Oscar Predictions and Final Awards Comments

Started by MacGuffin, February 27, 2004, 12:31:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User actions

xerxes

#90
March 01, 2004, 03:33:23 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
A. award the movie/actor that TRULY is the best in that catagory regardless of what they have previously done or will do?  (meaning great actors who are consistently great could go their whole lives without oscar recognition because they are constantly beat by flashier (possibly better) performances by actors who may never do that well again.)

or B. award the movie/actor that deserves it for the body of work.  sure Gangs may not be scorsese's best, but he should have an oscar so should we give it to him?  i dont think penn was his BEST in mystic or murray in lit, should we give it to them for their bodies of work (highlighted by a recent great performance)?

i'd go with A. considering the structure of the awards, it really is the way it should be.

Quote from: themodernage02no, lost in translation is a fucking thimble they had to fill.  lord of the rings is a fucking swimming pool.  peter jackson could make a lost in translation in his sleep over the weekend.  sofia coppola couldnt make lord of the rings if she spent 100 years on it.  just because its not perfect doesnt mean its not MORE of an acomplishment.
look

this is a really ignorant comment. i'm a big fan of lotr and think that what jackson did was really amazing, but to completely disregard what sofia coppola did just because her film was smaller in scale is just wrong (or bitter?). now i don't really think jackson's somewhat campy style would lend itself well to a film like lost in translation. that's not to say that he couldn't make a small, quiet film that has all the power of lotr (which i think sofia has done). he could have it in him. but do you have such as grasp on the talents of sofia coppola to know that she could never make a good big budget film?

ono

#91
March 01, 2004, 03:34:34 PM
Quote from: SHAFTR1.  Lost in Translation is a beautifully made art film.
2.  Lord of the Rings:  Return of the King is a big dumb epic.
And the people say, "Amen."  Amen!

modage

#92
March 01, 2004, 03:53:29 PM
Quote from: SHAFTR1.  Lost in Translation is a beautifully made art film.
2.  Lord of the Rings:  Return of the King is a big dumb epic.
Quote from: themodernage02keep in mind, this is coming from someone who saw virgin suicides on opening weekend and ranked it among his top 5 that year and Lost in Translation at a sneak preview and ranked it in his top 3.
Quote from: themodernage02 on Sept. 15 2003just saw Lost In Translation.  wow.  this is one of those movies i just cant get out of my head.  been home for an hour, but the feeling of the movie is still hanging with me.  (i guess playing the soundtrack is helping with that too), but still.  this movie isnt a story so much as it is a feeling.  and you really feel something watching these people together.  and when it ends, its really sad to have to leave them.  this movie was my favorite of this year so far.  finally something worth watching.  fall is here.
Quote from: themodernage02 on December 17 2003i thought it was good, but i dont know if i was just tired or what but i didnt enjoy it any more than either of the first two.  i also thought the ending, ending, ending, ending was just terrible.  good for the extended dvd, but really who gives a shit?  it just went on for far too long i thought.  could've ended really as soon as the damn eagles picked up Frodo and Sam or any of the closest endings to that.  i dunno, i need to see it again. i was really tired.  the battles were pretty cool.  i also kinda felt like (as in matrix 3) a lot of the middle of the film i was watching the 'secondary characters' and not frodo or aragorn or anyone i really cared about.  also, liv tyler was in the film about 3 minutes, why does she have her own poster? also, i was under the impression from the talk about the film being powerful and everyone watching with tears in their eyes and some major players not living, that some of the MAIN characters were going to die.  but everybody really important survived.  i hadnt read the books so i thought it was possible frodo would bite it, or maybe one of the other hobbits or legolas, or shit SOMEBODY in the fellowship.  i liked it a lot, but the structure seemed to be too slavish to the book to cram in all this stuff and not enough of a movie plot.  i dunno.  i need to see it again.
well i dont really want to keep repeating my opnion over and over here against 10 other people, but i think i've said what i had to say.  i dont think LiT is that noteworthy in the grand scheme of things and even with its flaws i think LotR is.  i dont think its dumb at all.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

indiana

...
#93
March 01, 2004, 03:59:30 PM
is it just me or did Bill Muray look really piss when he did not win best actor? i KNEW lord of the rings was going to clean up. it  kinda sucks that the last two lord of the rings movie did not win anything and yet this oscar they did. hrm...
anyway
peace
SONIC BOOM!

SoNowThen

#94
March 01, 2004, 04:02:35 PM
Even if I loved LIT, I would still not be surprised in the least that it didn't win any awards (except the one, the typical screenwriting "apology" award). Oscar likes his movies simple, with external conflict, preferably big, and REALLY REALLY rich. I coulda told you a year ago that ROTK would sweep everything -- in fact I've BEEN saying that to my friends for that long. I thought everyone could figure that out...

Why are you guys getting so bent out of shape over this? Do awards really mean that much to you that the movie is only truly complete when it wins something?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Raikus

#95
March 01, 2004, 04:13:41 PM
I dream of a world where people can like both LiT and LOTK because there'd be a lot more people like me.

Lost in Translation was a beautifully heartfelt movie that emitted emotion like it was air.

Lord of the Rings was meticulousness taken to the Nth degree and raised the bar to near Everest levels for epics.

They both were great movies.

Live with it.
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands, with all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves, let me forget about today until tomorrow.

modage

#96
March 01, 2004, 04:15:29 PM
Quote from: RaikusI dream of a world where people can like both LiT and LOTK because there'd be a lot more people like me.

Lost in Translation was a beautifully heartfelt movie that emitted emotion like it was air.

Lord of the Rings was meticulousness taken to the Nth degree and raised the bar to near Everest levels for epics.

They both were great movies.

Live with it.
:yabbse-thumbup:  :yabbse-thumbup:
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Redlum

#97
March 01, 2004, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: RaikusI dream of a world where people can like both LiT and LOTK because there'd be a lot more people like me.

Lost in Translation was a beautifully heartfelt movie that emitted emotion like it was air.

Lord of the Rings was meticulousness taken to the Nth degree and raised the bar to near Everest levels for epics.

They both were great movies.

Live with it.
:yabbse-thumbup:  :yabbse-thumbup:
:yabbse-thumbup:  :yabbse-thumbup:

...and love both these films and still love watching the Oscars every year.

I think the start of Penns speech is applicable to every catergory. Most of the people at the awards are film-heroes of mine. And although obviously, success isnt measured by awards it means a helluva lot to the individual. When there are only 5 nominees per catergory and I see so many great movies every year there are always going to be people left out. Although it reeked of auto-cue cuteness there's still a lot of truth in Sean Connery's opening.
\"I wanted to make a film for kids, something that would present them with a kind of elementary morality. Because nowadays nobody bothers to tell those kids, \'Hey, this is right and this is wrong\'.\"
  -  George Lucas

Pubrick

#98
March 01, 2004, 10:11:09 PM
the truest thing said so far is NEON about zellwegger's eyes. i never understood the hate GT and others felt for her but in the last few weeks seeing her phony soulless eyes over and over... f*ck. horrendous.

on the less evil side, i think the LotR sweep is about as surprising as any upset would hav been. too bad theron's career is Swankified now, she's not even that hot anymore.

on the hot/cute side, i wanna see whale rider now, that keisha chick reminds me of sumone i went out with damn. haha fran walsh is ok too. poor scarlett got snubbed by buck-tooth-rabbit again.. i'm starting to think sofia's not all that interesting a person -- she's bombed at every talk show she's been on, and always looks like she's had a frontal lobotomy. anyway, i'd still hit it.

erroll morris looked ready to start shit, i think they kept cutting away in case he lunged at the audience. he was also classy about the war, i liked it.

good show, not boring at all.
under the paving stones.

©brad

#99
March 01, 2004, 10:46:35 PM
i just want to stress again how much i loathe the pre-oscar red carpet show. and i blame it totally, 100% on chris (forgot last name) and the two other blatantly inexperienced, overly-enthusiastic, braindead reporters they through out there. they ask the stupidest, stupidest questions, they make everyone feel uncomfortable and weird, they always ask  questions and immediately cut to someone else before the person has a chance to answer, they aren't the least bit funny,... point being, they just suuuuuuuuck. grrr, it makes me so mad.

there's too much emphasis on the fashion, an industry that's so disposable and empty, it's sickening.

modage

#100
March 01, 2004, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: ©bradand i blame it totally, 100% on chris (forgot last name) and the two other blatantly inexperienced, overly-enthusiastic, braindead reporters they through out there.there's too much emphasis on the fashion, an industry that's so disposable and empty, it's sickening.
yeah, i hate those guys, plus did you see what they were wearing!??!
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

MacGuffin

#101
March 01, 2004, 11:05:06 PM
When are they gonna stop cutting to Nicole Kidman everytime Tom Cruise is mentioned and/or shown, and vice versa? As Zellweger was giving her speech and she thanked Tom - CUT TO: Kidman's reaction.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pubrick

#102
March 01, 2004, 11:15:44 PM
Quote from: MacGuffinWhen are they gonna stop cutting to Nicole Kidman everytime Tom Cruise is mentioned and/or shown, and vice versa? As Zellweger was giving her speech and she thanked Tom - CUT TO: Kidman's reaction.
haha i forgot to mention that! and cutting to peter weir everytime they mentioned new zealand, i hope that was ironic.

kidman was giving the biggest Kubrick stares i've ever seen in my life. she was channelling his spirit or sumthing, it was intense.
under the paving stones.

ono

#103
March 01, 2004, 11:17:39 PM
Ebert and Roeper are gonna be on Leno in a few minutes, if anyone cares.

SHAFTR

#104
March 01, 2004, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: ©bradand i blame it totally, 100% on chris (forgot last name) and the two other blatantly inexperienced, overly-enthusiastic, braindead reporters they through out there.there's too much emphasis on the fashion, an industry that's so disposable and empty, it's sickening.
yeah, i hate those guys, plus did you see what they were wearing!??!

why is this reply funny to me, and ironic.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User actions