Main things I’m happy about: LOTR is up for best picture and Johnny Depp was recognized for his fantastic work in “Pirates.”
Main things I’m unhappy about: That once again the LOTR actors have been given short shrift, from Elijah Wood to Andy Serkis to–in the most frustrating omission this time–Sean Astin’s gut-wrenching, tear-envoking performance as Samwise. “I may not be able to carry the ring…but I can carry you!” Has there ever been a more clear definition of “Supporting Actor” than that? Also, the title song from “School of Rock” should have been nominated, if for no other reason than the notion of Jack Black blowing the place wide open with his performance of it.
PAD
• 
Nemo won’t get best picture. animation movies never won and never will. If LOTR doesn’t get best picture, I will have lost all respect for the Oscars.
Tommy Raiko: As I understand it, it’s not that there’s no chance of an animated film getting nominated in the Best Picture category–at least it’s not as if there are rules, regulations, and guidelines that would preclude that from happening.
See, I’d heard that when the Academy put together the ‘best animated’ category, they put it together specifically so that an animated feature could only win in the ‘best animated’ category, and not possibly be counted in the ‘best picture’ running. I haven’t found anything that lists the relevant Academy guidelines one way or the other, so you could be right, Tommy. In fact, I hope I’m misinformed and that you’re correct about the guidelines… it’d be remarkably short-sighted of the Academy to forbid animated films from ‘best picture’ runs. Unfortunately, that’d also be perfectly in character for the Academy. Sigh…
tOjb
See, I’d heard that when the Academy put together the ‘best animated’ category, they put it together specifically so that an animated feature could only win in the ‘best animated’ category, and not possibly be counted in the ‘best picture’ running.
Whenever I read ” … I heard that …,” I go ahead and assume that the item in question isn’t true. Crossover nominations happen all the time. (Note the aforementioned LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL.) The Academy is not “warped”; rather, it’s multitude of members have their own opinions regarding these matters, and there is no law that says that they HAVE TO agree with Joe Blogger.
Ultimately, a situation like BEAUTY AND THE BEAST probably is, indeed, the reason the Best Animated Feature category was created, though not for any paranoid “They’re Trying To Shut Us Out” reason. How many animated feature-length motion pictures were being released at the time of B&B? Bluth may have been putting out one every several years, but, otherwise, at that time, Disney was pretty much the only game in town. (The category wasn’t created after that year … it took a while for that to happen.) It was Disney’s success that spawned animation units in all of the other major studios.
Had the Best Animation category existed at the time of B&B, it would have won an Oscar, one that it deserved (though I am in agreement with the Best Picture nod to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS). Rather than an attempt to shut out animated pics for the Best Picture category, the Best Animated Feature offers the opportunity to honor movies that would otherwise be ignored in favor of a high drama or an exciting art movie or whatever. Let’s face it, with 5 nominations out of however the hëll many movies come out in a year, your going to be hard set to find a nomination (or a winner) that is going to satisfy everybody.
On the whole, the Golden Globes has a better idea in that respect, given their greater number of categories, which eliminates the possibility of pitting a comedy or a musical against a drama, which is like pitting the Apples versus the Oranges versus the Bananas.
So spare me the paranoia. Best Animated Feature at least allows for a possible (actually, very likely) award for FINDING NEMO, a movie which deserves to be honored alongside, rather than instead of, several very strong contenders.
The only reason the Animated Film category came about in full was because of Shrek.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki’s Spirited Away.
This year, it’s two Disney movies… boy, that’s challenging isn’t it?
They shouldn’t even have the category this year.
And I thought a Foreign Language Film did get into the Best Picture category in recent years?
What did that Italian guy win? Hmm. Best Actor, which also won Best Foreign Film.
Well, maybe they need to do something about that category. I mean, one of this year’s films is from Canada.
Not exactly foreign in my book.
How about calling it the “Not Backed by Hollywood” category?
In Re: The Mighty Wind stuff…
Old Joe’s Place isn’t eligible – the Folksmen performed it twenty years ago on SNL. Several of the other songs (I’m not sure which) are also old, or at least weren’t written for the movie (The Folksmen have been opening for Spinal Tap for a while…)
Their choices were probably pretty limited as to what they could get away with nominating (for the same reason, South Park couldn’t nominate “Kyle’s Mom’s a Bìŧçh” instead of “Blame Canada”, for example).
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder what the f* God was thinking when he shouted into the darkness, “LET THERE BE LIGHT!”
All right, that might be blowing things out of proportion a little, but come the hëll on. I can almost hear the thought processes of the Academy judges:
“(thick, nasally voice**) Oh, dear, not one of those APALLING comic-book movies! Give us the majesty and glory of THE ENGLISH PATIENT any day, but for heaven’s sake, spare us any more exploits featuring grown adults in pajamas!”
If Disney hadn’t been so pushy on getting B&B into the Best Picture category, they would have actually nabbed the award outright a couple of years later when “Lion King” came out. As it was, no one wanted to nominate Lion King since they had just done an animated movie a couple of years before.
I dunno whether you intended this, but THE ENGLISH PATIENT *was* a grown man in pajamas…
Titanic would have been a much better movie if they had killed Kate Winslet’s character, too.
Titanic would have been a much better movie if they had killed Kate Winslet’s character, too
Titanic would have been a much better movie had Winslet’s character been nude earlier and more often.
Paranoia? Feh.
Malvito, if you go back and read what I wrote, you’ll note that (a) I made it clear that I could be wrong, (b) made it clear that I hoped I was, (c) openly acknowledged that I couldn’t find any sources to prove the veracity of my statements (and if you have such a source, by all means please share it instead of speculating along with the rest of us), (d) was the first guy on the thread to mention ‘the aforementioned “Life is Beautiful”‘ as an example of how category crossovers had happened in recent past, and (e) never tried to imply that there was a law which made the Academy subservient to my opinion. I also fail to see how my disagreement with the Academy’s decisions makes me ‘paranoid.’ You want to disagree with me, fine; but before you go and label me a paranoiac, how about actually reading what I wrote?
My opinion is that, despite the supposed ability of animated films to cross over to the best picture race, the Academy routinely has not allowed that to happen. One has only to look back to “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” to see that bias in play. The only animated film to ever make that jump was “Beauty and the Beast,” and it was such a headshaker event that apparently the Academy felt the (heretofore unnecessary) need to create a ‘best animated’ category. Some Academy members publicly stated their position that an animated film should not have been in the running… which, I would add, is consistent with last year’s decision to refuse Andy Serkis’ digital portrayal of Gollum entry to the ranks of Best Supporting Actor nominees.
Do keep in mind that this is the same Academy that routinely overlooks stellar performances one year to reward actors and actresses for average performances years later; like Denzell Washington, ignored for his excellent performance in “Malcolm X,” and awarded for an above average yet lesser performance in “Training Day” years later. The same Academy which routinely overlooks films with longevity and artistic impact in favor of the flavor of the month… anyone want to debate the relative merits of “Gladiator” over “Crouching Tiger,” or “Shakespeare In Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” and “Life Is Beautiful”? Or how about “How Green Was My Valley” over “Citizen Kane” and “The Maltese Falcon”? Come on, how can one look at many of the Academy’s past decisions and not come to the conclusion they’ve got a warped handle on what constitutes cinematic greatness?
tOjb
Posted by BrakYeller:
See, I’d heard that when the Academy put together the ‘best animated’ category, they put it together specifically so that an animated feature could only win in the ‘best animated’ category, and not possibly be counted in the ‘best picture’ running. I haven’t found anything that lists the relevant Academy guidelines one way or the other…
The Oscar press release from November that announced the 11 films deemed eligible in the Animated Feature category (see: http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2003/03.11.19.a.html ) reads (in part):
“Films submitted in the Best Animated Feature category also may qualify for Academy Awards in other areas, including Best Picture, provided they meet the rules criteria governing those categories.”
Posted by Craig J. Ries:
This year, it’s two Disney movies… boy, that’s challenging isn’t it? They shouldn’t even have the category this year.
And the third is Triplets of Belleville, a film that deserves whatever bit extra attention an Oscar nomination can get. Even if one doesn’t like the idea of a seperate Animated Feature category, at least the cateogry’s existence means that every year there will be a bit of exposure for several animated features; without that category, there would probably be plenty of years without any real Oscar exposure for feature-length animation.
That notwithstanding, when you look at the original list of 11 feature-length animated films deemed eligible in the category, it’s easy to think that “Tokyo Godfathers” or “Millenium Actress” shoulda been nominated over “Brother Bear.” (According to that press release noted above, there’s also apparently a rule that there can only be 3 nominations when there are fewer than 16 eligible films. Go figure…)
And I thought a Foreign Language Film did get into the Best Picture category in recent years? What did that Italian guy win? Hmm. Best Actor, which also won Best Foreign Film.
I think you’re referring to Roberto Benigni and “Life is Beautiful,” which won Best Actor and Best Foreign Language Film and which lost Best Picture to “Shakespeare in Love.”
More recently, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” was Oscar-nominated for both Best Picture and Best Foreign Film. It won the latter, but lost the former (to “Gladiator”
Well, maybe they need to do something about that category. I mean, one of this year’s films is from Canada. Not exactly foreign in my book.
Well, despire what your book says, Canada is indeed a different country than the United States. Anyway, the I believe the Oscar category is nowadays more precisely called “Best Foreign Language Film” and this year’s Canadian nominee is indeed a French-language film.
Posted by Abbott:
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder…
I had the same reaction about “Matrix Reloaded,” though I heard somewhere that the film studio for some reason opted not to submit “Matrix Reloaded” for consideration. Don’t know if that’s true or not…or if Universal similarly opted not to submit HULK for some reason…
Ali- Thanks much for clearing the crossover issue up; I am pleased to be proved wrong.
I still remain of the opinion that the Academy’s bias against animated features is both obvious and omnipresent, though. 🙂
tOjb
The clownfish wuz still robbed.
Just go to rottentomatoes.com and check out the tomatometer for the films in question. No other film of 2003 approaches Nemo’s 99.97% critic-approved rating.
But then, animation in the United States continues to be stigmatized…
If memory serves, the folks behind the song get to pick who performs it — that’s how we wound up with Robin Williams performing the song from the South Park movie.
And everybody who saw the South Park movie knows that Blame Canada was nominated only because the Academy couldn’t say the title of the song that deserved to be nominated on television.
I dunno whether you intended this, but THE ENGLISH PATIENT *was* a grown man in pajamas…
I ABSOLUTELY intended it, Adam. See, THAT’S the gøddámņ irony.
\\And everybody who saw the South Park movie knows that Blame Canada was nominated only because the Academy couldn’t say the title of the song that deserved to be nominated on television.
\\
You can’t say “La Resistance” on television?
You want to disagree with me, fine; but before you go and label me a paranoiac, how about actually reading what I wrote?
I pulled your quote because it expressed the idea in the most succinct fashion. My comment about paranioa was not specifically aimed at you, but at any and all on this blog who seemed to take this theory seriously.
Do keep in mind that this is the same Academy that routinely overlooks stellar performances one year to reward actors and actresses for average performances years later; like Denzell Washington, ignored for his excellent performance in “Malcolm X,” and awarded for an above average yet lesser performance in “Training Day” years later.
You might also point to the many Al Pacino performances that went unrewarded, for him to finally take the trophy for SCENT OF A WOMAN. Or the fact that Hitchcock, whose name has become a synonym for a certain variety of suspense cinema, was never honored. Examples of such are legion.
The same Academy which routinely overlooks films with longevity and artistic impact in favor of the flavor of the month… anyone want to debate the relative merits of “Gladiator” over “Crouching Tiger,” or “Shakespeare In Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” and “Life Is Beautiful”? Or how about “How Green Was My Valley” over “Citizen Kane” and “The Maltese Falcon”?
The problem there is trying to determine now what is going to show longevity and artistic impact. Many films that we now think of as classics didn’t do well when they were initially released. (My favorite examples of this are THE WIZARD OF OZ and WILLY WONKA, neither of which got their classic status until they were shown for several years in a row on television.) And there are many “flavors of the month,” depending on which group you are talking to. While I agree that CROUCHING TIGER was a better movie than GLADIATOR, there was quite a bit of hype about TIGER by the time Oscar night rolled around, and many who said that said movie was the flavor of the month. Add to that the fact that, were you to go out there and take a national poll, you’d find plenty who would say that the Academy made the right decision that year. And I was glad that SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE won the Best Picture Oscar, though, in true Golden Globes fashion, I would say that the two should not have been competing against one another, being two different experiences.
Come on, how can one look at many of the Academy’s past decisions and not come to the conclusion they’ve got a warped handle on what constitutes cinematic greatness?
Different strokes, amigo. As I said, it’s not warped, it’s just their own view.
Fair enough, Malvito; fair enough. I’ll concede the point, though I still think my opinion’s better than the Academy’s. 🙂
tOjb
And everybody who saw the South Park movie knows that Blame Canada was nominated only because the Academy couldn’t say the title of the song that deserved to be nominated on television.
That was my original instinct… but then I realized that the Academy voters are largely members of the various unionized parts of the film trade, and the folks the unions had been negotiating with were likely pointing to “runaway productions” going to Canada as the reason it would be unwise for the unions to ask for more. So “Blame Canada” may have had particularly special meaning for the Academy members.
Not to rain on the parade of all the RotK lovers here, but the only time in Oscar history a sequel has ever won Best Picture was in 1974 for the Godfather Part 2.
Wrong. Although the producers of The Silence of the Lambs vehemently deny this, the fact is that their film which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1991 is a sequel to Michael Mann’s Manhunter. It doesn’t matter that Silence is a stand-alone sequel that does not need anyone to require anyone to watch Manhunter to understand. It also doesn’t matter that many people believe the first film shouldn’t count because it didn’t star Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector. It also doesn’t matter that the producers decided to remake Manhunter a few years ago with Thomas Harris’ original title Red Dragon. Silence was a sequel, so The Return of the King will be the third sequel to win an Academy Award for Best Picture.
Not to rain on the parade of all the RotK lovers here, but the only time in Oscar history a sequel has ever won Best Picture was in 1974 for the Godfather Part 2.
Wrong. Although the producers of The Silence of the Lambs vehemently deny this, the fact is that their film which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1991 is a sequel to Michael Mann’s Manhunter. It doesn’t matter that Silence is a stand-alone sequel that does not need anyone to require anyone to watch Manhunter to understand. It also doesn’t matter that many people believe the first film shouldn’t count because it didn’t star Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector. It also doesn’t matter that the producers decided to remake Manhunter a few years ago with Thomas Harris’ original title Red Dragon. Silence was a sequel, so The Return of the King will be the third sequel to win an Academy Award for Best Picture.
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder what the f___ God was thinking when he shouted into the darkness, “LET THERE BE LIGHT!”
I’m not sure which branch of the Academy nominates the visual effects, but you have to keep this in mind—it’s certain that when they make these nominations, they take into account how successful the actual movie was. I’m pretty sure that Hulk wasn’t nominated because the movie bombed. The only reason it didn’t do worse at the box office than it did was that the marketing department successfully got everybody in America to want to see Hulk the first weekend. The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend. Because of this, ROTK is a mortal lock to win this award a second year in a row.
However, I should note that not always does the most successful movie win Best Visual Effects. in 1999, The Phantom Menace did well enough at the box office to become–unfortunately–the second-highest grossing film in history behind Titanic, which deserved both it’s success and Best Picture award. However, that didn’t change the fact that except for a few Star Wars geeks, The Phantom Menace was not that memorable a movie and didn’t have people talking about it’s special effects. However, everybody was amazed at what The Matrix did, even though that film did not come anywhere close to grossing as much as George Lucas’ film. In that case, the Academy felt the excellence of the effects was more important than how much money the film grossed, and the Oscar went to The Matrix.
In other words, if Ang Lee had actually made a better film (perhaps Peter David should have written the screenplay instead of just the novelization?), I’m sure the special effects in Hulk would have been nominated. I think the effects in the movie and the movie itself would have been much improved if they chose to create a smaller Hulk that was only seven feet tall. It is, however, a film about the Hulk and not Mighty Joe Young.
The fact that the Academy glossed over THE HULK in their Visual Effects category nominations is enough to make one wonder what the f___ God was thinking when he shouted into the darkness, “LET THERE BE LIGHT!”
I’m not sure which branch of the Academy nominates the visual effects, but you have to keep this in mind—it’s certain that when they make these nominations, they take into account how successful the actual movie was. I’m pretty sure that Hulk wasn’t nominated because the movie bombed. The only reason it didn’t do worse at the box office than it did was that the marketing department successfully got everybody in America to want to see Hulk the first weekend. The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend. Because of this, ROTK is a mortal lock to win this award a second year in a row.
However, I should note that not always does the most successful movie win Best Visual Effects. in 1999, The Phantom Menace did well enough at the box office to become–unfortunately–the second-highest grossing film in history behind Titanic, which deserved both it’s success and Best Picture award. However, that didn’t change the fact that except for a few Star Wars geeks, The Phantom Menace was not that memorable a movie and didn’t have people talking about it’s special effects. However, everybody was amazed at what The Matrix did, even though that film did not come anywhere close to grossing as much as George Lucas’ film. In that case, the Academy felt the excellence of the effects was more important than how much money the film grossed, and the Oscar went to The Matrix.
In other words, if Ang Lee had actually made a better film (perhaps Peter David should have written the screenplay instead of just the novelization?), I’m sure the special effects in Hulk would have been nominated. I think the effects in the movie and the movie itself would have been much improved if they chose to create a smaller Hulk that was only seven feet tall. It is, however, a film about the Hulk and not Mighty Joe Young.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki’s Spirited Away.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn’t have seen that film.
And if you are going to concede (correctly) that Miyazaka–not Disney–actually made Spirited Away, give the same credit to the makers of Finding Nemo. Disney didn’t make that film. They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features. Say what you want about Brother Bear, it’s probably the last “official” Disney animated feature that you will ever see.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki’s Spirited Away.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn’t have seen that film.
And if you are going to concede (correctly) that Miyazaka–not Disney–actually made Spirited Away, give the same credit to the makers of Finding Nemo. Disney didn’t make that film. They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features. Say what you want about Brother Bear, it’s probably the last “official” Disney animated feature that you will ever see.
And, of course, every year, Disney is going to possibly get a good movie in (like Lilo & Stitch last year) and a crappy movie (like Brother Bear this year) in.
Thankfully, atleast something greatly worthwhile won last year as well in Miyazaki’s Spirited Away.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn’t have seen that film.
And if you are going to concede (correctly) that Miyazaka–not Disney–actually made Spirited Away, give the same credit to the makers of Finding Nemo. Disney didn’t make that film. They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features. Say what you want about Brother Bear, it’s probably the last “official” Disney animated feature that you will ever see.
Edward Cunninghm please please please tell me that was Sarcasm.
Titanic was Horrible. Technically yes very good. Acting was okay the writing was terrible! which is why it didn’t get nominated for screenplay. It won because it was an epic. It made it’s money because you had teenage girls who couldn’t get enough of DiCaprio.
Cameron did do what people thought was impossible take a movie that was horrendously over budget and make money.
Jackson did something similar he took a set of books that was thought to be unfilmable and yet he did it, and the films were not just successful they were monsters.
I wonder if maybe the acadmey held off on best picture for FotR not because they knew they would give it to RotK but because they wanted to see if he could pull it off. if they gave it to FotR and the sequels pulled a matrix then they have egg on their faces.
It wasn’t sarcasm. Although I will not go so far as to say it was the best film of all time, Titanic was the best film of 1997 and fully deserved to win Best Picture and make as much money as it did. I was slightly annoyed with Leonardo DiCaprio because I felt he got too much of the lion’s share of the credit that should also have gone to Kate Winslet. (I like Helen Hunt, but there’s no way she should have won the Oscar ahead of Winslet.)
As for the writing, I still cannot understand why people think it is so bad. Show me a bad line! I won’t quote this in length, but there’s a beautiful scene early in the movie when Rose is about to commit suicide by jumping off the stern. Jack tells her about the time he fell through the ice in the lake as a child. That was beautifully written and accomplished two tasks at once. First, it persuaded Rose to climb back over the railing onto the ship. Second, it gave the audience a sense of what it’s actually like to be immersed in frozen water since they can only see the characters. (I should note that of all the versions of this disaster I’ve seen before, Cameron’s is the first to note that most of the victims died from the intense cold, not drowning itself.)
Now, Peter David is a good writer and he knows good writing from bad. I doubt he has the time, but maybe he can show what’s so “bad” about James Cameron’s screenplay. I thought it was good and probably deserved an Oscar more than Matt Damon and Ben AFLAC‘s screenplay for Good Will Hunting. (It wasn’t quite as good as Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson’s screenplay for L.A. Confidential.
But if you think God must have punished me for the sin of liking Titanic—you’re right. I saw Gladiator beat out Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for Best Picture three years later…
Eddie
Edward Cunninghm please please please tell me that was Sarcasm.
Titanic was Horrible. Technically yes very good. Acting was okay the writing was terrible! which is why it didn’t get nominated for screenplay. It won because it was an epic. It made it’s money because you had teenage girls who couldn’t get enough of DiCaprio.
Cameron did do what people thought was impossible take a movie that was horrendously over budget and make money.
Jackson did something similar he took a set of books that was thought to be unfilmable and yet he did it, and the films were not just successful they were monsters.
I wonder if maybe the acadmey held off on best picture for FotR not because they knew they would give it to RotK but because they wanted to see if he could pull it off. if they gave it to FotR and the sequels pulled a matrix then they have egg on their faces.
It wasn’t sarcasm. Although I will not go so far as to say it was the best film of all time, Titanic was the best film of 1997 and fully deserved to win Best Picture and make as much money as it did. I was slightly annoyed with Leonardo DiCaprio because I felt he got too much of the lion’s share of the credit that should also have gone to Kate Winslet. (I like Helen Hunt, but there’s no way she should have won the Oscar ahead of Winslet.)
As for the writing, I still cannot understand why people think it is so bad. Show me a bad line! I won’t quote this in length, but there’s a beautiful scene early in the movie when Rose is about to commit suicide by jumping off the stern. Jack tells her about the time he fell through the ice in the lake as a child. That was beautifully written and accomplished two tasks at once. First, it persuaded Rose to climb back over the railing onto the ship. Second, it gave the audience a sense of what it’s actually like to be immersed in frozen water since they can only see the characters. (I should note that of all the versions of this disaster I’ve seen before, Cameron’s is the first to note that most of the victims died from the intense cold, not drowning itself.)
Now, Peter David is a good writer and he knows good writing from bad. I doubt he has the time, but maybe he can show what’s so “bad” about James Cameron’s screenplay. I thought it was good and probably deserved an Oscar more than Matt Damon and Ben AFLAC‘s screenplay for Good Will Hunting. (It wasn’t quite as good as Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson’s screenplay for L.A. Confidential.
But if you think God must have punished me for the sin of liking Titanic—you’re right. I saw Gladiator beat out Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for Best Picture three years later…
Eddie
I’m not sure which branch of the Academy nominates the visual effects, but you have to keep this in mind—it’s certain that when they make these nominations, they take into account how successful the actual movie was.
Rrrright. So explain why Master and Commander, which has done about $85 million in the US (and, while not finished, is in the petering out phase) gets nominated, while Hulk ($132 million… and that’s with a smaller production budget) doesn’t. And let’s not use the “The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend” explanation, as The Hulk did more business in its second weekend than Master and Commander did, a difference which holds up for its entire post-first-weekend run.
With regard to how the AMPAS Visual Effects category nomination process works, a little web-digging turns up the following from the official rules, for anyone’s reference:
http://www.oscars.org/76academyawards/rules/rule22.html
As for it being certain that nominators take into account the financial success of the eligible films, although it’s obvious that a successful movie has some advantages over a less successful one (more ‘buzz’, more attention, more marketing, etc.) that will surely affect nominators’ perceptions, it’s still incredibly cynical to think that a movie’s box office business is a overpowering driving force in the nomiation process. As Nat has pointed out above, there are surely ample counter-examples to that notion.
Without a doubt, box office success–making scads of money–is a big thing. But it’s not the only thing, and in some cases, it might not even be the most important thing.
You are aware that Disney is the one responsible for dubbing Spirited Away in English and distributing that film outside of Japan, do you? Were it not for them, you wouldn’t have seen that film.
Possibly, but I know that a great number of companies wanted the distribution rights for Miyazaki’s filmes.
As for the dubbing, so what? It’s anime – it’s meant to be subtitled.
(Although, I like English version of Princess Mononoke better.)
Rrrright. So explain why Master and Commander, which has done about $85 million in the US (and, while not finished, is in the petering out phase) gets nominated, while Hulk ($132 million… and that’s with a smaller production budget) doesn’t. And let’s not use the “The problem is that nobody wanted to see it again the second weekend” explanation, as The Hulk did more business in its second weekend than Master and Commander did, a difference which holds up for its entire post-first-weekend run.
Hey, I’m surprised Master and Commander got a Best Picture nomination, too. I guess it boils down to this—the Academy and the Visual Effects Awards Committee really liked Master and Commander, and couldn’t care two cents worth for Hulk. I approve of their choice. The transformation sequences in Hulk weren’t that spectacular, and a lot of people were calling the Hulk an “overgrown Shrek.” On the other hand, I still can’t believe that the exterior scenes aboard the Surprise were actually shot in a water tank. (The same water tank where Titanic was shot.) It looks like it was shot in the open ocean, and the effects were very convincing. That’s not going to give it the Oscar over ROTK, especially since the entire Academy votes for those awards…
Wait a minute! We’ve all forgotten the most important thing: who’s hosting this year?
tOjb
They paid Pixar to make it for them. And Pixar is doing such a great job making these films for Disney that Disney recently decided to shut down their Florida animation studios and stop making traditional hand-painted animated features.
Yes they did. And now that Pixar has separated from the House of Mouse and declared their status as their own individual entity, Disney no longer has two films in the running for Best Animated Feature. Nor, if Pixar’s gargantuan success is any measure, will they in the near future unless they figure out how to reclaim the ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Beauty and the Beast’ glory days of animation. *shrugs* I don’t care what wins Best Animated Feature as I’m probably the only person on the planet who hated ‘Finding Nemo’ but I thought the Pixar/Disney divorce news was relevent to all the ranting done above.
BrakYeller observes:
Wait a minute! We’ve all forgotten the most important thing: who’s hosting this year?
Billy Crystal, back for his eighth go-’round as host.
http://www.oscars.org/76academyawards/host.html