76th Annual Academy Awards News!!

Started by The Silver Bullet, September 25, 2003, 08:26:34 AM

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

cine

#90
January 28, 2004, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: MyxomatosisSupporting Actress: I don't really care. Weak category this year.
You're kidding, right? I'll assume that was either a bad joke or a weak observation.

MacGuffin

#91
January 28, 2004, 12:04:44 PM
Quote from: MyxomatosisFucking critics and their horse/boat fetish this year. Oh well.

Critics don't vote on or select the Oscars.

Quote from: MyxomatosisI can't bring myself to vote for the horse or boat films this year. I didn't think either of them were that amazing.

Quote from: CinephileYou're kidding, right? I'll assume that was either a bad joke or a weak observation.

What he said.

I will fight to the death defending "Seabiscuit".
"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

Myxo

#92
January 28, 2004, 12:06:56 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: MyxomatosisSupporting Actress: I don't really care. Weak category this year.
You're kidding, right? I'll assume that was either a bad joke or a weak observation.

No, I'm not kidding. I only saw three of the films in this category anyway.

Cold Mountain (Zellweger is the most overated actress in my opinion)
Mystic River (Harden was good, but I didn't leave the theater thinking "Oh my god, she better get a "Best Supporting Actress" nomination!")
House of Sand and Fog (Again, Aghdashloo did an admirable job, but I didn't see it as a stand out role or anything.)

I didn't see Pieces of April or Thirteen. Maybe the women in those films who were nominated did a fantastic job, but I don't vote for people in films I didn't see.

cine

#93
January 28, 2004, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: MyxomatosisI didn't see Pieces of April or Thirteen. Maybe the women in those films who were nominated did a fantastic job, but I don't vote for people in films I didn't see.
Regardless of what you thought of the other performances, you can't criticize it as a weak category unless you've seen them all.

Myxo

#94
January 28, 2004, 12:10:57 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: MyxomatosisI didn't see Pieces of April or Thirteen. Maybe the women in those films who were nominated did a fantastic job, but I don't vote for people in films I didn't see.
Regardless of what you thought of the other performances, you can't criticize it as a weak category unless you've seen them all.

Ok. I'll ammend my statement.

"I don't care about this category this year."

©brad

#95
January 28, 2004, 12:13:39 PM
Quote from: MacGuffinI will fight to the death defending "Seabiscuit".

i just saw it the other day, and i did thoroughly enjoy it. the only thing is, well, a couple of things. first off, the blatant corniness that i went along w/ for a while turned sour, and towards the end i felt like it was being shoved down my throat. also, the monotone David McCullough voice over was awful.

the ending was in fact inspiring (but exceedingly corny) beautiful photography as well. overall i did enjoy it, but best picture material? it just seems like there are so many more deserving pictures this year.

SoNowThen

#96
January 28, 2004, 12:14:21 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: MyxomatosisI didn't see Pieces of April or Thirteen. Maybe the women in those films who were nominated did a fantastic job, but I don't vote for people in films I didn't see.
Regardless of what you thought of the other performances, you can't criticize it as a weak category unless you've seen them all.

It's a weak category. He's right.
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.

MacGuffin

#97
January 28, 2004, 12:21:51 PM
Quote from: ©bradi just saw it the other day, and i did thoroughly enjoy it. the only thing is, well, a couple of things. first off, the blatant corniness that i went along w/ for a while turned sour, and towards the end i felt like it was being shoved down my throat. also, the monotone David McCullough voice over was awful.

the ending was in fact inspiring (but exceedingly corny) beautiful photography as well. overall i did enjoy it, but best picture material? it just seems like there are so many more deserving pictures this year.

Where you see corn, I see human drama. I see characters I care about and want to see succeed. I cheer when they win, I cry and am sad when they fail. I see nostalgia. I'm taken to another era and tranformed as if I am there. I'm engrossed during the film, getting caught up in the story. Wonderfully written, fabulously shot and edited. I see a beautiful film. And a deserving one. And that's what a Best Picture should be.
"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

cine

#98
January 28, 2004, 12:32:57 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: MyxomatosisI didn't see Pieces of April or Thirteen. Maybe the women in those films who were nominated did a fantastic job, but I don't vote for people in films I didn't see.
Regardless of what you thought of the other performances, you can't criticize it as a weak category unless you've seen them all.

It's a weak category. He's right.
Would it still be a weak category if Scarlett Johansson was on the list?

SoNowThen

#99
January 28, 2004, 12:37:11 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: MyxomatosisI didn't see Pieces of April or Thirteen. Maybe the women in those films who were nominated did a fantastic job, but I don't vote for people in films I didn't see.
Regardless of what you thought of the other performances, you can't criticize it as a weak category unless you've seen them all.

It's a weak category. He's right.
Would it still be a weak category if Scarlett Johansson was on the list?

It would get upgraded to a stupid category then, because everyone knows she belongs in the Best Actress list.
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.

cine

#100
January 28, 2004, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenIt would get upgraded to a stupid category then, because everyone knows she belongs in the Best Actress list.
But she was campaigned as a Best Supporting Actress, so that's irrelevent.

SoNowThen

#101
January 28, 2004, 12:41:38 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: SoNowThenIt would get upgraded to a stupid category then, because everyone knows she belongs in the Best Actress list.
But she was campaigned as a Best Supporting Actress, so that's irrelevent.

:roll:  by that rationale, suggesting that she got nominated is also irrelevent...
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.

cine

#102
January 28, 2004, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: SoNowThenIt would get upgraded to a stupid category then, because everyone knows she belongs in the Best Actress list.
But she was campaigned as a Best Supporting Actress, so that's irrelevent.

:roll:  by that rationale, suggesting that she got nominated is also irrelevent...
I don't think so. She is labelled as Best Supporting Actress. It's not our job to say "Hey that's not fair! She shouldn't be treated like that!" Because I think we should take their word for it (on side note, her vote against her lead role in Girl With A Pearl Earring would've split even more). So I'm saying that IF she got the nod for the category she is labelled under, would you or would you not find it just as weak?  This is why I don't accept that it would then be a "stupid" category, because everything is fair game. See what I mean?

SoNowThen

#103
January 28, 2004, 12:57:41 PM
No, but I'll play along anyway.  :)

I don't wanna put words in his mouth, but it seems to me he meant "weak", as in, looking at that list of 5 nominees, I don't see anyone on there I would give an award to, in honor of an outstanding performance. I know that when I did my xixax nominations, I could only put 3 names down on that list, and I remember thinking "it was kinda a weak year for great supporting female roles".

And that whole vote splitting issue, I think that's goofy. They should find a way around that, because regardless of whether or not they were pushing for it, Del Toro and Johansson were in leading roles, and should have been up in those categories. It just all goes to further prove that it's a big circle jerk, and a politics/ass kissing show, where they're trying to fit people into categories that don't really apply, instead of just honoring them straight up...

Again, don't mind me. Oscar season always gets me in a foul mood.
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.

ono

#104
January 28, 2004, 01:02:36 PM
I'm reminded of times when an actress gets nominated for two roles for Best Lead Actress (or Supporting), and then ends up getting shafted because the votes get split.  To me, the way I think it should work is, if an actress gets a vote for EITHER performance, it should count for her.  So if she gets nominated for two films, she can get a vote for either film and have it count, and if she has more than anyone from that combined total, then she wins.  Think about it: it's fair, because first off, she was good enough to get nominated in two spots, and if she's getting all those votes for either film, then she really is the best actress of the year, regardless of which film it was in.  Though I doubt others would see it that way, this makes the most logical sense to me.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User actions