|
|
Post by AlexanderTheGreat on Mar 25, 2002 23:17:16 GMT -5
Now that the Oscars are over, a lot of the LOTR fans are quite bitter and feel that once again the Oscars have snubbed our favorite genre. What do you think? Do you think sci fi and fantasy shows are overlooked by the Academy? Do you think LOTR deserved to win?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurian on Mar 26, 2002 2:10:20 GMT -5
I think it is a fact that the genre is treated like the ugly stepchild, and I was very suprised that LOTR did not get more "real" oscars.
I certainly expected it to receive "best movie" anyway..
Ok that is perhaps my own wishful thinking but.. come on..
" a beautiful mind "... zzzz
|
|
|
|
Post by Elric3960 on Mar 26, 2002 2:16:44 GMT -5
I believe that the main drawback of SF and Fantasy films is that they expect more from the mainstream audience than action/adventure and romantic films. That's why they tend to win more Oscars and that's why they "get made" more often. Can you say corporate cowardice paying homage to the bottom line?
|
|
|
|
Post by UltimateTrekker on Mar 26, 2002 9:39:03 GMT -5
I think that LOTR did NOT deserve best picture. It wasn't a WHOLE picture.
It realy didn't have much of an end, it just kinda stopped. Granted, I know that there are 2 more and LOVED the film, but as a stand alone film, it is NOT worthy of the Best Picture oscar.
I DO however will agree they Sci-Fi tends to get ignored. However, most sci-fi is NOT oscar material (at least anymore). But, on top of that, the ACTORS get ignored (even a movie with a silly plot can have a GREAT actor do a terrific job.)
But, that again proves another point, Best Actor/Actress catagories are a bit silly.
Tom Hanks (Mr. two-in-a-row himself) didn't wake up one day, walk on to the set of Philidelphia and become a GREAT actor. He was the same person in Joe Vs. The Volcano, Dragnet, The Money Pit, and yes, Bachalor Party.
On the other hand, in '89, Melanie Griffith was nominated for an oscar, but do we consider he a great actress? Definatly not today. So did she get worse?
No, the answer is that it takes 3 things for a Best actor/actress:
1. Good acting (obvious) but MORE important)
2. A GREAT part.
3. Popularity (Part of Denzel's win was Russel's bad behavior and the fact that Denzel has put in great work after great work and deserved 1 more than Crowe deserved 2)
|
|
|
|
Post by spok on Mar 26, 2002 9:52:56 GMT -5
;D so what are you saying lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by Elric3960 on Mar 26, 2002 14:08:09 GMT -5
I think UT is saying that being Best Actor/Actress is like being elected for public office:
1. You gotta shake alot of hands
2. Kiss alot of babies(among other things)
3. MOST IMPORTANT Don't thumb your nose at your fans!!!!
Isn't politics wonderful?
|
|
|
|
Post by Christina on Mar 28, 2002 15:13:37 GMT -5
Just so long as 'Best Actress' this year was on merit and not 'political'............
Sci Fi / Fantasy tends to get ignored because the Academy seems to regard it as Effects driven, rather than character or writing. I also sometimes feel that they cannot see the acting talent behind the makeup!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elric3960 on Mar 29, 2002 6:25:45 GMT -5
In all fairness, actresses can't be blamed if there haven't been interesting or challenging roles written for them. I think that Billy Bob Thornton deserves a great deal of credit for giving Halle Barry a chance to show what she's capable of doing with a "meaty" part that portrays her as being more than "just a beautiful woman who's trapped in an ugly situation."
I agree that it's the ultimate challenge for an actor to create a convincing alien character without losing "the recognition factor" that wins Oscars in other genres.
Catch-22 as usual or an incentive to "push the envelope" or change the rules of SF visual storytelling?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ana Ng on Apr 23, 2002 16:44:53 GMT -5
I agree with UT.. LOTR was a great film, but not best picture by itself.
LOTR *did* get shafted for the "Best Adapted Screenplay" Oscar. Peter Jackson went to great lengths to make the film true to the book, whereas "A Beautiful Mind" took a great deal of "artistic license" to make Nash's story more palatable to audiences. Although, if you ask me, I would have given "Best Adapted Screenplay" to Ghost World. Now there's a movie that got completely IGNORED by Oscar this year.
As for Best Picture, I would have given it to Moulin Rouge. It was an original, enchanting film, in a genre (the musical) that is completely lost in today's world.
|
|
|
|
Post by UltimateTrekker on Apr 24, 2002 8:49:35 GMT -5
Sorry, Ana, I disagree with your movie choices...
Moulin WAS very different, but I felt it took everything annoying from R+J and multiplied it by 10.
I was unimpressed (but I didn't hate it)
Ghost World... quite intersting, but I had to give it a 4/10
That may seem extremely low, but my explanation of 4/10 was a movie in which the director had a plan but failed to execute it, we dont' see where it's going.
A movie in which the direction is obvious but it doesn't accomplish that well is a 5 or 6, but in Ghost World, I really failed to see the point. I think what hurt it the most was the ending. Had it ended when the man got on the bus, I think it would have been better, however, adding all the epiologe stuff seemed to deaden whatever point it may have had.
Maybe it would stand up better to a second viewing, but maybe that's just my opinion.
My #1 Oscar overlook has to be Contact. It was lost in the Will Hunting, LA Confidential, and MOST of all Titanic frenzy.. quite the shame.
Funny what 5 years does to ones memory. In 95 the question was Pulp Fiction vs. Forrect Gump.. by 2000 the answer was obvious... Shawshank Redemption.
|
|
