PDA

View Full Version : ROTS and the Academy Awards (merged)



Tycho
12-07-2005, 07:59 PM
OK, it's newsworthy of late.

Worthwhile:

Ian McDermaid for sure! He stole ROTS.
Ewan McGreggor did a good job too.
Trisha Biggar did awesome with costumes. Some were recycled from AOTC, but she deserved to get the award then, too.

John Williams and Ben Burt always rock.

What do you think?

Kidhuman
12-07-2005, 08:03 PM
I dont htink they will get the big awards like best actor or whatever. THey will get costumes, effects and such. Williams should be a lock for the score. Since the academy hates Lucas, they wont even look his way

CropDuster
12-07-2005, 08:23 PM
I think there won't be any Oscars for ROTS, however multiple Golden Raspberry awards are a distinct possibility.

tagmac
12-07-2005, 08:35 PM
Ever since Annie Hall beat out ANH for the Oscar, it became clear nothing Star Wars/Lucas would ever win anything major. The Academy hates Lucas' rogueish ways (but if you're a pedophile, they give you and your movies major awards - gotta love Hollywood's standards, eh). The Matrix was handed awards that should have gone to TPM, and you can bet the academy's feelings towards Lucas played a role in that, too.

McDiarmid and MacGregor both deserve consideration for best supporting actor and best actor, respectively, but it's obvious they'll both be passed over. Who cares about a sci-fi/fantasy movie that brings in millions and is loved by many, when they can nominate actors who starred in "critically acclaimed (aka - stunk, except in the "expert" opinions of movie critics, who regularly pan special-effects movies). This year, the more PC the role, the better chance that actor has of winning (jake Gyllenhaal is probably the early favorite as a result). :rolleyes:

TheDarthVader
12-07-2005, 08:42 PM
Ian best supporting actor
ROTS best picture
ROTS best original score
ROTS best sound

YES, YES, YES, and YES! I believe the movie should take these home. Will it even be nominated? Maybe. Will it win anything? No.

B.
TDV

decadentdave
12-07-2005, 09:13 PM
Let's be realistic here. As much as we all would love for it to happen, Star Wars will NEVER win Best Picture and Lucas will NEVER win Best Director. Period. It should clench Best Visual Effects. McDiarmid DESERVES Best Supporting Actor. Williams could potentially win for score depending on the other nominations. It will be interesting to see the nominations but knowing how the Academy favors the Oscars, I can see a dramatic film like Goodnight and Good Luck winning Best Picture and wouldn't be surprised to see Clooney win for Best Director.

James Boba Fettfield
12-07-2005, 09:37 PM
Hey, if ROTS is going to get in there (note the if) then I damn well better see some Academy love for The Devil's Rejects. I'm serious, folks. Or Batman Begins, even.

It's gonna be your Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, The Constant Gardener (dare I hope Sin City gets some nods, big big hopes that I know will not happen) taking home the big awards...I'm blanking on others here.

JediTricks
12-07-2005, 10:14 PM
Since the academy hates Lucas, they wont even look his way
Ever since Annie Hall beat out ANH for the Oscar, it became clear nothing Star Wars/Lucas would ever win anything major. The Academy hates Lucas' rogueish ways (but if you're a pedophile, they give you and your movies major awards - gotta love Hollywood's standards, eh). The Matrix was handed awards that should have gone to TPM, and you can bet the academy's feelings towards Lucas played a role in that, too.
Let's be realistic here. As much as we all would love for it to happen, Star Wars will NEVER win Best Picture and Lucas will NEVER win Best Director. Period.The forums have already had a thread on this one, in this thread from last year: ROTK Oscar Awards, Star Wars III Possiblitites? (http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?t=23289)

Some of the posts include pointing out that Lucas got the Academy's lifetime achievement award, the Thalberg, presented to him from the friggin' space shuttle in orbit no less, and to quote myself...

it's not as if the academy didn't recognize Star Wars either, it did win 6 Oscars and was also nominated for Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, and Writing that year; not to mention Ben Burtt getting a special achievement award for his sound effects work on the film. (And if you'll notice, that's 11 Oscars total given or nominated

Now, to the meat of this thread itself...

Here's what SW.com says Lucasfilm is asking the academy to consider from Ep 3:

Best Picture: Producer: Rick McCallum
Best Director: George Lucas
Best Actor: Hayden Christensen
Best Supporting Actor: Ian McDiarmid; Ewan McGregor; Samuel L. Jackson
Best Supporting Actress: Natalie Portman
Best Original Screenplay: George Lucas
Best Cinematography: David Tattersall, B.S.C.
Best Film Editing: Roger Barton, Ben Burtt
Best Art Direction: Production Designer: Gavin Bocquet, Set Decorator: Richard Roberts
Best Original Score: John Williams
Best Sound Mixing: Tom Myers, Christopher Scarabosio, Andy Nelson, Paul "Salty" Brincat
Best Sound Editing: Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood
Best Costume Design: Trisha Biggar
Best Visual Effects: John Knoll, Roger Guyett, Rob Coleman, Brian Gernand
Best Makeup: Dave Elsey, Lou Elsey, Nikki Gooley

The first thing I noticed there was that 2 of the biggest potential nominations are an oddity, Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor are up there as Supporting Actor and Actress even though their names come BEFORE Hayden's on the posters and end credits even though he is being nominated for Best Actor, that seems kinda like a smack in the face to Nat and Ewan.

Here's the SW.com story with images of the "For Your Consideration" ads: http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/publicity/news20051206.html

Now, my personal reactions to these nominations suggestions are...

Best Picture: Producer: Rick McCallum - Laughable. This wasn't a best picture candidate movie, not even close.

Best Director: George Lucas - Also laughable. He's not a particularly good director, he's said as much.

Best Actor: Hayden Christensen - I don't see it, there's nothing there that says "noteworthy performance".

Best Supporting Actor: Ian McDiarmid - Not really, he's interesting and does good work, but not Oscar-caliber acting here, just better than most of the cast. It gets pretty hammy in fact.

Best Supporting Actor: Ewan McGregor - He was ok but not great, I thought he chewed it up towards the end. I also didn't think he was a supporting actor, he was a lead.

Best Supporting Actor: Samuel L. Jackson - Um, no. He was a weird, off note every time he was on screen IMO, not much like a Jedi, and very much like he was playing "Samuel L Jackson in space", SLJ has done Oscar-worthy performances but this wasn't one of them.

Best Supporting Actress: Natalie Portman - I really thought she dropped the ball in this movie compared to TPM, this is not the movie she deserves recognition for as she's barely a part of it.

Best Original Screenplay: George Lucas - going back to "laughable".

Best Cinematography: David Tattersall, B.S.C. - I don't know exactly what to look for here, but I couldn't pick out outstanding shots in this movie so that doesn't bode well.

Best Film Editing: Roger Barton, Ben Burtt - I felt editing was not this movie's friend, it doesn't deserve it at all. Maybe they did the best they could with what they had, but I felt like there were serious pacing issues both great and small.

Best Art Direction: Production Designer: Gavin Bocquet, Set Decorator: Richard Roberts - I didn't care for the look of the film personally, and a lot of this was retread country from the other prequels so I question whether this deserves it but I'm not sure it doesn't.

Best Original Score: John Williams - I didn't care for ROTS's score, I don't care for much of the prequel music but while this was better than AOTC's choppy mess, it didn't seem like Williams' best work.

Best Sound Mixing: Tom Myers, Christopher Scarabosio, Andy Nelson, Paul "Salty" Brincat - I have no idea what this category really is about so I'll just point out that Ep 1 got nominated and lost while Ep 2 didn't get nominated at all.

Best Sound Editing: Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood - Although I didn't like some of the sound effects, for the most part the sounds were edited well so you could actually hear dialogue without stuff getting overwhelming, and there was a real sense of atmosphere. I dunno what the criteria for nomination on this one is though.

Best Costume Design: Trisha Biggar - I think LFL woefully overestimates the quality of her work, I didn't like it on either of the previous 2 movies and it didn't get better here.

Best Visual Effects: John Knoll, Roger Guyett, Rob Coleman, Brian Gernand - I thought it looked like too much computer graphics, and a lot of those while good left others in the dust so it felt uneven. On the other hand, I can't think of especially stiff competition, the visuals in Batman Begins were good, Harry Potter was not great, I didn't see War of the Worlds, and nobody seemed to do anything that felt revolutionary (I still feel The Matrix did more to impress than TPM which felt bogged down by its effects) so I think this one may come down to which film creates the best sample reel.

Best Makeup: Dave Elsey, Lou Elsey, Nikki Gooley - Nothing looked amazing IMO, solid work but not stellar. Neither other prequel was nominated in this category and they had pretty much the same exact makeup styles I thought, so I doubt this one will.

Honestly, it's no secret that I don't think ROTS is that good a Star Wars movie, no less a stand-alone movie, so I think it's a little embarassing that it's campaigning for prom queen when it's not even worthy of hall monitor.

Mandalorian Candidat
12-07-2005, 11:06 PM
You know JT, I think you're pretty much dead on in your assessment. Not to dis what these people did to make the movie (for the most part I think the supporting crew did a great job) but none of it was really over and above what has come before. The lone exception would be the much improved Yoda animation--his fight scene was much more believable than in EP2. I don't think there's really anything that spectacular, judging from what I read in 'Making of Star Wars' and seeing the movie, over and above what we saw in EP1 and 2. There's just more CG material. Now if there were an award for crunched computer time...

As far as the acting goes I would agree with nominating Ian McD. He was the only good acting role in the whole PT. I'd go along with a nomination and possibly even the award. The rest of the cast just was meh, IMO.

Who ever decided on running these ads (Lucas maybe?) is really deluded. They should have took a long look at who would have a realistic chance at being nominated instead of picking everyone who worked on the movie. To me it dilutes the chances of the potential nominees to get the nod. I wonder if the Lucas people are thinking they'll get the 'cumulative effect' from the whole six movies upon release of the final chapter like how it happened to Peter Jackson and LOTR.

Kidhuman
12-07-2005, 11:17 PM
I will bet my first born that the academy will not do for Lucas what they did for PJ

Rocketboy
12-07-2005, 11:26 PM
Nobody in ROTS deserves an acting Oscar (well, for their work in ROTS).
While Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, and Sam Jackson are all amazing actors, IMO, none of their acting performances in ROTS were award worthy. Not by a long shot.

And Ian McDiarmid for best supporting? lol, good one (almost as good as Lucas for best director), espeically with the "No, no, no, no!" line. That one makes me laugh every time. That was even worse than Jake Llyod in TPM.

But I do think ROTS desrves many of the non-acting awards, especially when it comes to effects, costumes, art direction, and sound.

El Chuxter
12-08-2005, 12:39 AM
At least it's not just me laughing at "No! No!! NOOOO!!!" lol

Natalie Portman and Samuel L Jackson shouldn't be nominated for their work in ROTS. No way in hell. They shouldn't even receive paychecks. I love them both; they're both fine actors in everything else I've ever seen them in. But their "work" in ROTS is horrible.

Ian McDiarmid, I can see as being considered for Supporting Actor, even with the aforementioned line. Not nominated, mind you, but suggested for consideration.

Ewan MacGregor should've been the name for Best Actor. Hayden wasn't bad, but wasn't great. Ewan was superb.

Notably missing from consideration for Best Supporting Actor is Jimmy Smitts. Small role or not, I think he did the best job of any actor in ROTS. (Of course, I think if Hollywood isn't entirely made up of dumb***es, Michael Caine should get a third Oscar for Supporting Actor for his excellent portrayal of Alfred Pennyworth.)

Best Visual Effects should be a cinch. Even with the flaws elsewhere in the movie, General Grievous is absolutely perfect.

The Academy seems to go back and forth on sequel scores. One year, they make a rule that a score from a sequel has to be something like 75% new music to be considered. The next, they give LOTR:ROTK an Oscar even though it's 95% rehash, and the weakest of the LOTR scores to boot.

I think ROTS is the strongest of all the SW scores, and should take this home. I can't think of any other scores from this year that come close, so Johnny should get another award to put on the back of his toilet. (His mantle's been full for years.)

Makeup? Pshaw. Hand me a paintbrush and I can slap some blue paint on George Lucas.

decadentdave
12-08-2005, 12:50 AM
At least it's not just me laughing at "No! No!! NOOOO!!!" lol

Notably missing from consideration for Best Supporting Actor is Jimmy Smitts. Small role or not, I think he did the best job of any actor in ROTS.

Jimmy Smits?!?!? HA! Now THAT'S a laugh!!!

"My wife and I have always wanted a baby girl."

But the best one that busts me up every time is:

"Hopefully we will be able to intercept a few Jedi before they walk into this catastrophe!" lol

DarthBrandon
12-08-2005, 08:22 AM
The only Oscars if given out this time around, (huge if) might be Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid, or Yoda, the rest well lets just say were filler IMHO. The movie was a nice ride but seriously it's not Oscar material. McGregor was literally Obi-Wan for my son & I, reminded me so much of Alec G. McDiarmid was great as Palpy & Emp Palpy if that makes sense, very good acting & may get him an award but I highly doubt it. Yoda well he's Yoda & he kicked a#$ even though he lost the fight he still won the war in the end.:D :thumbsup:
The rest were O.K. & I say that nicely, I looked at this film from a kids point of view, my son can't get enough of this, drives me nuts everytime he says "can I watch it again dad"?:love: It's not the greatest but it's one of my favorites & one of the better S.W. films. :yes:

Ewan G (Be nice to see him at least get nominated):thumbsup:
same for McDiarmid:thumbsup:
same for Yoda:thumbsup:
Hayden (if an Oscar was given for best one liner, then I could see him getting a mention of some sort) (You will not take her from me!!!) (Only line that was delivered with precision):shocked:
Sam, Nat, & the rest of the crew not really worth mentioning for anything Oscar related & these movies are not made to get Oscars, they are made to get you in the seat for a two hour ride & the toys that go along with it.:whip:

Blue2th
12-08-2005, 08:30 AM
Who knows? Hollywood has been unpredictable in recent years. They gave Best Picture for Return of the King. First Sci-Fi Fantasy to win it. By the way Peter Jackson said there would have never been The Lord of the Rings if it wasn't for George Lucas. I do believe that if any actor for ROTS gets anything it should be Ian McDiarmid.

TheDarthVader
12-08-2005, 11:37 AM
PJ is a much better director than GL. I would not be surprised if ROTS doesn't win anything. I was just listing my personal picks for nomination consideration.

B.
TDV

Jayspawn
12-08-2005, 03:32 PM
Nobody in ROTS deserves an acting Oscar (well, for their work in ROTS).
While Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, and Sam Jackson are all amazing actors, IMO, none of their acting performances in ROTS were award worthy. Not by a long shot.

And Ian McDiarmid for best supporting? lol, good one (almost as good as Lucas for best director), espeically with the "No, no, no, no!" line. That one makes me laugh every time. That was even worse than Jake Llyod in TPM.

But I do think ROTS desrves many of the non-acting awards, especially when it comes to effects, costumes, art direction, and sound.


Yeah right! Ian McDiarmid stole the show! Did you see Episode III with your eyes closed? Ewan McGregor was great too, but probably wont get the nod. Its a shame the Academy hates George Lucas. Because of that Episode III will probably get the shaft.

Ian McDiarmid, Trisha Biggar and John Williams all did stand-out jobs. All 3 are worth the final nomination at least.

DTMAN
12-08-2005, 04:10 PM
Hello.
Most comments are an excellent assessment of their changes. THere were opportunities blown since the beginning, but that is another topic.

Of course, it depends from a certain point of view.

I would like to see the movie nominated more than the other 2 in this trilogy.

As in JT's comments, the film does not seem worthy to win any awards.

Yes, the history with Lucas and the Academy is weird. I wondered why LFL are spending the $$ on the consideration after Lucas resigned from the Guilds and the Academy.

It would great if Ian McDiarmid was at least nominated. As with other posts, he stole the film esp. how it was all one big set up for the Sith.

Oh well. Plan to pick up the Vader ad if I can find it.

Thank you.

JediTricks
12-08-2005, 08:12 PM
You know JT, I think you're pretty much dead on in your assessment. Not to dis what these people did to make the movie (for the most part I think the supporting crew did a great job) but none of it was really over and above what has come before. Thank you, and thanks for putting a less unfriendly face on what I was getting at, I didn't mean to come off as negative as it looked.


The lone exception would be the much improved Yoda animation--his fight scene was much more believable than in EP2. Having recently watched Eps 2 and 3 fairly recently, I'd say that all of Yoda was improved for Ep 3, not just the fighting but the texture qualities and all that, there was something a little "soft" in Ep 2 which made him look a bit cartoony (especially in close-up) that was improved for Ep 3. I don't think the Academy will recognize Ep 3 for just that though, it's not a MAJOR evolution for visual effects, just some more quality touch-ups of an evolving digital character system that we've been seeing since Jurassic Park (which won the Oscar for visual effects).


Who ever decided on running these ads (Lucas maybe?) is really deluded. They should have took a long look at who would have a realistic chance at being nominated instead of picking everyone who worked on the movie. To me it dilutes the chances of the potential nominees to get the nod. I wonder if the Lucas people are thinking they'll get the 'cumulative effect' from the whole six movies upon release of the final chapter like how it happened to Peter Jackson and LOTR.You could be right in that this was their thinking, but I don't think they will nor do I think they *SHOULD* get the same kind of treatment that Peter Jackson did. Let's face it, Jackson made those 3 movies at once, and released them close together. All 6 Star Wars movies were made 3 years apart, and the 2 trilogies are vastly different animals made largely by different people. Even in the technical awards ROTS doesn't deserve credit for any of the original Star Wars films, and only partially for the other 2 prequels.



And Ian McDiarmid for best supporting? lol, good one (almost as good as Lucas for best director), espeically with the "No, no, no, no!" line. That one makes me laugh every time. That was even worse than Jake Llyod in TPM.Having recently rewatched TPM, I would argue that point and in fact retract my previous claims that Jake had some good moments at all in that film, he doesn't and it's not all Lucas' fault the way I had originally thought. Plus, how can you find fault with Palpatine's "No, no no!" line? He's channelling Cartman! :p


But I do think ROTS desrves many of the non-acting awards, especially when it comes to effects, costumes, art direction, and sound.A lot of fans probably feel that way about the technical awards like those for ROTS, though I am not among them, but let me ask you, do you think the academy voters will feel that way?



Ian McDiarmid, I can see as being considered for Supporting Actor, even with the aforementioned line. Not nominated, mind you, but suggested for consideration.That's a good way of putting it, I would agree with that.

General_Grievous
12-09-2005, 08:40 AM
Even if ROTS is nominated it'll only be in visual effects and sound categories, in that case it'll probably lose to King Kong, since the Academy favors Peter Jackson. I actually hope to see a Best Score nom for John Williams, but that's just hoping. As for a Best Picture nom? Not likely at all. If they didn't give ESB a Best Picture nod, t6hey sure as hell won't give ROTS one.

jedibear
12-10-2005, 11:04 PM
Now, my personal reactions to these nominations suggestions are...



Best Cinematography: David Tattersall, B.S.C. - I don't know exactly what to look for here, but I couldn't pick out outstanding shots in this movie so that doesn't bode well.

Best Original Score: John Williams - I didn't care for ROTS's score, I don't care for much of the prequel music but while this was better than AOTC's choppy mess, it didn't seem like Williams' best work.

Best Costume Design: Trisha Biggar - I think LFL woefully overestimates the quality of her work, I didn't like it on either of the previous 2 movies and it didn't get better here.

Best Visual Effects: John Knoll, Roger Guyett, Rob Coleman, Brian Gernand - I thought it looked like too much computer graphics, and a lot of those while good left others in the dust so it felt uneven. On the other hand, I can't think of especially stiff competition, the visuals in Batman Begins were good, Harry Potter was not great, I didn't see War of the Worlds, and nobody seemed to do anything that felt revolutionary (I still feel The Matrix did more to impress than TPM which felt bogged down by its effects) so I think this one may come down to which film creates the best sample reel.

Best Makeup: Dave Elsey, Lou Elsey, Nikki Gooley - Nothing looked amazing IMO, solid work but not stellar. Neither other prequel was nominated in this category and they had pretty much the same exact makeup styles I thought, so I doubt this one will.

Honestly, it's no secret that I don't think ROTS is that good a Star Wars movie, no less a stand-alone movie, so I think it's a little embarassing that it's campaigning for prom queen when it's not even worthy of hall monitor.

Yeeshh.....that's a little harsh there JT....but you're entitled to your opinion... Anyway, while I agree ROTS oscar chances are beyond slim to none, I pulled what I think are the only real contenders from your post and wanted to comment...

Best Cinematography I actually found the "look" of ROTS to be light years ahead of the last two episodes. Here Tattersall is working in a different medium than film (digital) and the use of light, shadow, color saturation and the melding of all the different elements came together in an amazing and unique way...very painterly (I know some HATE that look but I really like it). Here we are on the second try (in the SW saga) with this medium and I think they nailed it. No outstanding shots?!? Wow...I don't know where to begin so I'll just single out a few....the gunship sweeping through the Coruscant skyline before the Obi-Yoda-Mace scene is amazing in look and scope...the establishing shots of Mustafar....the dreamy seductive shots inside the opera...and finally, the slate-gray perfection of Vader rising....to name just a few I still find inspiring...
I just thought this movie looked great from a cinematography POV but one of the main reasons it will be overlooked is that so much of the movie is animated and created as opposed to just photography of a set/actors/location. This is something many at Oscar world can't get past...the times (& tools) are a-changin' and I think that should be Oscar-worthy...

Best Original Score Yes, I will grant that much of the music seems like retreads at the most inopportune moments (I would have really liked to hear something original for the Kassyyk sequences), but this score has some of the best moments musically in the saga. The Order 66 montage themes, the building strains behind Obi-Wan's meeting with Padme, the "Battle of the Heroes" theme...all good additions to the SW music canon. But you're right...no Oscar here. He'll probably get a nod for whatever he's pumping out for "Munich"...

Best Visual Effects Again, I beg to differ. While nothing in ROTS is groundbreaking (nothing in the LOTR movies was either but hey...they won...repeatedly) but again, it's another situation where I'd like to see the whole body of work (the prequels) acknowledged with this one. Like the cinematography, I felt the team hit it out of the park with everything from integrating all of the different elements, the digital work and the great work utilizing both traditonal model building to plate photography. Despite what's publicized (and complained about endlessly), ROTS was more than just one long CGIfest. I always thought TPM was robbed...the Matrix was a gimmick-laden movie with a gimmick effect that wow'd everyone that year...that along with the huge backlash doomed any Oscar chances TPM may have had. Even the Academy ignored the next two Matrix movies completely...and they were more effects-laden than the original was.
Oscar has proven time and time again that they are willing to reward based on a body of work (You think LOTR:ROTK won because it was the best of the three? Naw....)

Best Make-Up
This is another situation where the huge variety of work involved is worthy of recognition...from old-age (or subtle-aging in the case of Obi-Wan to intense burn makeup to a fleet of wookiees and a phalanx of animatronic heads, this team worked hard in many different mediums to help bring these beings to life, amking even familiar charcters who may have only fleeting moments onscreen look the best they've ever looked.

And finally...Best Costumes From the cultural influences to the textures to colors and accessories....Trisha Bigger and her crew helped tell the story with their amazing creations. The craftsmanship and care taken to enhance a character's elements are long overdue for acknowledgment from Oscar. Again, it's another instance where giving it to ROTS would be a great way of acknowledging all the great work of the prequels. Crack open "Dressing a Galaxy" and be impressed with the high quality of work here.
Don't see this getting any due either...

It's been often argued that Lucas' chances at Oscar are nil because of his longstanding "outsider" status and I think that'll stay in play here as well.
Fun debate though....

El Chuxter
12-11-2005, 01:03 AM
Having got the Memoirs of a Geisha CD in the mail yesterday, I can say that Williams deserves at least one Oscar nomination for this scores this year, and probably a win based on the other scores I've heard this year.

decadentdave
12-11-2005, 02:16 AM
I do believe it is time to quote Sickboy on this: "That means 'F*** All'... it's a sympathy vote!"

JediTricks
12-13-2005, 07:59 PM
Best Cinematography I actually found the "look" of ROTS to be light years ahead of the last two episodes. Here Tattersall is working in a different medium than film (digital) and the use of light, shadow, color saturation and the melding of all the different elements came together in an amazing and unique way...very painterly (I know some HATE that look but I really like it). Here we are on the second try (in the SW saga) with this medium and I think they nailed it. No outstanding shots?!? Wow...I don't know where to begin so I'll just single out a few....the gunship sweeping through the Coruscant skyline before the Obi-Yoda-Mace scene is amazing in look and scope...the establishing shots of Mustafar....the dreamy seductive shots inside the opera...and finally, the slate-gray perfection of Vader rising....to name just a few I still find inspiring...
I just thought this movie looked great from a cinematography POV but one of the main reasons it will be overlooked is that so much of the movie is animated and created as opposed to just photography of a set/actors/location. This is something many at Oscar world can't get past...the times (& tools) are a-changin' and I think that should be Oscar-worthy...Except for Vader on the table rising, aren't those all effects shots that wouldn't qualify for Cinematography? Most of the movie was shot greenscreen with only a handful of actual sets, the only one I can even think of right now is Palps' office, even the seats in the Opera weren't actually there at all, I thought a shot had to be primarily "real" for it to be considered for the category. Even the LOTR:ROTK Oscar phenom didn't get a nomination for Best Cinematography (I just looked it up, "Master and Commander" won for that year, totally deserved it too, that movie looked AMAZING!). Anyway, none of those scenes grabbed me, although I do remember the Vader one because it got a lot of TV screentime. And the actual shots inside the Opera really bugged me, they felt confused and distracted, the work on the characters was good but the rest I didn't like.

Also, because of the heavy use of effects and desire to marry multiple takes together, a lot of shots seemed a tad locked off in-camera (and then they'd go crazy in the computer).


Best Original Score Yes, I will grant that much of the music seems like retreads at the most inopportune moments (I would have really liked to hear something original for the Kassyyk sequences), but this score has some of the best moments musically in the saga. The Order 66 montage themes, the building strains behind Obi-Wan's meeting with Padme, the "Battle of the Heroes" theme...all good additions to the SW music canon. But you're right...no Oscar here. He'll probably get a nod for whatever he's pumping out for "Munich"...Do you think there will be enough NEW score to even qualify? I know the sequels part of the rule here changes from year to year, but I didn't pay enough attention to be sure how much was actually recycled from previous prequels. (I've already said my feelings on the score on its own so I won't recycle them. ;))


Best Visual Effects Again, I beg to differ. While nothing in ROTS is groundbreaking (nothing in the LOTR movies was either but hey...they won...repeatedly) but again, it's another situation where I'd like to see the whole body of work (the prequels) acknowledged with this one. Like the cinematography, I felt the team hit it out of the park with everything from integrating all of the different elements, the digital work and the great work utilizing both traditonal model building to plate photography. Despite what's publicized (and complained about endlessly), ROTS was more than just one long CGIfest. I always thought TPM was robbed...the Matrix was a gimmick-laden movie with a gimmick effect that wow'd everyone that year...that along with the huge backlash doomed any Oscar chances TPM may have had. Even the Academy ignored the next two Matrix movies completely...and they were more effects-laden than the original was.
Oscar has proven time and time again that they are willing to reward based on a body of work (You think LOTR:ROTK won because it was the best of the three? Naw....)The way LOTR and The Matrix used their effects in the stories seemed far more alive and creative and crucial than the way the SW prequels used them, I know that sounds odd considering how effects-driven Ep 3 was, how much CGI was used, but in my book it's about HOW it's used, quality over quantity, and to me not only did I not feel it was as special but more just hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-hammer style. Also, I'd argue that the 2 Matrix sequels were far more like the SW prequels with their heavyhanded use of effects that stood out as effects rather than story elements and felt too much like computer graphics.


Best Make-Up
This is another situation where the huge variety of work involved is worthy of recognition...from old-age (or subtle-aging in the case of Obi-Wan to intense burn makeup to a fleet of wookiees and a phalanx of animatronic heads, this team worked hard in many different mediums to help bring these beings to life, amking even familiar charcters who may have only fleeting moments onscreen look the best they've ever looked.I stand by my earlier statement, but I'd also add that I found one of the key makeup pieces to be SORELY lacking to the point of distraction, that being Palpatine's new face, it looked like a cheesy mask to me. On the other hand, Tion Medon's makeup actually I found very convincing and it wasn't CGI, but he wasn't in the movie very much.


And finally...Best Costumes From the cultural influences to the textures to colors and accessories....Trisha Bigger and her crew helped tell the story with their amazing creations. The craftsmanship and care taken to enhance a character's elements are long overdue for acknowledgment from Oscar. Again, it's another instance where giving it to ROTS would be a great way of acknowledging all the great work of the prequels. Crack open "Dressing a Galaxy" and be impressed with the high quality of work here.
Don't see this getting any due either...I will expand on my earlier short statement, I feel that the prequel outfits came off largely drab, and those that didn't felt ornate with only an eye for the sake of being "different", and even THOSE seemed boring to me. Moreover, ROTS used less interesting costumes than either other prequel, looking at Palps' costumes and Bail Organa's costumes and the same Jedi costumes as last time, there's not much in the way of interest, and Padme gets the worst costumes of the series IMO. Whether or not the background work show in in the book is good, I doubt the majority of Academy voters will see the work in the movie itself to be above and beyond.

Devo
12-16-2005, 04:01 PM
I don't believe ROTS deserves any wins to be honest. Its a fun film and I wasn't expecting anything more than that after TPM and AOTC but the whole trilogy could and should have been a lot more. They could have been oscarworthy but thats not the road Lucas took. Some would call that brave - I call it foolish.

Lord of the Rings these prequels aint. I was over the moon that Return of the King got all the oscars and I'm not even a big LOTR fanatic. It paved the way for Sci-fi/fantasy to be taken seriously. The Star Wars prequels never had such a goal and I believe in an ideal world they would have.

Devo
12-16-2005, 06:18 PM
Who ever decided on running these ads (Lucas maybe?) is really deluded. They should have took a long look at who would have a realistic chance at being nominated instead of picking everyone who worked on the movie. To me it dilutes the chances of the potential nominees to get the nod. I wonder if the Lucas people are thinking they'll get the 'cumulative effect' from the whole six movies upon release of the final chapter like how it happened to Peter Jackson and LOTR.

An excellent paragraph of truth. Deluded is exactly the word. It really does seem like they're looking for the LOTR 'cumulative' effect - they're either joking or they're taking the p**s because cumulative golden raspberries is more likely. (someone beat me to the 'raspberry' referance but not in relation to the cumulation phenomenon) And totally right about how its going to harm the chances of the more realistic choices. The academy will take one look at the Best Picture consideration request and they'll die laughing.

If theres to be a fantasy film in the running for the major categories it must be Batman Begins. Of course it won't. The LOTR films were probably the first and last of the genre to ever get a look in.

JediTricks
12-16-2005, 09:08 PM
If theres to be a fantasy film in the running for the major categories it must be Batman Begins. Of course it won't. The LOTR films were probably the first and last of the genre to ever get a look in.Batman Begins or King Kong, the former deserves it more than ROTS I think and King Kong seems to have a lot of fans already, both fall into the genre. You're probably right that LOTR kinda made it the last, though I suspect only the last for 20 years or so. Look at how much of a milestone nominating the original Star Wars was, even if it lost to stupid Annie Hall (I hold a grudge pretty well :p) even being nominated is a big first.

JEDIpartner
12-22-2005, 03:41 PM
I think you're out to lunch on the Trish Biggar thing. Seriously. My partner doesn't really care for the prequels at all and said the most impressive thing of those or ANY films as of late was Ms. Biggar's work. He thinks the design and execution of the costumes is incredible and outstanding.

As for the rest of it... I could go with you on that. I still think that the ROTS score was the best of the prequels and third best of the entire saga.

JediTricks
12-22-2005, 04:43 PM
I think her design is "can't see the forest for the trees" work, it may be detailed, rich and opulent for real-life, but on-screen a lot of it looks ridiculous and the colors end up drab. The SW.com article about the Lucas family cameos highlights this:
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/profile/f20051221/index.html

Amanda's hat: http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/profile/f20051221/img/p1_3_bg.jpg
Maybe in person it doesn't look silly, but in the movie it looks like a zeppelin with dingo-balls, none of that detail survives either.

Amanda and Katie's costumes:
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/profile/f20051221/img/p1_5_bg.jpg
Amanda's dress would be just boring basic black on-screen, none of the detail in there would show up. And Katie's costume looks utterly ridiculous, laughable.

George's costume:
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/profile/f20051221/img/p3_3_bg.jpg
Cartoonish hat and epaulet, and the burgandy color gets lost onscreen (http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/profile/f20051221/img/p1_4_bg.jpg).

JON9000
12-24-2005, 01:16 PM
Best Supporting Actor: Samuel L. Jackson - Um, no. He was a weird, off note every time he was on screen IMO, not much like a Jedi, and very much like he was playing "Samuel L Jackson in space"

"In the name of the senate, you are under arrest, MF!"

"This MF is too dangerous to be left alive!"

I liked Samuel L. Jackson as Mace. The only characters who really had a lot to do and ranges of emotion to play were Padme, Anakin, and Obi-wan. I thought they all were fine, but I thought Ewan stood out as the one who really looked comfortable in the role.

JimJamBonds
12-24-2005, 01:20 PM
George's costume:
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/profile/f20051221/img/p3_3_bg.jpg
Cartoonish hat and epaulet, and the burgandy color gets lost onscreen (http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/profile/f20051221/img/p1_4_bg.jpg).

But JT if you look at G Lu's character bio you don't know which side he is on, thus his costume allows him to become 'lost.' :rolleyes:

Tycho
12-24-2005, 01:47 PM
"In the name of the senate, you are under arrest, MF!"

"This MF is too dangerous to be left alive!"

I liked Samuel L. Jackson as Mace. The only characters who really had a lot to do and ranges of emotion to play were Padme, Anakin, and Obi-wan. I thought they all were fine, but I thought Ewan stood out as the one who really looked comfortable in the role.

You forgot Palpatine. Ian McDiarmid really stole the show, but I agree that the other actors (Ewan, Natalie, Hayden, even Sam) gave their best prequel performances.

JediTricks
12-24-2005, 03:50 PM
But JT if you look at G Lu's character bio you don't know which side he is on, thus his costume allows him to become 'lost.' :rolleyes:
*blink blink* um... what?

JimJamBonds
12-26-2005, 12:30 AM
*blink blink* um... what?

I'll just post his 'bio' for you then........


An influential personage in Coruscant (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/coruscant/) affairs, Baron Papanoida has contacts throughout the galaxy of varying credibility providing him with intelligence in the Clone Wars. He often passes this information to highly placed contacts in the Senate or the Jedi (http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/thejediorder/) Council, leaving the recipients to gauge the veracity of his reports. During the hunt for General Grievous (http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/generalgrievous/), Papanoida's intelligence reports indicated that Utapau (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/utapau/) was not a haven for the Separatists (http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/cis/). Papanoida has not commented on whether or not this was faulty data or a deliberate omission, which only adds to his shifty reputation.

JediTricks
12-26-2005, 03:16 PM
Right, I got you on that, just not that being the reason he'd be wearing maroon clothing while standing in a maroon setting. :p Are his superior information-gathering skills due to his ability to chameleon himself into any maroon setting? :D

JimJamBonds
12-26-2005, 11:38 PM
Right, I got you on that, just not that being the reason he'd be wearing maroon clothing while standing in a maroon setting. :p Are his superior information-gathering skills due to his ability to chameleon himself into any maroon setting? :D

I don't see how that could hurt him. lol

sith_killer_99
12-27-2005, 04:42 AM
Best Makeup: Dave Elsey, Lou Elsey, Nikki Gooley

Are they kidding? If not I hope none of them did Natalie Portman's make-up for the balcony scene with Hayden. It looked horendous. Seriously, she looked like a $2.00 wh@re!:mad:

Tycho
12-27-2005, 12:32 PM
But Anakin had just stolen General Grievous' last $2.00!

JediTricks
12-27-2005, 03:51 PM
I don't see how that could hurt him. lol
His blue face might do him in though. Maybe he always finds a water fountain in the wall to blend in with. :D

JimJamBonds
12-28-2005, 12:23 AM
His blue face might do him in though. Maybe he always finds a water fountain in the wall to blend in with. :D

Jeez it would seem that Papanoida can only be in places with deep red walls and dark blue fountain's. Must be hard for him to get around don't you think? :)

JediTricks
12-28-2005, 06:23 PM
He's lucky that all the best information gets passed around in the hallways of the operahouse, maybe he's actually the guy who runs the concession stand. :p That would explain why he's dressed like an old-timey usher. :D Or perhaps Papanoida has Bisha Triggar make him other goofy-looking clothes so he can chameleon into different opulent, ridiculous settings. ;)

JimJamBonds
12-29-2005, 01:08 PM
See JT I knew you'd finally understand some of this stuff. :D

JediTricks
12-29-2005, 09:55 PM
"And the Academy Award for Outstanding Merit in the Field of using the Expanded Universe goes to..."

:D

Tycho
01-04-2006, 02:03 AM
Well, ROTS out-grossed any other 2005 movie according to SSG's news (main page). In a bad year for movies, it beat Harry Potter, Narnia, King Kong, etc. and by something like 50 million or more.

Go Ian McDiarmid, collect your Oscar. Palpatine rules the universe!

El Chuxter
01-04-2006, 09:34 AM
It was actually a pretty good year for movies. Only everyone's figured out that you wait two months and can watch them at home without annoying theater patrons and still pay less, so the gross numbers were "disappointing." :crazed:

JON9000
01-04-2006, 10:29 AM
I rarely go to the theater. You have to show up pretty early to get a decent seat, it's nearly $20 for two tickets, and now you have to sit through a reel of freaking commercials. They could start the commercial long before the adverted show time and reach a pretty big audience.

And I agree with others that people have no theater etiquette anymore.

Thanks to all of this, watching a 2 hour movie at the theater is a 3 hour expedition.

Tycho
01-05-2006, 05:10 AM
It was fun going to see ROTS though because people lightsaber fought and you got to beat them up for it - venting all your frustrations concerning other movie-goers with the full power of the Dark Side of the Force.

The King Kong viewers would not have understood me running around in my black cape with red lightsaber and jump kicking people in the face. Might've worked for Narnia though.

JimJamBonds
01-05-2006, 12:26 PM
It was fun going to see ROTS though because people lightsaber fought and you got to beat them up for it - venting all your frustrations concerning other movie-goers with the full power of the Dark Side of the Force.

The King Kong viewers would not have understood me running around in my black cape with red lightsaber and jump kicking people in the face. Might've worked for Narnia though.

But with King Kong you can get away with climbing buildings. :D

JediTricks
01-13-2006, 04:25 PM
ROTS is a "finalist" for 3 Oscars, though we won't know till the end of the month whether ROTS actually gets nominated...
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/publicity/news20060111.html

So we have Best Makeup, Best Sound Editing, and Best Visual Effects.

I suspect this will end up being another bone of contention for fans, some of which will say "that is proof Hollywood hates Lucas and/or Star Wars", and others will disagree.

By the way, on a semi-related note, ROTS won "favorite movie" and "favorite movie: drama" at the People's Choice Awards (I never noticed before, but that sounds kinda Communist :p), Georege Lucas was on-hand to receive the award (they tell winners in advance so they'll be sure to be there). This too will probably add fuel to the argument I just mentioned, but I would point out that the People's Choice Awards for this year and last year were determined by online voting which doesn't really represent a true cross-section of people (it used to be based on Gallup polls) and I think the Best Movie is also partially counted based on box office take.

decadentdave
01-31-2006, 01:20 PM
Revenge of the Sith was nominated for a single Oscar for Best Makeup. It should have at least been nominated for Best Visual Effects. This is a kick in the nuts not only for Lucasfilm but to the fans as well. This is outrageous! :frus:

JEDIpartner
01-31-2006, 01:49 PM
I'm not really surprised.

Devo
01-31-2006, 01:50 PM
No nomination for Best Animated Feature??!! Ba*tards!!

I don't really care. Technical awards wouldn't boost the reputation of the film and in any case I don't think Sith did anything particularly amazing with its effects anyway.

decadentdave
01-31-2006, 02:24 PM
Anybody who has watched the Within A Minute doc on the DVD can attest to the fact that all of the months and manpower it took to create just those 60 seconds of visual effects alone exceeds anything WETA ever did for Peter Jackson. But to not even get nominated is insulting. If King Kong or Narnia gets Best Visual Effects I am going to slit my wrists.:cry:

El Chuxter
01-31-2006, 02:53 PM
Dude, it's just an awards show. Take it easy. It's nothing but short-term bragging rights. In the long run, it doesn't matter one bit. Case in point: which movie do more people remember and love, Annie Hall or Star Wars?

JediTricks
01-31-2006, 03:07 PM
I posted in the SSG news about the single Oscar nod, hair and makeup (it says just makeup, but the 2 names they chose were special effects makeup and hair/wigs, the latter wasn't suggested by LFL).

I am a little surprised that it didn't get nominated for visual effects, as I mentioned in the news, it's the first Star Wars film to not be nominated in that category. I still feel like it could have been either the fact that ROTS feels like such an extension of AOTC's effects, or possibly it just came down to who put out the most interesting tape to the committee... who knows, maybe it was too many effects in the shots they chose on the tape.

El Chuxter
01-31-2006, 03:13 PM
If they used footage of the Clonetroopers in the preview tape, then I can easily see why it wasn't nominated.

Of course, if they used Grievous footage (far more likely), than it's pretty tough to fathom.

I also think the score from this one is the strongest SW score yet, but the Academy must have decided only to break their own rule about original scores for Lord of the Rings sequels. :rolleyes:

JediTricks
01-31-2006, 03:58 PM
The sequel rule for scores changes year to year, sometimes it's lax with the amount of recycling while others it's very strict. Personally I didn't think enough of the ROTS score to buy or even download though - it was the same with AOTC, though a friend did lend me his copy when it first came out.

The effects nod tapes are supposed to be 10 minutes, so they could have featured a lot, but if they didn't explain what they did or why they did it or how it moved the story along or what was new compared to AOTC and TPM, that might have cost them.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-31-2006, 04:06 PM
God, what total bulls***. If they only got one nod, it NEEDED to be visual effects. They were way better than in any other film. And you know it won't even win the damn makeup award.

Take that stupid Oscar and shove it up your a**, Academy bastards!!!

decadentdave
01-31-2006, 04:07 PM
Like I said, all the Academy members had to do was watch the Within A Minute doc and that would have explained everything they needed to know to nominate Sith for its rightfully deserved Visual Effects Oscar. That is one of the most intricately documented features concerning the complexity of all of the elements that were used to create such a small amount of screen time. The fact that it is overlooked is a testament to how seamless the integration of the visual elements were that most people, especially the Academy members, took it for granted.

As for Annie Hall... I'm still bitter 30 years later. Woody Allen over Star Wars? Sheesh! :rolleyes:

rbaumhauer
01-31-2006, 05:50 PM
The Academy's reasoning is, I think, pretty clear - the Prequels marched down a path where they became "Animated Features" in everything but name, but don't really fit that category. I don't think the Academy is particularly impressed at how "difficult" it was to put together any particular 60 seconds of film, when the vast majority of the work involved putting digital layer upon digital layer together, no matter how seamless the final result.

It's like George said, all those years ago: a special effect without a compelling story is pretty boring, and the prequels have been a 7+ hour illustration of that point. If you look at the movies that were nominated for their visual effects, there were human performances, and in some cases, human interaction with digital characters, that was genuinely moving, or scary, or disturbing. None of that can be said for ROTS, so it doesn't deserve the nod. The Academy has decided, at least for this year, to not pat movies on the back for being technically impressive to the exclusion of all else.

tagmac
01-31-2006, 06:30 PM
By the way, on a semi-related note, ROTS won "favorite movie" and "favorite movie: drama" at the People's Choice Awards (I never noticed before, but that sounds kinda Communist :p), Georege Lucas was on-hand to receive the award (they tell winners in advance so they'll be sure to be there). This too will probably add fuel to the argument I just mentioned, but I would point out that the People's Choice Awards for this year and last year were determined by online voting which doesn't really represent a true cross-section of people (it used to be based on Gallup polls) and I think the Best Movie is also partially counted based on box office take.

Interesting...when the people vote, movies like Star Wars win. When it comes to the Academy, it's sheer proof that the Oscars once again reflect the way the Hollywood elite want to force their own sick agenda down our throats, which is why pure garbage like "Brokeback Mountain" gets so many awards and such constant praise, regardless of box office take.

rem rem kinobi
01-31-2006, 06:36 PM
amen to that!

El Chuxter
01-31-2006, 06:39 PM
The People's Choice Awards also only give you three choices, and usually at least two of those make you wonder, "WTF? Are you on crack, People's Choice Awards?"

Like the "Favorite Male Performer" category: I don't give a rat's arse about Tim McGraw, Allan Jackson, or Toby Keith. Why are those my only choices? Because the People's Choice Awards are for people on crack.

C5Jedi
01-31-2006, 06:50 PM
Revenge of the Sith was nominated for a single Oscar for Best Makeup. It should have at least been nominated for Best Visual Effects. This is a kick in the nuts not only for Lucasfilm but to the fans as well. This is outrageous! :frus:

You're right. While I did not expect it to get a lot - it was only up for three - it did deserve more than 1 nomination. This is precisely why it's always been hard to take the Oscars seriously.

The Oscar voters have never been that bright. Without a doubt one of the worse years for Best Picture nominations I can remember.

The Oscar voters probably gave Sith a make up nomination only because they thought Yoda was a great achievement in makeup. :laugh:

C5Jedi
01-31-2006, 06:54 PM
Interesting...when the people vote, movies like Star Wars win. the Oscars once again reflect the way the Hollywood elite want to force their own sick agenda down our throats, which is why pure garbage like "Brokeback Mountain" gets so many awards and such constant praise, regardless of box office take.


How true. That's Hollywood. Make you wonder about the idiots are running it. I can certainly see why Lucas moved his company to Marin County and away from Hollywood..

jedibear
01-31-2006, 07:02 PM
Disappointed. That's it.

It's sad that the special effects community appears to have fallen prey to the same elitist snub-snobbery that effects the major catagories of that awards race.

It's been an amazing, prolific year for the sfx industry in general...lots of work ranging from the subtle (extending the sheep herd in "Brokeback Mountain") to the extensive (creating unseen worlds and their inhabitants ala "Revenge of the Sith", "Narnia")to a combination of the real & unreal ("Batman Begins", "Kong" "War of the Worlds")...

I've enjoyed alot of the effects-heavy films this year and frankly am pretty forgiving/accepting of what's onscreen so long as the rest of the movie (story, acting, music & all) carries me along.

I enjoyed the gritty surreal/real world Nolan and his team created in "Batman Begins"...I really enjoyed being enveloped by the total unique over-the-top world of Rodriguez' "Sin City"...even the tv-movie cheesiness of "Fantastic 4" brought an occasional smile between the winces....

There were many big effects films last year that looked visually interesting from the ads I saw but couldn't compell me to make the trip to the theater like "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" (about an hour of Depp's weirdness would have been too long for me & sorry, I was never a huge fan of the original) and the latest Harry Potter (I couldn't bare sitting through another turgid adventure where the "hero" just has stuff "happen" to him) but they were worthy -looking achievements as far as their effects work.

Of the three that did receive the nominations....there's some decent work there. "Narnia" creates it's fairy-tale meets Lord of the Rings meets Dr. Doolittle world with style and convincing effects....the talking animals were a little dodgy, but the young actors performances and the pace of the movie carry it along well enough to keep it from being an issue. "War of the Worlds" had the task of creating an alien invasion that looked "real" and affected the enviroment the characters were in and it does this quite well. There weren't really any moments I recall that jumped out as unrealistic or over the top (other than Tom Cruise doing his best "I'm ACTING now...look at me...I'M ACTING!!!").
The third entry is the most puzzling to me...King Kong. I'm sorry, but this movie was a long (too long) exercise in self-indulgence and incoherent storytelling coupled with bad pacing, vacant acting an half-realized effects. There were some bright moments in the film...Kong himself was a mostly successful creation and Naomi Watt's gave a good performance (despite some really bad compositing while she rode around in Kong's "hand"). But "King Kong" had everything "wrong" with it that so many people accuse the SW prequels of having problems with. Bad compositing (that overwrought Dino chase, the ridiculous bug-pit)stylized "fake" environments (the postcard-pretty New York)that looked like effects, model work that screamed "model" (Skull Island, the big wall, the alter). None of this would have mattered if the audience had been presented with a tight story and compelling characters. Somewhere in that three-plus hours is a fairly decent 120 minutes crying to get out.

"Sith" may not have broken any new ground, but it used the tools of the trade in great ways, creating wonderous worlds and environments, cool convincing characters that effectively interacted with the real actors and basically created effects that were not only in service to the story, but were characters in their own right. It was the culmination of thirty years of storytelling and the efforts of every crafts person rose to the occasion...they knew that this final chapter was something special and it showed up on the screen.
I'm sorry that the Academy didn't find it necessary to acknowledge this great work. Instead, the award will go to an indulgent, flawed piece of cinema who's shelf life will very shortly be nothing more than a footnote ala the '70's version of the same film while "Revenge of the Sith" will still be enjoyed & debated over it's merits as fine entertainment enhanced by vigorous, entrancing special effects work for years to come...

The Academy may not get it, but the force will be with us...always!

decadentdave
01-31-2006, 07:08 PM
you look at the movies that were nominated for their visual effects, there were human performances, and in some cases, human interaction with digital characters, that was genuinely moving, or scary, or disturbing. None of that can be said for ROTS, so it doesn't deserve the nod. The Academy has decided, at least for this year, to not pat movies on the back for being technically impressive to the exclusion of all else.

I'm sorry but the digital interaction with characters like the talking Beaver in Chronicles of Narnia is no different than the digital interaction with characters such as Grievous, or the Clones, or Jar Jar for that matter (though I wouldn't call the interaction with Jar Jar genuinely moving at all, except for maybe a bowel movement). Even animating a digital character like Grievous is no more different than animating a digital character like Aslan or Golum. There is no excuse why Sith should not be the fourth nominee in the Visual Effects category aside from the Academy's bias against Lucas. I pray Muren and ILM win for War of the Worlds as collateral damage for Sith's snub.

cambyrd
02-01-2006, 01:54 AM
The reason that ROTS does not get a nomination for best visual effects is simply because the visual effects look like visual effects and have no semblance to reality at all. How is it that other animation studios are able to create more realistic CG characters than ILM? ILM has fallen as the industry standard over the past seven years and this year's Academy Awards reflects its failure.

The reason King Kong got nominated over ROTS is because of the King Kong character himself. Weta has CG characters down as evidenced by King Kong and Gollum. They deserve it.

Look, this is the simple truth. The new Star Wars movies don't hold a candle to the originals. The Wachowski brothers forsesaw this sad truth and revealed it in the original Matrix when they said that the machines created a world for humans when humans were the happiest. And, of course, that time was early 1999 when we were all eagerly anticipating Episode I before the disappointment of 5/19/99.

decadentdave
02-01-2006, 02:11 AM
I completely disagree. Sith is my favorite Star Wars film ever and I have been a lifelong fan since the age of 5 and saw A New Hope theatrically in '77. I know a lot of people didn't like Episodes I and II, understandably, but Sith just nailed it on visual effects. They created "imaginary" worlds that have no basis in reality and made them believable. For example, Grievous' ship flying over Utapau. The green sky, clouds and moons looked so realistic, so convincing, that I could imagine it to be a very real place.

Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, and King Kong all create "fantasy" worlds that have little to no basis in reality. I just watched Chronicles of Narnia and thought the visual effects were no different. Some of the effects looked obviously computer generated, especially on Aslan's fur which didn't look at all real to me but that stuff doesn't really bother me as long as I am enjoying the story.

And for the record Matrix 2 and 3 were God awful. A total waste of CGI and film. The Wachowski's should be ashamed of themselves for blowing what could have been a perfect trilogy. I am more embarassed by what they did than what Lucas did to Episode I and the Special Editions.

Tycho
02-01-2006, 02:16 AM
I'm backing up DecadentDave on this all the way.

cambyrd
02-01-2006, 10:02 AM
You're absolutely right that the second and third Matrix movies were no good. They relied too heavily on computer animation in the latter movies. It was so obvious that it took me out of the story. The original was groundbreaking.

I will admit that ROTS was about 100 times better than Episodes I and II, but I was disappointed with it pretty often.

DarthQuack
02-01-2006, 02:38 PM
I was very disappointed that all these crap movies that come out in December get better mention because it's fresh in everyones mind.....It's all BS.

Kidhuman
02-02-2006, 09:01 AM
I was very disappointed that all these crap movies that come out in December get better mention because it's fresh in everyones mind.....It's all BS.

I would have to agree with that. The last movie that I liked that did that was ROTK. Other than that, nothing comes to mind.

Devo
02-02-2006, 12:05 PM
The Academy's reasoning is, I think, pretty clear - the Prequels marched down a path where they became "Animated Features" in everything but name, but don't really fit that category. I don't think the Academy is particularly impressed at how "difficult" it was to put together any particular 60 seconds of film, when the vast majority of the work involved putting digital layer upon digital layer together, no matter how seamless the final result.

It's like George said, all those years ago: a special effect without a compelling story is pretty boring, and the prequels have been a 7+ hour illustration of that point. If you look at the movies that were nominated for their visual effects, there were human performances, and in some cases, human interaction with digital characters, that was genuinely moving, or scary, or disturbing. None of that can be said for ROTS, so it doesn't deserve the nod. The Academy has decided, at least for this year, to not pat movies on the back for being technically impressive to the exclusion of all else.

Well said. Exactly my feelings on the matter. I've always said that the prequels have essentially been animated films with a few out-of-place live action elements. Its that film with Bob Hoskins and the cartoon rabbit in reverse. And its at least one reason why none of the prequel films ever had a hope of repeating the best picture nod that ANH got. As for the effects award. Why bother even nominating it when it was hardly likely to win. If any prequel was going to win this award it would have been TPM. That film failed because there was something more innovative out there which served its film in more ways than just being something nice to look at. AOTC and ROTS created nothing in their visual effects that engaged a viewer beyond this reaction - 'that looks pretty'.

JediTricks
02-02-2006, 09:06 PM
Like I said, all the Academy members had to do was watch the Within A Minute doc and that would have explained everything they needed to know to nominate Sith for its rightfully deserved Visual Effects Oscar. That is one of the most intricately documented features concerning the complexity of all of the elements that were used to create such a small amount of screen time. The fact that it is overlooked is a testament to how seamless the integration of the visual elements were that most people, especially the Academy members, took it for granted. That's not how it works though, each film that wishes to be considered has to send in a 10 minute tape which shows the work and says whatever it has to say, the documentary in question is over an hour long and cannot be taken into consideration for choosing nominees in that category. We have no idea WHAT was on ROTS's tape, or for that matter any of the others, of the 3 nominees this year, ILM had a hand in 2 of them (Narnia and War of the Worlds), so ILM and ILM were among those who beat ILM. :p


As for Annie Hall... I'm still bitter 30 years later. Woody Allen over Star Wars? Sheesh! :rolleyes:Same here, I'll never see Annie Hall because of that, talk about carrying a grudge but it was the Best Picture Oscar and Star Wars' influence on the world was a lot bigger than Woody Allen entering his neurotic-drama phase. (Heh heh, I just typed "Wookiee Allen" before fixing it, talk about auto-pilot)



Interesting...when the people vote, movies like Star Wars win. When it comes to the Academy, it's sheer proof that the Oscars once again reflect the way the Hollywood elite want to force their own sick agenda down our throats, which is why pure garbage like "Brokeback Mountain" gets so many awards and such constant praise, regardless of box office take.Did *you* vote on the People's Choice awards? I didn't, I didn't even know about them taking online poll results until AFTER the show happened. And as for the Academy, they don't *need* to represent what "the people" like, the AMPAS is a private organization that represents what movie professionals think, what moviemakers' peers think, not what the average guy on the street thinks. Box Office take means bupkis, the quality of a movie isn't measured by how many people see it, otherwise Will Smith's Wild Wild West would be considered a tour-de-force for making $50 mil on opening weekend. Judge a movie by its content, not by its take. And BTW, not that I've seen it or any of the Best Picture nominees this year, but I hear that Brokeback Mountain which is in limited release is breaking all sorts of box office records on the individual theater level (as opposed to the national level, it's a smaller-release film) - it's even doing huge business in Montana apparently.


Just because you guys like something doesn't mean EVERYBODY does, or that it has superior artistic or technical merit, it's just possible that the Academy voters don't share your singular opinion, yet so many here damn them for that.

El Chuxter
02-03-2006, 01:04 AM
Annie Hall is a great movie. I'm not sure if it should've beaten SW for the Best Picture, but if SW had to lose to a movie from 1977, it couldn't have been to a better flick.

decadentdave
02-03-2006, 01:20 AM
Annie Hall is a great movie. I'm not sure if it should've beaten SW for the Best Picture, but if SW had to lose to a movie from 1977, it couldn't have been to a better flick.

I can think of one... Close Encounters of the Third Kind :thumbsup:

JediTricks
02-03-2006, 04:28 AM
Annie Hall is a great movie. I'm not sure if it should've beaten SW for the Best Picture, but if SW had to lose to a movie from 1977, it couldn't have been to a better flick.
You just made the list, buddy! What next, gonna squeeze out a few tears for the other nominees, The Goodbye Girl, Julia, and The Turning Point??? You know what? You're dead to me! ;) Ok, maybe not, but c'mon, have some Star Wars PRIDE man!!! I mean, Annie Hall couldn't even spell Christopher Walken's credit right, they spelled it Wlaken, that's just plain wrong!

El Chuxter
02-03-2006, 09:35 AM
At least Annie Hall had Christopher Walken. Got you there, don't I? :p

Never seen the other nominees from 1977, but Woody Allen's old stuff is pretty freaking funny. Annie Hall is no Sleeper, though. That's my favorite.

JediTricks
02-03-2006, 03:10 PM
Star Wars had Walken... they just didn't keep him. :D

2-1B
02-13-2006, 01:18 AM
Kenny Baker got robbed. He should have been nominated for Supporting Actor, if not Lead.

El Chuxter
02-13-2006, 01:26 AM
Personally, I think Anthony Daniels was robbed. C-3PO stole the show, bar none.

2-1B
02-13-2006, 02:15 AM
Agreed, in his absence from much of the film, C-3PO was at his best in this movie. ;) ;) ;)

JediTricks
02-13-2006, 02:53 AM
C-3PO is the Star Wars universe's Rodney Dangerfield.

2-1B
02-13-2006, 02:54 AM
Then I wish Rodney was still with us instead. :(

JediTricks
02-13-2006, 04:55 AM
"I tell you Artoo, I don't get no respect. No respect at all."

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-05-2006, 09:35 PM
Well, it lost. Big damn surprise. What a joke.

Tycho
03-05-2006, 10:48 PM
Hayden Christensen got a Raspberry Award though :D

JediTricks
03-05-2006, 11:00 PM
Wow, it's like *other* movies were good last year too! :p

Tycho
03-05-2006, 11:03 PM
Well, I don't remember seeing any other movies last year, but I went to see ROTS at least 12 times - it was still playing even after I got out of the hospital in September. "Nnnnooooooooooo!"

JediTricks
03-05-2006, 11:22 PM
Well, I don't remember seeing any other movies last year, but I went to see ROTS at least 12 times - it was still playing even after I got out of the hospital in September. "Nnnnooooooooooo!"
Well, there's an objective opinion. :p

James Boba Fettfield
03-05-2006, 11:30 PM
Well, it lost. Big damn surprise. What a joke.

How can you call it a joke especially after Three-Six Mafia (not sure how they write it) won an Oscar tonight? ;)

Turbowars
03-05-2006, 11:42 PM
How can you call it a joke especially after Three-Six Mafia (not sure how they write it) won an Oscar tonight? ;)Dude can you F---ing Believe that! I can't begin to think how these crap @ss rappers even got into the theater! The awards are supposed to be classy and then this happens.:o :upset: :cross-eye :tired: :mad: :eek: :stupid: :dead: :bored: :dis: :speech: :Ponder:

El Chuxter
03-06-2006, 12:36 AM
March 5, 2006: The day the Oscars officially became the Grammys.

I watched this mostly for Jon Stewart, since the guy is freakin' cool. The attack ads (voiced by Colbert!) were classic.

Nice to see Reese Witherspoon win for her role as June Carter. That lent some respectability to the proceedings. I actually really like her after seeing her channel the spirit of June. (No disrespect intended, but it must've been exceptionally hard to accurately portray someone with such an incredibly backwoods accent that she was almost incomprehensible a lot of the time.)

ROTS, feh. What was it nominated for? Makeup? News flash: the makeup in that movie sucked donkeys. Mr Tumnus could kick Palpatine's arse in the makeup department.

stillakid
03-06-2006, 07:18 AM
It isn't sad that ROTS didn't win anything. It didn't deserve to. What IS sad is that had Lucas concentrated on telling great stories instead of worrying about selling toys, he most likely would have been standing up there receiving gobs of sincere praise instead of being "silently" laughed at by scores of disappointed fans. And he would have sold MORE toys too.

What's ironic is that for a guy who is self-proclaimed anti-Hollywood, he is even MORE Hollywood now than Hollywood is.

It's not a proud day to see Star Wars shunned for the last time. Lucas hurt us all... :hurt:

Maxu3x
03-06-2006, 08:34 AM
I thnk all star wars films came out great regardless of what the academy thinks. They're just a bunch of studio executives, what do they know anyway? He was honored with the thalberg award years back and that was his only win which is ok with me.

Bel-Cam Jos
03-06-2006, 08:45 AM
But how many other directors basically wrote the stories for their six-part movie series? He had an unbelievable introduction with American Graffiti, then blew us away with Star Wars. He continued the latter, expanding it kind of "on-the-go," so it was bound to have weaknesses for a couple reasons.

First, the fans were ravenous for more. Once it became "theirs," their scrutiny became faster, more intense. Their opinion was, "hey, we know more about htis than you do, so do it right." Huh? Lucas wrote it, based on his own design (that he borrowed from 1000s of years of base material) about where he wanted it to go.

Second, he knew the ending and filled in the middle around it. He couldn't give away too much, so he hinted. A lot. Not always subtlely, sometimes too subtlely. Peter Jackson, Stanley Kubrick, Francis Ford Coppola; these are guys that worked on films based on other's books or stories. People who were true writers. Lucas wrote on note pads and based screenplays on general ideas, not written plotlines. So give him a little break.

Should ROTS have won in its category? Maybe. But SW isn't about awards anymore, if it ever was. It's the escapism that the gritty reality of Syriana, Crash, Walk the Line, Ray, The English Patient, Shindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc. haven't had. It's fun. And its ride may be winding down, so buy extra copies of those DVDs, in case the scratch can't be wiped off, and sit and enjoy the experience!

stillakid
03-06-2006, 08:45 AM
I thnk all star wars films came out great regardless of what the academy thinks. They're just a bunch of studio executives, what do they know anyway? .

Actually, they're not just a bunch of studio execs. As far as what "they" know "anyway," those who vote are filmmakers who do this for a living. They know film and story and what quality is. Believe me, "they" know a piece of crap even if they made it themselves. You're free to enjoy whatever you want, but it doesn't mean that it was necessarily "Good."

JimJamBonds
03-06-2006, 12:55 PM
Hayden won a Razzie. :p

Tycho
03-06-2006, 01:07 PM
Actually, they're not just a bunch of studio execs. As far as what "they" know "anyway," those who vote are filmmakers who do this for a living. They know film and story and what quality is. Believe me, "they" know a piece of crap even if they made it themselves. You're free to enjoy whatever you want, but it doesn't mean that it was necessarily "Good."

Yes, well they're probably False Gay which explains Brokeback Mountain.

Next year's winner will be about PETA operatives who try to save the gerbils.

When Cannibalism comes back in and Rachael Ray eats her husband, a drama about that will take the cake (if you pardon the expression).

Maxu3x
03-06-2006, 02:29 PM
I like these films because they have such an interesting story full of great fantasy. The academy nominated ANH for best picture and that alone is all that matters.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-06-2006, 06:00 PM
Apart from SW not winning anything - same for Harry Potter - I liked the show.

Crash was the only best picture nominee I saw, and I liked it, so that was nice. It was good that all the top six categories went to six different movies, since it seemed like they all deserved it.

I really don't think King Kong should have won best effects; the bad far outweighed the good. It was yet another case of the Academy kissing up to PJ.

Jon Stewart was great. I love his show and I think he did a fantastic job. The cowboy clips were hilarious! So were the attack ads - "She took my eye out in a bar fight!" :D

The 30 SECONDS I had the TV off to use the phone was when they had the SW montage - dammit, I would've liked to have seen that! The opening was cool, with Luke and Vader fighting among all the other movie characters.

Maxu3x
03-06-2006, 06:21 PM
Was the fight between Luke and Vader from ESB or ROTJ?

James Boba Fettfield
03-06-2006, 06:51 PM
Empire. They also had an X-Wing in that opening, too.

Bel-Cam Jos
03-06-2006, 08:02 PM
On ABC, and I can't recall if some of these were pre-show or during montages, there was...

... a shot of Luke and Leia on the speeder bike on Endor (ROJ)
... Vader and Luke battling in the carbon freeze chamber (ESB)
... an X-Wing flying (ANH, I think)
... Anakin's yellow eyes in Jedi cloak (ROTS)
... Vader rising on operating table (ROTS)
... Alec Guiness' fall onto the explosive device that blows up the bridge on the river Kuai [sp?] (BOTRK)
... Greedo shooting third, after Han and Muftak ;) (ANH: Spelunker Edition)

BTW, when they showed that shot of ET (excuse me, Senator Greibles [sp?] :p ) lifting the kids' bikes over the roadblock, anyone notice that it was the weak Special Edition version, where the FBI agents have radios instead of handguns? Boo! Where's the understated violence? :rolleyes:

JimJamBonds
03-06-2006, 11:59 PM
Was the fight between Luke and Vader from ESB or ROTJ?

Yes.



BTW, when they showed that shot of ET (excuse me, Senator Greibles [sp?] :p ) lifting the kids' bikes over the roadblock, anyone notice that it was the weak Special Edition version, where the FBI agents have radios instead of handguns? Boo! Where's the understated violence? :rolleyes:


You have El Speilbergo to thank for that one, I guess he didn't want the understated violence.

2-1B
03-07-2006, 03:51 AM
Actually, they're not just a bunch of studio execs. As far as what "they" know "anyway," those who vote are filmmakers who do this for a living. They know film and story and what quality is. Believe me, "they" know a piece of crap even if they made it themselves. You're free to enjoy whatever you want, but it doesn't mean that it was necessarily "Good."

That must mean that JT's a fool then for refusing to see Annie Hall even though it's obviously a better picture than ANH.

Shame on you, JT. Shame ! :p

Congrats to Hayden on his Razzie. :) While nerds the 'net over obsess over his bad performance, he gets to have sex with Nat Po and Jessica Alba. Not a bad tradeoff. :kiss:

stillakid
03-07-2006, 08:36 AM
That must mean that JT's a fool then for refusing to see Annie Hall even though it's obviously a better picture than ANH.
There's room in this universe for two great movies. :)




Congrats to Hayden on his Razzie. :) While nerds the 'net over obsess over his bad performance, he gets to have sex with Nat Po and Jessica Alba. Not a bad tradeoff. :kiss:
He's still milking the rewards of his performance in Life as a House. :kiss:

El Chuxter
03-07-2006, 09:38 AM
JT, just watch Annie Hall already, for chrissakes.

Tycho
03-07-2006, 10:19 AM
What movie was Hayden in with Jessica Alba?

I'm jealous (she's hot). I think I'll borrow one of his lines:

"Nooooooooo!"

Oh, that was James Earl Jones. My bad. Hayden couldn't manage a dramatic moment with a one-syllable word.

J/k - the "I killed them all" scene ranks up there with his probable best work.

Kidhuman
03-07-2006, 10:21 AM
I never watched Annie Hall either.

2-1B
03-07-2006, 11:33 AM
What movie was Hayden in with Jessica Alba?


Awake.


He's still milking the rewards of his performance in Life as a House.

Hey, there's room in this universe for two great Golden Globe supporting actor nominees. Jim Broadbent was awesome in 2001, no question there.

The thing about the Oscars that conflicts me is that on one hand I enjoy the broadcast because I love movies but on the other hand there is a cynical side to me that sees all these Hollywood jokers sitting around giving awards to THEMSELVES. So in that sense, it's not about "quality" or any other buzzword, it's really just about advertising. And they have a captive audience each year to fawn over them.

It would be like if SSG held our own awards and started handing out statues to ourselves as the world watches.....when I put it that way, it sounds like a pretty dumb process. lol lol lol

stillakid
03-07-2006, 01:20 PM
I'm going to reedit your post...


Hey, there's room in this universe for two great Golden Globe supporting actor nominees. Jim Broadbent was awesome in 2001, no question there.

The thing about the Oscars that conflicts me is that on one hand I enjoy the broadcast because I love movies but on the other hand there is a cynical side to me that sees all these Hollywood jokers sitting around giving awards to THEMSELVES. So in that sense, it's not about "quality" or any other buzzword, it's really just about advertising. And they have a captive audience each year to fawn over them.

It would be like if SSG held our own awards and started handing out statues to ourselves as the world watches.....when I put it that way, it sounds like a pretty dumb process. lol lol lol


Awake.


NOW you're getting it! :)



On the other hand, who else cares enough about anything to spend time giving somebody else awards for what they've done? Apart from the Nobel Prize or the Olympics maybe, I can't think of anything that really is worthy enough for an outsider to pay any attention to long enough to give out more than a fleeting platitude.

2-1B
03-07-2006, 02:27 PM
There are various industries which give out awards based on whatever product lines they do...:)

and sorry but I'm not sure what your comment about the movie Awake was supposed to mean? :confused:

stillakid
03-07-2006, 03:17 PM
There are various industries which give out awards based on whatever product lines they do...:)
That's what I was getting at. "Normal" people aren't going to gather en masse to hand out awards to the film industry professionals so the industry has to do it for themselves. :) Most other industries do the same.


and sorry but I'm not sure what your comment about the movie Awake was supposed to mean? :confused:
It was an easily misunderstood "play" on your response suggesting that you are now "awake" for seeing what the Oscars are really all about. Not as funny when I have to explain it....but it probably wasn't very funny to begin with. :whip:

JediTricks
03-07-2006, 06:47 PM
That must mean that JT's a fool then for refusing to see Annie Hall even though it's obviously a better picture than ANH.

Shame on you, JT. Shame ! :pThat reference is WAAAAAY off the mark, we're talking apples and lugnuts. I never said Annie Hall wasn't potentially good, I said I refused to see it because it beat ANH for best picture.



JT, just watch Annie Hall already, for chrissakes.
NEVER!!!


What movie was Hayden in with Jessica Alba?They're in "Awake" together, but that doesn't come out until later this year.


The thing about the Oscars that conflicts me is that on one hand I enjoy the broadcast because I love movies but on the other hand there is a cynical side to me that sees all these Hollywood jokers sitting around giving awards to THEMSELVES. So in that sense, it's not about "quality" or any other buzzword, it's really just about advertising. And they have a captive audience each year to fawn over them.So if a group of welders singles out the finest in their industry, it's admirable, but if Hollywood moviemakers vote on awards to single out the finest performances among them, they're jokers? Double standard.

stillakid
03-07-2006, 06:58 PM
So if a group of welders singles out the finest in their industry, it's admirable, but if Hollywood moviemakers vote on awards to single out the finest performances among them, they're jokers? Double standard.

Not to mention that most of those who vote don't get to go to the ceremony/television show, so it isn't exactly like "they" are all sitting around giving awards to each other. More than that, some of the awards aren't even worthy of being given out during the ceremony/show...only those which serve the "marketing" agenda get that honor. So yes, it is both an internal "atta boy" and also a way to sell more tickets. What's wrong with something being both? Or does everything in life have to have "pure" purpose? :confused:

El Chuxter
03-07-2006, 07:32 PM
Jessica Alba and Hayden Christensen? Hoo-boy, sign me up! That's a movie guaranteed to win some Razzies.

Seriously, who the hell is Alba sleeping with to get roles? She has NO talent!

Devo
03-07-2006, 08:30 PM
Jessica Alba and Hayden Christensen? Hoo-boy, sign me up! That's a movie guaranteed to win some Razzies.

Seriously, who the hell is Alba sleeping with to get roles? She has NO talent!

Maybe she needs to be cast as something other than a stripper or beach babe for us to properly make that judgement. So far though you're correct. She's being employed for her *** and nothing more, which, credit where credit is due is easily a model example. None of this J-Lo booty nonsense. ('I remember when we used to call it a "fat arse"' - Jimmy Carr joke)

As to Sith not winning anything. :ermm: (closest smiley I could find to indifference)

Tycho
03-07-2006, 09:24 PM
Maybe she needs to be cast as something other than a stripper or beach babe for us to properly make that judgement.

I'd judge it to be a quality evening watching a bunch of movies with Jessica Alba cast as a stripper or beach babe! I don't think I care if she can act, or talk at all for that matter. :love:

2-1B
03-08-2006, 12:29 AM
That's what I was getting at. "Normal" people aren't going to gather en masse to hand out awards to the film industry professionals so the industry has to do it for themselves. :) Most other industries do the same.

What about the People's Choice Awards ? lol
And I seem to hear the words "Thank you Hollywood Foreign Press" every year over the clanging dinnerware at the Golden Globes. lol


It was an easily misunderstood "play" on your response suggesting that you are now "awake" for seeing what the Oscars are really all about. Not as funny when I have to explain it....but it probably wasn't very funny to begin with. :whip:

:yes:

Just kidding, I gottcha, it was a good one. :) I could be like ol' Sourpuss JT down there but I'll play along with ya stilla. lol lol lol

Really though, as said before I DO enjoy the Oscars but I hate the posturing involved. Take Clooney for example, all that talk about "ohhhh, he won't win in Directing or Writing so he'll get Supporting as a consolation." What? :confused: If he was deserving of Supporting, then give it to him. Plain and simple. :)

Or a few years ago when Denzel won for Training Day and we had people on these very forums saying Training Day sucked and he won it for being black (even though his white costar from the same bad movie was also nominated) OR people take the position that a person like Denzel or Randy Newman should win one for a lesser performance as a recognition of a body of work. Huh? I didn't know that was a category, body of work, I thought that's what the Lifetime (not the network ;) ) award was for. lol


That reference is WAAAAAY off the mark, we're talking apples and lugnuts. I never said Annie Hall wasn't potentially good, I said I refused to see it because it beat ANH for best picture.

Christ JT, aren't you just a barrel of laughs tonight ? :rolleyes: :whip:

And I never said that you said Annie Hall wasn't good, just that since stillakid's academy is the proper judge of quality, it was indeed a BETTER picture than ANH. I'm not talking good vs. not good, I'm talking about good vs. better. Apples and apples for you, I'm afraid. :(

But like my friend stilla just said, it's not funny if I have to explain the joke. :thumbsup: lol lol lol


NEVER!

Thanks, that's more like it. :D


if Hollywood moviemakers vote on awards to single out the finest performances among them, they're jokers?

Ahhhhhhhhh, no. :confused:
They're jokers whether they hand out awards or not. I didn't say they were jokers because of it. lol


Maybe she needs to be cast as something other than a stripper or beach babe for us to properly make that judgement.

That's what I'm curious to find out. :)
Awake appears to be of a more independent nature so it should afford her the chance to actually act. Whether or not she will succeed remains to be seen. I hope it plays in my area, I'd like to catch it during the theatrical run and not have to wait for the DVD.

Darth Cruel
03-09-2006, 01:08 PM
I'm sorry. I need a little help, here. What awards should EIII have won?

Best picture? Not.
Best Actor? Who?
Best supporting actor? Who?
Best Actress? Who?
Best Supporting actress? Who?
Best special effects? For which effects?
Best musical score? Best bet for a win.
Best director? Come on, now.
Best screenplay? Not!
Best editing? Not!
Best make-up? Not.
Best wardrobe? Not.

I love the movies...all of them...but I do not kid myself. Like all of the prequels, it was too poorly acted (including Anthony Daniels) and this time the effects were horrible, particularly the matting in the lava fight scenes. I know that kind of thing is tough and I got the point they wanted to get across, but it was no improvement over the Rancor scene from 22 years ago. They nailed most of the special effects, but too many were cheesy. Nope, no Oscarworthiness in my book.

Jayspawn
03-09-2006, 01:49 PM
Unlike Darth Cruel I like Star Wars. Here's what I would have given it...more realistically....

Best picture? No.
Best Actor? No.
Best supporting actor? Ian McDiarmid. His performance was incredible. Sould have made the final nomination at least.
Best Actress? No.
Best Supporting actress? No.
Best special effects? Most definatly, the opening space battle was incredible in itself. Sould have been nominated.
Best musical score? Best bet for a win. Another John Williams masterpiece.
Best director? No.
Best screenplay? No.
Best editing? Probably not.
Best make-up? Oh yes, even the background chatacters looked good.
Best wardrobe? Should have been nominated and won. Chronicles of Narnia? Give me a break. Been there and seen that already. Trish Biggar's Star Wars costumes were orginal in design, authentically detailed, and classic in appearance.

The only reason Revenge of the Sith didnt make it in the final nominees is that the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences hates George Lucas and becuase Lucas has a complete monolopy on his empire, this is the ONLY way the academy can take it out on him for not playing by the rules. It couldnt be more obvious.

stillakid
03-09-2006, 02:12 PM
What about the People's Choice Awards ? lol
And I seem to hear the words "Thank you Hollywood Foreign Press" every year over the clanging dinnerware at the Golden Globes. lol
Meh. I was talking about "rank and file" run of the mill folk like you and me. The morning gang down at the local greasy spoon isn't about to get excited enough about anything other than tomorrow's weather to compel them to hand out awards for anything other than this year's Corn Festival Queen.





Really though, as said before I DO enjoy the Oscars but I hate the posturing involved. Take Clooney for example, all that talk about "ohhhh, he won't win in Directing or Writing so he'll get Supporting as a consolation." What? :confused: If he was deserving of Supporting, then give it to him. Plain and simple. :)
Except that it's not that simple. Clooney was right on when he suggested that there might be multiple people/films worthy of a single award in a given year. Like it or not, politics (not governmental) and a certain amount of favoritism do play a part from time to time.

There was an insightful editorial in the LA Times the day following which offered the opinion that CRASH was a "saving grace" option for Academy voters who might have felt uncomfortable voting for BROKEBACK. They gave Brokeback a "nod," but weren't "required" to give it everything because there was a plausable option to go with for Best Picture. Maybe true, maybe not, but the point is that the awards aren't entirely objective in the sense that the "Best" of something will necessarily win that category.






And I never said that you said Annie Hall wasn't good, just that since stillakid's academy is the proper judge of quality, it was indeed a BETTER picture than ANH. I'm not talking good vs. not good, I'm talking about good vs. better.
In a sense, it is apples and oranges though. A film like Annie Hall might be really funny and great in it's own way. So how do you possibly compare a sci-fi story that isn't trying to be funny? That would be like asking if La Boheme is better entertainment than Monty Python? It all depends on who you ask.





The only reason Revenge of the Sith didnt make it in the final nominees is that the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences hates George Lucas and becuase Lucas has a complete monolopy on his empire, this is the ONLY way the academy can take it out on him for not playing by the rules. It couldnt be more obvious.
:rolleyes: You're assuming anybody has the time and inclination to consciously even give Lucas a second thought enough to decide to "hate" him. The "Academy" isn't a small group like the old ladies who quilt down at the local church festival. There are no "meetings" to decide who to shun and who to praise. Just as if SSG decided to hand out awards for some reason, the various people here who may or may not know one another merely would decide for themselves what is "worthy" in their own minds. Nobody really gives a sh** that Lucas isn't "playing by the rules," whatever those are (I'd love to see that list...I'm sure you must have it lying around somewhere to make that kind of a statement).

The only thing that couldn't be more than obvious is how utterly sh**ty the Prequels were in almost every way. Add that to the potential they should have lived up to and it wouldn't be a stretch to see why anybody (outside of Lucas-ites) would be disappointed enough to not give the new fangled Star Wars any kudos at all.

Jayspawn
03-09-2006, 02:20 PM
Doesnt matter. Lucas could go on to make the greatest film ever made and be loved by everyone and the Academy would STILL never let him win. They have NEVER liked George Lucas and never will. Its the price Lucas pays for bing innivative and independent.

Droid
03-09-2006, 02:30 PM
Best supporting actor? Ian McDiarmid. His performance was incredible. Sould have made the final nomination at least.
Best musical score? Best bet for a win. Another John Williams masterpiece.
Best make-up? Oh yes, even the background chatacters looked good.
Best wardrobe? Should have been nominated and won. Chronicles of Narnia? Give me a break. Been there and seen that already. Trish Biggar's Star Wars costumes were orginal in design, authentically detailed, and classic in appearance.

Who do you think should have been nominated in the category with McDiarmid? I myself have no idea. I only saw about ten movies last year and could not judge who was the best from the entire body of films released last year. As for McDiarmid, I thought his performance was really over the top in certain scenes, though I imagine that it was how he was told to play it. I thought his acting from the point where he was getting hit with lightning until he sent Vader from the office was all over the place and as I said, over the top. I thought Obi-wan was the best acting in Episode III, a little more understated, though I'm still not sure Oscar-worthy.

I am torn about awards for the score or costumes for new Star Wars movies as it is all so dependent on the pre-established music and costumes from prior films. Star Wars won the music and costume Oscars in '77. I think that was enough praise for the saga for music and costumes.

As for makeup, I really thought the Emperor's was inconsistent from scene to scene!

I did love Episode III though.

stillakid
03-09-2006, 03:33 PM
Doesnt matter. Lucas could go on to make the greatest film ever made and be loved by everyone and the Academy would STILL never let him win. They have NEVER liked George Lucas and never will. Its the price Lucas pays for bing innivative and independent.

:confused: Double check the winners this year and you'll see that in fact the "Academy" (this apparently monolithic singular committee that you make it out to be) nominated and awarded to nothing BUT independent and innovative projects. Just about ALL of the nominees and winners were NOT studio "Hollywood" projects and were all independent or were derived from independent producers.

"Lucas" (aka ROTS) didn't win because it wasn't good enough when compared to the other projects released in 2005. I guarantee you that people overwhelmingly would have let any one of the Prequels sweep the Oscars had any one of them resembled anything worthy regardless of how any individual might envy Lucas and his independence. I can't think of one person who wanted nothing else but for the Star Wars saga to continue on to be as great and inspirational as ANH was. The Prequels failed to deliver, which is a reflection on the filmmaker himself, and that is why ROTS or Lucas won squat.

Rocketboy
03-09-2006, 06:05 PM
Best supporting actor? Ian McDiarmid. His performance was incredible. Sould have made the final nomination at least.I can't help but giggle a little every time someone says that.

I thought most of the special effects were great - sure there were a few misses, but overall they were better than most movies, especially considering the number of effects in the movie.

As for score - No. Williams should have won for the OT and maybe TPM. The scores for AOTC and ROTS relied too heavily on past scores, IMO.

Maxu3x
03-09-2006, 06:18 PM
I'm surprised that john williams wasn't even nominated for best score in TPM because that song "Duel of the fates" that's played as obi and Qui fight maul is so great that it gives me shivers everytime I listen to it.

Maxu3x
03-09-2006, 06:31 PM
As for George Lucas, I would like to see him make another film that's not star wars for a change. It would be interesting to see if the Academy would take notice of the film even when everyone thinks it is great. I personally think his independence of the directors and writers guilds **** off the Academy. I always wondered why ESB wasn't nominated for best picture when many people like that one the best. I think it's the isolation from the guilds that will always keep Lucas away from any award. Well except for the thalberg award which he won because the Academy didn't want to seem like they had a personal agenda against Lucas. Regardless, Lucas is a multi-nominated academy award writer/director/innovater and most likely the only person in hollywood history to be so independent yet so mainstream.

2-1B
03-10-2006, 12:15 AM
In a sense, it is apples and oranges though. A film like Annie Hall might be really funny and great in it's own way. So how do you possibly compare a sci-fi story that isn't trying to be funny?

Jesus Christ, why don't you ask JT that question since he's the one who refuses to watch Annie Hall, the funny movie that beat the sci-fi movie that he loves ? lol lol lol

And as a gentle reminder, please remember that when I slammed the Oscars, I DID say that it was the cynical side of me talking. ;)

Personally, I thought Crash was good but Brokeback was better. That's my opinion. I don't disagree with Clooney saying that there are several worthy pictures in any given year, I just don't like the politic-ing of it all to begin with. Take LOTR. I enjoyed the films but I don't think they're THAT great. The first one got some acting nods as I recall, that's cool, and parts 1 and 2 didn't win Best Pic. Okay, fine. Then for the 3rd one ROTK takes the grand prize and all I heard about was how "the Academy" was "waiting" for the 3rd one to reward PJ and his film. Okay, well, that's fine....I guess....but why "wait" in the first place? What if Crash or Brokeback came out in 2003 and was more deserving of the win, would they have lost simply because it was "ROTK's year" ?

Whatever the case, it's fun to talk about movies. :)

Turbowars
03-10-2006, 12:20 AM
Speaking of Brokeback, the wife and I were at Target tonight and she picked up Brokeback the book and it's only 50 some pages and she found the part when they get down and dirty in the tent and boy oh boy do they get dirty. I can't say what the book said, but it was very pornographic. Made me laugh and sick at the same time.:lipsrseal

2-1B
03-10-2006, 01:01 AM
Meh, the movie version of that scene is not that big a deal, I've seen MUCH worse from hetero couples in the movies before. MUCH worse.

But for somebody with hangups like yours Turbs, I'm sure it's a big deal. Enjoy. :lipsrseal

Turbowars
03-10-2006, 01:20 AM
Yeah I know my wife saw the movie.:rolleyes:

Hang ups? So I don't like men on men action, how is that a hang up?

2-1B
03-10-2006, 02:08 AM
I was just sayin' that it's not nearly pornographic onscreen, at least not compared to other stuff I've seen. That doesn't mean you have to dig gay sex, I was just sayin' is all... :love:

But your use of "boy oh boy do they get dirty" was pretty comical. lol

Turbowars
03-10-2006, 02:12 AM
I was just sayin' that it's not nearly pornographic onscreen, at least not compared to other stuff I've seen. That doesn't mean you have to dig gay sex, I was just sayin' is all... :love:

But your use of "boy oh boy do they get dirty" was pretty comical. lolLOL, yeah seemd pretty prude didn't it.:D Like most of the time the book goes into much more detail. :whip:

2-1B
03-10-2006, 02:42 AM
LOL, yeah seemd pretty prude didn't it.:D Like most of the time the book goes into much more detail. :whip:

In that case I wonder what "SSG: The Movie" would be like in terms of depth and detail compared to these here forums. ;) And for that matter, would it be considered for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar ? lol

El Chuxter
03-10-2006, 09:55 AM
Brokeback is such a short book because it was originally a short story. I guess they released it in a book by itself due to the success of the movie.