Oscar Predictions and Final Awards Comments

[SoNowThen]

I have to agree. It's common knowledge that I found both films to be vastly overrated. But in a certain sense, LOTR can be seen as one movie, and pts 1 & 2 were amazing, and should've won the other years. Not saying this is a makeup thing, but I think the academy decided that, yes, we will wait 'til it's all over to actually really award it.

And seriously, if you're watching the awards actually expecting anything of merit... I mean, c'mon...

If I was in the LIT camp, I'd be pretty ecstatic that the academy even bothered with a few noms. That was a surprise in itself.

[NEON MERCURY]

the good:
-sean penn winning....everytime they showed a clip of him in mystic river it made me realize how badass he was in it and the film itself.....
-billy crystal
-diane lane......damn she is hot....
-brody
-LOTR's sweep......

the bad:
-bill murray.. .....that capturs it...he WILL have other chances
-jack black...i find him so annoying...if i was 15 i would think he's comedic genius..
-sandra bulluck and travolta..
-the annoying ABC pre-show....

the ugly:
zellewegger...........i agree w/ phil...what did we do to deserve her..?..everytime i see her on screen i want to take both my hands and pull her cheeks down so see can open her eyes properly.....and her cold mouhntain clip was awful..

[SHAFTR]

I was upset last night.  I was sick of watching LotR win everything.  The below the line awards, they deserved.  I don't think it should have got:  Best Song, Editing, Adapted Screenplay, Director or Picture.

I don't care how long it took them or how big of a project it was, etc.  I still don't think it was as good as the majority of the other nominees, and that is what should matter.  I'm not a LotR hater, I enjoy the films; but I'm sick of the (over)praise.

Billy Crystal is getting old.

[A Matter Of Chance]

I was upset last night.  I was sick of watching LotR win everything.  The below the line awards, they deserved.  I don't think it should have got:  Best Song, Editing, Adapted Screenplay, Director or Picture.

I don't care how long it took them or how big of a project it was, etc.  I still don't think it was as good as the majority of the other nominees, and that is what should matter.  I'm not a LotR hater, I enjoy the films; but I'm sick of the (over)praise.

I agree with this post.

[cine]

I was upset last night.  I was sick of watching LotR win everything.  The below the line awards, they deserved.  I don't think it should have got:  Best Song, Editing, Adapted Screenplay, Director or Picture.

I don't care how long it took them or how big of a project it was, etc.  I still don't think it was as good as the majority of the other nominees, and that is what should matter.  I'm not a LotR hater, I enjoy the films; but I'm sick of the (over)praise.

I agree with this post.

I agree with it too since it doesn't include the "Billy Crystal is getting old" remark. I really enjoy a guy like Conan O'Brien, but I prefer Crystal over guys like him. I trust Crystal to carry the show with his jokes -- and he did it again last night.

[meatball]

If LOTR recieved nothing, you guys would be picketing barefoot. Just because having something to complain about is so much fun.

[Banky]

If LOTR recieved nothing, you guys would be picketing barefoot. Just because having something to complain about is so much fun.

yep

[SHAFTR]

I was upset last night.  I was sick of watching LotR win everything.  The below the line awards, they deserved.  I don't think it should have got:  Best Song, Editing, Adapted Screenplay, Director or Picture.

I don't care how long it took them or how big of a project it was, etc.  I still don't think it was as good as the majority of the other nominees, and that is what should matter.  I'm not a LotR hater, I enjoy the films; but I'm sick of the (over)praise.

I agree with this post.

I agree with it too since it doesn't include the "Billy Crystal is getting old" remark. I really enjoy a guy like Conan O'Brien, but I prefer Crystal over guys like him. I trust Crystal to carry the show with his jokes -- and he did it again last night.

My Crystal comment was directed at his age, not his routine.

[cine]

My Crystal comment was directed at his age, not his routine.

Oh, thank god. I always figured you knew good comedy.  

[phil marlowe]

the show sucked. crystal sucked. i thought i'd finally watch the oscars and cos of the time differance i had to give up a nights sleep for this. bloody hell

[cine]

[phil marlowe]

ha ha very true





i'll go to bed now

[soixante]

I don't think Scorsese should have won for Gangs.  If anyone has done great work for decades and not been recognized, it is Roman Polanski.  Scorsese's my favorite director, but I don't mind Polanski winning, because he's a truly great filmmaker.  If Scorsese wins, I hope it is based on merit, not sentiment.

I think directing the Lord of the Rings trilogy is logistically more difficult than directing a smaller film like Lost in Translation, but what matters is the end result.  Peter Jackson had more time, money and people at his disposal than Sofia Coppola had for her film.  Also, all the CGI at Jackson's disposal did some of the work for him.  It is arguable to say what's harder, directing enormous battle scenes or getting nuanced, layered performances from actors.  It is really hard to get the right moment from actors to make a scene play, but Sofia Coppola has that ability.  

I even question the notion that LOTK is more ambitious than Lost in Translation.  From a budgetary and logistic standpoint it is, but maybe not from an aesthetic one.  Who's to say that the small, intimate, relatable moments in Lost in Translation aren't a greater achievement than LOTK's sound and fury?  As I have indicated before, advances in special effects will make LOTK look dated in time, whereas Lost in Translation, a film about recognizable human emotions, will always be relevant because human nature doesn't change.

[modage]

I think directing the Lord of the Rings trilogy is logistically more difficult than directing a smaller film like Lost in Translation, but what matters is the end result.  Peter Jackson had more time, money and people at his disposal than Sofia Coppola had for her film.  Also, all the CGI at Jackson's disposal did some of the work for him.  It is arguable to say what's harder, directing enormous battle scenes or getting nuanced, layered performances from actors.  It is really hard to get the right moment from actors to make a scene play, but Sofia Coppola has that ability.  

I even question the notion that LOTK is more ambitious than Lost in Translation.  From a budgetary and logistic standpoint it is, but maybe not from an aesthetic one.  Who's to say that the small, intimate, relatable moments in Lost in Translation aren't a greater achievement than LOTK's sound and fury?  As I have indicated before, advances in special effects will make LOTK look dated in time, whereas Lost in Translation, a film about recognizable human emotions, will always be relevant because human nature doesn't change.

a few things: 1. like i mentioned Jackson could make a small human film (see: Heavenly Creatures) if he wanted to and Sofia couldnt make 4 minutes of LoTr if she spent her whole life on it.  if she had won best director over jackson it would have been pitiful.  
2. lord of the rings isnt a landmark for special effects (with the exception of possibly gollum, the best CGI creation to date), some of the effects are kinda poor.  what makes lotr connect and what will continue to make it connect years from now (even when effects are miles beyond what they are now) is the small intimate relatable moments throughout the trilogy.  the human emotions will be relevant because human nature doesnt change.

[SHAFTR]

I think directing the Lord of the Rings trilogy is logistically more difficult than directing a smaller film like Lost in Translation, but what matters is the end result.  Peter Jackson had more time, money and people at his disposal than Sofia Coppola had for her film.  Also, all the CGI at Jackson's disposal did some of the work for him.  It is arguable to say what's harder, directing enormous battle scenes or getting nuanced, layered performances from actors.  It is really hard to get the right moment from actors to make a scene play, but Sofia Coppola has that ability.  

I even question the notion that LOTK is more ambitious than Lost in Translation.  From a budgetary and logistic standpoint it is, but maybe not from an aesthetic one.  Who's to say that the small, intimate, relatable moments in Lost in Translation aren't a greater achievement than LOTK's sound and fury?  As I have indicated before, advances in special effects will make LOTK look dated in time, whereas Lost in Translation, a film about recognizable human emotions, will always be relevant because human nature doesn't change.

a few things: 1. like i mentioned Jackson could make a small human film (see: Heavenly Creatures) if he wanted to and Sofia couldnt make 4 minutes of LoTr if she spent her whole life on it.  if she had won best director over jackson it would have been pitiful.  
2. lord of the rings isnt a landmark for special effects (with the exception of possibly gollum, the best CGI creation to date), some of the effects are kinda poor.  what makes lotr connect and what will continue to make it connect years from now (even when effects are miles beyond what they are now) is the small intimate relatable moments throughout the trilogy.  the human emotions will be relevant because human nature doesnt change.

1.  Lost in Translation is a beautifully made art film.
2.  Lord of the Rings:  Return of the King is a big dumb epic.