Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Lord of the Rings Media Movies

Return of the King Leads Oscar Nominations 412

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the congratulations-to-all-involved dept.
PurdueGraphicsMan writes "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, the final chapter in Peter Jackson's directoral masterpeice is leading the 76 Annual Academy Awards with 11 nominations including Best Picture and Best Director. Next in line with 10 nominations including Best Picture and Best director is Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Here is a full list of the nominees in all categories."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Return of the King Leads Oscar Nominations

Comments Filter:
  • by sielwolf (246764) * on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:48AM (#8100091) Homepage Journal
    You can compare the actual nominations to Roger Ebert's predictions [suntimes.com]. He was pretty on point for Best Picture, Actor, and Supporting Actress. Its surprising to see the well liked but little seen roles getting nods. Alec Baldwin in The Cooler for one. Likewise it's interesting to see Keisha Castle-Hughes for her work in Whale Rider. Many were predicitng Charlize Theron would run away with her work in Monster but Castle-Hughes could pull an Anna Panquin upset. That role was powerful AND beloved. Something that might worka gainst Theron.

    Jude Law's nod is interesting since I don't remember anyone really talking about his performance (as compared to what Sean Penn, Bill Murray and Johnny Depp did this year). Ebert picked Russell Crowe's in Master and Commander which, likewise, didn't seem to have a big impact.

    Strangest one is that City of God got three nominations... although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003 (Ebert made specific mention of it in his Top of 2004 to explain its absence). But here its getting nods for Cinematography, Direction and Writing. It probably only has a chance in Cinematography where RotK is (strangely) absent.

    RotK will probably run away with Makeup, Music(Song), Sound, Writing (Adapted), and Costume Design. Of course those are the second tier ones that end up as consolation prizes for a lot of folks. The interesting thing will see how it does in the big categories (which I guess Adapted Screenplay is one).
    • by fireduck (197000) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:57AM (#8100209)
      the fact that ROTK took the top 2 golden globes probably gives it momentum heading into the Oscars. Sure there's the history of SciFi/Fantasy never winning the big prizes, but this movie is unique among movies. Jackson directed three movies simultaneously, all of which have won critical, popular and financial praise. That achievement alone has to count for something to the voters. Combine that with seriously state of the art special effects, insane costume/prop department, more than adequate acting, and really this movie is the achievement of the past three years.
    • although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003

      That should be 2002 as taken from this [suntimes.com]: "So true that City of God was No. 2 on my list for last year. The film played in every major festival in 2002 and was a candidate for year-end awards, and although it did not open in Chicago until January, I didn't see the point in waiting 12 months to put it on a best 10 list when putting it on the timelier list might do it some good."
    • by mbbac (568880) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:08PM (#8100357)
      I'd wager those aren't considered "consolation prizes" by the makeup artists, composers, sound designers, writers, or costume designers.
    • I don't think they'll give it to Castle-Hughes at all. Beyond not wanting to curse her too early, I'd say her performance is stronger because of the sentimental influence of the movie, than her actual role. So much so I was surprised it got nominated. I mean, why not Raising Victor vargas then?

      Besides, Theron just won the Golden Globes, at least against Whale Rider, that should cinch it.
    • is making me dizzy.

      Com'on mods, give this post some nods.

      Dan East
    • City of God is the greatest movie of the recent fiction-as-documentary brazilian productions. Other good title are Central do Brasil (Brazilian Central) and Bicho de Sete Cabecas.
      It tries to show the life in the favelas in the 70's and 80's. Although it is a fiction story, historical facts are mixed with the narrative, and, well, it could be true. Everyone who knows about the brazilian reality up the favelas, would ever doubt about its veracity (if it was true).
      It is amazing to know that all actors (exce
    • What about FX? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jcsehak (559709)
      Gollum was the first CG character I've ever been convinced of. RotK would deserve the best FX award even if the whole movie was of him.

      And I really think Andy Serkis should get nominated for something. I saw a split-screen of him acting as the body model of Gollum, and the performance just about exactly matched the final CG shot; it almost would've been believable if they'd just used that!
      • Re:What about FX? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Rallion (711805) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @01:54PM (#8101711) Journal
        That's absolutely true. IMO Serkis put on the best performance of the entire cast, in both TT and RotK. Not just for the actual physical acting,either--the voice of Gollum could have broken the whole thing, if it wasn't right, but it was perfect. Funny, at times, and when he accused Sam of eating the bread, that was brilliant. I couldn't have hated Gollum more than I did at that instant. My younger sister got a talking Gollum figure for XMas, I think it's great. "Cold be heart and bone and cold be travellers far from home; they do not see what lies ahead, when sun has faded and moon is dead!"

        For anybody who hasn't seen the Gollum featurette of the TT Extended DVD, I suggest you rent it or whatever to check it out. It's amazing to see how...inadequate all the pre-Serkis Gollum stuff was, but once they basically redesigned his face to actually look like Serkis, it worked much better. Plus it's kinda funny to note that the one true piece of pure Serkis in TT is the spit that flies from Gollum's mouth when he 's talking about Sam's cooking.
  • Is it just me... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... or did "Big Fish" just get screwed?

    • Is it just me... or did "Big Fish" just get screwed?

      Dunno - did Troy McLure star in that movie?
  • Simple vs. Epic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by addie (470476) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:51AM (#8100125)
    I think it's very interesting to see that (IMHO) the two best movies to be nominated for best director are ROTK and Lost in Translation. One is a huge epic with a billion setpieces, thousands of extras, and a weaving storyline; this is an extreme challenge to direct. On the other hand, Lost in Translation features very few actors, very few locations, and some of the best low-key directing I've ever seen.

    I'm glad that the Oscars are nominating directors who are working from such completely different directions, but both achieving such brilliant results.
    • Hmmm....I thought it was really well made, and Bill Murray's performance was great, just pipped by Sean Penn.

      But I noticed Lost in Translation got nominated for screenplay as well, and so I expect it to win it. Every year a movie I respect for craft, but who's screenplay I think is manipulative cheap toys (yes yes, all movies are manipulative, but I'm not supposed to see the strings DURING the movie...) wins.

      But if you liked Lost in Translation, I suggest you all go out and rent a Wong Kar-Wai movie, star
  • by garcia (6573) * on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:52AM (#8100132) Homepage
    What about nominations from the cast? ZERO.

    Granted it's probably because the characters are actually co-dependant and everyone was fantastic but still...

    I saw Lost in Translation at a pre-screening and while I thought it was "entertaining" I certainly don't believe Bill Murray was any better in that one than any other movie he has been in.

    Depp's character was fantastic and he really led the movie and he probably deserves the award out of the list IMHO.

    But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?
    • Depp's character was fantastic and he really led the movie and he probably deserves the award out of the list IMHO.

      Got to agree. The film was very entertaining and Depp really made that character his own. You could see he was really enjoying it too, which makes all the difference. The special effects were excellent too, without being over the top as a lot of films are. For example, the parts where Depp is running in and out of the moonlight and changing from flesh and blood to skeleton are really good, bu
      • The film was very entertaining and Depp really made that character his own. You could see he was really enjoying it too...

        My favorite moment in that movie is when Orlando Bloom parodies Depp's character. To let that go into the movie, the crew must have been a) willing to have fun and b) very confident about the character at the same time.
    • by DarkEdgeX (212110) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:05PM (#8100305) Journal
      But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?

      Agreed, I was incredibly disappointed to hear Sean Astin didn't get a nod for his performance as Sam. Easily the most moving performance I've seen in a long time, and he pulled it off perfectly.

      • Puhleaze. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gosand (234100) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @01:46PM (#8101612)
        Agreed, I was incredibly disappointed to hear Sean Astin didn't get a nod for his performance as Sam. Easily the most moving performance I've seen in a long time, and he pulled it off perfectly.

        I don't get it. Really, I don't. I don't understand all the hubub around this movie. It was good. That's it. The acting wasn't all that great folks. Take off your fanboi glasses and look at it for what it really was.

        I have never read the books, nor should I to fully appreciate a movie - after all, movies are never as good as books. That being said, here are a few observations about ROTK that you probably haven't heard...

        The outcome was pre-determined. I knew what was going to happen, I could tell how it was going to end. It was predictable. Remember, I didn't know the story.

        The whole thing where you think that Gollum was killed, then he comes back right at the climax - cheesy.

        I found the Hobbits to be very annoying, especially Sam. They were just too corny for me.

        Battle scenes - ugh. Sure, they were fantastic, but bordered on cheesy. Oh no, we are about to be defeated AGAIN. Whee, here come some eagles to save us. It just got a little tired.

        I know a lot of people hold this story very dear and may take offense at my comments (I am sure I'll be modded appropriately), but I am looking at the MOVIE with no pre-conceptions. If anything, I watched the trilogy to see what all the hype was about. I still really don't know.

    • Yeah, Andy Serkis got gypped again.

      I know Hollywood isn't ready to award a digital representation an oscar, but for all the work and effort Andy put in (watch the Gollum documentary in the Special Edition "Two Towers" DVD) he deserved at least a nomination.

    • Yes, Depp made the film, but really that is only because the rest of the film didn't have much going for it beyond his character. Depp was the only breath of fresh air in it. (ok, the girl was hot, but aside from that...)

      And even then a lot of the quarkiness of his pirate character was already exhibited by his Raoul character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas [imdb.com]. Pirates was a decent popcorn flick, but it doesn't deserve consideration in terms of awards based on performances... then again, after seeing Russ

      • There's a general consensus that Crowe's award for Gladiator was to make up for not winning anything for L.A. Confidential and The Insider.

        • You're probably right but this business of awarding Oscars to make up for ones not received or holding Oscars for a sequel so that you can reward the entire series is nonsense. Just give them out according to merit. I remember people saying long before ROTK came out that it would be nominated Best Picture and win to 'make up' for the fact that FOTR and TTT didn't win Best Picture. Well, that's a pretty risk strategy if it's true because what if ROTK stunk? What if it ruined the franchise and it couldn't
        • There's a general consensus that Crowe's award for Gladiator was to make up for not winning anything for L.A. Confidential and The Insider.

          Well, in that case maybe I was wrong... maybe Depp should get the nod because, I don't know... he gives a lot to charity, or something. ;)
    • Johnny Depp's always good, but you have to admit that all he really did with the pirate was Raul Duke with an accent and more "savvy"s. With Bill Murray, this is the first time he's actually gotten arround to playing somebody other than Bill Murray. You have to give him points for effort.

      I still want Johnny to win though, if only because finally somebody figured out that 1700s sea captains did not have perfect bleached white teeth! It's like that Val Kilmer movie where he's killing crazy zombie-lions in
    • >But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?

      Because they can't/won't nominate Gollum - there'd be too much uproar if a (even partially) CGI character won an award.
    • I really don't understand the nominations. Master and Commander was 'ok' but it hardly showed cinematic brilliance. As for Lost in Translation, well it was a "cute" film, but that was all. I agree with you about Depp, that was an excellent performance and one that made the film.

      Personally I thought that Sean Astin, Sir Ian McKellen, Bernard Hill and Andy Serkis all did excellent jobs. One problem is that a studio can only put one person from a film forward in each category for consideration.

      Serkis got t

  • by Bingo Foo (179380) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:52AM (#8100140)
    The NYT website front page, arbiter of all that is good and important, is touting the splendor and Oscar success of "Lost in Translation," so I can't imagine that any film could have done better than that one. You'd better check your facts.
    • NYT website front page has been in a state of flux all morning. The initial story was heavily centered on ROTK. We'll have to wait for evening or tomorrow to see what story(s) they decide on.

      - side note: When you have a word like "story" how do you properly signal that it might be multiple. "story(s)" or "story(ies)". I know as tempted as it is to all of you, please avoid diving into RegEx.
  • by gpinzone (531794) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:53AM (#8100149) Homepage Journal
    That's why Titanic must be the greatest movie of all time. *cough*
  • by Sebastopol (189276) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:53AM (#8100154) Homepage
    Go see "City of God" and see if you still think Peter Jackson should get best director. I definitely think TRotK deserves an oscar for Adaptation and Art Direction, but City of God was really powerful, and it was mostly kid actors.
    • Not only was it mainly young actors, all but a couple weren't actors before they were picked to appear in the film.

      That said, City of God is a movie from a long time ago that suffered from bad support. Ah, the vagaries of the near meaningless oscars...

      Anyway, I think it was visually stunning and strong, but City of God wasn't as impressive a feat of as RotK, let alone the trilogy (which is what they would be rewarding Jackson for with an oscar, rather than just this one film). If you thought City of God w
    • I saw the movie, and I still think PJ did better. Yes, City of God is mostly kid actors, but that doesn't change the facts (IMHO), that

      1) PJ did something on a scale FAR FAR larger than City of God accomplished
      2) PJ did it better, even if there are a few blunders in the script
      3) That the acting in City of God is not that good

      Yes, they are mostly kids, but they aren't that good. Better than me, certainly. A lot better. Not better than say Elijah Wood, who was ALSO a kid when production of LotR started. Not
    • Whether the content of the films was better or not, or the actors involved or any other factors for that matter was better on one or the other (long intro)......I think Peter Jackson should get the nod when you factor in all the tangible things. 1. The amount of time filming. 2. Doing them all at the same time. 3. Relying on CGI that in some cases did not even exist during initial filming. 4. Logistics. 5. And just the overall grand scale of the thing. The time and effort they put into ev
  • by gbd (242931) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:54AM (#8100176)
    hi all (george here)

    i have NO idea what the academy is SMOKING here!! god!! return of the king was about the WORST movie i saw all year!! for starters we got to the movie about ten minutes LATE because it took my god damn wife so LONG to shovel the snow out of the driveway and then when we FINALLY got there the idiot at the ticket booth did not accept the tickets i printed out from fan dango because he said that the effing NUMBER was INVALID!! god!!

    so then we get to the concession stand and this MORON puts too much butter on my popcorn which gives me gas, but that didn't matter because then my wife spilled the WHOLE god damn BAG as she was carrying it into the theater, also she spilled our sodas, god!! how can i sit for THREE HOURS without soda!! and then during the whole movie this slut in front of us was talking on her CELL PHONE about how her next door neighbor's shit zoo had just given birth to puppies, now what in the hell, PUPPIES, who effing cares!! turn off your god damn phone you hippy

    then there was this baby next to us that kept CRYING, now if you have a loud baby take some advice from me (george) and leave the god damn thing at HOME now do you got that!! have a little bit of courtesy for your fellow man now do you got that, all in all it was the worst moviegoing experience of the year and i cannot understand these nominations

    your buddy
  • Master & Commander? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by telbij (465356)
    Anyone else surprised that Master and Commander got so many nominations? I mean, the costumes and effects were great, and even the acting was decent, but all the characters felt like stereotypes. By the midpoint of the movie I was bored stiff and just waiting for more stuff to blow up (thank god he made us guys easily amused).
    • master & commander was overrated

      the cinematography was gorgeous, the cat and mouse game had potential, but the plot was flaccid... in the theatre i was in, people were sleeping through it on the opening weekend

      that's not good

      no matter what you thought of the rest of the movie, they really could have spruced up the plot, a lot

      hollywood should pay screenwriters tens of millions of dollars and spend hundreds of thousands on special effects

      unfortunately it is the reverse, and it shows in so many movies
      • I saw some people dosing off in ROTK too! Some people can't sit still through anything. Master and Commander is a fantastic movie. The plot is simple, but it has tons of subplots which make the story pop.

        I will be adding ROTK and MC to my DVD collection :)

        --Joey
    • About 45 minutes into it, I asked my wife if there was going to be any story. Her response was, "This is the story." I'm with you, it was just a horrible, boring, pointless movie.

      However, I think it does deserve the editing award, because it was well put-together.
  • Who would have thought a Jerry Bruckheimer produced Film based on a Disney Ride would have produced a nomination for best actor - but it was a brilliant Keith Richards-esque performance by Depp - well deserved - However I think Bill Murray will win the Oscar he sould have got for Rushmore [imdb.com]
    • I agree, I thought he might have an outside shot at a nomination. I watched the movie again on DVD, and I still find his performance baffling, in that he pulled off being really wierd without really coming off as too silly ...

      That said, Bill Murray will probably win, also well deserved. If Depp had gotten the supporting actor nom, he might have won.

      -Sean
  • by Speare (84249) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:58AM (#8100215) Homepage Journal

    While I gave high marks to Master and Commander for their coverage of the tiniest technical details of period naval warfare, and while I thought the foley work of the battle scenes was truly visceral, and while I enjoyed the basic setting and premise in which the characters found themselves, I was really let down by the movie.

    It's a thirty minute plot, at most. It can be summed up as "whups, I guess we fucked THAT up, but let's not let that happen again..." about five times in a row. That's it. We blundered, let's move on. Oops, again. Ouch, let's try to avoid that. And oops, we didn't think of that.

    It's like the premise behind Moby Dick. Have you read it? Incredible details, no plot. But a movie can't capture these details to a tenth of the degree that print can. You need story. You need arc. You need something to advance and change.

    • "It's like the premise behind Moby Dick. Have you read it? Incredible details, no plot. "

      Such nonsense. Of course Moby Dick has a plot; it even has several. Most superficially; Ahab, maimed in body and spiritually scarred, seeks to find in the vast expanse of ocean the great beast that took his leg and his pride and kill it. But it is about much more than that to a carefull reader. Do you think movies and books have to feature battling aliens, monsters and machine guns to have plot?

      • by tiled_rainbows (686195) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @01:33PM (#8101475) Homepage Journal
        Ahab, maimed in body and spiritually scarred, seeks to find in the vast expanse of ocean the great beast that took his leg and his pride and kill it.

        Okay, if we take out all the unneccessary blah, that's "man seeks revenge on whale"?

        That's not a plot. It's an interesting idea, but it's not a plot. A plot would be something like:

        1. Man seeks revenge on whale.
        2. So he assembles an elite team of whalers to help him.
        3. One of this elite team is an old rival of his, to whom he has not spoken since they fell out over a girl or something.
        4. Meanwhile, a bunch of evil English guys is also after this big whale.
        5. The girl whom the two main characters fell out over turns up in a tavern the day before the ship is about to leave and tells them about the dastardly English plot.
        6. She agrees to infiltrate the English bad guys by dressing up as a man and joining the crew.
        7. She can then communicate with her ex boyfriends whilst at sea, by carrier pigeon, giving them the edge in finding the elusive white whale.
        8. Unfortunately, she is found out, and the two heroes have to abandon their hunt to go rescue her. In doing so, they realise that revenge is not as important as friendship or whatever, and everyone lives happily ever after.

        Now THAT'S a plot. Unfortunately, I don't think Moby Dick went like that.
    • by jdbo (35629) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:51PM (#8100944)
      You need arc.

      Arc is not soley provided by plot; Someone missed the interplay of the 2 main characters in the film (played by Crowe and Bettany), which is central to both the books and the film.

      As for the actual plot summary, it's a painfully simple excercise to cut down most any movie in this way.

      For example, ROTK's plot can be summed up as "bunch of people try to get rid of an item that makes people turn bad. whoops, someone almost turned bad! whoops, someone did turn bad! whoops, someone almost turned bad! [repeat]."
    • Yea, that's how I felt when I left M&C. Great details, really made me not want to be a sailor, but not enough plot to compete with LOTR. Some may say that PJ just took a great story and put it on film, but it was still a huge undertaking.
  • Upset (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FortKnox (169099) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:58AM (#8100226) Homepage Journal
    I'm a bit upset that Sean Astin didn't get nominated for best supporting role (I didn't care if he won or not, but he should have been at least nominated).

    On the bright side, RoTK got the Golden Globe for best picture, so maybe the oscars will take not and follow suit?
  • Irony is... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cutriss (262920) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:59AM (#8100238) Homepage
    Irony is Disney getting nominated for Best Original Screenplay for Finding Nemo [bbc.co.uk]...

    And truthfully, while it was another exceptional movie for Pixar, I didn't find it all that entertaining. Give me Monsters Inc. or a Miyazaki movie any day.
    • I don't find it ironic at all. Considering that the film was finished by the time book came out [msn.com] and that time spent in pre- and post-production had to total several years, I think this is just a coincidence. Not unlike other coincindences (armageddon and deep impact, thin red line and saving private ryan, da vinci code and the other book that's just like it). The biggest point the guy makes is that the clown fish has a parent killed at the beginning of the story. Isn't that the driving point for almost
  • No cinematography? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Patik (584959) * <cpatik@NOspAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:02PM (#8100269) Homepage Journal
    Of all categories, I expected to seem them nominated (and win) in this one. The cinematography was easily the best I've seen in years. Without that ROTK wouldn't be nearly as good -- it added to the tone tremendously.
  • by larry bagina (561269) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:05PM (#8100310) Journal
    Who cares about rich movie stars and their MPAA-sanctioned award show? What slashdot needs in an award for those overpaid, underappreciated editors.


    I propose: The Eddies!


    Which editor is most in need of a spell checker? Which one obviously doesn't read the front page? Whom would you most like sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?


    Post your nominations here!

  • by clausiam (609879) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:05PM (#8100311)
    That was one area where I was sure ROtK (or in fact the whole trilogy) was going to win.
  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:06PM (#8100330)
    10. Biggest scifi/fantasy genre movie WITHOUT a character that looks like the Oscar statue (Bye, C-3PO!)
    9. Best performance by mountain beacons
    8. Biggest elephants
    7. Best Evil Lighthouse in any movie in all of 2003.
    6. The National Cherry Tomato Board would like to make sure that John Noble is nominated for best actor for his work as Denethor.
    5. "Most Costumed Geeks in Theatre since Star Trek 6"
    4. Best use of recycled pointed ears left over from collapsed "Star Trek" franchise.
    3 rings for the elven kings
    2. Best title ripped off from that of 3rd "Star Wars" film.
    1. Those cheesy green ghosts didn't get nominated for "Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion". Let's nominate them for their ROTK cameo instead.
  • Samwise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fr0dicus (641320) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:09PM (#8100373) Journal
    Very disappointed that Sean Astin (sp?) didn't get a nomination for best support. I haven't seen anyone play a role as well as that for a long time - certainly better than some of the lead actor nominations!
  • by Robotech_Master (14247) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:13PM (#8100410) Homepage Journal
    ...is that Sean Astin was passed over for Best Supporting Actor. After his turn in RotK--particularly the scenes on the slope of Mt. Doom--he really deserved at least the nomination. I can't believe they left him out.
  • Note (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cubicledrone (681598) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:15PM (#8100438)
    No anime in the best animated picture category. Nemo will win, allowing Disney another "me too" moment at the Oscars.

    Meanwhile, anime yawns and breaks the $4 billion mark.

    Disney's response? Brother Bear.

    That about wraps it up.
  • Johnny Depp!! A Keith Richards-inspired glam rocking pirate, going purposefully over the top for every line reading. And he gets the nomination. This is much more monumental than the 13 noms for ROTK.

    And where is the love for Peter Sarsgaard for Shattered Glass? Easily the best performance (lead or supporting) of the year.

    • Yeah, I was kind of surprised Saarsgard didn't get a Supporting Actor nomination, too. Especially since he won the Village Voice Critics Poll by a long shot.

      FYI, for those who don't know, the Village Voice is a New York weekly, founded by Norman Mailer back in the 60's. It's one of the largest critic's polls around, and is mostly composed of critics from alternative/indie newpapers and magazines.

  • ...for Sean Astin? :-(

    oh well, the Oscars are full of sh*t anyway.
  • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:25PM (#8100578) Journal
    ... Annie Hall will win best picture. Get over it.
  • by AndroidCat (229562) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:27PM (#8100610) Homepage
    I was disappointed that this movie had nothing to do with Gary Larson.
  • Cold Mountain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 3Suns (250606) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:28PM (#8100631) Homepage
    It's interesting that they basically ignored Cold Mountain... when it came out everyone was crying "Oscar bait!" I mean, if a decent Civil War epic love story, featuring a host of Academy Award winners and nominees, directed by the same man as a previous Best Picture, and released by Miramax can't even get nominated, what does that say about the Academy? Maybe they aren't so shallow after all...
  • by MissMarvel (723385) * on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:37PM (#8100762) Journal
    For the first 20 years of Oscar's history it was traditional for the Best Director and Best Picture Oscars to be awarded to the same film.

    Then in 1948, they split for the first time with the Best Director Oscar going to John Huston for "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and Best Picture going to "Hamlet".

    Since 1948 the two Oscars have split only 11 more times in the 75 years of Oscar's history. The past 20 years have seen only 4 splits.

    This year I suspect there will again be a split with Peter Jackson being awarded the Best Director Oscar and "Lost in Translation" getting Best Picture. There's no way they will allow Jackson's achievement on his 3 fabulous LOTR movies to go unrecognized, but I think it's generally thought that "Lost in Translation" is the better film. So it would seem reasonable they'll split the awards in an effort to recognize both films.

    Only time will tell.
  • spellbound?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iamjoel (560517)
    usually I could care less about award shows like this, but I am sincerely outraged that a masterpiece of a documentary like Spellbound doesn't even get NOMINATED for an award. I found that movie to be the most dramatic, suspenseful, and real movie I saw in ALL of 2003 - and it didn't get a nod for best documentary.

    absolutely ridiculous.
  • Why are there no nominations for Kill Bill Pt1? Are they waiting for this year's Pt2? It was my fav of 2003 and its cinematography, music, and even acting are top notch.:)
  • by millia (35740) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:56PM (#8101003) Homepage
    if i recall, songs nominated for best song have to be created specifically for a film.

    'triplets of belleville' is stretching that. i love the song, but it's a really heavy rip of an old Django Reinhardt song. it's plainly obvious.

    so in other words, if you're making a song for a film, we'll reward you if you 'borrow' a tune cleverly. (and i would think his song was still under copyright, too.) but if you want to paint disney figures on a nursery wall, forget it.

    i realize i'm comparing apples and oranges, but hopefully, you see the point. hypocrisy lives, here as elsewhere...
  • by millia (35740) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @01:04PM (#8101085) Homepage
    I almost submitted this the other day, when the preview trailer showed up at Pixar.

    Obviously, it's showed up on screen sometime in LA before the end of last year- but does anybody have any information on where/when it's going to be used next?

    Hopefully, we don't have to wait until the Incredibles to see it.
  • Sean Astin? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tommck (69750) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @01:06PM (#8101114) Homepage
    What I want to know, is how can Sean Astin (Sam) NOT be up for Best Supporting Actor!? He did a phenomenal job in that film. Heck... Sean's also a member of the Academy... figured he might be able to pull some strings...

  • OK, I speak for every red-blooded male when i say she's f***ing amazing. Everyone seen Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation? No? Go see them :) Seriously though, she was by far my actress of the year... this one will go far.

God is real, unless declared integer.

Working...