PDA

View Full Version : Oscars



Úlairi
03-24-2002, 03:14 AM
Well, the countdown for the Oscars has begun! Lets all cross our fingers and hope that LOTR wins all the Oscars it was nominated for and beat 'A Beautiful Mind' in Best Picture!!!

Andquellewen
03-24-2002, 05:38 AM
I still have to go to bed and wake up before the actual countdown begins here :mad:
On the bright side I was watching an entertainment show earlier and it said LotR was the film that was most likely to win best picture this year:p

Legolam
03-24-2002, 08:17 PM
I'm staying up from 0045 - 0445 this morning to watch the Oscars. So it better be worth it!!! Or else i'll be angry :mad: and tired :eek:

:cool:

Merlin
03-24-2002, 09:01 PM
Please keep us up to date! I am stuck in the computer lab in school doing a project :(

EverEve
03-24-2002, 09:07 PM
HAHA:D!!!!!! sry, it really isnt that funny but, ill tell ya wat ya wanna know if i know it!

EverEve
03-24-2002, 09:10 PM
I dont have school tommorow, so I can stay up as late as I want!!! Yay for Full day curricullum days!!!!!!! GO LOTR!!!!!:D

Merlin
03-24-2002, 09:23 PM
you should be called EverEvil :D

Hawkblaze
03-24-2002, 11:33 PM
Yeah, I really think FOTR deserves to win over ABM but I'm thinking it's very unlikely. The academy is so partial against fantasies it makes me sick.

ReadWryt
03-25-2002, 12:48 AM
I defy anyone to prove that there is a bias against Fantasy in the Academy...don't bother, it cannot be done.

PRH
03-25-2002, 12:58 AM
Can one prove any bias about anything?

Granted, this would be a hard bias to prove since there's been so little fantasy worthy of Oscar recognition.

Khamul
03-25-2002, 01:28 AM
But isnt that the same with drama and action as well.

Legolam
03-25-2002, 02:17 AM
Best make up to LOTR!

Mormegil
03-25-2002, 02:20 AM
But costume design went to Moulin Rouge. :mad: :mad:

Legolam
03-25-2002, 02:28 AM
cinematography!

Legolam
03-25-2002, 03:09 AM
Dammit, Ian McK didn't win.

Grrrrrrrr :(

Legolam
03-25-2002, 03:25 AM
Oscar no 3: Visual effects

[I should go to bed soon, it's 3:25 in the morning!]

ReadWryt
03-25-2002, 03:39 AM
Yeah PRH, that's my point...I keep seeing people claim there is a bias in the Academy against Fantasy, but what percentage of movies each year are Fantasy for starters, and then what percentage of those few are worthy of more then Makeup, Costume or Effects nominations? If we look at the past 20 years alone we have maybe...Time Bandits, Legend, Labyrinth, Krull, Willow and now LotR...

I could as easily claim that the Academy has a bias against Horror or Courtroom Dramas.

Legolam
03-25-2002, 03:42 AM
Howard Shore - Best Original Score

PRH
03-25-2002, 04:34 AM
Robbed for Adapted Screenplay!

Legolam
03-25-2002, 04:54 AM
Yeah, I agree. For all the flaws in the adaption, it still deserved to win over the rest.

Legolam
03-25-2002, 04:58 AM
OK, it's 5am and I'm going to bed. I'll just have to watch the highlights tomorrow. Go LOTR for best picture and best director!!!

Mayberry
03-25-2002, 05:11 AM
I am really disappointed that Ian didn't get the Oscar for his portrayal of Gandalf. I was hoping for Enya to win Best Song, also. Oh, well. At least Howard Shore won for Best Film Score! Thank goodness ILM wasn't represented this year or LOTR wouldn't have gotten the Oscar for Visual Effects. I just knew it would garner the Cinematograpy award.

I doubt it it will win Best Picture or Director. Hollywood feels it owes Ron Howard and A Beautiful Mind is just the sort of film that filmakers love.

EverEve
03-25-2002, 05:52 AM
NO!!!!!! DOWN WITH ABM!!! IT ROBBED LOTR OF DIRECTOR AND PICTURE!!!!! DIE, DIE, DIE!!!!:mad:

Merlin
03-25-2002, 05:56 AM
I feel sick... even Enya lost to that Monster's Inc puke of a song. This is the last Oscar show i will EVER watch.

Thorin
03-25-2002, 06:05 AM
Harad, you know I appreciate you but......I have to.......BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 out of 13? Ouch. That's gotta sting for all those who thought FoTR was the best movie to ever grace the screens and practically hail Jackson as the next Speilberg...

Except for Costume, Set Design and Song which I felt it should have won....FoTR won the awards it deserved....Screenplay??? Give me a break fellows, it shouldn't even have been nominated. I'm glad it didn't win.

I will not gloat anymore.....Though I guess it proves that hype will only take you so far....

I think that Russell Crowe should definitely have won for Best Actor, though I'm happy for Denzel.

aragil
03-25-2002, 06:11 AM
Well, of Director, Picture, and Screenplay I didn't really expect FotR to win all three. But none of them? And all to ABM? I must say I'm a tad disappointed. I just don't see ABM being that superior of a screenplay. The premise seemed to be that we can find beauty even in a flawed human. Yet the story undermined itself and it's premise by presenting the character as less flawed then he actually was. I just don't know why the Academy saw fit to award it on all three levels (and yet snub it's strongest point in Crowe). I mean, if we really felt that touched by the story (as we apparently did to give it all 3 awards), isn't it because Crowe was able to portray the character so well? I guess Academy voting isn't based on logic.
Of the three biggies, I would have preferred Fellowship winning the screenplay most of all, I think. Oh well, I suppose there's two more years of chances, but somehow I doubt that the Academy will award a sequel.

PRH
03-25-2002, 06:12 AM
At least the voting was 'very close' on Best Picture according to the winner.

aragil
03-25-2002, 06:15 AM
Hype Thorin? Please. Unfortunately I can't say that I'm unbiased, but I feel that Fellowship was a better film than ABM. And I definitely feel that the screenplay was stronger. Oh well, I'm not a member of the Academy, so my opinions don't mean squat when it comes to actually getting the awards. But I'd love to talk with the screenwriters that voted for ABM and asked them what the hell they were thinking.

the eye
03-25-2002, 06:26 AM
LotR cleaned up in Britain. Pretty much blew ABM away there. So why did AMB do so well in America? Simple, have the hometown boys win. Plus, Ron Howard was chosen to finally get awards. Thats how it goes. Its like "well, this guy is good and hasn't won an oscar his whole life and his latest movie is pretty good, lets give it to him". We as fans would like to see LotR win oscars, but I hope PJ and crew know that his fans (and most people) preferred LotR over ABM and many movies. Heck, LotR has earned TWICE the box office $'s than ABM!
I think Tolkien fans in general are pleased that PJ not only did an acceptable job in representing the work of Tolkien, he turned and epic story into an epic movie!

Thanks PJ and crew, you made one Tolkien fan very happy.

PRH
03-25-2002, 06:28 AM
Since I can't understand why ABM won all those big awards despite an open minded comparasion I choose to believe that the Academy voted for it as a backlash to the 'negative campaigning' against it.

fact 1: ABM, while a good movie in it's own right, paled in comparasion to FOTR

fact 2: there was 'negative campaigning' against ABM

fact 3: the Academy voted for it.

Airtight case. Prove me wrong...Actually don't bother, it's impossible.

No wait, I changed my mind, the Academy has suddenly accepted black people so their turning their racism toward Kiwis. That's it! Prove me wrong.

ReadWryt
03-25-2002, 07:01 AM
Ok, here is the deal for all you who are too new to have seen my posts on why I suspected LotR would not win for Best Picture...

It has nothing to do with "Mud Slinging". Think about when you first heard about Mud Slinging and then look into when Voting was over and you will find that no mention of Mud Slinging even occured until after the ballots were collected...I know this, I happen to live very close to and speak almost daily with a voting member of the A.M.P.A.S. . I predicted early on that LotR would not win because most of the voting body of the Academy are people who work in the business here in the U.S.. The bulk of these people are Union Members, and I suspect that when U.S. money was given to Jackson to make this movie, and that when he took ALL of that money to New Zealand and hired New Zealanders to build sets, do costuming, Makeup, Effects, Catering, be extras and nearly every other aspect of the maki8ng of this film...effectively excluding any AMERICAN ACADEMY VOTERS from working on the movie it effected the way that a lot of people cast their votes.

As for the Best Adapted Screenplay nomination, lets have a show of hands from all of you saying that ABM should not have won that actually READ the book it is adapted from...then tell me why you thought the adaptation was not as good as the adaptation of LotR...

Wide Boy
03-25-2002, 07:03 AM
Well at least FOTR has joined the exclusive club of fabulous movies that didn't win Best Picture.

The Academy had a real attack of xenophobia this year. Almost nothing and nobody from out of town won anything more important than Best Hamburger By A Non Franchise Catering Firm.

But, hey, we've all known the Academy's deficiencies for years, why are we so surprised?:rolleyes:

belfong
03-25-2002, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by the eye
LotR cleaned up in Britain. Pretty much blew ABM away there. So why did AMB do so well in America? Simple, have the hometown boys win. Plus, Ron Howard was chosen to finally get awards. Thats how it goes. Its like "well, this guy is good and hasn't won an oscar his whole life and his latest movie is pretty good, lets give it to him".

You know, I agree with what eye said. Look at the Best Actor and Best Actress. Pretty much no blacks has won a Lead role in acting as far as I can tell. Suddenly, this year, not one but two blacks won for the most coverted award. Why? Its like "Well, we have never awarded lead roles to the black and since Crowe has made such a fool of himself, let's give em black a chance. Then we can skip all of them for the next 5 decades of awards and no one will criticize us of not awarding them..."

Fishy. Real fishy.

ssgrif
03-25-2002, 09:32 AM
It has to be said that it's pretty rare, if not virtually impossible for a Sci-Fi or Fantasy picture to win the coveted awards like Best Picture, Best Director etc at the Oscars. The Oscar people upon high like drama-esk films to win as it makes them feel like their work was more of a higher quality and didn't need support from visual effects etc.

I never thought that LOTR would get Best Director or Best Screenplay because basically the film didnt deserve it, but Best picture should be about what the people handed over their hard earned cash for, and that should have went to LOTR. I'll remember 2001 for the LOTR and not for A Beautiful Mind.

Oh well maybe next year, if PJ does a better job with the sequel TTT.

Legolam
03-25-2002, 12:29 PM
I'm kinda glad I din't stay up. LOTR didn't win any more Oscars after I went to bed, so I'm tired and dissappointed. But there's always next year! :rolleyes:

Niniel
03-25-2002, 01:10 PM
Actually I did stay up from 2 AM to 7 AM, but after 4 AM they won nothing any more, so I might just have gone to bed... but you never know, if they had won I would have missed it all, so I stayed up...

Greenwood
03-25-2002, 03:16 PM
Quote by Readwryt
As for the Best Adapted Screenplay nomination, lets have a show of hands from all of you saying that ABM should not have won that actually READ the book it is adapted from...then tell me why you thought the adaptation was not as good as the adaptation of LotR...

For the umpteenth time: The award has nothing to do with how closely the screenplay adhered to the original or even how good an "adaptation" the screenplay was of the original; one of the nominees was a screenplay based on a comic book for goodness sake! I doubt that more than a handful, if that many, Academy voters read the book ABM was based on; nor are they expected to. The nomination and award is for the quality of the screenplay completely independent of the source material. The reason there are two screenplay categories is in recognition that writing something from scratch for the screen is different than having previously published material to work from.


Quote by Aragil
But I'd love to talk with the screenwriters that voted for ABM and asked them what the hell they were thinking.

Actually it is only the nominations that come from the screenwriters (in each category the specialists nominate their own: editors nominate editors, sound people nominate sound people, etc). The final awards are voted on by everyone.


I always predicted ABM would win the big ones because the Academy traditionally loves films about people triumphing over personal afflictions. Russel Crowe probably would have one also except for his loutish behavior after the British awards.

As for the smear campaign, I am sure it had an affect. Voting on the awards did not end until this past Tuesday. Nash and his wife were on 60 Minutes last Sunday and the studio started publicly complaining about the "smear" campaign a week or two earlier. I am cynical enough to wonder how much of the studio's lamentations about a "smear" campaign was [Edited by Greenwood -- I meant was, nit wasn't as originally typed] a calculated effort on their part to generate a backlash in favor of ABM. Until all the handwringing and moaning about the smear campaign many people were saying LOTR was the frontrunner for the award, though I personally always doubted it.

aragil
03-25-2002, 06:07 PM
Well, if every card-carrying member of the academy gets to vote on every category, that might help explain some of the voting. But I'm still ****ed at the politics.
Ticked off bit #1: Crowe won last year for Gladiator. I just don't think his acting in that film was spectacular enough for the statue.
Ticked off bit #2: Crowe didn't win this year. As mad at I am that ABM swept the big categories, I just am surprised Crowe didn't get the acting award. To me ABM was about sympathizing with Nash and understanding what it might have felt like to go through what he did. Sure Howard did a good job, but what really made us connect with the character was Crowe's portrayal. IMO they should have given Denzel the award last year for Hurricane, and Crowe the award this year. And I don't want any Academy defenders saying tripe like 'How could we know Denzel and Crowe would be up for the same award 2 years running'. Foresight should be 20/20.
Ticked off bit #3: I still think ABM cheated on it's premise. I thought the premise was beauty in the midst of flawed humanity. By making that humanity less flawed than it actually was, you're cheating your very premise. This is my problem with the screenplay, as I said before.

Curious bit #1: OK, everybody's saying that Hollywood is xenophobic. What about the guy who won Best Original Screenplay for Gosford Park? Was he being sarcastic up on stage when he said how kind the Academy has always been to foreigners? My gut feeling is that he was, but sometimes it's hard to read the British. And really, a comment like that (if it was sarcastic) has got to be worse than anything Crowe might have said at the BAFTAs (I wouldn't know because I didn't watch).

ReadWryt
03-25-2002, 06:08 PM
You know, I agree with what eye said. Look at the Best Actor and Best Actress. Pretty much no blacks has won a Lead role in acting as far as I can tell. Suddenly, this year, not one but two blacks won for the most coverted award. Why? Its like "Well, we have never awarded lead roles to the black and since Crowe has made such a fool of himself, let's give em black a chance. Then we can skip all of them for the next 5 decades of awards and no one will criticize us of not awarding them..."
It has to be said that it's pretty rare, if not virtually impossible for a Sci-Fi or Fantasy picture to win the coveted awards like Best Picture, Best Director etc at the Oscars. The Oscar people upon high like drama-esk films to win as it makes them feel like their work was more of a higher quality and didn't need support from visual effects etc.

Here are misconceptions that are common. There IS no Academy on High...Nominations are made and voted on by people in the related fields, so if Black people got nominated by the Academy it's because actors nominated them. If Fantasy and Science Fiction movies don't get nominated it's because people in the Industry didn't think they were of the calibre of the films which WERE nominated.

The general voting is done by the entire voting body of the Academy. This means the myriad people who work in the Motion Picture Industry, so when two African American people win for Best Lead roles it's not some group of judges sitting around holding up cards with numbers on them like the Olympics, it's voting by all the people you saw sitting in the Kodak Theatre last night as well as many more. This is what makes all the talk last night about what a wonderfull thing it was that Racism has died in the Academy voting so ironic...I don't think that the reaction in the audience would have been the same had miss Barry just said "I want to thank all of you in the audience tonight for not being the racist slobs you have all so obviously been in the past...".

The fact is that most Science Fiction and Fantasy movies are never taken seriously, not at Oscar time, but instead at Pre-production time. The studios never fund them well (With a few exceptions) and because of their very nature they require larger budgets then mere contemporary romances that don't require the Makup, Set Design, Costuming and Effects needed to mount a serious shot at a Fantasy or Science Fiction story.

This causes most films in these catagories to fall short of the potential that they could have achieved had they been budgetted, like 2001 A.S.O., Blade Runner, Willow or LotR, with the funds required to give them production quality that would draw the attention away from the cheesiness and cheap look of them and over to the overall quality of the production.

Rail against the Academy for things that they are guilty of, but remember that it is the Studio system of deciding what to fund and what not to consider that hamstrings the bulk of these genre of movies before Oscar Consideration is ever even an issue...

PRH
03-25-2002, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by aragil
Ticked off bit #3: I still think ABM cheated on it's premise. I thought the premise was beauty in the midst of flawed humanity. By making that humanity less flawed than it actually was, you're cheating your very premise. This is my problem with the screenplay, as I said before.
As long as they were taking such liberities with the facts they should've changed the story so that Nash came up with his Nobel Prize winning game theory after he went off his meds. Then he would've really overcome his disease by actually accomplishing something. The way it goes in reality is that he developed the theory before his disease was in full swing then he was fully recognized for it like 40 years later.

ReadWryt
03-25-2002, 06:55 PM
More then half of the votes were in the first two weeks of voting, and they were cast using the newly adopted Web Based Balloting system, the convenience of which is accepted as the reason so many people voted early. There were flaws in the balloting...I know that my friend had all of the Documentaries listed and technically those are only supposed to be voted on by people who saw them..as is the rule with foreign language film and animated and live-action short films as well. He of course refrained from voting for them as he had not seen them, but his ability to vote in the first three days of balloting was novel. He DID miss the giant voting card that had been used in the past, but the ease of simply opening his snail mail and then logging on and using the code supplied in the letter to cast his vote was a welcome change in the end.

Because more then 2200 votes had been cast before any mention of "Mud Slinging" one can only guess at what effect, posative or negative, all the publicity had on the voting body...but I do not believe it had much effect at all.

PRH
03-25-2002, 07:23 PM
RW - since you've got the inside track maybe you know something about how close the results were? (or are those kept secret forever?)

When ...whoever that was... accepted the award for ABM as Best Picture he read something off the winner card and said it was very close (as though the tally was printed there). If FOTR lost by something less than like 50 votes, that would be a comforting thought.

ReadWryt
03-25-2002, 07:23 PM
Ok, I should probably just edit the above post, but in light of the hasty and rash errors that I made in stating what I interpreted as the facts, I think it best to leave my misspeaking in place, if for no other reason then to serve as a reminder to myself as to when to open my big fat mouth and when to think first.

For starters 2200 votes were cast on the Web Site in the first two weeks, and this indeed is not the majority of ALL the Academy Voters, but instead the majority of the nearly 4200 voting members in our fair state of California alone. While the bulk of the Movie Industry is indeed rooted here it would be foolhardy for me to claim that 2200 votes were the majority of ALL the Voting Body as I have NO idea (at the moment) how many MORE are working or living outside of the State of California itself. Ergo, I retract the statement imediately above as to a majority of votes having been cast until such time as I can verify accurately that this was the case.

In the immortal words of the great Sage Homer (Simpson), DOH!

Legolam
03-25-2002, 07:38 PM
To Aragil: The British guy was actually being sincere and showing his solidarity and gratefulness to the American public. he was genuinely pleased to receive the award. Hope that clears your point up

Greenwood
03-25-2002, 10:50 PM
A couple of comments:

I think the guy who said the voting was close was Ron Howard's partner Brian Grazer and I think he was attempting a somewhat inept effort at being magnanimous in victory. The Academy never reveals the actual vote totals and everyone in that audience knows it. (That's why I say it was inept.)

I agree with Legolam that the British winner was being sincere. I also think that if you look at all the awards it would be hard to make a case for the Academy favoring American film workers over other nationalities. I heard quite a few accents up there on the stage last night: British, Australian, New Zealand, French, Italian.

ReadWryt -- while I agree with you that the majority (probably even the vast majority) of science fiction and fantasy films are often underfunded and do not deserve to be nominated, there have been quite a few that made it into the nominations. It is these films that are fairly consistently shut-out of the major awards (just as comedies may get nominated, but rarely win any of the major awards). Some examples that come to mind: 2001: A Space Odyssey, E.T., Star Wars, Close Encounters, LOTR. The Academy has a definite bias towards what they consider serious films and a very strong bias in favor of "inspirational" films.

PRH
03-25-2002, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Greenwood
I think the guy who said the voting was close was Ron Howard's partner Brian Grazer and I think he was attempting an a somewhat inept effort at being magnanimous in victory. The Academy never reveals the actual vote totals and everyone in that audience knows it. (That's why I say it was inept.)That's what I though so I was surprised to hear him say that, plus I quit really paying attention at that point.

shadowfax54
03-26-2002, 12:06 AM
I'm also happy for Denzel, but I don't think that he should have won anything for Training Day. His earlier movies, yes! This must have been a make up award like the one John Wayne won at the end of his career.

"I think that Russell Crowe should definitely have won for Best Actor, though I'm happy for Denzel." [/B][/QUOTE]

ReadWryt
03-26-2002, 01:32 AM
while I agree with you that the majority (probably even the vast majority) of science fiction and fantasy films are often underfunded and do not deserve to be nominated, there have been quite a few that made it into the nominations. It is these films that are fairly consistently shut-out of the major awards (just as comedies may get nominated, but rarely win any of the major awards). Some examples that come to mind: 2001: A Space Odyssey, E.T., Star Wars, Close Encounters, LOTR. The Academy has a definite bias towards what they consider serious films and a very strong bias in favor of "inspirational" films.

Ok...um, for starters 2001 was not nominated for best picture..but had it been it would have been up against four of the following films..."OLIVER!", "Funny Girl", "The Lion in Winter", "Rachel, Rachel", "Romeo and Juliet"..it would, and in my mind should, have lost to at least two of these, "The Lion in Winter" and the actual winner that year "Romeo and Juliet", both of which were far better written and acted. Kubrick did win for Best Director.

"Close Encounters" was never nominated for Best Picture either and would have been up against "Star Wars" that year had it been, the nominees being "ANNIE HALL", "The Goodbye Girl", "Julia", "Star Wars", "The Turning Point"...I don't think I need to comment on making comparisons between the acting in "Star Wars" and "The Turning Point" and "The Goodbye Girl", although "Annie Hall" won in the end.

Although technically a Science Fiction I won't count "Doctor Strangelove" because I don't think that the strict definition, any story which deals with man's relationship to the world and his technology, applies...but it IS my favorite Kubrick movie of all time.

In 1971 "A Clockwork Orange" was nominated for Best Picture and Best Director, but being up against "THE FRENCH CONNECTION", "Fiddler on the Roof", "The Last Picture Show" and "Nicholas and Alexandra" it's not surprising that it didn't win. In a side note, the first horror movie nominated for Best Picture, and to my knowlege the only one, was "The Excorcist" in 1973.

"E.T." was indeed nominated for Best Picture, and how it lost out to "Ghandi" is beyond me. What a boring and unattractive movie with a dull plot about someone who really never did anything and was played so horribly. Maybe I shouldn't be so sarcastic, it's starting to hurt a little. GHANDI fer chrissake! If not "Ghandi" then "Missing", "Tootsie" and "The Verdict"...at that point you have to realize that when confronted with amazing special effects and decent acting the Academy Voters go for the movies with the great acting and give the former a Technical Acheivement award...

"Beauty and the Beast" is a fantasy, and it was nominated. Mind you, it was nominated back when there was not a special award for Best Animated Movie like they started doing this year...That, from what I could find, is it. Before the 1940's the only fantasy movies nominated were things like "Midsummer's nights dream" and Laurel and Hardy in "Babes in Toyland" and stuff. Back in the 1930's they let more then 5 nominees get picked per catagory so in a lot of cases any Science Fiction or Fantasy would be up against as many as 7 other films anyways, making it REALLY hard to win.

Now because of the subjective nature of much of the conjecture I make here, I don't expect to win any debate over "should "Star Wars" have won over Annie Hall"?", or "should "Close Encounters" have beat out "Ghandi"?". I do think though that outside of the Fantasy and Science Fiction movies I mention in here there are none which had such standout performaces or an amazing level of inginuity and quality in their production that they deserved to have been nominated let alone win for Best Picture. Next I will be going back and looking to see what Actors were nominated for SciFi and Fantasy roles, but my brain is tired and I hope that I'm already making my point anyways.

Hawkblaze
03-26-2002, 02:27 AM
LotR should have won Best Picture. Yes, you could call it an "action" movie, but did it "rely" on action to get its point across? No. It was action with a purpose, it was not action for the sake of action like some of the **** seen today all the time. And with all that action, it stilled managed to fit in witty dialouge, an amazing story, awesome art direction, and important morals. I think all the themes were portrayed excellently, especially when Frodo is standing on the bank, deciding whether to leave the Fellowship or not. ABM was a good movie in its own right, but when i compare it to LOTR, LOTR just blows it away in my mind.

Thorin
03-26-2002, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by ReadWryt
In a side note, the first horror movie nominated for Best Picture, and to my knowlege the only one, was "The Excorcist" in 1973.

Wasn't Sixth Sense nominated 2 years ago?


Originally posted by ReadWryt
I do think though that outside of the Fantasy and Science Fiction movies I mention in here there are none which had such standout performaces or an amazing level of inginuity and quality in their production that they deserved to have been nominated let alone win for Best Picture

I would beg to differ.....James Cameron's "Aliens" in 1986 is probably the best creature/sci-fi movie ever to grace the screen (except for the Star Wars trilogy) and is still one of my most favorite movies out of any genre. That had the best special effects and creatures up to it's date...Stan Winston is a genius in the monster department. I know that "Platoon" won best picture (personally, despite Willem Dafoe's great acting, I thought it was a mediocre picture), but didn't "Alien's" win some academy awards that year?

aragil
03-26-2002, 05:51 AM
I think Blade Runner was certainly worthy of a nomination, if not more. Good Acting, Good Story, Good Visuals, No Respect.

ReadWryt
03-26-2002, 07:39 AM
Wait...this is still really subjective I know, but c`mon...Aliens was better then any of the nominees that year? "PLATOON", "Children of a Lesser God", "Hannah and Her Sisters", "The Mission" and "A Room with a View"...I'm thinkin no myself. Aliens won some Technical awards, like most of what LotR won.

As for Blade Runner, well...it would have had a hard time against "Ghandi" and "E.T." both...

Don't get me wrong, I adore BOTH of those movies..."Blade Runner" more then "Aliens" in many ways, but Best Picture? At least I can realize that there are, most years, movies I personally enjoyed more then anything that got nominated for the Oscar but that my personal tastes have little to do with the quality of the movie if the story or genre grab me. Conversely nothing outrages me more then a BAD Fantasy or Science Fiction movie, and I realize that I am harder on these then they probably deserve ("Starship Troopers", all the odd numbered "Star Trek" movies, "Hollow Man" ...), and that my personal bias doesn't reflect the quality of the production or the amount of money they make...or even if they deserve an Oscar nod.

Heck, I thought that "Enemy Mine" deserved a heck of a lot more recognition then it got, but I also realized that as a complete production...overall it was not as good or better then "OUT OF AFRICA", "Kiss of the Spider Woman", "Prizzi's Honor", "Witness" or "The Color Purple", the last being the movie I was acually pulling for and is one of two movies ever to have not one a single award even though it was nominated for eleven, the other being The Turning Point in 1977.

What in essence you are saying when you say that "The Academy has a bias against Fantasy and Science Fiction" is that there is some conspiracy in the ranks of the people who work in the industry to keep these movies from being considered, or that sub-conciously the collective body of people working in the movie industry refuse to take seriously any movies of these genre, which if true would mean that nobody would bother funding, writing, directing, acting, costuming or doing makeup or set design for these movies unless it was the only gig they could get. The fact that they do get made, promoted and distributed means that SOMEBODY in the industry thinks they are viable as an art form, and this precludes any bias that these same people, the voting body of the Academy, may or may not have...In my opinion anyways.

Wide Boy
03-26-2002, 07:50 AM
Greenwood,

Completely agree with your comment about bias in favour of "serious" films. I did a bit of research to see what the real numbers were.

I have to qualify that by acknowledging that categorising movies is always a bit subjective but............

Take westerns. For most of last century, the western was synonymous with Hollywood and kept much of the movie industry clothed and fed. Granted many of them were cheesy, sausage factory products but there were many, many outstanding films in that genre. Yet only 3 westerns have ever won Best Picture (out of 11 nominations). Up until 1990 it was only 1 from 9 (Cimarron). The other two only got the nod because their main drivers (Costner and Eastwood) had acquired enough cred in other things to be a bit respectable. Even then, it's a stretch to call Rumbas with Endangered Canine Species a western.

Not that I'm much of a western fan but it illustrates the point.

markrob
03-26-2002, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by ReadWryt

The fact that they do get made, promoted and distributed means that SOMEBODY in the industry thinks they are viable as an art form, and this precludes any bias that these same people, the voting body of the Academy, may or may not have...In my opinion anyways.

That SOMEBODY is alot of people that want to make money. A large majority of those type of films are box office hits. Just dont expect to get a big slap on the back from the academy. Not disagreeing with you RW, just pointing out an obvious observation.

Later........

Greenwood
03-26-2002, 02:34 PM
100% agreement with Markrob, the movie industry makes movies to make money and science fiction/fantasy films usually make money.

Wide Boy

I agree with you. The vast majority of western films were low budget, quick production affairs. There were indeed some magnificent westerns made and I would say that, as with science fistion films, they faced a bias from the Academy that they were not "serious" films.

ReadWryt
03-26-2002, 04:43 PM
So what you are saying is that most people who work in the movie industry don't think of Fantasy and Science Fiction movies as being worthy of an Oscar?

markrob
03-26-2002, 07:26 PM
Just did a quick check on past Oscar winners and unless something like Rebecca from 1930 was about a beautiful outer space android, than I would say yes, producers and directors know full well going in to it that the chance of taking home a little gold man is unprecedented. Again not trying to be controversial, but its hard to argue with 74 years worth of history. :)

Greenwood
03-26-2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by ReadWryt
So what you are saying is that most people who work in the movie industry don't think of Fantasy and Science Fiction movies as being worthy of an Oscar?

Yes, at least for the major awards. The Academy traditionally favors what it considers "serious" films. Look how long it took for Steven Speilberg to win an Oscar; for a long time he wasn't even nominated. For that matter, as I pointed out on this or some other thread, look at Alfred HITCHC0CK, decades of great films, a handful of nominations and no wins. The Academy didn't consider his films "serious", they were only thrillers and mysteries. The same goes for comedies. The biggest bias the Academy has is in favor of what they consider "serious" films.

PRH
03-26-2002, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Greenwood
Alfred HITCHC0CK
All caps...brilliant Greenwood!

Mormegil
03-27-2002, 12:13 AM
You could write it as Alfred Hitchc0ck, also to avoid the censor.

legoman
03-27-2002, 12:27 AM
Well I want to just say go LotR cos we may have only 3 oscars for fellowship but thats three awards for the best type of something out of all the films from last year, and thats a lot of films, also, we have another two parts of story and so if we keep this up LotR gets 9 oscars... nice.
Also I think the next two books are gonna make better films (epecially the last one since it actually finishes at the end of the story).Bring it on next year.

YayGollum
03-27-2002, 12:33 AM
Had to come and invade the movie section! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY Gollum! Read my sig! He got us the Visual Effects Oscar! Yay! I am sure that the new visual effect of digitally shortening some people had nothing to do with it! :rolleyes: Yay Gollum! That's one Oscar, two to go! :D :D

ReadWryt
03-27-2002, 02:14 AM
Well, if it makes everyone comfortable with the fact that the majority of members of the American Motion Picture industry didn't think that LotR was a better movie then ABM and that Jackson wasn't the Best Director because collectively the thousands of individuals who voted have a bias against a particular genre of film then who am I to change anyone's mind in the matter. I guess it's worth clinging to if it makes your world view more understandable.

Greenwood
03-27-2002, 02:14 PM
Alfred HITCHC0CK

All caps...brilliant Greenwood!

You could write it as Alfred Hitchc0ck, also to avoid the censor.

Actually, I used a combination. The O is really a zero. I just put everything else in caps so that it would look strange. We can still out-think these blasted machines!!!! :D

PRH
03-27-2002, 02:59 PM
Hail Greenwood! - C0CKTAILS ON ME!