilkinson???

I want to see Nominations for Elijah Wood AND Sean Astin by the time RoTK comes out!!!

Vive le Hobbits!

[Gerby]

[edit] You are banned, and that means you are not allowed to post, don't push it.

[eowyn144]

totally agree. elijah deserves more credit.he is so young yet still soo talented.rock on lij!

[barrelrider110]

Regardless of whether you like what he did with the story or not, I think Peter Jackson above all else should win an Oscar. He filmed three movies at once in 15 months, presided over thousands of extras and minute details, and did a bang-up job of keeping faithful to the books while making a holywood blockbuster.

[Liviaine]

I might have said this before, so excuse me if I have, but LotR should win technical awards, and maybe best director. It probably won't win best picture though.

[jerseydevil]

I'd like to know where Jackson kept faithful to the books. Other than the underlying plot and the place names and character names - he changed everything.

Also since it's only FOTR that he is up for a Best Director award - I don't think the fact that he filmed the other too can be taken into account.

I think it'll get technical awards, maybe Best Score. The top 3 awards, Best Picture, Best Director and Best Supporting Actor I'd be very surprised with it winning.

[barrelrider110]

My fellow Jerseyite,
Did you see a long-expected party? A Balrog? Did you see Orcs, the Watcher of the Water, Elves, Dwarves, wisdom, folly, good, evil, friendship, loyalty, etc., etc., etc. Come on!

Nobody, I mean nobody could ever bring your vision of ME to the screen, nor mine either for that matter. Your vision is yours, mine is mine. PJ's is PJ's and therefore that's the way the movie is. I don't want to get into this old discussion of whether PJ was faithful to the books. He never could completely. Never. The movie would be too long and too boring at least for non-Tolkien fans.
Ralph Bakshi. He tried to be as faithful to Tolkien as he could. I remember seeing his version when it opened in theatres. There was all of 20 people in the place when the movie started rolling, and when it was over there was maybe 10. New Line took one hell of a gamble and Peter Jackson pulled it off! And I don't agree with everything he did, but it was better than I expected.

My point was it was a monster of a job, and I don't remember enjoying a movie since Star Wars in, what 1978?

Nobody has ever done anything like it before.

The man deserves the award more than Opie, more than anybody.

[jerseydevil]

yeah - I did see an Long Expected Party - I also saw Merry and Pippin as just Laurel and Hardy or the two stooges and used as comic relief.

The fact that Bakshi's film didn't do well had nothing to do with the initial interpretation (first half) it was because the movie was terrible, the animation was terrible, the special effects were terrible.

Jackson did an okay job of bringing LOTR to the screen - he did a GREAT job of making the movie appeal to the lowest common denomiator viewer. Just because it appeals to almost everyone - does not mean that the movie itself is great. Also there was very little friendship/loyalty really shown. Yeah - they all went on the quest together - but except for Frodo and Sam - they all were just there. Aragorn was in it for Arwen, Pippin and Merry just wanted to be there for the sake of being there.

I'm also not saying that he had to be completely faithful to the books - but as I said else where - he didn't have to make it into a Hollywood action movie. Sorry - but that's all it is in my opinion.

I just feel Jackson could have stayed truer to the books and still have made a blockbuster hit.

[IronParrot]

I don't think A Beautiful Mind deserves to win, though everything right now indicates that it will, even though the numbers are in LOTR's favor. Although it was a strong film, it was far too mainstream and conventional for my tastes. Sure, it's a demonstration of how old-fashioned filmmaking can be done and done well, but it just doesn't take very many artistic risks in really contributing to the medium.

Personally, who should win? LOTR, by far. But if there's one film that I would NOT cry about snubbing it, it would be Moulin Rouge!, which is easily Best Picture-worthy, and if it weren't for LOTR, would be the only film I want to take away the top prize. But the snubbing of Baz Luhrmann for Best Director (biggest single snub of the Oscar nominations, though Memento was the film that really got shafted) ruins MR's chances.

Well there's also Memento, but the Academy didn't seem to remember it, and it just doesn't have MR or LOTR's "lovable" factor.

As for the technical awards: I'm totally torn between MR and LOTR for many of them, particularly Costumes, Art Design and Cinematography (in the latter, by far the strongest crop of nominees in any category, count in The Man Who Wasn't There, as well).

In short, I expect to be disappointed at the Academy Awards last year. Of course, it's not their fault if they want to (finally) reward Ron Howard, after all but shutting out Apollo 13 (which is quite a ways better than ABM, I find) - and it wasn't his fault that he released that the same year as Braveheart.

The real pity is that Gosford Park and In The Bedroom, artistically praisable but overall unimpressive projects, took two of the spots. I'm glad the Academy is recognizing independent films more and more, but couldn't they pick ones that are both inventive and lovable, like Memento and Amelie?

Anyway. I have far more to rant about, but it wouldn't have anything to do with LOTR.

Just at least give it Best Original Score. That's the category where LOTR really, really rises above the competition by miles and miles and miles, and should be a no-brainer.

[Evenstar]

OK so Ironparrot...I'm slow so be nice but were you saying that you liked Moulin Rouge or disliked it!! If you did like it then YAY!! If not them HMPH!!! :D

[IronParrot]

I loved Moulin Rouge! incredibly. My second-favourite movie of the past year.

What I was saying was that other than LOTR, the only other nominee I feel is worthy of winning Best Picture is MR.

So, "YAY!"

[Starr Polish]

I agree, Moulin Rouge is an AMAZING movie, and Baz should have been nominated for best director.

If LOTR doesn't win Best Picture, that's who I'm rooting for :D I just saw it for only my second time yesterday, since we got it on Pay Per view and I am ill...::sigh:: I'm such a sap.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I was just thinking, because I tend to think up wierd things like this, if LotR:FotR does not win best picture, which nominated movie is your second choice? (I am assuming you of course have LotR as your first choice!) Also, if it doesn't win best picture, which would you least like to win over it?
Me:
My second choice would be Black Hawk Down. NOT because Orlando Bloom is in it! (okay, maybe a little. because he is a good actor.) But I can't really say this fairly, those are the only two I've seen.
Least favorite: (again, I can't really talk, but oh well) A Beautiful Mind. Mainly because it seems right now to be the top contender. Also, The Literary Guild just sorta dissed LotR. In an advertisement, they said, "Oscar Fever: read the books behind the movies," and they showed A Beautiful Mind and Black Hawk Down, but not LotR. Okay, I'm being really stupid and petty. But forgive me, I'm bored. . .:)

[Ben]

My second choice would be Black Hawk Down. NOT because Orlando Bloom is in it! (okay, maybe a little. because he is a good actor.) But I can't really say this fairly, those are the only two I've seen.

Well, it would be extremely hard for BHD to win, primarily because it's not nominated :p.

The nominees for Best Picture are: LotR, A Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, and Moulin Rouge.

[Liviaine]

After LotR, I'd like Moulin Rouge to win because I love musicals. I agree with Eruviel Greenleaf about A Beautiful Mind.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by bmilder


Well, it would be extremely hard for BHD to win, primarily because it's not nominated :p.

The nominees for Best Picture are: LotR, A Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, and Moulin Rouge.

Really? Oh, I knew that! Okay, what happened to me? I think I lost my mind temporarily. . .I don't know why I though that :o Oh! Because of that literary guild advertisement. That must be it. eek.

Hmm, I dunno what my second choice would be, then.

[Comic Book Guy]

Moulin Rogue! and In the Bedroom have a longer chance at winning, their repective directors haven't been nominated in the Directors Catagory.

[bropous]

Actually all the hype on the Oscars is precisely what turns me off to them every year. Only reason I give a flip this year and the next two is because Lord of the Rings is involved.

As for whom I would prefer to win Best Picture instead of FotR, I have no dog in that fight. I wouldn't touch Moulin Rouge with a ninety-foot pole, because it's a steenkin' musical, nor Beautiful Mind because it is so dang overplayed. Gosford Park maybe, because I have a touch of Anglophile in me, and I don' know nothin' 'bout In the Bedroom, graffitti on bathroom walls notwithstanding.

The Oscars never really speak for true film quality, anyways. It's a huge popularity contest with the most incestuous and insular polling group one could imagine. New Line Pictures' fifteen-page spread in variety is a prime example of trying to win over votes and not allowing the artwork to stand on its own.

Again, I state that LotR doesn't praise the underside of life, so it has limited chnce of garnering a "Best Picture" Oscar. I breathlessly await the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by bropous

The Oscars never really speak for true film quality, anyways. It's a huge popularity contest with the most incestuous and insular polling group one could imagine. New Line Pictures' fifteen-page spread in variety is a prime example of trying to win over votes and not allowing the artwork to stand on its own.


Too true. So why do I care every year who wins? Good question, I don't know.

[Arathorn]

I don't know about you guys but I just watch 'em so I won't get left out of the conversation. Whether I join in or not, at least I won't get too bored.:)

[bropous]

Well, pulled out that ninety-foot pole and ordered "Moulin Rouge" on pay-per-view. What a miserable dog of a film. It's not even good enough for "Mystery Science Theater 3000". As painful to watch as "Manos: The Hands of Fate".

First, putting "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" and "Material girl" in a 1890s setting triggered waves of revulsion. Bozos who put this film together couldn't even write original music. Lame with a capital "L".

Plus, everything was so gold-leaf and red velvet baroque that one's eyes were simply overtired after the first five minutes. Slash goes best set director. Everything was totally over-choreographed (best choreography out the window; the fight scenes in LotR should win for that). The whole bloody thing was so steenkin' over-the-top that, the hopes of getting my money's worth rapidly eroding, I cut my losses and bailed. Then I threw up.

Again, the Academy have NEVER impressed me with their choices. I have a strong feeling that this year my distaste for the Oscars will simply be reinforced.

"A Beautiful Mind" ain't even the same story as the book. One may kvetch and spew bile against overreaching Arwen or dropping Glorfindel or Bombadil, but to make "Mind" more palatable, the follwing sides of the main character were left out intentionally, and other aspect added from wholecloth:

"...Nash’s wife actually left him...he fathered an illegitimate son...he [was] busted once for coming on to a man in a men’s room in Malibu, the Cold War paranoid fantasies that loom so large in the film are inventions of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman...."
[http://www.msnbc.com/news/723644.asp] Now, I don't care about these aspects, but if Ron "Land of the Giants" Howard sanitized the character of Nash in the film just to make it more palatable to Academy members, then he certainly doesn't own a best director nod. Besides, the Nash guy was scathingly anti-Jewish, and since so many members of the academy are of Hebraic descent......"Revisio, Ergo Est".

So, the film is not even true to the book, Russell Crowe is nothing but a boozing, boorish bozo, Opie Taylor is an overrated clymer whose "movies" rival Speilberg's for monuments to self-aggrandizement and preachy social engineering, and some black groups are assailing the Academy members throwing up the old tired shibboleth of "racism" if the three black actors don't win. Whole thing is a "confederacy of dunces", and therefore, OUR film, "The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring", is most likely gonna get snubbed next Sunday.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong. Only time will tell.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

*applause*

Well said, Bropous. I, too, hope you are wrong on how LotR will most likely get snubbed next week, but, unfortunately, you are probably right. Now I have to go see those other movies so I will know LotR is up against. . .

[StrawberryIcecream]

You thought Moulin Rouge was rubbish?:eek: :eek: :eek:

Yeah, it wasn't nearly good as LotR:FotR but still, it was a brilliant film! All of my friends like it (half of which are registered on here) and I dont know why you think its so awful!

Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor were amazing together!

[Ërendil]

i agree with bropous- i thought that moulin rouge was rubbish as well. But then again it isn't my type of film

[mirrille]

I was very disappointed with Moulin Rouge when I saw it.
I love movie musicals, and I wanted Moulin Rouge to be good so that people would see there is still money in making musicals and we would get to see more of them. But when I watch a musical, I like to hear good songs and see some good dancing. None of the songs were new, as far as I could tell. But the biggest disappointment was that the camera cuts were so fast that in a dance number (or the whole film, for that matter), you could never see the whole dancer's body, so you couldn't appreciate the dancing, naturally obviating the need for well-choreographed numbers. Just move the camera around instead of the dancers! Sure. It looks like a music video, but for a film so long, I literally came out with a headache. The pacing was terrible. That's my biggest complaint.
Having said that, the costumes were pretty. And the "Roxanne" number was interesting. The cuts were still too fast there though.

[IronParrot]

"Well, pulled out that ninety-foot pole and ordered "Moulin Rouge" on pay-per-view. What a miserable dog of a film. It's not even good enough for "Mystery Science Theater 3000". As painful to watch as "Manos: The Hands of Fate"."

BURN HIM! BURN THE WITCH!

Ahem. Almost lost my cool there.

[IronParrot]

"First, putting "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" and "Material girl" in a 1890s setting triggered waves of revulsion. Bozos who put this film together couldn't even write original music. Lame with a capital "L"."
Need I remind you that such cinematic musical classics as Singin' In The Rain and An American In Paris were also based on pre-existing songs? Need I remind you that the former, while set in the late 1920s, included songs that were written in the '30s and '40s? Need I point out that Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, The Phantom of the Opera and Evita were all written with anachronistic harmonies?

"Plus, everything was so gold-leaf and red velvet baroque that one's eyes were simply overtired after the first five minutes. Slash goes best set director. Everything was totally over-choreographed (best choreography out the window; the fight scenes in LotR should win for that). The whole bloody thing was so steenkin' over-the-top that, the hopes of getting my money's worth rapidly eroding, I cut my losses and bailed. Then I threw up."
So now we've established that you have a weak stomach for original visual dynamism and hyperkinetic rhythmic editing. But that's enough about you...

"None of the songs were new, as far as I could tell."
See above. And don't forget about "Come What May".

"But the biggest disappointment was that the camera cuts were so fast that in a dance number (or the whole film, for that matter), you could never see the whole dancer's body, so you couldn't appreciate the dancing, naturally obviating the need for well-choreographed numbers. Just move the camera around instead of the dancers!"
So it wasn't what you expected it to be - a Gene Kelly dance spectacular with numbers like that Broadway Melody bit. But was that ever the point? It's a tapestry of the Bohemian values of truth, beauty, freedom and love. The rush, the dynamism, and the mood is of paramount importance, and the visual style complements that.

"The pacing was terrible."
Please demonstrate how seamless transitions between contrasting emotions in quick succession (one of Luhrmann's trademarks, almost) evenly spread over two hours is considered terrible... is it too fast or too slow?

Wait a minute, am I going off topic here?

Anyway, I'd just like to put in a quick word about what the nominees for Best Picture should have been this year, but obviously weren't. My final five, in order of preference:

The Fellowship of the Ring
Moulin Rouge!
Memento
Amélie
A.I. Artificial Intelligence

[bropous]

Ah, but, O Ferrous One, I hated "Caterwaulin' in the Rain" and "An American in Plaster of Paris" too. Musicals usually make me violently ill. So, in the interests of full disclosure, admittedly, I had a grudge against "Moulin Rouge" going in.

As for Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Yawn, The Phantom of the Opera and Evita , there may have been "anachronistic harmonies" but at least Tim Rice/Andrew Lloyd Weber worte the bloody stuff for the musical/opera. [BTW, JCS and Evita are rare exceptions to my anti-musical/anti-opera bent]. The music may not have matched the scenery, but using "Material Girl" for a french anorexic courtesan of the turn of the wrong century is far worse.

As for my "weak stomach for original visual dynamism and hyperkinetic rhythmic editing", to each his/her own. I thought it was a film clad in pimp's clothing, garish and tatty, tacky and too shi-shi. Overdone, overworked, overrated and overdecorated. Whole thing might very well trigger epileptic fits more effectively than video games. ;) Certainly does trigger nausea in some test subject groups....

But as far as "Bohemian values" [wow, a phrasing as effective as Ipecac], the only bohemian values were "get it all for yourself and up all others", "enjoy now", and "hedonism is the only virtue, restraint the only vice". It may be nice to paint some Bohemian nirvanistic ideology, but in reality is as workable as 1960s hippie communes. Ain't many of 'em worked. Bohemian hedonistic socialism in practice. Peace, man.
:)

Glad you liked the movie, IP. We just don't agree on this one, bro.

[Comic Book Guy]

I believe it's fair to say Moulin Rouge! is a love/hate thing, it's to do with personal taste I suppose.

[bropous]

I would certainly agree on the love/hate thing, Graphic Novel Dude. Sorta like Alan Scott over Kyle Jordan, no?

[mirrille]

Ahhh! Gene Kelly is a dancing GOD! :D

Moulin Rouge: I meant pacing in terms of presentation and organization. The problem is that it wasn't seamless.
it was cutcutcutcut.
The whole thing feels like being in transition to something else but never appreciating the actual moment there.
It makes you dizzy in a bad way.

I heard it described as a <insert foreign word referring to a shishkebab/yakitori-like food>, which is a cute way to put it. :p Chunks of different things strung together on a stick.
I tried to like it.:( I really did.
Come to think of it, yakitori is yummy. But i guess you wouldn't try to shove the whole thing down your throat at once.:) Pieces of the movie were ok. but the thing as a whole didn't work for me.

I never saw A Beautiful Mind, but what i'm hearing about the butchering of the person's real experience is making me very reluctant to do so. Plus that it's not a math movie like I originally thought. :(
I want to see Amelie though.
Come to think of it, I haven't seen that many movies this year. When are the Oscars again?

[olsonm]

the 24th. that's next sunday.

[IronParrot]

"Ah, but, O Ferrous One, I hated "Caterwaulin' in the Rain" and "An American in Plaster of Paris" too. Musicals usually make me violently ill."
Yeah, you're right that we'll have to agree to disagree here, just based on fundamental beliefs. I appreciate all films based on their level of artistic achievement regardless of genre... it's too bad you don't like musicals.

"I meant pacing in terms of presentation and organization. The problem is that it wasn't seamless. it was cutcutcutcut."
But, if you pay attention, it was a rhythmic cutcutcutcut. And I was referring to inter-scene transitions.

"I never saw A Beautiful Mind, but what i'm hearing about the butchering of the person's real experience is making me very reluctant to do so"
Adaptation is interpretation. That should not dissuade you from the artistic achievement of the film itself. Even The Sound of Music and Lawrence of Arabia took liberties. Not saying ABM is anywhere near those... not even close. I found it to be a very good, but not great, film.

"I want to see Amelie though."
Yeah, it's the only romantic comedy in the past few years that doesn't smell like it was just churned out of the Big Bad Hollywood Machine of Formulaic Filmmaking. And it's real cute.

[Earenya]

I am thinking that for technical/special effects LotR will have a pretty good chance of picking up some little golden guys. I REALLY want them to win best soundtrack, so Im keeping my fingers crossed. :) Of course it would be awesome for best picture/director/sup. actor, but I have a feeling 'A Beautiful Mind' is more "standard Oscar" material.

[mirrille]

Next Sunday!

Wow. that's pretty soon. I wonder if I will bother watching it. Who would miss a chance to stare at what outlandish fashions the young stars of today are sporting? I did say I liked looking at costumes and dancing, didn't I?
Then again, maybe I won't. My exams are coming up fast.

But, if you pay attention, it was a rhythmic cutcutcutcut ]

Aha! Artisiness.... Now I begin to understand. :) I guess I'm just not sophisticated enough. ;) rhythmics. I see... Oh well. Who am I to argue with High Art?
:D

I like it (i.e. it's more fun and interesting) when non-hollywood films get oscars. The Academy isn't the most...international, but it's very famous, so it's good publicity for when a "dark horse" gets in there. Of course, they have to be good foreign films.

[IronParrot]

Yeah, what I love about LOTR is that it is essentially an independent film with a huge budget. So it has artistic innovation, yet the resources for the dream to materialize are available. Too many movies getting mass distribution today have the resources, and nothing else.

I can't believe how much **** there is out there filling the multiplexes, while all the innovation heads for the arthouses... what I really love, however, are the indie films that have huge studios behind the money. Steven Spielberg's A.I. was basically an indie project, and an extension of Kubrick's own indie project. LOTR, of course. George Lucas' Star Wars prequels are essentially independent films, but from a huge wallet. And then there's Baz and Moulin Rouge! They have such a personal air to them, in a way.

Imagine the wonders if you gave Ang Lee or Christopher Nolan or David Lynch or Jean-Pierre Jeunet a hundred million dollars to work with. Assuming they used it wisely, and on a project of their own passion, not something a money-minded studio producer just hired them to do.

[Pailan]

I agree with you, IP. If highly respected directors could be given a solid budget to work their wonders on a piece of true passion. Look what's happened to Tim Burton with "Planet of the Apes." I would have never known that was a Burton piece, Because of all the Hollywood-ification that swamped that movie.

As for "Moulin Rouge", I loved the way the colors where so vivid and dense. Plot was boring (I hate knowing the ending at the beginning) and throughout the movie I kept coming up with better songs to use. (I was a DJ in another life.)

Now "Gosford Park" that was a prime example of a well crafted movie. Incredible acting, strong plot great twists and wonderfully realized settings.

"Amelie" was a fun movie. Intricate and delicate with slices of humor served like a Belgian chocolate. But once I left the theater it didn't linger like....

"LotR:FotR" which just blew me away. I hardly ever go back to see a flick durrings it's first run, now I a wait my fourth viewing. IMHO, this the winner hands down.

[Arian]

Go LOTR. WIn the best pic. I know u can.

[bropous]

"Moulin Rouge", which is obviously E! Entertainment Television's [and Iron Parrot's, wink!] fave flick for the Oscar nod, is a plagiaristic, unoriginal, boring, overhyped, TYPICAL, uninteresting, conglomerate failure and a waste of good celluloid.

"A Beautiful Mind" is a piece of Hollyweird formulaic garbage, directed by a total failure of a director and a medicore child actor, coupled with a boozing, overbearing, violent digger principal actor, which has no resemblance whatsoever to its parent book.

As for the others, they were so vapidly disinteresting that I never wasted the money to see.

And then we have the Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. a masterwork to rival those of Kubrick. A sweeping epic, a world of fiction fully fleshed out and re-created, the most important piece of twentieth-century literature brought to the screen, and a work of a MASTER director, not just some cheap, manic, over-shaky camera angles (Baz the Spaz and Ridley "Snot" Scott as prime examples) and gratuitous, plunging cleavage. No comparison between the "big budget indie" and the typical Hollyweird pablum which is spewed forth upon movie screens year after year.

No choice. LotR wins all thirteen Oscars. Any less reinforces my opinion of the "Academy": Incestuous, puerile, and juenile.

May Sunday surpise me profoundly. Judging from the voting Academy members I have known, I ain't holding my breath.

[olsonm]

This is weird. FoTR could get shut out or it could win them all.

By the way, is it just me or is Richard Roeper a piss-ant? I don't mean just because of his review of FoTR. Most of his "reviews" are annoying.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by bropous
"Moulin Rouge", which is obviously E! Entertainment Television's [and Iron Parrot's, wink!] fave flick for the Oscar nod, is a plagiaristic, unoriginal, boring, overhyped, TYPICAL, uninteresting, conglomerate failure and a waste of good celluloid.
What utter rubbish Bropous. One would almost think you'd never seen the film. You may not like out and out love stories, you may not like musicals (especially with contemporary soundtracks) but your description of the film is so far off the mark it's uncanny.

As for the others, they were so vapidly disinteresting that I never wasted the money to see.
Ah well, there's nothing like preconceptions eh?
My own personal fave (cos I have not seen all of the films up for awards must admit) is Amelie - it's simply gorgeous innocence.

No choice. LotR wins all thirteen Oscars. Any less reinforces my opinion of the "Academy": Incestuous, puerile, and juenile.
If it won all 13 I'd think it would reinforce 99% of the world of exactly the opposite of your beliefs. For a film to win 'just because' is surely the most awful abuse of the system ever?
Much as I love the film - there are some oscars it doesn't deserve to win.

Sorry Brop, but your post was full of rubbish :)

Anyway, can't even remember what the nominations are, but I reckon it'll win 5 oscars. Anyone else want to actually put their money where their mouth is? :)

[bropous]

Gerb, I can't even TELL you in the Moot what I thought of Moulin Rooj. I stand by my assertion, and it is dead-on accurate:

Moulin Rouge is a plagiaristic, unoriginal, boring, overhyped, TYPICAL, uninteresting, conglomerate failure and a waste of good celluloid. Period.

Moulin Rouge stunk to high heaven. That's my review, and I'm sticking to it.

However, it IS interesting that the hype is pumped, and obviously the fix is in. Moulin Rooj and Beautiful Mine are plastered all over the Oscar pre-boost shows, barely get a flippin' cut of Lord of the Rings, and as for the other two movies, you don't even get a single mention, usually. The bloody media should at least show equal amounts of clips from all FIVE films. Ron Opie Howard, Russell Boozer Crowe, Baz the Spaz and Bony Nicole are all servants of Morgoth hissef.

AND, Gerb, it ain't that LotR should win all thirteen Oscars "just because". It is because, in the face of its unimaginative, predicatable and overhyped garbage it is running against, any other result would be tragedy. And you can bloody well bet my undying lack of faith in the Academy will be reinforced.

[Hyperbole aside, I'd like to see Best Film, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Set Design, Best Score, and Best Costumes for LotR. Six out of thirteen ain't asking much, heck, it ain't even fifty percent!]

And if Peter Jackson gets up in front of the Academy and in his acceptance speech he thanks all the EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO's I will have a heart attack.

Rubbish, my hinder. ;) Nassty little rodent.....we knows what they does with gerbils in hollywood.......hee hee hee!!!

[Gerbil]

Dead-on accurate in YOUR mind :)
Here we are back to opinions.

In MY mind Moulin Rouge was excellent. As a 'watch then forget' way for sure but I thoroughly enjoyed myself, both the songs and the style. The style is quite original (especially given Hollywood) and the music, well, I know I don't expect to see a more original cover of Madonna's 'Like a virgin' or the Police's 'Roxanne' in my lifetime :)

It was fun and enjoyable. You may not like it but that's your loss.

Plagiaristic - well, what isn't these days? And I'm sure if you asked the director he'd acknowledge lots of references. He'd probably make some comment on the difference between plagarism and referencing other work.

Unoriginal. Why? Because it's a love story? Because it used other people's music? Because it used popular actors? I genuinely don't follow you in this. Anyway not that unoriginal is necessarily a bad thing - take virtually any romcom film you like. Of course, I'm not saying they are oscar material, but people know what they like and like what they know.

Boring. Hmmmm that's up to the viewer to decide so won't disagree.

Overhyped - well, it's known as marketing. If LotR had got loads more publicity (and it DID get shed-loads) we'd be all 'YAY!' and anyone who didn't like the film would be like 'OVERHYPE Grrrr'.

Typical. Hmmmm repeating unoriginal using another word doesn't make it true you know :)

Uninteresting. Errr ditto with boring!

Conglomerate. 'A film is weaker than the sum of it's parts' kind of thing? :)

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion of course, but it's your loss that you can't enjoy the film for what it's worth. Kind of like JerseyDevil watching FotR numerous times and hating it each time cos of story changes :)
Personally I put off seeing MR because of the hype - I'm a real anti-hype person usually (STILL haven't seen Trainspotting and I'm english, this makes me 100% unpatriotic apparently :)) but when I did see it on DVD I was suprised at just how good it actually was.

As for 'the fix is in' I take this with a pinch of salt. I'm sure lots of BM and MR fans will be crying the same when FotR sweeps the board :)
I also put it down to Americans not feeling comfortable with things unless there's a conspiracy theory in there somewhere :p

And what exactly DO they do with gerbils in Hollywood then eh?
Haven't been so couldn't say. Have you? ;)

[bropous]

Gerbil, good post. Good points.

HOWEVER: I stand, again, by my assertions.

Plagiaristic: Yes. Using modern songs placed in 1890s was stupid. If the director had any imagination whatsoever, he'd have hired Danny Elfman to write some good, original songs for the film. Weak.

Unoriginal: Yes. Refer to last entry. Can't even be bothered to create anything original for the film.

Boring: Anorexic, alabaster-skinned, overrated Aussies caterwauling with obvious voice-overs bore me to death. Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I admit the musical/opera is my least favorite variety of entertainment, and the London cast of "Evita" was the last musical I could sit through, and I've walked out on garbage like "Miss Saigon", "Cats" and "Showboat" because it was simply too painful to watch grown up adults act like such fools. Yes, Moulin Rouge bored the living heck out of me.

Overhyped: Yes. A dog of a film with a king's ransom being spent to garner an Oscar. LotR is a REAL work of film artistry, and the others in the category simply do not hold a candle to it. I'd feel the same way had I not read the book, the film is simply a great piece of filmmaking history. It stands head and shoulders over the vapid competition [okay, okay, Amelie might have some good points].

Typical: Yes. Typical in that a dog of a script, an unimaginative director, and big name actors team up to produce a piece of celluloid that stinks as much as the C-movie classics on "Mystery Science Theater 3000". Might have just as well popped Nicole and Ewan into "Manos:The Hands of Fate" and then claim it was Oscar material. The Emperor has no clothes!

Uninteresting: Yes. Embarassingly stupid song and dance numbers, typical deification of prostitution, praising the "bohemian" mindset and Nicole Kidman all add up to a total and unyielding lack of interest. Heck, even Stanley Kubrick, Film Master Extraordinaire, wasn't able to make that chick anything but vapid, disinteresting and an automatic trigger of bottomless ennui. And no, boring and uninteresting, though close in definition, are not exact matches. I've been plenty bored with interesting material before, and been interested in boring material. Go figure.

Conglomerate: No, not in the "sum of the parts" sense, but a typical [re-use of the word, bad form apparently] Hollyweird formulaic approach, which, without the big-name stars, would have fallen flat at the box office, beyond a shadow of a doubt. It would have just been a quirky little movie which only showed at 123 theaters nationwide. I would say the same of Dino deLaurentis' "Dune", except that the story for Dune was very interesting.

Besides, what's so Britannically patriotic about watching a film about heroin junkies?

Agreed on opinions. Opinions are like elbows, everybody gots at least two. As far as the fix is in, I was referring to the obvious attempt to get the Academy to vote either for MR or BM [wow, what an appropriate abbreviation for that movie!!!!] through media coverage. Again, I think it's really shaddy that BM and MR gain the lion's share of film clips on E! and other mindless Hollyweird worshipping outlets, and even though it would make me happy to see more LotR clips, it is REALLY unfair to Amalie and In the Bedroom. It is a five-way race, and yet the media have allowed themselves to be manipulated to pump up BM and MR, with only token respect paid to the film with the most nominations.

Amelie and In the Bedroom are the two films which are REALLY getting the ream on this one, although I'm not a partisan for either film. It just seems that a more balanced approach to showing clips, instead of letting the Hollyweird publicity machines dictate which films get shown again and again.

And, as for what they do with gerbils in Hollywood....they pump 'em full of expensive champagne, take 'em to the finest restaurants, and then take them to awards shows. ;)

[Pailan]

Originally posted by Gerbil

... but I reckon it'll win 5 oscars. Anyone else want to actually put their money where their mouth is? :)

Well, I hesitate to enter this fray, but I say FotR will garnner 9- maybe 10
awards and will not get get Best Movie. This then will cause about 400 'mooters to develop carpal tunnel syndrom as they type and post endless threads about how FotR was ripped off...:p

[Pailan]

Ah, mon ami bp, when my wife and I went to the theater to see MR we actually got up and walked out. I have never done that before but it was more for her than me. Typically I will tough out a movie I don't like hoping to find something I like. Later, I went and rented MR and watched it all the way through. I find the overall tenor of the movie to be well, bland w/ some neat photography and visuals but the music choices considering how much there is out there to draw from were horrible. I had thought of this idea back in junior high. Baz just got the chance to do it. And I guess the reason why something like this hadn't been done before is painfully obvious.

[Gerbil]

Ah well I guess I'm a bit different then I like a fair number of musicals and stuff (although must admit worst I've been to see was Cats - now THAT was rubbish. 1 good song and the story just stops rather than ends, so you walk out going 'eh? Is that it?').

Funnily enough I thought the idea of using contemporary songs was much more original than having an 'original' score, especially with the more famous numbers because it's cool to see a re-working of things people have such preconceptions about.

As for dubbing - word is Ewan did his own songs (good boy!) but the ginger minger was dubbed. Apart from on 1 song apparently (no idea why).

As for things like 'prostitutes are really angels, no really' it does kind of make me wonder (even the 'bad' whore at the end has a change of heart, seemingly at random) but then again I wonder about you lot - can you not simply suspend disbelief for the sake of enjoyment? I mean come on - it's a film fercryinoutloud! Watching LotR you have to suspend disbelief, and not just at Arwen :)

I mean, sure, if I'd gone to see MR expecting it to be an original score, non-love story with realistic prostitutes (whatever that is) and a documentary-like approach to historical fact then sure I'd be disappointed. As entertainment goes, I loved it!

And go see Amelie - it's cute and the woman in it is just the most innocent sweet person in the whole wide world :) Quirky love story that rocks!

[bropous]

Actually, my girlfriend really liked Amelie. I usally like artsy-tartsy films, but for some reason I skipped this one [oh, I remember, I went to see Lord of the Rings instead!]. I do think it is really rotten to leave Amelie and In the Bedroom out of all the Best Film Oscar coverage, LotR notwithstanding.

[jerseydevil]

Gerbil - I never said I hated LOTR. I just don't think it's a great movie. I give it about 7.5 on a scale of 1 - 10 - which is still above average - since 5 is average. That is seperate from my feelings when comparing it as being LOTR - as LOTR I think it does suck. As a movie - it's okay - but not anything great.

I also feel the movie is riding on the coattails of the books and would never have been getting the kind of publicity it is without them. I think more than likely most critics would have been wondering if it was another Waterworld in the making. Which again - without the fans of the books - it would never have done as well in the theater. Had it not been for the books, I would have seen it once and that was it.

[orald]

In critic's columns they talk about, what a wonderfully well directed,and developed movie LOTR is.And it is done well,but most Tolkien fans know with enough money,what a cake walk this movie would be to make,with a little experience in the directing field.And the screenplay had to be the easiest one ever to write.Still I hope it wins best picture.Doesn't really matter if P.J. wins anything to me,I give it an 8.

[orald]

For Moulan Rouge there is a score,it's done by Craig Armstrong,pretty good stuff,most if his stuff usually is.

[Earenya]

Ah well I guess I'm a bit different then I like a fair number of musicals and stuff (although must admit worst I've been to see was Cats - now THAT was rubbish. 1 good song and the story just stops rather than ends, so you walk out going 'eh? Is that it?'

I agree, Gerbil. I had looked forward to seeing it for so long, and I was greatly disappointed with it.


I thought 'In the Bedroom' was an excellent film. Full of syllogism (the lobster trap, lobsters, the bandaid/wound on finger). The acting was excellent as was direction. It made you think, left you satisfied but not "knowing how it all turns out".

Of course my vote for best picture is LotR, but they are so different in scope. LotR is dramatic, epic, brilliantly scored and is an adaptation of a story I already love. I know that 'A Beautiful Mind' is up as the major competition this year, but in all truth, it left me cold. (Of course I didnt adore Gladiator, so who knows).

[IronParrot]

For the record, every singing voice in Moulin Rouge! belonged to the actor that played the character. In other words, yes, the principal singing voices do indeed belong to Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, John Leguizamo and Jim Broadbent. Yes, there was some dubbing, but most lines in any movie, spoken or sung, are dubbed over anyway in post-production. In the industry, it's known as ADR.

As for bropous: well, like I said earlier, if you're biased against the entire musical genre as it is, then there's really no point to discussing Moulin Rouge! with you, since we come from perspectives pretty much religious in incompatibility. Being a fan of film as a storytelling medium by itself, I don't discriminate by petty factors such as genre.

It should be noted, however, that entirely original music is not and never will be an absolute necessity in a musical, and that the use of existing music is not plagiaristic, but tributary. Entirely original musicals are just a different category of their own, and completely exclusive. Of course, you being the one soul who didn't enjoy Singin' In The Rain, there's not much of a point to me arguing this either.

And in case you're wondering, I should clarify that my pick for the Oscar is indeed LOTR by a long shot, but I would much rather have Moulin Rouge! win than the three other nominees.

As for what LOTR should win?

My picks:

Picture
Director
Supporting Actor (but only because neither Jude Law nor Jim Broadbent's role in MR! were nominated)
Adapted Screenplay
Score (the one that should unquestionably be LOTR)
Visual Effects (though an A.I. upset is more than tolerable)
Sound
Makeup

Plus some that LOTR should win, but an MR! upset would be fine by me:

Art Design / Set Decoration
Costume Design
Editing (which could also deservedly go to Memento)

LOTR's cinematography is breathtaking and would/should win in any other year, but all of the competitors are just so strong this year, I'm not sure who to root for. The Man Who Wasn't There will probably take the prize.

I'm not sure about Song. Since the musical fell into a coma, that category has been pointless anyway... and "Come What May" was snubbed out of a nod because of a technicality.

What LOTR will pick up? I'd say from 6 to 9 would be a reasonable guess.

[bropous]

"Being a fan of film as a storytelling medium by itself, I don't discriminate by petty factors such as genre. "

Ah. I think I see the dissonant chord here. You are more of a "holistic" film fan, embracing the entire art and enjoying all films for the sheer sake of film, and I am much more "esoteric" fan, enjoying only those films which appeal directly to me. Admittedly, my opinions of films are probably a lot more subjective than yours. It's difficult for me to give a positive review of a film if I don't care for its general framework.

Folks look at it differently: Some like movies, some like films. Some like the art, some like only genres of the art. Just like I love impressionism, but cubism makes me gag, I love a good epic but recoil at the idea of a musical. There ARE exceptions, and Moulin Rouge had every chance, O Ferrous One [maybe that should be "O Celluloid One"], of being one of those exceptions.

I just couldn't get past Madonna and the Police in a 1890s dance hall. I just think that was a lazy easy road for Mr. Baz, take songs already popularized and string together a musical piecemeal.

No, IronParrot, although the musical/opera is my least favorite variety of entertainment, it does not mean that I can not enjoy a musical or opera occasionally which strikes my fancy. Problem is, most of the musicals/operas have people acting so cornball that they are literally painful for me to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed "Jesus Christ Superstar", "Godspell", "Fiddler on the Roof", "My Fair Lady", the original London cast of "Evita", "Rocky Horror Picture Show", and "The Sound of Music", and a couple of other musicals, and a few operas. So Moulin Rouge wasn't completely without a chance to be a good movie in my book. It just didn't live up to the level of any of the previously mentioned films of that genre.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by bropous
"Rocky Horror Picture Show"
Ah but did you dress up as a transvestite to go? If not it don't count :p

[bropous]

toast, rice, water pistol, newspaper, cards, but no high heels!

;) Leeeet's dooooo the Tiiiiiime Waaaaaarp agaaaaaaaain.....

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by bropous
toast, rice, water pistol, newspaper, cards, but no high heels!

;) Leeeet's dooooo the Tiiiiiime Waaaaaarp agaaaaaaaain.....
Utter utter coward.

[FrodoFriend]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Ah well I guess I'm a bit different then I like a fair number of musicals and stuff (although must admit worst I've been to see was Cats - now THAT was rubbish. 1 good song and the story just stops rather than ends, so you walk out going 'eh? Is that it?').

Cats - I'll bet you were quaking in your fur at that one. ;)

And I loved it, by the way. :)

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend


Cats - I'll bet you were quaking in your fur at that one. ;)

And I loved it, by the way. :)
What, at those mangy old kitties? I think not :)
If you have to see one, go see either Miserable Les or the Phantom of the Opera. Give Starlight Express a miss too, if it's even still running :)

[FrodoFriend]

Hey, the Rum Tum Tugger was pretty fearsome!

I would love to see Phantom of the Opera. Don't know about Les Mis - I read the book and didn't like it much (too melodramatic). Musicals are great though.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Ugh. I had to sing some stuff from Les Mis last year, and I really didn't like it. Of course, I only got the songs, but one can get a lot of the story from that. . .But I generally don't like musicals. There are very few out there that I enjoy.

[Gerbil]

Interesting (or otherwise) comments from the ga- sorry, typo! ;) guy hosting the Baftas, Jonathon Woss:

Best picture: In the Bedroom
Best Director: Peter Jackson

He said a few others but since FotR weren't in those catagories I'll ignore them for the meaningless trivia they are.

[Gerbil]

I would love to see Phantom of the Opera
Phantom rocks.
But it's darned expensive, even though it's been out for years.
I think I paid about £50 each for a couple of tickets to go with a gf a while ago.

Still cheaper than a Madonna concert from what I hear :)

And cheaper than the amount I've spent on going to see FotR!

Lets see:

Average of £7 per ticket. Seen it 8 times
Parking £5, only walked there once, so that's 7 times.
Probably a couple of pounds each time for snacks.

So thats:

7 * 8 + 5 * 7 + 2 * 8 = £107

Man I am such a sucker...

[Gerbil]

YAY!

First oscar is in the bag!
For make-up.
It missed out on editing mind.

11 more to go in this live, spur-of-the-moment coverage by Mammal networks ltd :)

[Earenya]

Yay for makeup!!! Now, to keep fingers crossed.....

[jerseydevil]

Hey - even I felt that if LOTR didn't win for Make-up that they would have been cheated. But I think Momento should have gotten it for Editing.

[Gerbil]

Go to the academy awards thread that Emplynx started for the latest on the Oscars :)

http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4028

[Earenya]

Of course we're all waiting for the big one... but yay! Cinematography!!

[shirechild]

We deffenitaly deserved all 13 oscars but at least we made away with 4. How many did Harry Potter and the Sorcer's Stone get? WE should have gotten 13!!!!! besty film deffenitaly. Some one I know saw it 10 times. $55 on the fellow ship so far. Must buy movie