I am so certain that LOTR will not win...

[Marcus Telcontar]

I'm willing to put my avatar and sig on the line.

If LOTR wins best movie, I'll wear the Jack Avatar for two weeks


If Jackson wins best director, it's my sig for two weeks.


If LOTR sweeps (10 or more), it's Rose for a month.

[ReaperFett]

Come ooooooooooooooooooon Jackson :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Marcus Q'Dunn
I am so certain that LOTR will not win...

I hope you're right. :)

[JonathanLB]

That's pretty pathetic Dutchy, rooting against the best film of the year.

I did not watch the Oscars as I promised never to watch them again and I don't intend to break that promise, even when a film I loved like LOTR was nominated for the highest honor. I knew ABM would win best picture and I was actually asked to fill out a survey from "Rate The Music" that said what films I wanted to win and what films would win. Usually RTM is just for music of course, but this was a special occassion survey. I put LOTR should win, ABM will win.

I didn't think there was much question that ABM and LOTR were the only two real candidates, and that with the past history of the awards it was pretty shaky. I admit you got Titanic and Gladiator recently with best picture wins, but before that you have Star Wars and E.T. Other than Titanic, no film that has made $200+ million has ever won best picture to my knowledge. SPR cleared $200 with a re-release and didn't win best picture either. It's just a curse. Titanic simply could not be denied, not with that much momentum and steam. Ironic because that was the one year where the high grossing nominee really did not deserve to win. Looking back on the awards, I would actually say Titanic is one of the stronger best picture winners because half of them are 2 stars or less and Titanic is definitely a fairly good film. Still, L.A. Confidential was deserving of best picture way way more than the other nominees. All 11 of the major 11 critics circles voted it best film. If you pay attention to these critics circles each year, you know how it goes. Boston says one thing, New York something totally different, Los Angeles something different from both of them, and usually if you even get 3 critics circles saying one film is the best, that's not bad at all! It has never before happened that all 11 agreed on one film, and I do not believe that it will ever happen again when I am alive. Maybe another 100 years from now, but it's just incredibly unlikely. No film ever dominates so clearly in quality as L.A. Confidential.

That was a truly great film that deserved the award.

If I had watched the awards this year instead of going to see The Count of Monte Cristo for the 3rd time (another story, but I'll explain), then I would have been setting myself up for disappointment with another botched job by the Academy.

They really screwed up the director part, but hey, it could have been worse! It could have been ALTMAN! That stupid hack.

They totally botched this and one of the best movies of the last decade didn't get the oscar it deserved, but then again ABM is so much better than trash like In the Bedroom and Gosford Park that I cannot help but be a little relieved that at least they didn't give it to those films, lol, looking on the bright side.

Also looking on the bright side, it doesn't give the weird anti-Star Wars LOTR fans any ammo to use in trying to say, "Well LOTR won best picture, no Star Wars movie has!" Like anyone cares, haha.

To be honest I just am totally apethetic about the awards. It doesn't make me mad they gave any awards, doesn't make me happy they gave any awards.

Gee, Denzel won Best Actor. So? He already is one of the greatest actors I have ever seen, I don't need the Academy giving him an award to justify my respect and esteem for him. He was great no matter whether he ever won an award or not. Anything external like that cannot make a difference in his quality. I am happy for him if he is happy about it, but as far as I'm concerned he was already the best actor for The Hurricane and he was a close runner-up behind Russell Crowe for Gladiator. I like Crowe a lot, but his performance in ABM was not the best of the year, they got that right.

I personally think Jude Law as best supporting actor in A.I. would have been nice, as a nomination that is. Maybe a win, but I'd have to give it more careful thought.

The screenplay is HILARIOUS! Memento clearly had the best screenplay but I admit Royal Tenenbaums was not far behind at all, yet they chose the worst possible nominee. No, no, hehe, they chose the worst possible FILM regardless of nominees. It's like looking at 200 movies that open in a year and choosing the very worst one. Unbelievable, the Academy is so great at that.

I really applaud the lousy job they do, it just makes it so funny each year. I think the main reason I will never watch again though is because I really really hate bad dialogue, I mean it just bugs me, and that is what the awards show is full of. It's like a giant mutual masturbation session, all they do is jack each other off and say how great all of their colleagues are. The acceptance speeches are literally sickening. I want to throw up after reading most of them even when I like the person who won!

If I won, it would just be very professional and courteous, "Thank you for the honor of the award [I'd try not to laugh while saying that], I really appreciate the opportunity (whoever gave me) and I hope I have the opportunity to make more films of such high quality."

It would just be brief, unemotional, restrained, and professional. No BS. I hate it when people go up and cry like they won the frickin' Nobel Peace Prize. It's an ACADEMY AWARD, come on. Jesus, it makes me ill.

Added Note: Whoops, the deal with The Count of Monte Cristo. I went with my best friend to see Blade 2 again, his first time, but Regal screwed me over for the FOURTH time in FIVE movies, if you will believe that. The projector broke before the movie and a full theater of people, totally full, were told the showing was cancelled because it would interfere with their next showing at 10:25. Of course, it's all about the money with these guys, they care nothing about customers. Customers are money, they are not people, they are not moviegoers even, they are simply seats occupied and should be treated like nothing more than objects, at least, that is my experience with Regal in about 200 showings at their theaters. So I went to see a later showing of Count of Monte Cristo with him. They didn't even offer a refund, they gave us two passes for both of us, so one each, which didn't cover the ONE HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES of wasted time that everyone there put into showing up and waiting for the film to be fixed for 30 minutes, then being told that it was cancelled, plus their driving time and if they got there early, like we did, it was probably even closer to 1.5 hours. No compensation for that. Talk about a poor business. I hate Regal. I would just frickin' laugh my @$$ off if someone landed a giant missile right on their headquarters. Nothing I can imagine would be so gratifying. I hate them with a passion, the worst theater chain in the entire nation. They are crooks.

I went to Harrison's Flowers on Sunday and the film stopped mid-movie, showed ads for about 1 to 2 minutes, and then re-started after thoroughly screwing up the scene and an important part in the movie that was just about at a crucial scene. Then on the same night, I went to see Ice Age and the sound was off for the first 5 to 6 minutes of the film. I wasn't about to stay and find out what the HELL was wrong with that stupid auditorium, so I demanded my money back and finally talked to the manager for a while and he gave me two free passes and my money back, which was much more like it. Then on Thursday I went to see Resident Evil and sure enough, the sound sync was off BADLY so that the early narration was really screwed up and so was a lot of the music; main dialogue was fine luckily. Sean and I had both seen the movie before where that wasn't the case so I know it was just that day that was screwed up or whatever. Then Blade 2 tonight didn't show at all, making 4 movies in 5 days (blade 2 worked on Friday, the ONLY film that worked well and thank god it did because I probably would have started a riot if it didn't).

If they screw with me for AOTC on that midnight showing, I guarantee I will work to tear down their theater along with all of the rest of the Star Wars fans. I would be surprised if a single Regal employee there is uninjured if that happened and I guarantee their food area will be as trashed as a junk yard. THAT type of thing will not happen on the opening night of a Star Wars movie or there will not be a second night of showings at that theater, rest assured.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The more I think about it, the wrost the Oscar results get.

a) Training Day got an Oscar. And a brilliant film like Memento didnt!!!!! That really is foul that Memento also lost best original screen play, incredibly foul. Memento is the first film robbed today

b) ABM won the wrong Oscars. It was a star vehicle for Crowe, it won Best Picture because of Crowe.... and Crowe did not win?!?! Come on, that's stupid. I really dont care if Crowe spat the dummy, was his acting good or was it not??? If it wasnt, then WTF did ABM win best picture?? Crowe was robbed in this case. Come on, enough of this "Well lets give em a prize cause we didnt award them for the right movie" or "Well, we'll award blacks this year" - hey I know thats potential flamebait.... but it could be drawn as an inference.

c) If the movie / director / actor deserved an Oscar for an performance, they should get it then and not have to accept the consolation, very much like I think Ron Howard was this year. ABM was such a blatant "Oscar's Movie", done as a vehicle to win awards, it sucks. Hey, ABM is probably quite good, but it's not the most imaginative or original movie out there from reports. It's fairly standard Oscar's fare. So Ron Howard deserved for Apollo 13. Then why the hell didnt he get it for Apollo 13?!?!

d) I'm not goign to quibble Best Movie. Hey, ABM probably is good. But what I believe is that Jackson was completely robbed for Best Director. Are you going to seriously tell me that what Howard did is better than what Jackson pulled off?!?! FOTR is a much, much bigger challenge to do and Jackson did it well. I can not believe any Director in the last couple oif years has achieved what Jackson has - and could well have as we have not seen the rest of LOTR. Directions os not just about actors - it the sum of the parts of the entire movie. This is why Titanic won in 97, the sum of it's parts stood hands and shoulders above everything else. Sure,, As good as it Gets had brilliant acting, but that is NOT all there is to a movie. For FOTR, the sum of it's parts was amazing and a true groundbreaking movie, which obtained a rabid fan base in a blink. ABM is nowhere near the achievement to direct that FOTR is /was. Jackson was completely robbed of what was rightfully his award!

[Jargon Chasseur]

I thought Memento should have won the screenplay catagory, hands-down. That is if it was written the way it unfolded. If it was written in chronologically correct form, then I can understand.

That was my biggest upset for the night. I didn't see most of the other movies nominated, in any catagory. I usually rent from Blockbuster. :)

[JonathanLB]

Memento was robbed by an absolute bore of a movie with a boring screenplay that had a few witty remarks by Maggie Smith and that was about it. The rest was in incomprehensible English.

What Jackson did with LOTR was amazing. I personally very much doubted he could have pulled it off. I remember specifically saying in September or October that I really didn't think it would be a great movie, only a good one (but I was hoping!), because it seemed like such a huge challenge that surely the fans would jump down his throat and he would not be able to do it. Plus, Jackson wasn't a huge name director. What he did with LOTR was simply amazing and is the reason why Best Director is a category. LOTR was very much about the directing whereas ABM was very much about the acting, which was good but Connelly Best Supporting Actress? Wow... I saw way better performances last year. Specifically when she is throwing stuff in the bathroom after John won't do her because he's all drugged up, I mean good lord what an awful scene, but then again that movie is full of pretty silly scenes.

I saw almost every nominee, but I am very interested in seeing Iris still. I guess I will rent it, but I don't know when it comes out. It seems like it must be pretty good... from what I hear.

Memento unquestionably had the best screenplay though, saw every movie in that category and it was definitely the best, but as I said Tenenbaums was close. The thing is, Memento was a far superior overall film, so I'd have to give it to Memento fairly easily. They picked the worst of the screenplays in the category and of the entire year. I thought Freddy Got Fingered had a much better screenplay than Gosford Park and neither one's screenplays made any sense at all, lol.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
That's pretty pathetic Dutchy, rooting against the best film of the year.

Will you ever learn the difference between an opinion and a fact?


What Jackson did with LOTR was amazing. I personally very much doubted he could have pulled it off.

Yep, I wouldn't have mind him winning for Best Director. Best Picture, though, no way.


but Connelly Best Supporting Actress? Wow... I saw way better performances last year.

Like which ones?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Think Memento lost because it came so early in the year and a lot of people had just forgotten about it which is unfortunate, didn't like seeing that POC win either to tell you the truth. As far as Connelly her exception speech was terrible it looked like to me she didn't even care she got the award, she wasn't surprised she didn't cry or anything, she just took it and took out a piece of paper and read off of it.

[ReaperFett]

So? Not everyone has to go all American and break down in tears! :)

Some prefer to just say "Stone the crows" and get on with it :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Plus, Jackson wasn't a huge name director. What he did with LOTR was simply amazing and is the reason why Best Director is a category. LOTR was very much about the directing whereas ABM was very much about the acting, which was good


Exactly. Jackson's owed an Oscar now. Watch him one day get one. But I bet, not for LOTR, which he should have got it for, everyone will know it and it will happen. Gah. How pathetic.

[ReaperFett]

He wont, because I dont think he will ever make a film that is Oscarfull again :)

[CMJ]

It's all about opinions folks. I wouldn't have voted for Jackson(though I woulda been just fine if he had won). I am pleased with Howard's win, though he wouldn't have been my first choice either.

[Jedi Master Carr]

True but it doesn't matter really and I doubt Jackson cares, for example ANH and ET were best movies in their individual years but neither won Best Picture or best director (It took Spielberg a long time and he had to make a holocaust film to do it, and Lucas has only gotten a lifetime achievement award and that has been it)

[Doc Milo]

It's all about opinions folks. I wouldn't have voted for Jackson(though I woulda been just fine if he had won). I am pleased with Howard's win, though he wouldn't have been my first choice either.

Nah. It's not about opinions. It's about internal Academy Politics, and prejudices. Lord of the Rings did not have a shot at any big awards aside from technical achievement awards for one simple reason. It is a fantasy. SF and Fantasy movies win tehcnical awards, and that's it. Not because that's all they deserve, but because members of the academy don't think they have any redeeming value other than on a technical level. These people in the Academy look at SF and Fantasy pictures and are enamored by the technical, overwhelmed by how things look, that they utterly miss the story, text, subtext, metaphors, satirical value, etc that exist within the film. They view genre films through very tainted lenses. Yes, they will bend to critical or public pressure and award the film with a nomination here and there, but SF and Fantasy (and Horror and Comedy to an extent) do not win the big awards, because of that prejudice.

I guarantee, though, anyone here can write a "Oscar Worthy" film. All you have to do is present the most popular "worthy cause" in film, and blame all of society for the woes of said "worthy cause" and you have a darn good shot at taking home an oscar. It's that simple. (Have a scene of someone yelling and screaming in anger or weeping in grief, and you got yourself a sure winner.)

[CMJ]

Yes..it is about opinions. You might think some people are "prejudiced" against certain genres. But to a certain degree we ALL are. Some people are more likely to "like" a romanantic comedy than others...and so on down the line. It happen to be the case that the plurality of Academy voters liked ABM the best. Of the nominee's I did. Stop trying to say it's some damn conspiracy. Some people honestly do feel ABM is a great film.

[darth_mcbain]

Originally posted by Marcus Q'Dunn
Exactly. Jackson's owed an Oscar now. Watch him one day get one. But I bet, not for LOTR, which he should have got it for, everyone will know it and it will happen. Gah. How pathetic.

I would disagree - I don't think anyone is ever "owed" an award - it is an honor to get one and requires a lot of hard work, but I wouldn't ever say someone is owed one. It is like saying someone is "owed" a gold medal in the Olympics (Canadian skating aside)

I will say this though - I do agree with you in that if he continues doing work as good as he did on FOTR, I won't be surprised if he merits an Oscar down the road.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I would disagree - I don't think anyone is ever "owed" an award - it is an honor to get one and requires a lot of hard work, but I wouldn't ever say someone is owed one. It is like saying someone is "owed" a gold medal in the Olympics (Canadian skating aside)


Let me rephrase myself - if say in 2008 an Jackson is nominated for Meet the Feebles 2 (say), then there will be a perception that if Jackson wins, it's because he should have got the award for LOTR.

Much like Ron Howard this time around - perception is that he got the award, not because ABM was the best directed movie, but because he SHOULD have already won for other work like Apollo 13.

Much like Schindlers List - this has the feel of a "Okay, you did work that should have won before Mr Speilberg, so here's your award now"

[ReaperFett]

And that is why votes never work. Always someone with sentimental reasons

[Jedieb]

There's no way I was staying up for that marathon last night. A truly historic night. I was surprised by Holle B.'s award, but not Denzel's. That could have easily been his 2nd or 3rd Academy award for Leading Actor (Malcolm X, Hurricane). I wouldn't attribute Berre's(sp?) award to any black sympathy vote. Why did Roberts' win last year? $20M box office superstar sympathy? Every once in awhile the academy surprises people by rewarding mainstreamers who try something different (although Berre has done her share of dramatic roles;Watching Isaih, Dorothy Dandridge on HBO.) If the Academy was so hell bent on throwing Oscars at blacks then why was this the first time in 74 years we had two blacks win acting awards on the same night? Why do I think 2 African Americans won this year? Because you had two nominated for for very good roles. But if you look at the odds and the number of nominations that it took for this to happen it doesn't make the Academy look like a group that bends over backwards to hand out Oscars to minorities.

I'm curious, why do we tend to refer to the Academy as if it's one organization of a like mind? If the members of this board made up the Academy there's not a single one of us that would have all their choices come away as winners. Think about it this way, most Academy members can look at their scorecards today and see that some of their picks won, some lost. None of them would have winners across the board, and none would have losers across the board. I bet the margin of victory for most of the awards was raher narrow. With 5 categories I doubt any of those winners came away with 50% of the vote. So when we say the Academy gave so and so an award for X reason, we may only be talking about 35% of the voters.

[JediBoricua]

Another thing, the Academy is still racially biased.

I have not seen Monter's Ball, and I really like Haly Berry as an actress, so I cannot comment on her oscar. But Denzel on Training Day was not deserving the award. IMO I loved ABM and I think Crowe should have gotten it. It strikes me very suspicious that the same year they honor Sidney, a great actor, two black actors carry the biggest award. I think it is a sad attempt by the Academy to get the monkey of their backs, if Washington would have gotten the award for the Hurricane, as he was supposed to, then I would not be saying this, I side with those saying that the Academy is repaying a long term debt they had with Denzel . And having Julia Roberts present that awards is no coincidence, being that she was one of the biggest critics on the racial issues of the Oscars.

I hope i'm wrong though, and black actors wont have to wait another 40 years for a golden statue.

[Jedieb]

But then why didn't the "Acadmey" reward Denzel years ago and get this over with? I think Denzel had a lot of things going for him last night. His body of work helped him a great deal, as did Crowe's win last year. Remember, he more than likely won that award despite having around 50-60% of the Academy NOT vote for him. A plurality gave him that award, not a majority. That's how they're all won.

[foxdvd]

And having Julia Roberts present that awards is no coincidence, being that she was one of the biggest critics on the racial issues of the Oscars.

If the person will do it, they always try to have the winner of the best actress award of the year before give the best actor award. They do this will all 4 acting categories..

[CMJ]

You are corrct fox...usually they do it with Director too(I wonder where Soderburgh was).

I think Jedieb posted what I was meaning to say earlier. The Academy is made up of nearly 6,000 voters. I would guess that in practically all categories the winner gets 35% or fewer of the vote. To say the membership as a whole is this or that is crazy.

It would be like a somewhat random sampling of movie goers voting on what they like the best...though not exactly. But the point is, I'm sure some members voted for many of the winners. In other years however, they could very likely vote and have their choice lose every race. whenever a group is like that you're gonna have as many different points of view as members.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am not getting into the racial thing but I have to agree with Doc that they are biased that is why I think they should split the Best picture into two like the globes and add one for comedy ( maybe you could include Fantasy films into this category to give it a better chance) and the same with acting. Personally I think comedic acting is more difficult actors like Charlie Chaplin, Milton Bearle, Sid Ceaser, Jim Carery, etc are much better actors than Harrison Ford, Al Pacino, and Bogart because it is harder to get an audience to laugh than cry I feel (I don't include all comedic actors some just go for the poop jokes and that isn't true comedy).

[CMJ]

The dreaded Drama versus Comedy debate. :)

I did a bit of acting in highschool(admittedly not like I was a star thespian) and I found I performed comedy better than drama. Maybe I just lucked out with good parts...;) Others I knew were just the opposite. I think it really depends on who you are. Comedy is underappreciated though.

[Doc Milo]

Oh, come on, we all know that the Academy consists of four decrepit old men sitting in a smokey back room, cigars hanging out of their mouths, deciding everything. That's common knowledge! :D

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said there was a prejudice. Big difference. The people that make up the Academy are people in the business, right? Actors vote for actors, directors for directors, etc... right? Well the people in the business, on a whole, have a prejudice against genre works. It's like, Stephen King was once asked by members of the literary world, "When you going to stop fooling around and do some serious writing?" He said that he thought his writing was serious. That's how these Hollywood elitists think: If it's genre, it's not serious; if it's not serious, it's not Oscar-worthy.

If there is no prejudice, then tell me why, in all the years of the academy awards not a single SF movie has ever won the award, when plenty were wonderful movies, and worthy of the award?

I agree with JMC -- maybe they should have two Oscars for best picture. One that is voted on by the Academy, one that is voted on by the people. Or, just have Best Drama, Best Genre awards.

Comedy, yes, it's underappreciated (unless it's weird, dark comedy.) But SF/Fantasy is more than just underappreciated, it's seen as second-class -- not serious. (And Comedy, unless it's dark comedy, is seen pretty much the same way.)

[Jedieb]

I agree their has always been a bias in film, literature, and television against fantasy and science fiction. In the end, I think the Oscars, the Emmys, and Pulitzer always tend to reward reality over any kind of fantasy. I believe they reward art that examines the human condition directly. They feel that fantasy and science fiction focus too much on their prospective environments instead of the characters and the story. To give a simplistic example, episodes of ER and Star Trek NG that deal with ageism can both be well written and thought provoking. But the paragraph or two that the STNG episode spends on the Enterprise's shield fluctuations hurts it in the eyes of Emmy voters. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just explaining what I see as one of the reasons why fantasy and science fiction are ignored for major awards.

As for comedy, I wouldn't go so far as to say comedic actors are better than their dramatic counterparts, I'd just say they have different strengths. If I were to put one group above all others I wouldn't look at actors who win Oscars or Emmys, I'd look at ones who bring home Tony awards. Where else do you find your toughest acting challenges except on stage? There's no place to hide on stage. Many times you've got to have the entire package, not only do you have to act, but sing and dance as well. Plus, you've got to get it right the FIRST time. There's no second take on stage.

[JMK]

Absolutlely. As you said Doc (I think it was you) they see SF/fantasy as movies that give us great imagery and special effects, and that's it. I guess they assume that the fans of the movie will be appeased if they get a couple of technical achievement awards, and some "consideration" for the serious awards, but I can't see it ever winning the award unless it's the hands-down best movie out there.

[CMJ]

I think the reason there may be bias against SF/Fantasy is the Academy is made up of well respected film buisness people..and by that...OLDER. Granted there are some younger members of the Academy, but I think the average age is in the 50's. How many "older" people do you see lining up to see AOTC on opening day? Admittedly a few...but not very high percentage wise when compared to younger demographics.

[Jedi Master Carr]

So when the older members pass away do you think, that is when the academy will start to recognize Sci-Fi/fantasy more? Just curious since it has only be recently, last 30 years, that science fiction and fanasty has finally started to become respectable.

[CMJ]

I think it's very likely Carr. Now that Spielberg and his peers are in their 50's and are becoming more and more the majority of the Academy(and younger members as well) while many older members die off...it would not surprise me at all to see the occasional Sci-Fi/Fantasy win.

[Doc Milo]

I think the reason there may be bias against SF/Fantasy is the Academy is made up of well respected film buisness people..and by that...OLDER

Like I said, four old guys in a back room, smoking cigars! :)

[Charley]

LOL...

When I saw Woody Allen and he mentioned the movie "Annie Hall", I think I jumped out of my seat and yelled "JACKASS!"

I dunno. I think the Academy is very apologist, very prejudiced, and very hipocritical. Think about it. The films they try to give awards to are obviously not catering to the box office. They're obviously not catering to crowd pleasers. They cater to whatever is "innovative". This is a term used liberally about movies featuring Lesbian cowboys who eat Jello pudding and explore the woes of humanity in a black and white french movie. Yet what movie did they give the best picture to last year?

GLADIATOR

Look, I love the movie and its in my top ten, but Gladiator is about as innovative as a wool sock. Its a sword & sandal epic of the kind that played 50 years ago. Grandeur of Rome, etc yadda yadda. There isn't a single cutting-edge bit of film in the entire movie. But what got the award is that they took a very documented film formula...and did it very well.

There is no excuse for films like Star Wars and Fellowship to lose these bids in the face of rather hashed-out flicks that quite frankly are TRYING for the gold trophy. Normally, trying to win in any competition is a good thing, but I think in the term of movie awards, thats a bad thing. It might have an opportunity to go in a direction that enhances the storyline, yet affronts the academy. If its trying to win, it will play to the academy instead of the story. Its a questionable tactic.

And yes, I thought Denzel shouldn't have won this year. With the Hurricane, or X, definitely. Especially Hurricane. Halle Berry DID deserve hers, however. Her performance = rock!