Xixax Film Forum

Even if you hate the Oscars, you have to admit this (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1049402,00.html) is good news...

I know some people felt it got old at the end, but bring back the segment in which Crystal is inserted into scenes for each of the five nominees for best picture. That never failed to be a gutbuster for me; I enjoyed it so much more than the medley of songs that he sings.

There were many great ones, but I think my favorite remains Crystal inserting himself into the bathroom scene in Jerry Maguire, in which Tom Cruise has the meltdown and starts screaming, "Fine!" "Fine!" FINE!"

Oscars Screeners Scratched

Apparently Academy Award voters are going to have see movies the old-fashioned way--in movie theaters.

The major studios have agreed to go along with the Motion Picture Association of America's proposal to stop the sending out DVD and video screeners to those who vote for the Oscars and other Hollywood awards.

In recent years, the proliferation of screeners has allowed voters to watch films in the comfort of their own living rooms. But the MPAA sees the wide availability of award-contending films, many of which are just beginning their theatrical runs, as too tempting for pirates who could put make digitally perfect copies available online and on street corners.

And the MPAA and studio bosses don't want to repeat the Napster-fueled downturn of the music biz.

The screen ban was announced Tuesday, just in time for MPAA President and CEO Jack Valenti to announce it before a Senate committee in Washington, D.C. He cited the move as "a determined commitment to combat digital piracy and to save movie jobs in the future." Valenti added that "400,000 to 600,000 films are being illegally abducted every day...and the MPAA intends to deploy every weapon at its command" to stop this theft.

But many indie distributors and specialty divisions within the major studios see the screener ban as a deadly blow to their films' chances of winning major awards. Their movies usually play in limited release and don't have theatrical outreach of the big-budget flicks and they had used screeners to help level the playing field.

"It's a sad day in Mudville," one unnamed indie exec tells Daily Variety. Says another, "This has been a big conspiracy to make sure the specialty companies don't participate in the Academy Awards. There will be no Pedro Almodovar winning Best Screenplay, because he won't have a chance."

The major studios agreed late Monday to make the home-video mailings taboo, despite the upset it will undoubtedly bring to what is already a shorter season than previous campaigns, with the Oscars being handed out on February 29. Those MPAA signators agreeing to the ban are MGM, Paramount, Sony, 20th Century Fox, Universal, Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. DreamWorks and the independent New Line, agreed despite not being MPAA signators. No word yet on whether indie houses like Lions Gate, Artisan or IFC will comply.

The last major to sign off on the agreement was Howard Stringer, vice chairman of Sony, according to Variety. Miramax chieftain Harvey Weinstein, whose vigorous Oscar campaigning avidly embraced the home screener tactic and whose so-called independent movies like Shakespeare in Love did very well at Oscar time--reportedly only agreed reluctantly.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the organization behind the Oscars, said Tuesday it had nothing to do with the ban. But the Academy did say in a statement, "We have always urged our members to see the films on big screens the way they were intended to be seen and to base their judgments on the achievements contained in the films on those viewings and not to vote based upon an image seen on the television screen."

Because of the ease of duplicating screeners, the increased use of broadband and new compression technology (Valenti says a new program developed by Caltech researchers allows a movie file to be downloaded in five seconds), the studios have plenty to lose should their big-bucks event pictures get leaked online and are looking to protect their investments

Among the would-be blockbusters coming down the pike in time for Oscar consideration: Warners' The Last Samurai, starring Tom Cruise' Fox's Master and Commander, starring Russell Crowe; Miramax's Cold Mountain, starring Nicole Kidman; New Line's third and final Hobbit tale, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King; and Sony's Big Fish, directed by Tim Burton. (Disney and Universal's key contenders, Finding Nemo and Seabiscuit, respectively, were released earlier in the year and will have commercial DVDs on the market before voting season wraps up.)

According to reports, the big fights came between studio bosses, who are scared of piracy, and marketing executives, who look to award ceremonies as a way to boost box office. The screener ban will not only impact Oscar voters, but also those who vote for the Golden Globes and Directors and Screen Actors guild awards, as well as various critics groups.

With the voting process kept anonymous, there is no official data on how much home viewing contributes to a film's chances of getting an Oscar nod, and it is not known how many voters, accustomed to what one studio executive termed, "a lazy way for marketing people to make sure their film is seen [and] a lazy way for voters to see the film," will now make the effort to leave home to attend screenings before marking their ballots.

The only thing we do is that screening rooms will be fully booked and duplication and shipping companies will lose money. And Pedro Almodovar might just want to content himself with last year's wins.

Quote from: Find Your MagaliI know some people felt it got old at the end, but bring back the segment in which Crystal is inserted into scenes for each of the five nominees for best picture. That never failed to be a gutbuster for me; I enjoyed it so much more than the medley of songs that he sings.

There were many great ones, but I think my favorite remains Crystal inserting himself into the bathroom scene in Jerry Maguire, in which Tom Cruise has the meltdown and starts screaming, "Fine!" "Fine!" FINE!"

there was one, i believe it was in 99, where they put him in Gold Rush, with Charlie, and it's the scene where he's boiling his shoe, and then he eats it.  crystal looks at the camera, and mouths something, and the subtitles come up that say 'I See Dead People'.  then chaplin speaks, and titles come up that say 'I loved analyze this'. i enjoyed that when i saw it.  it really made me laugh.

that took alot longer to tell than it should have.

Another great one, when Billy was in the shower with Kevin Spacey.. American Beauty.

Speaking of Mr. Crystal, the man is good at playing one type of role. You'll never see him playing a serial killer, or police cop, or anything! It just wouldn't fit. I know my saying this is not exactly a revelation, no one here is really saying he's a diverse actor, but I might as well extend this a little and give myself an excuse to post this.

Directors want screening copies back

Associated Press

NEW YORK - Nearly 150 directors, including Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Robert Redford, are urging the Motion Picture Association to repeal its decision to stop sending out special DVDs and videos to Oscar voters.

The directors sent a letter to Jack Valenti, urging the MPAA to immediately repeal the anti-piracy plan it implemented last week.

The ban on sending screeners means the 5,600 Academy Awards voters will have to catch most movies in theaters.

"Many great films, and in particular films that take risks, rely on critical acclaim and, when the film is fortunate enough, Academy consideration to reach a broad audience," states the letter, which appears in the trade paper Variety on Friday. "The MPAA decision to ban screeners irreparably damages the chances of such films: films that already have a difficult enough time finding financing and distribution. ...

"We condemn piracy, but are unconvinced that material links exist between screeners and the illegal industry of pirating our work - and the work of our colleagues."

The list of 142 people who signed the letter includes movie veterans (Sydney Pollack, Barry Levinson, Norman Jewison); international filmmakers (Pedro Almodovar, Bernardo Bertolucci, Atom Egoyan); and a bevy of young directors, including Spike Jonze, Sofia Coppola, Paul Thomas Anderson, Robert Rodriguez and Kimberly Peirce.

The MPAA's response: "Jack Valenti has had conversations with individuals and several groups on the subject of the new screener policy. He welcomes the exchange of thoughts and ideas on the critical issue of combating piracy. That said, the screener policy remains as it was originally announced."

Wonderful! He did a great job with the 1999 Oscars!

"girls don't be a giggler.  everyone can't be dirk diggler"

i see a couple of solutions for this dvd screener situation:

1. keep records of who is getting the screener dvds, and make the ppl return them. if they don't, fine their ass. this would be tough though, cuz there'd be a lot of paper work and mailing, but still. i suppose they could still copy the dvds and sell them though... :?

2. get prints of the films nominated and screen them in theaters for academy members. make those mofo's see all the movies!! this is a beef ive always had w/ the academy awards. u never know if the members even saw the movies nominated. u get movies like chicago which they luv, and in turn, they don't bother seeing anything else. secondly, the movies should be seen on a big screen. can u imagine how many academy members may be watching the lord of the rings pan and scan style on a 19 inch tv?

i dunno, those ideas may not be the most practical, but there's got to be sum common ground here. glad to see pta and spike jonze stepping up.

But I think the screeners are more important BEFORE the nominations. Because the nominations are on more of a crunch-time schedule than ever.

If you're looking for that acting or writing nomination from a little film, you have to get people to see if before they complete the nomination process.

Once the nominations are made, the field is winnowed significantly, and there's no excuse for not getting out to see everything that you're voting on.

actually, they do that sometimes with keeping a record of who gets what screener. all the academy screeners have numbers burned into the screen, so they know whose copy was used to make the bootleg. here's a question i have. the whole thing of putting a screener on the internet in the first place perplexes me. if you have the access to screeners, why take the time to download it onto the computer and encode it for internet dorks who don't give you any money for it? that just seems like an unnecessary waste of time.

from what i understand they've been selling them on ebay.

it just goes to show u that u can't trust anyone in hollywood.

Quote from: bonanzatazactually, they do that sometimes with keeping a record of who gets what screener. all the academy screeners have numbers burned into the screen, so they know whose copy was used to make the bootleg. here's a question i have. the whole thing of putting a screener on the internet in the first place perplexes me. if you have the access to screeners, why take the time to download it onto the computer and encode it for internet dorks who don't give you any money for it? that just seems like an unnecessary waste of time.

WHO's BOnanzataz? Sounds like some odd phucko who only posts once a month.

Quote from: ©badi see a couple of solutions for this dvd screener situation:

1. keep records of who is getting the screener dvds, and make the ppl return them. if they don't, fine their ass. this would be tough though, cuz there'd be a lot of paper work and mailing, but still. i suppose they could still copy the dvds and sell them though... :?

2. get prints of the films nominated and screen them in theaters for academy members. make those mofo's see all the movies!! this is a beef ive always had w/ the academy awards. u never know if the members even saw the movies nominated. u get movies like chicago which they luv, and in turn, they don't bother seeing anything else. secondly, the movies should be seen on a big screen. can u imagine how many academy members may be watching the lord of the rings pan and scan style on a 19 inch tv?

i dunno, those ideas may not be the most practical, but there's got to be sum common ground here. glad to see pta and spike jonze stepping up.

3.  Leave it up to the individual studios like Ebert suggests.  If one studio wants to discontinue the use, fine, but don't leave the independent producers at a disadvantage because the majors are concerned about piracy.

Jack Valenti, you never cease to amaze me.

Writers Union Denounces Screener Ban

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The west coast branch of the Writers Guild of America has become the first major Hollywood union to oppose the major studios' controversial ban on screeners.

"Screeners have become an important part of the way small, well-written films find their audience," WGA West president Victoria Riskin said in a statement released Monday. "To place a gag order on screeners is to tilt the playing field from small films to large."

She urged the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA), the studio lobby group that orchestrated the ban two weeks ago, to reconsider and "do the fair and right thing for all artists."

In its statement, the WGA noted that such Oscar winners as Bill Condon ("Gods and Monsters"), Julian Fellowes ("Gosford Park") and John Irving ("The Cider House Rules") were brought to the attention of Academy voters through screeners.

Last week, more than 140 of the industry's leading directors, including Pedro Almodovar, Bernardo Bertolucci, Francis Ford Coppola, James Ivory, Mike Leigh, Sydney Pollack, Robert Redford, Martin Scorsese and Jim Sheridan, signed a statement in opposition to the screener ban. The statement was organized by Robert Altman, who directed "Gosford Park."

While the Directors Guild of America has not taken an official position on the issue, spokesman Morgan Rumpf hinted that the union might have something to say in the coming days. "The leadership is in discussion on the issue," he said.

On Monday, MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor said the organization would have no further comment and reiterated last week's statement in which the group said it would welcome "the exchange of thoughts and ideas on the critical issue of combating piracy."

MPAA head Jack Valenti, who has been visiting Ireland on behalf of the trade association that represents the major studios, is not scheduled to return to his office in Washington until Wednesday. Despite widespread opposition to the ban, which was instituted to combat piracy, the MPAA has not backed off its original position prohibiting the distribution of videos and DVDs of the year's awards hopefuls to members of the guilds and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Fuck, this is so depressing. ANOTHER reason to hate the MPAA.
This is especially sad for films like Lost in Translation and American Splendor. :(

Critics Axe '03 Awards After Screener Ban

LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles Film Critics Association has canceled its 2003 awards to protest an industry ban on sending special DVDs and videos to award voters.

The association voted Saturday not to hand out the awards, which can boost interest in a film and predict its Oscar chances. Members said they would consider resuming the awards if the studios again hand out videos and DVDs of new films.

The major studios and their trade group, the Motion Picture Association of America, agreed in September to stop sending "screener" copies to the 5,600 Academy Awards voters and other groups that hand out awards, including the Los Angeles Film Critics and the National Society of Film Critics.

The studios hoped to prevent piracy, but the decision angered supporters of smaller movies who say voters may miss independent pictures if they have to see them at screenings in theaters. Opponents of the ban say screener distribution has led to several Academy Awards for smaller films, include best actress wins for Halle Berry in 2001's "Monster's Ball" and Hilary Swank in 1999's "Boys Don't Cry."

Ella Taylor, a critic for the LA Weekly, suggested the cancellation and said she hoped other critics groups also would withhold awards. She said there were many films released toward the end of the year, and that voters may not be able to see them all without screeners.

"Unless they rescind the ban we just don't feel that we can really do our work properly," she said.

Jean Oppenheimer, the president of the association, said many critics see films in theaters but use screener copies to view films again as they decide the best pictures of the year.

"This really helps inform us better," said Oppenheimer, who reviews films for New Times, National Public Radio and other outlets.

MPAA officials did not immediately return calls for comment Sunday.

MPAA, Studios Near Compromise on 'Screener' Ban

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Hollywood's major film studios are close to an agreement to lift its controversial ban on "screener" tapes of movies vying for Oscars and other awards, a source who knew of the effort said on Monday.

The plan would call for the studios to send out only videotapes of the films, not DVDs, and each tape would be coded with the recipient's name for tracking purposes.

If a tape is illegally copied, or "pirated," for resale on black markets or digitized for Internet downloading, the tape's recipient would be sanctioned, and punishment could include dismissal from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which awards the Oscars, the U.S. film industry's top honors.

"I don't think the Academy or anybody in the industry would risk that kind of embarrassment," said the source. "Hollywood is a small town, and everybody would know who was caught."

I hate Billy Crystal.  Only movie I could stand him in was When Harry Met Sally.

MPAA Calls Screener Ceasefire

There's been hair-pulling, name-calling and a fair bit of general sulking but the great MPAA screener war has finally come to an end. For those of you just joining us, this little conflict kicked off when the Motion Picture Association of America made the dubious decision not to allow screener tapes for films in competition at this year's Oscars and similar events. Intended to curb piracy, the move put indie films with limited distribution at a distinct disadvantage to their studio cousins and half of Hollywood immediately went into an uproar.

Well, after weeks of bickering a compromise has now been reached. The compromise will allow films to be sent out only in VHS format (no nice DVDs this year, sorry voters) with anti-piracy steps taken to ensure they don't swiftly appear on the Net. These screeners will also only be made available to Academy members, leaving Screen Actors Guild voters to catch their nominees in theatres.

While many are still disgruntled, most are just pleased that the whole debacle has come to an end and the MPAA and AMPAS have finally caved under the sheer weight of opposition. Watermarking and other anti-piracy steps will be implemented at studio discretion and AMPAS has declared that, should a pirate copy be traced back to the member it was sent to, said member will be summarily expelled from the Academy. So there.

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?story=5112

Further proof that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

vhs? they still make those?

Indies Win in Case Against MPAA; Screeners Allowed

Citing an "unlawful restraint of trade" by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey in New York struck down the MPAA's ban on awards screeners. He said Friday that the ban by the Motion Picture Association of America would significantly harm independent film and granted a preliminary injunction to prohibit the ban, effective immediately.

"The plaintiffs have shown that they are at risk of loss of revenue as a result of the screener ban," Judge Mukasey said Friday in his decision allowing the distribution of screeners to all guilds and critics groups beyond just the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The MPAA, which had announced a modified ban on October 23, is vowing to appeal the decision, chief Jack Valenti said Friday in a statement. The organization has yet to announce a timeline for its appeal.

In his brief official order, Judge Mukasey said that the MPAA "is preliminarily enjoined from taking any action to implement the ban on awards screeners as described in its press release dated October 23rd, 2003." [A transcript of the official order is published at the end of this story.]

The group of plaintiffs that joined forces to file suit against the MPAA included Antidote International Films, Elemental Films, Forensic Films, GreeneStreet Films, Head Quarter Pictures, Independent Digital Entertainment, Independent Entertainment, Killer Films, Open City Films, Paradigm Consulting, Salty Features, Sandcastle 5 Productions, Sanford/Pillsbury Productions, Talking Wall Pictures, This is That Corporation, IFP/Los Angeles, and IFP/New York. The coalition have been battling the ban since it was first announced on September 30th. The plaintiffs said that the ban would prevent the smaller films that they produce from gaining wider awareness from the Golden Globe awards, Screen Actors Guild awards, and film critics groups. Critics in Los Angeles and Chicago canceled their awards this year in solidarity with the independent producers.

"Today's ruling is a victory for ALL sectors of the motion picture industry, and a real win for consumers who will continue to have access and awareness of the broadest possible range of movies," the victorious plaintiffs said in a statement Friday.

In his statement, MPAA head Valenti said, "From day one, the screener policy has been about one thing: preserving the future of our industry for filmmakers of all sizes by curtailing piracy. We know, without dispute, that in the past screeners have been sources for pirated goods both domestically and overseas. We will appeal because the impact and growing threat of piracy is real and must be addressed wherever it appears."

"All studios are now free to send out awards screeners for films as they see fit," said plaintiff attorney Greg Curtner in a statement Friday. "We look forward to seeing the results of fair competition. We stand ready to meet with the MPAA and discuss putting this ill-advised and poorly conceived screener ban behind all of us."

Plaintiffs Ted Hope, Michelle Byrd of IFP/New York, and Josh Astrachan of Sandcastle 5 productions were in court for the announcement of the decision that took Judge Mukasey more than 45 minutes to read into the record on Friday morning. After the decision, a beaming Hope was surrounded by reporters outside the courtroom Friday.

"We felt that independent film and the audiences that enjoy independent film were jeopardized," Hope, a producer on "American Splendor, "21 Grams," and other films said. He and Byrd were then met by a handful of photographers as they emerged from the Lower Manhattan courthouse into a blowing snowstorm.

"Independent films depend heavily on exposure to critics, and critical acclaim," Judge Mukasey concluded, in reading his ruling. "The harm to plaintiffs is significant," he said, adding that the group had "proven an anti-trust injury."

Judge Mukasey said that "perhaps the most significant evidence" in the case involved "the conduct of the MPAA and its member [studios]." He said that he was struck by MPAA chief Jack Valenti's testimony that the ban had been designed to prevent the competitive distribution companies from trying to "take advantage of each other by sending out screeners." He added that the MPAA did not prove that significant piracy was caused by awards screeners.

The comments of three specialty division heads also played a role in Judge Mukasey decision. The Judge cited numerous portions of the testimony by Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein, presented to the court in the form of a declaration. Weinstein was the only specialty division head to speak out against the ban in this case. Warner Independent Pictures president Mark Gill testified as an MPAA witness; the judge said that Gill's comments proved to him that independent films are delicate projects that require unique promotion. The inadvertent comments of Fox Searchlight president Peter Rice also had an impact on the decision. The Judge said that he struck by the testimony of producer Jeff Levy-Hinte which detailed an email exchange between he and Rice. In the exchange Rice told Levy-Hinte that he wanted to send out screeners of the producer's film, "Thirteen," but that his hands were tied by the screener ban.

Specialty division heads and their staff at the various Indiewood companies were buzzing Friday afternoon as word of the decision hit. Many were crafting responses and discussing next steps.

"Although we have not yet seen the court's opinion, we are pleased at reports that screeners will now be available," SAG president Melissa Gilbert and SAG national executive director and CEO Bob Pisano said Friday in a statement. "This means that the SAG Awards Nominating Committee will have the broadest possible opportunity to view and judge the work of our members. At the same time, piracy is a serious issue with significant economic implications for the entire entertainment industry. Screen Actors Guild remains committed to combating this problem."

In closing his decision, Judge Mukasey credited the "sincerity" of the MPAA with regard to the issue of piracy and rejected as "paranoid fantasy" the idea that the group or its studio members has designed the screener ban as a way to hurt independent film.

That's fantastic!

i kind of see how the ban would've affected indie films, but i dunno.  i still think screeners for hte most part shouldnt be allowed unless requested or something.  if voters are just too lazy to get out to the fucking theatre then they shouldnt be voting in the first place.  a lot of these movies are meant to be seen on the big screen, not on a dvd at some jerks house.

Quote from: themodernage02i kind of see how the ban would've affected indie films, but i dunno.  i still think screeners for hte most part shouldnt be allowed unless requested or something.  if voters are just too lazy to get out to the fucking theatre then they shouldnt be voting in the first place.  a lot of these movies are meant to be seen on the big screen, not on a dvd at some jerks house.

For the most part, that was a pretty ignorant call. Let's say Altman's film "The Company" is released and most of the voters are too busy with, say, the new Lord of the Rings movie, thanks largely to its heavy advertising. Usually the voters will steer towards something like ROTK. Now, if Altman was to send out his copy of the film on DVD to people directly, more voters will have access to it and there's a larger chance they will get around to seeing it instead of MAYBE going to the theatre - IF it's even there!  See why it was kinda ignorant to say screeners shouldn't be allowed?

truly... most (or at least a big part) of the academy voters are 80 year old geezers who for the most part DONT go to the movies!! (how backwards is that?) Screeners are usually the _only_ chance a lot of the smaller movies have if they want to be seen by the academy voters

Quote from: themodernage02i kind of see how the ban would've affected indie films, but i dunno.  i still think screeners for hte most part shouldnt be allowed unless requested or something.  if voters are just too lazy to get out to the fucking theatre then they shouldnt be voting in the first place.  a lot of these movies are meant to be seen on the big screen, not on a dvd at some jerks house.

I agree.

Quote from: CinephileFor the most part, that was a pretty ignorant call. Let's say Altman's film "The Company" is released and most of the voters are too busy with, say, the new Lord of the Rings movie, thanks largely to its heavy advertising.

But Cinephile, can't they go to see ROTK one day and the next one Altman's? Now, I think is ok they are able to catch up with the screeners mainly for the films that have very limited release just in case those didn't make it on time where they live, but these guys should make an effort to see the films on the big screen, now they not only get free dvd's but they don't even want to pay for a frigging ticket?

Fernando, i totally agree with the point you are trying to make. It SHOULD be that the members of the Academy love cinema to the point that they are regular movie goers, but sadly this is not the case, thus why screeners are needed, especially for smaller, less distributed films...

it sucks, but in the meantime, its all we have.

(this really proves how unfair the oscar race usually is)

Blake Edwards to Receive Honorary Award at Oscars

Filmmaker Blake Edwards has been selected to receive an Honorary Award by the Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The Award, an Oscar statuette, will be presented at the 76th Academy Awards on February 29. The Honorary Award will be given to Edwards to honor his "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement." The citation will read: "In recognition of his writing, directing and producing an extraordinary body of work for the screen."

"For more than 50 years, Edwards has had an extraordinary career writing, directing and producing mainly his own material," said Academy President Frank Pierson. "And that puts him in a select and very small group of outstanding film makers."

Edwards has been a prolific writer, director and producer and his films have run the gamut from the high drama of Days of Wine and Roses to the urban sophistication of Breakfast at Tiffany's, and Victor/Victoria to the imperishable slapstick comedy of the series of Pink Panther movies, A Shot in the Dark, The Party, 10 and the satirical Hollywood black comedy S.O.B.

His nearly 50 films also include such memorable titles as The Great Race, Operation Petticoat, Darling Lili, Experiment in Terror, Wild Rovers, Mr. Cory and What Did You do in the War Daddy?

Edwards received his only Academy Award nomination in 1982 for his screenplay of Victor/Victoria, which starred his wife, Julie Andrews.

Edwards Honorary Award will be presented, along with other Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2003, on Sunday, February 29, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland. The Oscars will be televised live by the ABC Television Network beginning at 5:00 p.m. PST (8 p.m. EST) with a half-hour arrival segment preceding the presentation ceremony.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscars.org%2Fpublications%2Fposter76%2Fposter_76.gif&hash=6504f7dc8520b3043d4f647580ebb05aac8e16a1)

BEST PICTURE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Keisha Castle-Hughes - WHALE RIDER
Diane Keaton - SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE
Samantha Morton - IN AMERICA
Charlize Theron - MONSTER
Naomi Watts - 21 GRAMS

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Johnny Depp - PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Ben Kingsley - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Jude Law - COLD MOUNTAIN
Bill Murray - LOST IN TRANSLATION
Sean Penn - MYSTIC RIVER

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Shohreh Aghdashloo - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Patricia Clarkson - PIECES OF APRIL
Marcia Gay Harden - MYSTIC RIVER
Holly Hunter - THIRTEEN
Renée Zellweger - COLD MOUNTAIN

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Alec Baldwin - THE COOLER
Benicio Del Toro - 21 GRAMS
Djimon Hounsou - IN AMERICA
Tim Robbins - MYSTIC RIVER
Ken Watanabe - THE LAST SAMURAI

DIRECTING
CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
AMERICAN SPLENDOR
CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
DIRTY PRETTY THINGS
FINDING NEMO
IN AMERICA
LOST IN TRANSLATION

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
BROTHER BEAR
FINDING NEMO
THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE

ART DIRECTION
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

CINEMATOGRAPHY
CITY OF GOD
COLD MOUNTAIN
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

COSTUME DESIGN
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
BALSEROS
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS
THE FOG OF WAR
MY ARCHITECT
THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND

DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
ASYLUM
CHERNOBYL HEART
FERRY TALES

FILM EDITING
CITY OF GOD
COLD MOUNTAIN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
EVIL
THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI
TWIN SISTERS
ŽELARY

MAKEUP
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

MUSIC (SCORE)
BIG FISH
COLD MOUNTAIN
FINDING NEMO
HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

MUSIC (SONG)
"Into the West" - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
(Music and Lyric by Fran Walsh and Howard Shore and Annie Lennox)
"A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" - A MIGHTY WIND
(Music and Lyric by Michael McKean and Annette O'Toole)
"Scarlet Tide" - COLD MOUNTAIN
(Music and Lyric by T Bone Burnett and Elvis Costello)
"The Triplets of Belleville" - THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE
(Music by Benoit Charest. Lyric by Sylvain Chomet)
"You Will Be My Ain True Love" - COLD MOUNTAIN
(Music and Lyric by Sting)

SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
BOUNDIN'
DESTINO
GONE NUTTY
HARVIE KRUMPET
NIBBLES

SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
DIE ROTE JACKE (The Red Jacket)
MOST (The Bridge)
SQUASH
(A) TORZIJA ([A] Torsion)
TWO SOLDIERS

SOUND
THE LAST SAMURAI
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
SEABISCUIT

SOUND EDITING
FINDING NEMO
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

VISUAL EFFECTS
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

I'm always way off on my predictions.  Oh well.  I'm happy to see LOTR and Lost In Translation up for a bunch, and I think it's cool to see City of God up for Directing and Screenplay (BUT NO BEST FOREIGN FILM NOMINATIONI?!).  And look at all the more "indie" nominations (especially in acting categories)!  I can't complain about that.

only 2 things can be said..

1. GREAT, BEST IN YEARS (ESP. ACTING/WRITING/DOCUM.)

2. EXCEPT THE MASTER AND COMMANDER/SEABISCUIT LOVE

Thanks for the info, Mac.  Looks great.  21 Grams got snubbed, though, which is gonna piss off many people here, I know (well, except for Del Toro and Watts, but no writing, directing, or editing nods is shocking).  I haven't even heard of four of the foreign language films, which is a real shocker considering how many of them I've seen this year.  Lilja 4-ever seems like something the Academy would eat up with a spoon.  But I am happy for the props In America, Whale Rider, and Lost in Translation are getting.  I'm so happy Djimon Hounsou and Keisha Castle-Hughes got nominated, and I'll be pulling for them and for Lost in Translation in all categories.  But I question some of these choices, though I still need to see a lot of movies to make a final judgment.

Quote from: LinkI think it's cool to see City of God up for Directing and Screenplay (BUT NO BEST FOREIGN FILM NOMINATIONI?!).

It was eligible for that catagory last year and was overlooked. Which is why it's getting recognized for other catagories this year.

best actresses choices were all great except its weird diane keaton was there... they must really love her... Go Naomi!
best pic was kinda typical... they put one really good movie that is worth winning and that should win and two movies that shouldnt even be there at all

oh yeah and fernando merielles wow! but how come no city of god in foreign language?

Quote from: Sanjurobut how come no city of god in foreign language?

Further proof no one reads my posts.

Quote from: MacGuffinFurther proof no one reads my posts.

maybe it took him more than 7 minutes to write that message and he missed ur post.  :yabbse-huh:

let's hope.

Agree with P that it's the best in a long time (ie fewest disses and smaller amount of absolute shit in a while)

Best Pic:
Want:Lost in Translation
Will: Master and Comander or possible LOTR

Lead Dude:
Want/NEED: Bill
Will probably win: Sean Penn

Lead Lady:
Want: Naomi
Will: Charlize

Best Burn: Visual Effects: Pirates was nominated, but not the Matrix

It's been a couple of days since I've been here, but what's the word on Technical Oscars?

Edit: Nevermind. (http://www.oscar.com/nominees/scitech.html)

minus the City Of God and American Splendor noms (which won't win anything anyway), another shit year. I hate the Oscars.

Dianne Keaton and no Scarlet?

Not bad really. Love the direction catergory. Hope to see this peformed on the night: "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" - A MIGHTY WIND.

Wants are Bill Murray, another top award for LiT, and P.J for direction.

Where is Viggo's nomination for best actor?  :(

Quote from: ®edlumDianne Keaton and no Scarlet?

Actually, the studio was pushing her for Best Supporting Actress:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscarwatch.com%2FFYC%2Fimages%2Flostintranslation.gif&hash=eba76ce5fa0090eef7cc65304010dee20cf5b2fe)

Hmm. I really don't the film that way. They both support each other.

21 Grams and City of God need to replace Master and Commander & Mystic River for Best Picture. It wouldn't be difficult... you wouldn't even lose LOTR and Seabiscuit. The only best picture nomination that I really liked is Lost in Translation.

Unsurprisingly, 28 Days Later was completely ignored.

The girls from In America... not there? This is a Haley Joel Osment-size mistake.

The most tragic thing this year: Where's 21 Grams in the editing category?  :yabbse-angry:  Seriously!

That said, there are some very good things:

Quote from: MacGuffinACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Keisha Castle-Hughes - WHALE RIDER
Naomi Watts - 21 GRAMS

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Djimon Hounsou - IN AMERICA

DIRECTING
CITY OF GOD

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
CITY OF GOD

CINEMATOGRAPHY
CITY OF GOD

no nomination for kill bill! not even for cinematography! nor for visual effects (not that they were sophisticated or anything but they look as good as all the other nominees)!

Why the hell wasn't eddie vedder nominated for best song?

Hey, there are some things I'd like to have seen nominated...but there were so many things that surprised me and so many great choices (minus Diane Keaton) that I can't argue. I'm one of the few that is glad that Master & Commander is doing so well. And I love that Holly Hunter and Johnny Depp got nominated.

what the fuck is seabiscuit doing being nominated at all for anything??

I'm upset that Big Fish wasn't nominated for more awards.  :(

Quote from: GhostboyHey, there are some things I'd like to have seen nominated...but there were so many things that surprised me and so many great choices (minus Diane Keaton) that I can't argue. I'm one of the few that is glad that Master & Commander is doing so well. And I love that Holly Hunter and Johnny Depp got nominated.

yeah, exactly. Such a nice list. Really can't complain this year.
I couldn't believe when I heard Johnny Depp's name. And was so worried about 21 Grams (especially Watts) being ignored.
I'm excited this year

well i'm actually surprised/pleased w/ this year's nominations, save sea biscuit and master and commander, as p and others have duly noted.

and i agree w/ u jb, i woulda scrapped mystic river, master and commander, and seabiscuit for 21 grams, in america, and city of god for best picture.  

i'm really flabbergasted that matrix reloaded/revolutions were completely ignored in the effects/editing categories. wtf? did joel silver forget to promote them for the awards?

Quote from: ewardwhat the fuck is seabiscuit doing being nominated at all for anything??

Because it's a great film. I really don't understand everyone bashing that film. It deserves everything it was nominated for and more that it wasn't. What the fuck is everyone's problem with that film?

happy enough.

I thought for sure Kill Bill would be nominated and win for sound.
Peter Dinklage was snubbed for The Station Agent.
Very happy about American Splendor's writing nom, but Mystic River baffles me, I thought the script was the downfall of that film.

EDIT:
No Paul Giamatti or Hope Davis for American Splendor?
EDIT COMPLETE:

I know sone dislike the Diane Keaton nom but I actually dig it.  I really think she deserves it.

Im guessing Kill Bill will be honored next year after Vol 2 is released?  :?:

In any case, I have not seen Pieces of April or House of Sand and Fog, but I have trouble believing those actresses are more deserving of the nod than Scarlett  :evil:

Pleasantly surprised that Depp got nominated for Lead actor, UNpleasantly surprised about Diane Keaton. (she was good in the movie, but its just more of the same from her IMO)

is it safe to assume the Best Picture category is a 2 film race with RotK having a 90% possibility and LiT having about a 9% chance.
Unfortunately.

KILL BILL= 0 NOM'S
CITY OF GOD=4 NOM'S
where was harvey's campaigning for quentin there?  0 is such an insult to quentin.  like, if harvey isnt there to create nominations, what good is he?  atleast some technical awards.

no acting mentions for LOTR: ROTK even though its up for 11, (the most of any movie).  

i'm shocked and pleased that ONLY ONE of the best picture nominees was released in december.  whereas last year, ALL FUCKING FIVE were from december.  it shows that yeah there actually is a whole year for movies, not a month.  cause that really bugs the shit out of me.  still the earliest movie, seabiscuit, was released at the end of july.  i'm waiting for the year where the best picture comes out in the first quarter of the year.

i am pretty pleasantly surprised overall though.  this is the 'coolest' batch of nominees in a long time, probably ever.  usually the movies i really really like dont get any recognition, and this year is littered with my favorites.

Quote from: SHAFTRis it safe to assume the Best Picture category is a 2 film race with RotK having a 90% possibility and LiT having about a 9% chance.
Unfortunately.

what about Mystic River though? it scares me  :oops:  (im rooting for LOTR, then Lost In Translation)

also, after reading the book i'm especially happy about this...

MIRAMAX DOES NOT HAVE A BEST PICTURE NOMINEE!  

this is the first time in how many years?  i swear the book said in the past 11 years they've had 10 nominations for best picture or something like that.  i'll be he is so pissed that cold mountain isnt up there for picture or director.  hahah, fuck harvey weinstein.

Maybe Volume 2 will blow Volume 1 out of the water.

look i'm not surprised that volume 1 was not nominated for anything, besides cinematog. and effects maybe. it shouldn't be nominated b/c we haven't seen the whole thing yet. so there.

For those wondering why Scarlett Johansson got the Richard Roundtree:

Basically, it's Focus' fault.  They chicken-shit-ily pushed her for supporting, worried that it might conflict w/ 'Girl for a Pearl Earring.'  So what you got was people voting for her in both categories, plus cancelling herself out in the best actress category for having the misfortune of being in 2 good movies this year.

Is it possible that an actor/actress could win both Best and Best Supporting in one year?

cos that'd be cool

Quote from: SoNowThenIs it possible that an actor/actress could win both Best and Best Supporting in one year?

cos that'd be cool

Yep. It's happened 9 times. Most recent was Julianne Moore up for both last year for "The Hours" and "Far From Heaven".

have any of them ever WON both?

Quote from: themodernage02have any of them ever WON both?

Nope.

A friend of mine told me that supposedly Access Hollywood was saying something to the effect that the Academy Voters snubbed Tom Cruise because him not doing Cold Mountain?  :?: I know it sounds ridiculous but bear with me, my friend wont believe my own word. WTF was he even in consideration for Cold Mountain? Anyone know about this?

yes originally he was interested in the Inman (Jude Law) role, and wanted his usual asking price of 20$ mil plus some backend, and Harvey Weinstein balked and told him he had to cut his price.  he refused because he didnt see this as a charity picture and decided to drop out of the project whose budget was already ballooning out of control before they had even started shooting.  thats how nicole came across the script and all the actors who eventually signed on cut their costs and were paid a combined total less than just what cruises salary would've been.

i dont think this has anything to do with why he wasnt nominated for Samurai though.  after all, Cold Mountain couldn't get nominated for Picture, Director, Actress (nicole), or even Screenplay!

ahh i see

what I dont figure though, is why Cruise would ask 20mil for that one, and then do Last Samurai with NO upfront salary?

:?

Cos Samurai was a better film. Plus it was one he became much more involved in, in the pre-production stages. Obviously it was just a film he wanted to do much more, and, being Tom Cruise, he can pretty much guarantee that his slice of the backend will be pretty nice.

no fucking pearl jam. crap.

Quote from: abuck1220no fucking pearl jam. crap.

yeah, i agree, but it they were nominated and won, somehow i can't picture myself eddie vedder accepting the award. it's like if sean penn wins, he's not going to be there.

Man I'm fucking pissed Scarlett Johannson wasn't nominated. The Academy Awards BLOW.  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil: I'm going to be really irritated about this for quite a while!!!

Quote from: ©bradlook i'm not surprised that volume 1 was not nominated for anything, besides cinematog. and effects maybe. it shouldn't be nominated b/c we haven't seen the whole thing yet. so there.

Yeah. The Academy does recognise kill bill (not that it really maters :roll:) but they are waiting for the rest of the film before they will give it nods. If they give Vol. 1 dozens of nominations and Vol. 2 turns out to be better (which it will), they couldn't really nominate/award the same film twice, could they? I also think that's the case with Uma. I'm kind of glad she didn't get nominated, because QT has said that her acting shines even more in Vol. 2. And she wouldn't be up against Charlize Theron either, who is obviously going to win. The Golden Globes were foolish enough to nominate her for Vol. 1.

there's no way in hell volume two will be up for oscars.  ONE) the first one couldnt even get a technical award and TWO) its not the type of movie that gets recognized let alone awarded SHIT!  and THREE) its coming out in april, nobodies memory is that long.  come next january nobody in the academy is even going to remember kill bill.

The Oscars are really stupid, they are just as bad as political elections.  True merit is not rewarded at these award shows.  It's pointless to bitch on end about who is and who isn't because the best won't win anyway.  Does Johnny Depp deserve it?  Yes, for practically every movie he's ever made.  Will he win this year?  The answer is no, and the subquestion is who cares.  He's already a great actor and I can't figure out why getting an award means differently.  These things are only important to shallow fakes like Renee Zellweger who care about stupid shit like this.  I bet she can't wait to be fitted for a dress that Joan Rivers will go cunt-crazy for.  Every one of us has opinions that are different than the wealthy dinosaurs on the academy.  So cool your jets, and put in the DVDs of your favorite movies of the year, and enjoy them because you enjoy them, not because someone else says you should be doing so.

P.S. -- Kill Bill  wasn't nominated because it sucked.

Are you saying I'm a shallow fake?

Quote from: GoneSavageThe Oscars are really stupid, they are just as bad as political elections.  True merit is not rewarded at these award shows.  It's pointless to bitch on end about who is and who isn't because the best won't win anyway.  Does Johnny Depp deserve it?  Yes, for practically every movie he's ever made.  Will he win this year?  The answer is no, and the subquestion is who cares.  He's already a great actor and I can't figure out why getting an award means differently.  These things are only important to shallow fakes like Renee Zellweger who care about stupid shit like this.  I bet she can't wait to be fitted for a dress that Joan Rivers will go cunt-crazy for.  Every one of us has opinions that are different than the wealthy dinosaurs on the academy.  So cool your jets, and put in the DVDs of your favorite movies of the year, and enjoy them because you enjoy them, not because someone else says you should be doing so.

P.S. -- Kill Bill  wasn't nominated because it sucked.

Man, your bottom must be really sore.

Let me get this straight... you hate the Oscars because they're for shallow fakes (the Oscars do suck, but they're fun to watch and complain about) and you think that of all the people who deserve an Oscar, it's Johnny Depp for his funny yet two dimentional role in Pirates?  

And you think Kill Bill sucked?

yes... sore bottom, that's probably it.

Quote from: GoneSavageThe Oscars are really stupid, they are just as bad as political elections.  True merit is not rewarded at these award shows.  It's pointless to bitch on end about who is and who isn't because the best won't win anyway.  Does Johnny Depp deserve it?  Yes, for practically every movie he's ever made.  Will he win this year?  The answer is no, and the subquestion is who cares.  He's already a great actor and I can't figure out why getting an award means differently.  These things are only important to shallow fakes like Renee Zellweger who care about stupid shit like this.  I bet she can't wait to be fitted for a dress that Joan Rivers will go cunt-crazy for.  Every one of us has opinions that are different than the wealthy dinosaurs on the academy.  So cool your jets, and put in the DVDs of your favorite movies of the year, and enjoy them because you enjoy them, not because someone else says you should be doing so.

P.S. -- Kill Bill  wasn't nominated because it sucked.

1. Even though you hate the Oscars, I bet you still watch them.
2. Johnny Depp is not Jesus.
3. If you were nominated, would you say you were a shallow fake?
4. Wealthy dinosaurs?  Jealous much?
5. Oh, so THAT'S why Kill Bill wasn't nominated.  Thanks for clearing that up, I was totally baffled!

Quote from: mogwai

Quote from: abuck1220no fucking pearl jam. crap.

yeah, i agree, but it they were nominated and won, somehow i can't picture myself eddie vedder accepting the award. it's like if sean penn wins, he's not going to be there.

good point. for one, i doubt they would have showed up to perform, which would have looked bad. secondly, vedder's acceptance speech might have made michael moore's speech look like the pledge of allegiance.

Quote from: ProgWRXA friend of mine told me that supposedly Access Hollywood was saying something to the effect that the Academy Voters snubbed Tom Cruise because him not doing Cold Mountain?

and this is true because the all academy voters function with a collective mind and perform all necessary survival skills based on the commands of the hive

Quote from: Weak2ndAct3. If you were nominated, would you say you were a shallow fake?!

That's funny, I was thinking about this. Whadda you guys have to say? Cos if I ever got a nom, I'd feel like a sick little whore, being that I've hated this shitty awards show forever, and none of my heroes have ever really won.

BUT

It could be a huge career booster, and everyone likes to be recognized for the good work they do.

It'd be a tough thing, I think, for the old integrity meter...

i would like to be nominated.

i would like to win.

i would like to shit on all ur lawns.

I was pretty happy with the nominations myself. I'm glad Cold Mountain didn't sweep everything.

Uncommonly good
January 27, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT

Are these the nominations for the 76th annual Academy Awards, or more winners from Sundance? This year's nominations, announced early Tuesday, showed uncommon taste and imagination in reaching beyond the starstruck land of the Golden Globes to embrace surprising and in some cases almost unknown choices. It's one of the best lists in years.

This was supposed to be the year the independent films got stiffed, because of the MPAA ban on advance screeners for Academy members. But the voters hardly limited themselves to general-release blockbusters and big stars. Walking down the red carpet this year, nominated in the major acting categories, will be New Zealand teenager Keisha Castle-Hughes; Djimon Hounsou, who was born in Africa; Shohreh Aghdashloo, from Iran; and Ken Watanabe, from Japan. But no Russell Crowe. No Nicole Kidman. No Tom Cruise.

Superbly made big-budget epics dominated this year's nominations; "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" led with 11 nominations, and the sea epic "Master and Commander" had 10, but both were shut out of the acting categories. Both films ran up their totals with their below-the-line excellence in the craft categories.

As expected, the Academy nominated Charlize Theron, whose work in the low-budget "Monster" by first-time director Patty Jenkins was the performance of the year. Sean Penn's work as a grieving and vengeance-minded father in "Mystic River" was also honored, and look for those two to win the Oscars on Feb. 29.

In the top categories (picture, acting, writing, direction) the leader was Clint Eastwood's brooding drama "Mystic River," with six nominations, including Penn, Tim Robbins and Marcia Gay Harden. "Lost in Translation," Sofia Coppola's sweet and observant comedy about two lonely people in the middle of a Tokyo night, won four.

And consider the astonishing four nominations (director, screenplay, cinematography, editing) for the Brazilian film "City of God," which was ineligible in last year's foreign film category because the Brazilians refused to nominate their brilliant and angry film. And what about the support for "In America," the touching drama of an Irish immigrant family in New York, which was nominated for best actress, supporting actor and screenplay? And the seven nominations, mostly in craft categories, for "Seabiscuit," the horse-racing drama that voters remembered even though it opened way last summer?

Despite one of Miramax's patented high-powered Oscar campaigns, its candidate "Cold Mountain" was relatively overlooked despite its seven nominations; Jude Law was nominated for best actor and Renee Zellweger for supporting actress, but no best actress for Nicole Kidman, and no best picture, although it gathered nominations for cinematography, score, song (twice) and editing.

After critics publish their annual best 10 lists, readers often complain: "I've never heard of half those films!" This year the Academy will get similar letters. Most of North America has not had a chance to see (from the top eight categories) "Pieces of April," "House of Sand and Fog," "thirteen," "The Cooler," "21 Grams," "Whale Rider," "City of God," "The Barbarian Invasions," "Dirty Pretty Things" and "American Splendor." Not to mention the animated nominee "The Triplets of Belleville" and most of the documentary choices.

"In America" has had a relatively limited release, and "Monster" is only now going wide on the basis of publicity for Theron's performance. Many moviegoers in smaller cities and those not blessed by independent theaters and imaginative programming will recognize the titles of "Lord of the Rings," "Master and Commander," "Mystic River," "Cold Mountain," "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Finding Nemo" and "Something's Gotta Give," and after that they'll be in the dark.

What the nominations demonstrate, dramatically, is the disconnect between artistic quality and mainstream Hollywood product. As the major studios have increasingly focused on predictable mass entertainment formulas, quality and imagination have migrated to what could be called Sundance films: Lower budget, innovative projects fueled by the love of their makers, and sometimes by the determination of actors trying to break out of assembly-line fodder. The unfamiliar titles on this year's list will be very familiar to veterans of the Sundance and Toronto festivals ("Whale Rider" won the audience award at both fests). But many multiplexes, booked by computer from Hollywood with no regard for local tastes, never show such titles. Even college towns in mid-America never get them.

Looking at the nominations again, my delight only increases. How perceptive of the Academy to know that Holly Hunter, not Evan Rachel Wood (as her daughter) gave the best performance in "thirteen." What imagination to honor Johnny Depp, who transformed a pirate epic with his weird and daring performance (he said he was channeling Keith Richard). How daring to honor Keisha Castle-Hughes as best actress instead of caving in to the Miramax steamroller for Nicole Kidman. How right to admire Diane Keaton's work in "Something's Gotta Give" without feeling obligated to give Jack Nicholson his 13th nomination.

With only three slots in the animation category, how absolutely correct to assign one of them to "The Triplets of Belleville," the Canadian-French co-production, one of the most delightfully weird of animated features. And consider the original screenplay nominations for "Dirty Pretty Things," a political thriller about immigrants in London, and Denys Arcand's "The Barbarian Invasions," about a dying leftist intellectual in Quebec. (Both films were big-time audience pleasers, but given distribution patterns, of course reached only small audiences).

Even some of the universally-expected nominations took some imagination. Bill Murray, Charlize Theron, Alec Baldwin, Benicio del Toro, Samantha Morton and Ben Kingsley may have been on lots of lists of Oscar predictions, but their work is uniformly inventive, offbeat and exciting—and not in blockbusters, but in lower-budget films made in the independent spirit.

How good were this year's nominations? Well, assuming that my list of the best films of 2003 is the gold standard, the Academy distributed 30 nominations among eight of my top 10 titles. You'd think it was one of those critics' groups.

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: Sanjurobut how come no city of god in foreign language?

Further proof no one reads my posts.

sorry mised it was just really excitedwith the list

If Master and Commander counts as a Miramax co-production, then Miramax is represented in the Best Picture category once again.  Also, I think the Weinsteins have their names on Lord of the Rings as exec producers.

Even in an "off" year, Miramax is still well represented in the noms.  It is amazing that City of God got 4 nods.

I get the feeling that the Academy voter-ship is getting younger, or at least more daring, after giving statues last year to Polanski, Brody and script to Talk to Her.

Oscars often go to undeserving films and people, but even so, Oscars create an incentive for studios to make movies that aren't assembly line pieces of junk.  It also spurs movie stars into doing low budget, edgy films.

I like that Ebert article. This was a pretty good year of noms all in all, though I'm still in Stage II of my Scarlett Johannson depression.

Quote from: GoneSavageThe Oscars are really stupid, they are just as bad as political elections. True merit is not rewarded at these award shows. It's pointless to bitch on end about who is and who isn't because the best won't win anyway. Does Johnny Depp deserve it? Yes, for practically every movie he's ever made. Will he win this year? The answer is no, and the subquestion is who cares. He's already a great actor and I can't figure out why getting an award means differently. These things are only important to shallow fakes like Renee Zellweger who care about stupid shit like this. I bet she can't wait to be fitted for a dress that Joan Rivers will go cunt-crazy for. Every one of us has opinions that are different than the wealthy dinosaurs on the academy. So cool your jets, and put in the DVDs of your favorite movies of the year, and enjoy them because you enjoy them, not because someone else says you should be doing so.

P.S. -- Kill Bill wasn't nominated because it sucked.

You need to chill out. Watching the Awards is fun, getting to support your movie and being sad that it didn't win. And nobody's shallow because they'd like an award--it shows them that their work is recognized and distinguished from the rest, in the opinion of the humongous Academy. And while something makes me doubt that Kill Bill will ever be nominated for any Oscars, I doubt it's 'because it sucks.' More like it's just not the type of movie the Academy goes for.

Quote from: abuck1220vedder's acceptance speech might have made michael moore's speech look like the pledge of allegiance.

haha, good one!

Fucking critics and their horse/boat fetish this year. Oh well.

My picks for the main awards (What I want to win):

Picture: Lord of the Rings - Return of the King
Actor: Sean Penn
Actress: Charlize Theron
Supporting Actor: Benicio Del Toro
I believe Serkis should have at least gotten a nomination here.
Supporting Actress: I don't really care. Weak category this year.
Directing: Lord of the Rings - Return of the King
He's got to get a nod here. I realize we should be pitting LOTR3 against the other films in this category. However, he needs to be recognized for putting together an amazing trilogy of films. My sentimental favorite is Coppola though.
Cinematography: Girl With a Pearl Earring
I can't bring myself to vote for the horse or boat films this year. I didn't think either of them were that amazing.
Editing: Lord of the Rings - Return of the King
For 21 Grams to not be nominated in this category is criminal.
Adapted Screenplay: Lord of the Rings - Return of the King
Original Screenplay: Lost In Translation
I have a feeling that Coppola will win here and lose in the "Best Director" category.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

No, that makes perfect sense. They could just say: "Scarlett Johansson, for Girl With The Pearl Earing & Lost In Translation". That'd be cooler, imo. You're that fucking good, you kicked ass in two movies this year.

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI'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.

i don't think it should work that way

seabiscuit was good.  just because it wasn't 'cool'.  it wasnt downbeat, they didnt show it out of sequence.  it didnt have overlong shots that followed behind a character for minutes on end.  or amateur acting and direction, it was a big hollywood movie, and it was good.  people here are too cynical.  just because something plays at an arthouse doesnt mean its any good.  and vice versa.

Quote from: themodernage02seabiscuit was good.  just because it wasn't 'cool'.  it wasnt downbeat, they didnt show it out of sequence.  it didnt have overlong shots that followed behind a character for minutes on end.  or amateur acting and direction, it was a big hollywood movie, and it was good.  people here are too cynical.  just because something plays at an arthouse doesnt mean its any good.  and vice versa.

it was nothing special. if u want to award corniness and brilliant cinematography, story, blah blah all these "real movie" categories, they should have recognised HULK, which in fact satisfied and surpassed all the seabiscuit criteria and wasn't an art house film.

seabiscuit only made it cos they needed sum fucked up patriotic thing. there i said it.

the hulk should've been up for editing atleast.  which i think was pretty goddamn extraordinary.

Quote from: Pseabiscuit only made it cos they needed sum fucked up patriotic thing. there i said it.

I'm with you on that. Which is also why Hulk didn't make it.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Pseabiscuit only made it cos they needed sum fucked up patriotic thing. there i said it.

I'm with you on that. Which is also why Hulk didn't make it.

Yea...that and it sucked.

But as for Onomatopeia's opinion...I have to agree with him. Scarlett SHOULD have been nominated for something! Everytime I think about it I feel like punching Academy-president-guy's face. Grr! This is so irritating, still! And my rep is suffering as a result of it because of how much I supported her in school and now people who never saw either movie are saying, "Well, she must not have been THAT good!" and then I have to go through at least 45 seconds of explaining the split vote. Fucking Aye.

i dont know if this has already been said, but i dont feel like looking for it. it makes me sick that the girl from WHALE RIDER was nominated for best actress over nicole kidman. if by some miracle she beats charlize theron...i am banning the academy awards. and i dont even care if charlize theron wins. naomi watts has my vote, and i didnt even see 21 GRAMS  :oops:   hey, what can i do..it just came to a theater near me this week.

Quote from: filmboy70i dont know if this has already been said, but i dont feel like looking for it. it makes me sick that the girl from WHALE RIDER was nominated for best actress over nicole kidman.

Here's the thing.  Nicole Kidman hasn't really given a great performance since Eyes Wide Shut (barring Moulin Rouge, since I haven't seen it).  And perhaps, because of this, Eyes Wide Shut is her only great performance.  The Hours was merely smoke and mirrors, and I haven't seen Dogville yet, but that's beside the point.

But I'm guessing you haven't even seen Whale Rider if you can't understand that Keisha Castle-Hughes performance made that film, and was nothing short of amazing.  I didn't think the film was as great as some people here did, but her performance alone made the film memorable, and since Scarlett Johansson got tragically shafted, my support is entirely behind her to win the Best Actress statuette.  No one else in the category seems to be deserving this time around (I haven't seen Monster, Watts was okay in 21 Grams, and Hounsou gave a better performance in In America, IMO (nominated as Best Supporting Male, of course).

filmboy70, are u by any chance.. 14years old?

I was under the impression that he was 70 (hence the avatar).

Judging by the evidence discovered in his name, i'll bet he's a 70-year-old film boy?

Quote from: Chest Rockwell

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWhich is also why Hulk didn't make it.

Yea...that and it sucked.

Okay, I'm not talking about Best Picture. But... editing maybe? Special effects?

And Hulk does not "suck." No, my friend, it doesn't.

Quote from: Chest Rockwell

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWhich is also why Hulk didn't make it.

Yea...that and it sucked.

... i'm getting anGRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my hopefulls.....not that anyone cares......

BEST PICTURE:
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING(or mystic river0

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE:
Naomi Watts - 21 GRAMS

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
Sean Penn - MYSTIC RIVER(or murray)

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
Holly Hunter - THIRTEEN

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
Benicio Del Toro - 21 GRAMS

DIRECTING:
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING


WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY):
MYSTIC RIVER


WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY):
LOST IN TRANSLATION

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:
FINDING NEMO

yeah, I think that's pretty much everyone here's hopefulls
oh, wait...except for best actress which WILL go to Charlize, mark my words. Naomi was wonderful, don't get me wrong, but she was NO Charlize.

plus at this point its pretty much a popularity contest.  and 21 grams has no buzz anymore.  watts doesnt have a chance.

Quote from: poserismsyeah, I think that's pretty much everyone here's hopefulls

um.... NO!

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaNo one else in the category seems to be deserving this time around (I haven't seen Monster, Watts was okay in 21 Grams, and Hounsou gave a better performance in In America, IMO (nominated as Best Supporting Male, of course).

Maybe sick wasn't the right word to use. Some people are just a liittle bit sensitive. So you didn't see MONSTER? How can you say that Charlize isn't deserving? I didn't say the girl from WHALE RIDER wasn't deserving...I just said she shouldn't get it over say Nicole Kidman (if she was nominated) or Naomi Watts. That's all. In my opinion. This girl has done what, one film? Was it Oscar worthy? I guess to you it was. The Academy loves the underdog, i know. Cases in point....Roberto Benigni over I believe it was Tom Hanks for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN...Edward Norton for AMERICAN HISTORY X?  And last year, Adrian Brody over Nicolas Cage, Jack Nicholson, Daniel Day-Lewis?  :shock:

I apologize for offending any WHALE RIDER fans.

Quote from: Chest RockwellJudging by the evidence discovered in his name, i'll bet he's a 70-year-old film boy?

How does having a GREAT EXPECTATIONS avatar make me 70?  :?
I am 22. You guys might be giving me a complex. 14 year old boy? Damn, you guys are rough.

Quote from: filmboy70i dont know if this has already been said, but i dont feel like looking for it. it makes me sick that the girl from WHALE RIDER was nominated for best actress over nicole kidman. if by some miracle she beats charlize theron...i am banning the academy awards. and i dont even care if charlize theron wins. naomi watts has my vote, and i didnt even see 21 GRAMS  :oops:   hey, what can i do..it just came to a theater near me this week.

When you say that, and people assume you're much younger than 22, are you going to argue with them about that?
But anyway, even though you don't care and you're voting for a person you didn't even see yet, Charlize Theron will get the Oscar. Furthermore, Kidman needs a break from getting her ass kissed. It's time the Academy recognizes the people who deserve it in 2003. If you want people to think you're 22, talk like it. See above.

Quote from: Cinephile

Quote from: filmboy70
When you say that, and people assume you're much younger than 22, are you going to argue with them about that?
But anyway, even though you don't care and you're voting for a person you didn't even see yet, Charlize Theron will get the Oscar. Furthermore, Kidman needs a break from getting her ass kissed. It's time the Academy recognizes the people who deserve it in 2003. If you want people to think you're 22, talk like it. See above.

Thank you for putting me in my place. Half the Academy votes for their damn friends anyway. They don't care who had the better performance.

Really? then how come Anthony Hopkins always wins? He says he has no friends.

edit: Sir Anthony Hopkins

Quote from: poserismsReally? then how come Anthony Hopkins always wins? He says he has no friends.

edit: Sir Anthony Hopkins

filmboy is mistaken. He should be saying that they have 'favourites'.

Oscar Round Table 2004: On Jan. 24, we gathered five great directors to talk about inspirational movies, exasperating studios, childhood dreams and piracy nightmares
Source: Newsweek

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2Fmsnbc%2FComponents%2FNewsweek%2FPhotos%2Fmag%2F040209_Issue%2F040131_Oscars_hu.hmedium.jpg&hash=55bb371d09bc1751eb007d680d97042277863fbb)

Feb. 9 issue - Early on in the conversation that follows between five of this year's most formidable filmmakers, "Cold Mountain's" writer-director Anthony Minghella points out the absurdity of talking about "Return of the King" and "Lost in Translation" in the same sentence. One, of course, is vast, the other minimalist. But both films are indisputably the products of the singular vision of their directors. One is taken from a classic book and the other is based on Sofia Coppola's original idea, but the triumph of Peter Jackson's epic is that it is no less personal a project than Coppola's autobiographically inspired, jet-lagged encounter. These movies are their directors.

It wasn't all that long ago that people scoffed at the notion of directors as visionary artists or "auteurs." Sure, filmmaking is a collaborative art form, but these days nobody seriously doubts that when great movies happen, it's because of the eyes and soul of the man or woman behind the camera.

It's revealing and highly unusual that three of the movies nominated last week for a best-picture Oscar—Gary Ross's "Seabiscuit," Jackson's "Return of the King" and Peter Weir's "Master and Commander"—didn't receive a single acting nomination. All three movies had sterling casts, but the message was clear. Directors have become the ultimate stars. Eastwood was the only one at NEWSWEEK's round table who wasn't also his own screenwriter, but that doesn't make the mournful, lacerating "Mystic River" any less his own. His stamp is on every frame.

At the round table, both Minghella and Eastwood had a certain gentle courtliness. But there the similarities end. Eastwood's movies, like him, observe a certain classical propriety, and are never in a rush. Minghella's fuse pain and yearning, lyricism and doom. Coppola, small and lovely, was the shyest of the group. She's a watcher, and that's what makes the intimate, meticulously observed "Lost in Translation" unique. Ross, outgoing, intense and movie-star handsome, paints with the brightest, most hopeful palette of the group: his uplifting "Seabiscuit" invites the audience in with a big populist handshake. Jackson, scruffy, amiable but acutely focused, was asked to take his shoes off for the photo shoot—shoelessness is his natural state—and he kept them off. The soles of his feet were earthy and calloused. The man who spent years making the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy would have to be some combination of ox and sprite. Excerpts from a true meeting of minds:

NEWSWEEK: The timing this year is a little unusual because we're doing this round table before the nominations are announced.
Clint Eastwood: It will be really embarrassing if none of us is nominated. [Laughter]

The Oscars were moved a month earlier this year, partly to shorten the awards season and make your lives a little less insane.
Eastwood: I don't notice a difference. The last time I was involved was 1993. It seemed hectic then, but each year it seems like there's more and more events--more 24-hour days.
Sofia Coppola: Pretty soon it'll just combust. It'll explode.
Anthony Minghella: It's a strange part of the process. Just looking at this table, and looking at the types of films that we made this year between us, how would you, why would you compare or contrast them? How can you talk about "Lord of the Rings" and "Lost in Translation" in the same sentence? They're both beautiful achievements. But they bear almost no relationship to each other, other than the fact that they are collected on film.
Peter Jackson: It's like the appropriation of films by a sporting culture. If you want to be an Olympic sprinter when you're a kid, you have it drummed into you that you've got to beat the other guy. With filmmakers, it's almost the opposite, because it's about collaboration. And yet people like twisting it and manipulating it into a sporting event.

The media love turning the Oscars into a horse race, but the studios do, too. Gary, Universal's campaign for "Seabiscuit" has been pretty intensive. It must be flattering to have the support.
Gary Ross: Well, yeah. That was that their decision. But it's actually not that different from other campaigns. All these movies have taken out a lot of ads. "Seabiscuit" came out a long time ago. So I guess some person made the decision to remind people of the movie, because all these other movies have huge ad campaigns in current release. I'm certainly glad people remembered the movie.

Let's talk about why you all became directors.
Jackson: I used to make movies on Super 8 when I was about 7, which was a result of seeing "Thunderbirds," a British TV series. [To Minghella] You'll be the only person at the table who knows the magic of "Thunderbirds."
Minghella: At this very moment the movie version of "Thunderbirds" is previewing somewhere in London.
Jackson: Is it? Wow. So I was making these little Super 8 movies. Then, when I was about 9, I saw "King Kong," and it got me just so excited that I started doing my own remake the following day. I built a cardboard model of the Empire State Building. And I built a little rubber King Kong out of wire and my mother's fur coat—which I've still got, actually.
Eastwood: You're halfway there. [Laughter]
Jackson: That's right! But hardly any of it got made. I realized that, at the age of 9, a remake of "King Kong" was a bit ambitious.

Sofia, your father's a director, obviously, so you grew up in a creative atmosphere.
Coppola: I was always hanging out on my dad's sets, and it always looked like fun. And he's so enthusiastic about film. It's hard to be on a film set and see everyone making stuff and not want to do that.

You've said that some of your happiest memories are of being a kid on the set of "Apocalypse Now." That sounds a little weird.
Coppola: I had a great time. I had no idea there were problems. I was riding in the helicopters, and I had the costume department making stuff for my dolls.

Has he been to the sets of yours?
Coppola: He didn't come to Japan for "Lost in Translation," but he came on "The Virgin Suicides." He sat around, and talked to the extras, you know? He just came for a couple of days, and that was OK. It was a little distracting.

Gary, you did a variety of things before becoming a director.
Ross: Yeah, I was always sort of dancing around it. I mean, I studied acting with Stella Adler when I got out of college. She was obviously an amazing woman. And then I wrote two novels, but I was starving and I started getting way more money to write movies. I kind of apprenticed on all the movies I wrote. On "Big" and on "Dave" I was on the set every day. By the time I directed "Pleasantville," I had been around movie sets for a long time.

How hard was it to get all your movies off the ground?
Eastwood: You want to know about the studios' enthusiasm, or lack thereof?

Right. Warners would make "Mystic River" only if you kept the budget small.
Eastwood: I've had a long relationship with Warner Bros. over the years, and I took the project to them. They were very cooperative about buying the project, but then when it came time to make it they said, "You know, we can make it—but if you want to take it elsewhere, you can."

Which can't feel very good.
Eastwood: So I did take it elsewhere. We took it around and showed it to a couple of people. One studio had had a tremendous success with a comic-book character and said, "Well, we're looking for something more in that line." So finally I went back to Warners and I said, "I'll make it for what you say your maximum budget is, and I'll defer my salary to get it made. But I don't want to cheat the actors because they've worked hard to get where they are." So that's how it came about. Finally, Warners did it. While we were making it, they were gearing up for the release of the "Matrix" films. That was our ally in a way, because they were so interested in that, we just kind of went off to Boston and nobody knew we were there. After I came back, I just put it together and said, "Here it is." I don't know whether they liked it until somebody told them to. [Laughter] Warners had felt it was dark subject matter. They might have been right. This film could have easily tanked. Today's market is such an infantile market. Everything is geared toward 14-, 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds.

Anthony, your last three movies have all been quite dark.
Minghella: I remember doing a very early interview for "The English Patient." Somebody from the studio was offstage, and afterwards they came and said, "You must never use the word tragedy again."
Eastwood: Do you think the studios were interpreting tragedy as a comedy that doesn't work? [Laughter]

Anthony, you've said, "If I ran a studio, I'd never make one of my films." Please explain.
Minghella: [Laughs] Well, it's just that I've made three films that nobody wanted to make, particularly. Even when I was trying to sell "The English Patient," I went from studio to studio with my little shopping bag of photographs and location pictures, and then I would try and describe the film, you know? "A man on a bed telling stories to a French nurse." And everybody's eyes would glaze over. Or [for "The Talented Mr. Ripley"] "a man starts committing murders, and he's never caught and it's all about purgatory." It's not a particularly appetizing series of stories, if you're judging only its apparent entertainment values. The films that interest me are for grown-ups.

It always seems as if Hollywood is willing to release serious movies only in December. Universal took a risk releasing "Seabiscuit" in the summer—in terms of awards, at least.
Ross: Yeah, that's true, but I mean, it would have been a little hypocritical to have a populist movie and then hold it back for December for an awards strategy.
Eastwood: "Unforgiven" came out on Aug. 12. Nobody ever expected it to win anything—until the L.A. Film Critics jumped on it in October. All of a sudden everybody was saying, "What do we do?" and taking out ads.
Ross: Yeah, in fact, [executive] Bob Daly reassured me about my release date by saying, "We released 'Unforgiven' on Aug. 12. Don't worry, you'll be fine."

Sofia, you financed "Lost in Translation" independently so you didn't have a studio to answer to, is that right?
Coppola: Yeah. I wrote the script, and I wanted to keep the budget really low so I didn't have a boss—and I wouldn't have gotten final cut if I brought it to a studio. So the ideal thing was to go off to Japan with Bill Murray and our crew and not have anyone looking at the dailies. So we did foreign sales and raised the money.
Eastwood: Did you ever show it to a major studio?
Coppola: No.
Eastwood: I can imagine the glaze-over. [Laughter]

Bill Murray is famously hard to get an answer out of. Would you really have abandoned "Lost in Translation" altogether if he hadn't said yes to the part?
Coppola: Yeah. When I was writing it I was picturing him. Finally, I got the script to him, and he agreed to do it, but we never had a contract. It was a week before shooting in Japan. I thought, I hope Bill Murray shows up, because we don't have a backup plan.
Eastwood: Some Japanese actor'd be playing the part.
Coppola: Right. With eye makeup.

Peter, Miramax was originally going to make "Lord of the Rings," but their parent company, Disney, wouldn't OK the budget. Miramax gave you the chance to sell the movie elsewhere and reimburse them for the money they'd spent, but the prospects weren't good.
Jackson: Nobody thought it would happen. Harvey [Weinstein] had put, you know, $10 [million] or $12 million into it. He and Bob [Weinstein] had to have 5 percent of the gross. They had to have executive-producer credit, and they wanted all of their money to be paid within four weeks. Because we had been working with Miramax for 18 months, we had a lot of visual materials. So we decided to make a little movie, which in hindsight is probably the most important 30 minutes that I've ever shot in my whole life. I got some of my crew, and we put a sort of documentary together, almost like a making of the film before it had even gotten made. We spoke to the camera. We were saying how excited we were about this film, and how great it was going to be—except we were basically trying to save its life, you know? We were dying inside.

Was New Line really your very last chance?
Jackson: Yeah, we were terribly worried. We didn't want New Line to know that they were the only studio that was interested. So even though they were the only company that was interested, we canceled a couple of appointments, and we said, "Listen, we can't come because the meeting that we're in is going a bit longer than we thought. Can we reschedule it for tomorrow?" [Laughter]

We won't pester you with a lot of geeky "Lord of the Rings" questions, but could you just explain one thing? Sauron is the bad guy. He's a disembodied evil eye, and he wants the ring. What's he going to do with a ring? He's an eye!
Eastwood: One of those eyebrow rings, maybe?
Jackson: [Laughs] Well, in the book there is a vague reference made to him slowly gaining some sort of physical form. So eventually he'll probably get a finger to put the ring on. He'll be an eye and a finger.

Gary, you'd been interested in making "Seabiscuit" into a movie for a long time.
Ross: I actually bought the rights before the book was ever written. It was a magazine article, and I called Laura Hillenbrand and said, "I hear you're doing a book. I'd like to see if I can buy these rights." Because the story was just as compelling in the magazine article. We had a long talk, like four hours, on the telephone, and she decided to sell us the rights. Subsequently it became this massive best seller, and I wrote the script. But even so, it's not like the studio jumped up and down and went, "Get me a period horse-racing drama!" It was not met with a lot of elation. It was set in the Depression. It doesn't really have a single lead. It has three leads. All that presents tremendous obstacles, and it had to be financed by three different companies to get us up to $85 million, because nobody saw this as intrinsically commercial.

Anthony, MGM and Miramax were going to finance "Cold Mountain" together.
Minghella: Yes. Three weeks before we started shooting, MGM called Harvey Weinstein and said they weren't interested anymore. I was in Romania. I had been there for months and we'd built sets.

What did Harvey say?
Minghella: It was extraordinary, actually. He didn't really miss a beat. He called and said, "MGM decided not to support the film. They left." And he said, "We'll find a way of doing it. Keep going." And you remember those things. As Brecht said, "You only find out what people are like when they have to make decisions."

Sofia, your brother, Roman, went to Tokyo at one point to help out on "Lost in Translation." How did that come about?
Coppola: My brother is also a director, and we only had 27 days for the shoot and we were falling behind schedule. The producer said, "You have to start cutting out scenes." And I thought, No, I can't cut out any of the scenes! So my brother was a hero and came over. He got off the plane with a second camera, and we caught up. Roman knows me so well that he knows exactly how I want everything. It's so useful to have a brother who's a director.

Were you floored by all the praise that "Lost in Translation" got?
Coppola: Yeah. Writing an original screenplay made me wonder if I was being completely indulgent. You think, Does anybody care about these things that I'm writing about? You've been thinking about this one little area of life. You never know who it will connect with.

At the end of the movie, Bill Murray whispers something to Scarlett Johanssen that the audience can't hear. Everybody has an opinion about what it is. Heard any good theories?
Coppola: [Laughs] Yeah, my niece who is 16 said, "Oh, I hope he gave her his e-mail address."

Last year we had actors here and they talked about the fact that they were always asked to shoot their biggest, or most emotional, scene on the first day. The consensus was that it had to be a conspiracy on the part of directors.
Ross: I definitely tested the crew. The first day we shot I threw two people off horses in the middle of a racetrack. It was the hardest stunt we did. We had a very tight schedule, which we couldn't go over, and I wanted a little baptism by fire.

Clint, your actors went to real emotional depths for "Mystic River." How did you help them?
Eastwood: I had some very emotional scenes with Sean, and I didn't want him to do them too many times. At the end of the three takes, his voice was completely gone. So I just made sure I got all those three takes on film. Sean's just brilliant about getting himself into the mood. And a lot of times I don't use "action" and I don't use "cut." I learned years ago on the "Rawhide" set, when you yell "action" the horses all go in nine different directions.

Do you have an editor making a rough assembly of the movie as you're shooting?
Eastwood: Yeah, my editor assembles and we talk at night.
Ross: How long did you cut before you felt like you had a cut you were happy with?
Eastwood: It was about a week. A week and a half. [Stunned laughter]
Ross: I was just waking up after a week and a half!
Eastwood: I would bring the [computer] up to the ranch at Carmel and I'd go in in the morning, and then I'd go play golf, and then come back in the evening. We'd work till 10 or 11 some nights.
Minghella: [Laughs] This is a terrible, terrible bit of the conversation! "I edit for a week and play golf during the afternoon"?!
Eastwood: Well, you've got to get your mind off of it and then come back to it.
Minghella: But, seriously, you actually worked only for a week in the cutting room?
Eastwood: I'd say so.

Anthony, you'd still be cutting "Cold Mountain" now if you could, wouldn't you?
Minghella: I would be. I'm just so humiliated by this. Obviously I'm doing something very wrong. [Laughter]

Clint, you're famous for doing very few takes. That must help in the editing room because there's not as much to choose from.
Eastwood: I did a film with Vittorio De Sica years ago, and he never shot an inch more film than he was going to use. You would be right in the middle of a sentence, and he'd say, "Stop!" You'd say, "Can I just finish my sentence? I've got the momentum!" "No, no. I'm not going to use that!"

How do you all feel about test-screening movies?
Minghella: Oh, it's repulsive. When you get into a preview room, you become a prostitute to the audience. However, if I made movies without any studio involvement, I would still preview them. What I wouldn't do is assume there was any science in the preview process. I think screening the film without friends is a very useful way of understanding it.
Eastwood: It is like having your fingernails pulled out, though.
Minghella: I have a memory of being on the Paramount lot with "Ripley" for a preview, and the [response] was so hostile because Ripley wasn't caught at the end of the film. I actually had to run out of the preview room, because I couldn't sit there any longer. I was walking around on Melrose. I don't know Los Angeles very well, and I didn't have any money. I was wandering around and this police car slowed down to see what I was doing. I was standing outside the Paramount lot thinking, They're destroying my film in there.

Peter, did you ever preview the "Lord of the Rings" movies?
Jackson: No. The main thing we had to do was to pass the Bob Shaye test. [Shaye is the co-chairman and CEO of New Line.] Because "Lord of the Rings" is complicated—there's lots of characters, and you can't always remember their names—we'd think, If we can get it to a level where Bob Shaye can understand the plot, that's all that we need to do.

There was an early critics' screening of "Return of the King" in Washington, D.C., and right before the first big battle sequence the movie started playing upside down. Did you hear about that? And did it cause your blood pressure to fluctuate?
Jackson: [Laughs] Well, yeah. I just thought the projectionist was a complete moron. There's no other explanation, because it happened twice in the screening, as I understand. The first time it happened, they rethreaded it all, which takes about 20 minutes. They started it up again, it played—and then a couple of reels later it was upside down again.
Eastwood: That's a real nightmare.
Jackson: Oh, yeah.

Let's talk about piracy for a minute. Anthony, we saw "Cold Mountain" DVDs for sale in the New York City subway for $10.
Minghella: You did? Before the release, or after the release?

After the release.
Minghella: We were released on Christmas Day, and a friend of mine was in Southeast Asia over the holidays, and he said it was selling for a dollar on the street.
Jackson: We were released just before Christmas, and a friend of mine was in Thailand, and the beach resort where he was staying was playing it in the bar on a TV.

Warner Bros. suggested the ban on Oscar screeners as a way to stop piracy, but in the end they actually sent copies of "Mystic River" out to voters.
Eastwood: Yeah, they finally did. I figured you can't just have some people sending tapes and not others. I have mixed feelings about it all. I thought that the studios should start policing themselves. There's so many leaks in these studios. There's so many departments calling and saying, "I need 139 cassettes right now!"
Jackson: Everybody hates piracy because it has a potential to really damage the film industry, and it's only going to get worse before it gets better—if it ever gets better. But to me the whole screener thing was just badly mishandled. There was no consultation with anybody.
Coppola: It was sneaky.
Eastwood: Last year, I think Warner Bros. sent out probably 400,000 tapes. They wanted to go from that to zero. So they started insulting various branches [of the industry], saying you guys aren't reliable and you guys aren't reliable. Everybody kind of rebelled, and justifiably so.

Security measures have obviously been stepped up quite a bit all around.
Jackson: We send our movies away for foreign dubbing. And that has to go out weeks ahead of time, so what they end up doing now, which quite surprised me, is that they send a videotape to Japan or Spain and they black out the entire screen apart from a little window, which is the mouth of the actor, and if the actor moves around, a little window follows his mouth around. The actor is trying to dub the voice, and he can't see a thing! [Laughter]

Four of you adapted books this year. Do readers understand that you have no intention of harming their favorite books somehow?
Minghella: I think one of the things that's inaccurate is this notion that in some way, a filmed version of the book annihilates the novel.
Jackson: That is exactly right. I used to talk to the fans who were somehow annoyed that we were threatening Tolkien's book. And I just said, "The book is the masterpiece, not the film. We're not asking you to bring your book along to your screening so we can burn it."

Peter, at the expense of generating hate mail from fans, you're not really going to consider making "The Hobbit," are you? Even if you can get the rights, why take the chance of somehow ruining this whole thing retroactively?
Jackson: [Laughs] I don't know. I haven't really thought about it, and I will think about it if they ever call me.

Sofia, why do you think it's so hard for women to get nominated for Oscars as directors? If you get nominated, you will be the first American woman ever.
Eastwood: Is that true?
Jackson: That's unbelievable.

The only women who've been nominated for best director are Jane Campion and Lina Wertmuller.
Coppola: That's hard to believe ... I don't know. Well, hopefully, you know, it won't always be such a rarity.

OK, we're ready to release you all from custody. Thanks for being so generous with your time.
Eastwood: It was a pleasure. A pleasure being with you guys.
Minghella: [Laughing, to Eastwood] You spent almost as long on this as you do cutting a movie!

Oscar Lunch Brings Hollywood Stars Together

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - Charlize Theron wore white and looked more like a goddess than a monster. Ben Kingsley was next to her in a black suit while nearby Clint Eastwood stood in the shadow of a giant Oscar statue.

The scene was the group photograph at the annual gathering of Oscar nominees for a pre-Academy Awards lunch at the Beverly Hills Hilton where the emphasis was on accomplishment and not on victory, as a who's who of Hollywood showed up to chat, rub shoulders, network and reminisce.

Joe Roth, the veteran filmmaker producing his first Academy Awards telecast, admitted to a certain nervousness about the Feb. 29 show to be hosted by Billy Crystal, a show he promised would be "funny and quick" and have a surprise at the end when the cameras goes back stage to catch all the winners at once.

When he said that, people at various tables chuckled and wondered, 'Did he just give the surprise away?"

But Roth also gave winners the traditional warning: victory speeches must not last longer than 45 seconds, no matter how many relatives you have to thank.

The lunch drew several actors not used to fame, including youngest-ever best actress nominee Keisha Castle-Hughes, the 13-year-old star of "Whale Rider," who doesn't know if she will ever act again. She said, "I just met Charlize Theron and I was like, "Oh, my God."'

Theron is one of her competitors for best actress. She was nominated for "Monster," a role for which she did a total transformation.

Several actors at the lunch questioned whether the Oscar telecast should have a five-second delay, a move prompted by Janet Jackson's breast-baring at the Super Bowl halftime show.

Asked Tim Robbins, nominated for nest supporting actor in "Mystic River," "What are they afraid of? Spontaneity is great."

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwi.reuters.com%2Fimages%2Fmdf468725.jpg&hash=2981a7f0e74eb148f72df13b7ce25219e88f98ee)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwi.reuters.com%2Fimages%2Fmdf468735.jpg&hash=1188373455778fefe7bdd6c143d945a468602d7d)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwi.reuters.com%2Fimages%2Fmdf468723.jpg&hash=953c41350509a64fc79b3b90762d81d31a9475bb)

Tim Robbins' right eyebrow remains unstoppable.

LOL!!!

OMG!!!

With the academy insisting upon short speeches again this year, who has the potential to pull an Adrian Brody and kiss last years winner, give a heart felt speech, and stop the orchestra from playing so that he/she can say what he/she wants?

Quote from: ®edlumWith the academy insisting upon short speeches again this year, who has the potential to pull an Adrian Brody and kiss last years winner, give a heart felt speech, and stop the orchestra from playing so that he/she can say what he/she wants?

Bill Murray.

Of course, he's married, so that wouldn't go over to well, and he's not the type to make a longer speech.

Come to think of it, Adrien Brody's antic really was one of a kind.  You have to have someone with a certain personality to do something like that.  Someone new, and someone who is just experiencing success and doesn't really give a damn what anyone else thinks.  I don't think Charlize Theron or Naomi Watts fits that bill (well, I could see Naomi doing it).  Definitely not Keisha Castle-Hughes (and here I'm talking about the speech-extending; I doubt any of these women would kiss whatever random guy happened to be up there).

Whichever guys wins, he should grab the award girl (you know, the no-name hotty who stands behind them) around the ass, pull her into him, and plant a big wet one on her, then carry her off the stage in victory -- Oscar in one hand, babe in the other...

Quote from: SoNowThenWhichever guys wins, he should grab the award girl (you know, the no-name hotty who stands behind them) around the ass, pull her into him, and plant a big wet one on her, then carry her off the stage in victory -- Oscar in one hand, babe in the other...

Sean Penn will choose to kiss her via satellite.

Quote from: Cinephile

Quote from: SoNowThenWhichever guys wins, he should grab the award girl (you know, the no-name hotty who stands behind them) around the ass, pull her into him, and plant a big wet one on her, then carry her off the stage in victory -- Oscar in one hand, babe in the other...

Sean Penn will choose to kiss her via satellite.

:lol:  Class.


Damn You!! You win this round, Cinephile...

Quote from: Cinephile

Quote from: SoNowThenWhichever guys wins, he should grab the award girl (you know, the no-name hotty who stands behind them) around the ass, pull her into him, and plant a big wet one on her, then carry her off the stage in victory -- Oscar in one hand, babe in the other...

Sean Penn will choose to kiss her via satellite.

Bravo. Bra. Vo.

If I have my way Lost in Translation will sweep the awards and then Scarlett Johannson will somehow win some acting award she wasn't nominated for and then when she accepts the award she kisses Madonna.

Quote from: Chest RockwellIf I have my way Lost in Translation will sweep the awards and then Scarlett Johannson will somehow win some acting award she wasn't nominated for and then when she accepts the award she kisses Madonna.

Why would you even bring that up as a remote possibility.  :shudders:

Quote from: Chest RockwellIf I have my way Lost in Translation will sweep the awards and then Scarlett Johannson will somehow win some acting award she wasn't nominated for and then when she accepts the award she kisses Madonna.

i can't wait till the next "it" girl comes along and u can gain sum perspective on ur obsession.

what happened, were u too late for Zooey Deschanel?

Quote from: Pwhat happened, were u too late for Zooey Deschanel?

Yea, I guess so. I haven't seen All the Real Girls, but aside from Almost Famous and The Good Girl I didn't really like her a whole lot in what I've seen of her (Big Trouble, The New Guy) Now that I think about it, that's not a bad run, I guess. Call me crazy, but she just didn't amaze me in any of the movies I've seen featuring her.

February 2, 2004
Weinstein Cites Timing for Cold Mountain Oscar Snub

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) — Miramax Films co-chairman Harvey Weinstein was quoted on Sunday as blaming the timing of the release of Cold Mountain for the film's failure to win an Oscar nomination in the best picture category.
In interviews with Time and Newsweek, Weinstein said he opened the highly acclaimed Civil War epic starring Nicole Kidman and Jude Law at Christmastime so that Oscar nominations would fuel box-office sales.

"With the early [Oscar voting] this year, we fell short. There's a lot to do for Academy members, and I don't know how many members we got to. We just plain ran out of people who had seen this movie," Weinstein told Time, which hits newsstands today.

But Cold Mountain did win seven other Oscar nominations from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, including Best Actor for Jude Law and Best Supporting Actress for Renée Zellweger.

It is the first time in 12 years that Walt Disney Co.'s Miramax does not have a Best Picture nominee at the Oscars, but the studio still racked up the most nominations of any studio — 15 — for the third year in a row.

Citing the fact that the Oscars will be held in February this year instead of March, Weinstein told Newsweek, "I think the whole positioning of movies has changed because of this." Other than Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, every best-picture nominee was released prior to December, he said.

As a result, Weinstein said Miramax would move up the release of Neverland, starring Johnny Depp, to October and would aim to release Martin Scorsese's The Aviator in November instead of late December.

Weinstein also told Time that he will be directing his own film "pretty soon, probably the fall." He said the script is finished and the film will be produced by Martin Scorsese and Anthony Minghella, who directed Cold Mountain.

:shock:

WOW!

EDIT:
Aryan Papers- A film by Harvey Weinstein.

I think somebody posted that somewhere else a few days ago

Quote from: SlorgI think somebody posted that somewhere else a few days ago

:shock:

shit, don't tell me that.

Quote from: ©brad

Quote from: SlorgI think somebody posted that somewhere else a few days ago

:shock:

shit, don't tell me that.

That's right, last paragraph (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=115860#115860) c-man.

alright that was rather jackass-ish of me, but atleast it wasn't in the same damn thread just two posts up like some of these other double posts.

i'm sorry, though.  :(  damn, how'd i miss that?

Quote from: ©braddamn, how'd i miss that?

It must be your sinister mustache.

Though I want Djimon Hounsou to win Best Supporting Actor, Baldwin has a good sense of humor about things, it seems.

Baldwin Declares Himself an Oscar Shoo-In
Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin insists he's guaranteed to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar later this month, after conducting in-depth research on his rivals. Baldwin has been nominated for his efforts in The Cooler - and he's decided fellow category nominees Tim Robbins, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro and Ken Watanabe don't stand a chance. He jokes, "I've done some research and I've looked into a few things. Number one is that we have Djimon Hounsou and Ken Watanabe - both wonderful actors, but there's actually a clause on the Academy voting regulations that you can get nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor if you're a foreign- born actor, but you can't actually win the award. So they're out! It gets better: I played a little game with Tim. I called him up and did the old 'I'll vote for you if you vote for me' thing - and he fell for it! And then the thing with Benicio was a little trickier, but we looked into some records and we found out that he didn't show up for four months of service in Texas in the National Guard. So he is questionable as Oscar material. I think I'm standing alone in the pile!"
~IMDb.com

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaThough I want Djimon Hounsou to win Best Supporting Actor, Baldwin has a good sense of humor about things, it seems.

Baldwin Declares Himself an Oscar Shoo-In
Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin insists he's guaranteed to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar later this month, after conducting in-depth research on his rivals. Baldwin has been nominated for his efforts in The Cooler - and he's decided fellow category nominees Tim Robbins, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro and Ken Watanabe don't stand a chance. He jokes, "I've done some research and I've looked into a few things. Number one is that we have Djimon Hounsou and Ken Watanabe - both wonderful actors, but there's actually a clause on the Academy voting regulations that you can get nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor if you're a foreign- born actor, but you can't actually win the award. So they're out! It gets better: I played a little game with Tim. I called him up and did the old 'I'll vote for you if you vote for me' thing - and he fell for it! And then the thing with Benicio was a little trickier, but we looked into some records and we found out that he didn't show up for four months of service in Texas in the National Guard. So he is questionable as Oscar material. I think I'm standing alone in the pile!"
~IMDb.com

Hahaha! That's hilarious.

Producer Joe Roth to Allow Stars 'Moments'

LOS ANGELES - You can't tell Clint Eastwood to shut up. When Hollywood hands out the Oscars, acceptance speeches are one of the few unpredictable things. So Joe Roth, the movie mogul enlisted to boost the telecast's sagging ratings - and who has never produced a minute of TV - will let his stars have their say during the Feb. 29 ceremony.

"Philosophically, my feeling is that these shows are about moments. They're about moments that you get lucky with," said the 55-year-old head of Revolution Studios. "Some of it is from the casting, some is getting lucky with awards, but most of it really is trying to make an atmosphere that allows the performers to feel comfortable and speak from the heart."

The producer spoke while sitting with Oscar director Louis J. Horvitz among the thousands of empty seats in the Kodak Theatre as workers delivered pieces of the shimmering Academy Awards set through a massive, sunlit door behind the stage.

Last year, Oscar producer Gil Cates delivered an ominous warning to nominees at a luncheon weeks before his telecast: "If you pull out a piece of paper and start to read a list of names, you're done."

So was his tension-filled broadcast, which took place amid the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It turned out to be the least-watched Oscar ceremony since Nielsen Media Research began keeping records in 1974.

This year, Roth addressed the nominees more casually at the luncheon, not trying to shame them into being clever or fun. He just asked everyone to think ahead - and to remember they'll be on television.

"Joe was very diplomatic," said Horvitz, who has directed the Oscars eight times. "I think the safety of the performer is great in Joe's hands. They're not worried about stepping out of line."

Roth added, "How am I going to say (no) to Clint Eastwood? Or Sean Penn? Not only are they adults, but they are the best in their field. So really, all you can ask them to do is to try to give some sense of how special it is."

An estimated 33.1 million people watched "Chicago" win best picture last year, down sharply from the 41.8 million who watched "A Beautiful Mind" win the top prize the previous year.

"There has been a down trend since 'Titanic' (in 1998), which was the last really big, up year," Roth said.

About 55.2 million viewers tuned in that time. "Titanic" was a blockbuster that many millions of people had seen - much like this year's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," which has a leading 11 nominations. That's the main advantage for Roth.

He's also aiming for the funnybone with the return of popular Oscar host Billy Crystal and presenters such as Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell and Jack Black.

Another change: Less musical numbers. "As a kid, I didn't really like those 15- or 20-minute musical numbers," Roth said. "When I saw ballet on the Oscars, I went out and got a sandwich."

Roth has a reputation as a "people person," expert at taming Hollywood's unwieldy egos and keeping stars happy.

He shepherded such hits as "The Sixth Sense," "Toy Story 2" and "Armageddon" while studio chief at Walt Disney Co. in the 1990s. Since founding Revolution Studios in 2000, he's had hits like "XXX," "Anger Management" and "Black Hawk Down" - plus misses like "Gigli" and "Hollywood Homicide."

Roth scored a major coup this year by persuading the notoriously prickly best-actor nominee Bill Murray to appear for an onstage presentation. All Roth had to do was make a number of unreturned phone calls, plan a last-minute trip for Murray to the south of France for a friend's wedding - and make a very rare promise.

"I asked him to do something specific on the show, which he's never done before, and he said, 'I don't know, I don't know, I don't know ...' and then, 'OK, on one condition.' I said, 'OK.'"

The condition: Roth can't order the orchestra to play Murray off the stage - no matter what he does.

"I said, 'Well, I won't play you off as long as you're interesting," Roth recalled. He predicted Murray will deviate from the script. "So expect the unexpected. We might be there until 4 in the morning if he starts telling Pebble Beach golf stories."

Quote from: MacGuffinRoth added, "How am I going to say (no) to Clint Eastwood? Or Sean Penn? Not only are they adults, but they are the best in their field. So really, all you can ask them to do is to try to give some sense of how special it is."

The poor guy is star struck.

what do you guys think about organizing an oscar poll? remember now, in doing this, you would be voting for what you think will win, not what you want to win.

i don't know though- maybe this will be too much, esp. in conjunction w/ our own xixax awards. in fact, now that i think about it, i don't think its a good idea.

ah fuck it.

Quote from: ©bradwhat do you guys think about organizing an oscar poll? remember now, in doing this, you would be voting for what you think will win, not what you want to win.

i don't know though- maybe this will be too much, esp. in conjunction w/ our own xixax awards. in fact, now that i think about it, i don't think its a good idea.

ah fuck it.

Actually I think it's a good idea, but if it does happen it should just be made into its own thread.

Quote from: MacGuffinProducer Joe Roth to Allow Stars 'Moments'


"I asked him to do something specific on the show, which he's never done before, and he said, 'I don't know, I don't know, I don't know ...' and then, 'OK, on one condition.' I said, 'OK.'"

The condition: Roth can't order the orchestra to play Murray off the stage - no matter what he does.

"I said, 'Well, I won't play you off as long as you're interesting," Roth recalled. He predicted Murray will deviate from the script. "So expect the unexpected. We might be there until 4 in the morning if he starts telling Pebble Beach golf stories."

So, I really wanna see whatever it is Bill's gonna do, but I don't wanna sit through the rest. Who wants to phone me when Bill's on?

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: MacGuffinProducer Joe Roth to Allow Stars 'Moments'


"I asked him to do something specific on the show, which he's never done before, and he said, 'I don't know, I don't know, I don't know ...' and then, 'OK, on one condition.' I said, 'OK.'"

The condition: Roth can't order the orchestra to play Murray off the stage - no matter what he does.

"I said, 'Well, I won't play you off as long as you're interesting," Roth recalled. He predicted Murray will deviate from the script. "So expect the unexpected. We might be there until 4 in the morning if he starts telling Pebble Beach golf stories."

So, I really wanna see whatever it is Bill's gonna do, but I don't wanna sit through the rest. Who wants to phone me when Bill's on?

What is this even talking about? What sort of presentation?

Quote from: MacGuffinProducer Joe Roth to Allow Stars 'Moments'


So was his tension-filled broadcast, which took place amid the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It turned out to be the least-watched Oscar ceremony since Nielsen Media Research began keeping records in 1974.

This year, Roth addressed the nominees more casually at the luncheon, not trying to shame them into being clever or fun. He just asked everyone to think ahead - and to remember they'll be on television.

An estimated 33.1 million people watched "Chicago" win best picture last year, down sharply from the 41.8 million who watched "A Beautiful Mind" win the top prize the previous year.

"There has been a down trend since 'Titanic' (in 1998), which was the last really big, up year," Roth said.

About 55.2 million viewers tuned in that time. "Titanic" was a blockbuster that many millions of people had seen - much like this year's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," which has a leading 11 nominations. That's the main advantage for Roth.

what's competing w/ the oscars this coming sunday?

http://www.euronews.net/popup.php?lien=stream1.euronews.net:8080/ramgen/lemag/oscars_27597_1.rm?usehostname

hilarious and insightful:
(need realplayer)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.news2.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Fap%2F20040301%2Flthumb.kdk14503010037.oscars_kdk145.jpg&hash=d761933e4d711d391c9ec08343b5546858ae70cb)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.news2.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Fap%2F20040301%2Flthumb.kdk12803010036.oscars_kdk128.jpg&hash=1f4b1e0f15b89b72338644fe16abbe1b9f98b9a7)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.news2.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Fap%2F20040301%2Flthumb.kdk13003010012.oscars_kdk130.jpg&hash=aad7e06448d97a4fd65e85101fdb34fa1d4d9a1a)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.news1.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Frids%2F20040301%2Fs%2Fr4120756361.jpg&hash=8e730d07a0a3733bbf3c91d86c391f1842e99f87)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.news1.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Frids%2F20040301%2Fs%2Fr43725514.jpg&hash=39248b928ba7045ba42d9097e07944ce3bc7f775)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the first film to win an Oscar in every category in which it was nominated!

Heh, I'm a nerd... but I like following these things.

Quote from: matt35mmThe Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the first film to win an Oscar in every category in which it was nominated!

Heh, I'm a nerd... but I like following these things.

It's not the first ever.  It's just the first to do this many.

Oh right.  I should have been clearer.  It won 11, which is the most awards ever won by one movie, tied with Titanic and Ben Hur, but unlike those movies, this was the only one to win in every category in which it was nominated.  (I took that from Variety)

Quote from: matt35mmOh right.  I should have been clearer.  It won 11, which is the most awards ever won by one movie, tied with Titanic and Ben Hur, but unlike those movies, this was the only one to win in every category in which it was nominated.  (I took that from Variety)

Sorry.  I hate nitpicking like that.  I haven't had my coffee yet.  

But it's great to see it clean house like that.  However, other than seeing PJ win best director (I was torn between him and Fernando Mireilles... either one winning would have been great to see), my favorite Oscar moment wasn't even during the ceremony.  It was right before it when Keisha Castle-Hughes was introduced to Johnny Depp, whom she told EVERYBODY on the press line she wanted to meet.  You could see the starstruckness (is that a word?) in her eyes and that he was seemingly honored to meet her.  He is an actor, yeah, but it looked like he was really pleased to meet her.  You can't beat that for Oscar magic.

Why does Sophia keep ignoring Scarlett on the speeches and whatnot? Was there differences between the two during filming? Is there a story on this i don tknow about? She was also absent during most of the Golden Globe thank you's  and is almost completely absent on the DVD featurettes...

:?:

Maybe Sophia figured out that Scarlett was a hot blonde girl, and seeing how Sophia hates hot blonde girls...

Quote from: ProgWRXWhy does Sophia keep ignoring Scarlett on the speeches and whatnot? Was there differences between the two during filming? Is there a story on this i don tknow about? She was also absent during most of the Golden Globe thank you's  and is almost completely absent on the DVD featurettes...

:?:

What did she do that's worth thanking? Scarlett should be thanking Sofia.

Quote from: meatball

Quote from: ProgWRXWhy does Sophia keep ignoring Scarlett on the speeches and whatnot? Was there differences between the two during filming? Is there a story on this i don tknow about? She was also absent during most of the Golden Globe thank you's  and is almost completely absent on the DVD featurettes...

:?:

What did she do that's worth thanking? Scarlett should be thanking Sofia.

Yeah, remember folks: BILL MURRAY was Coppola's muse. Not her.

She was still great in the movie, wasnt she? Considering the movie only has 2 main characters, it sticks out like a sore thumb when she thanks only one of them throughout all the press stuff. If it was a movie like LOTR with a lot of important players, it would be easier to understand.

Quote from: hacksparrow...my favorite Oscar moment wasn't even during the ceremony.  It was right before it when Keisha Castle-Hughes was introduced to Johnny Depp, whom she told EVERYBODY on the press line she wanted to meet.  You could see the starstruckness (is that a word?) in her eyes and that he was seemingly honored to meet her.  He is an actor, yeah, but it looked like he was really pleased to meet her.  You can't beat that for Oscar magic.

Yeah that was nice, it's nice to see that sorta thing... she was like a princess or something at a ball.  Just there having fun, soaking all that in, it's great.

That moment was pretty neat, but that Billy whatshisface is a dorkass.  You can tell that EVERYONE hates him.  He stands too close to people when he interviews them, and in some cases (like with Alec Baldwin) he leans over them.  And then he forced that one guy out of his seat so that he could sit between Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger... yeah... what a dorkass.

I saw the first half, then realized I had to get to Target before they closed in order to pick up a new tool box.

Quote from: matt35mmThat moment was pretty neat, but that Billy whatshisface is a dorkass.  You can tell that EVERYONE hates him.  He stands too close to people when he interviews them, and in some cases (like with Alec Baldwin) he leans over them.

It got to the point where Baldwin actually told him to go away. "ABC - Always Be..... ?" "Get outta here" If I was Alec Baldwin and he was asking me those stupid questions, I would've done the same thing. However, additionally, if I was Alec Baldwin, I wouldn't have done The Cat in the Hat.

Quote from: CinephileHowever, additionally, if I was Alec Baldwin, I wouldn't have done The Cat in the Hat.

I wouldn't have done the Cat in the Hat either.  He's much too hairy.   :wink:

Oh man, is it wrong that I think Fran Walsh is kind of cute?

Quote from: StefenOh man, is it wrong that I think Fran Walsh is kind of cute?

I don't think so.  Geek chicks are hot.  I find myself strangely attracted to Philippa Boyens.

You're the first person I've admitted this to. :oops:

Quote from: hacksparrow

Quote from: StefenOh man, is it wrong that I think Fran Walsh is kind of cute?

I don't think so.  Geek chicks are hot.  I find myself strangely attracted to Philippa Boyens.

You're the first person I've admitted this to. :oops:

I feel very honored, and a little uncomfortable. Good deal.

Blasphemy