Return of the King Leads Oscar Nominations 412
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."
Roger Ebert's Preliminary Picks (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Is it just me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple vs. Epic (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad that the Oscars are nominating directors who are working from such completely different directions, but both achieving such brilliant results.
yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Master & Commander? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Roger Ebert's Preliminary Picks (Score:5, Interesting)
Curse of the Black Pearl (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (Score:3, Interesting)
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, but a lot of it is shot from afar so it's not right in your face. Definately one of my favourite films in recent years.
Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Best director? Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 by a long shot.
Also, while City of God tells a powerful story, so does RotK, and RotK is (again IMHO) a much more powerful story, and it is done better. Maybe this is because of the money they could throw at it, but that doesn't change the fact, that PJ has been able to keep more balls in the air than any other director - and that he didn't drop any of them, even if one of them was an at times bad script.
Put that in your hat and smoke it
Note (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, anime yawns and breaks the $4 billion mark.
Disney's response? Brother Bear.
That about wraps it up.
nominations no one is talking about (Score:2, Interesting)
And where is the love for Peter Sarsgaard for Shattered Glass? Easily the best performance (lead or supporting) of the year.
No CINEMATOGRAPHY Nom? (Score:1, Interesting)
Lost in translation, WKW redone (Score:3, Interesting)
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, start with Chungking Express. Very similar, with a greater sense of fun- a different kind of cool though. More leather jackets and sunglasses, than NY east village a la Lost in translation.
spellbound?! (Score:2, Interesting)
absolutely ridiculous.
fair use: just for us, not for you. (Score:3, Interesting)
'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...
Boundin' - the next Pixar short. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
What about FX? (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Puhleaze. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:What about FX? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:RotK vs. Lost in Translation (Score:2, Interesting)
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Academy usually likes people to pay their dues before winning their Oscars. I mean, Spielberg had to wait until Schindler's List before he won: no Jaws, no CE3K, no E.T., no 1942 :).
Coppola isn't likely to win until she makes her next great movie. IMO.
No, the Academy are STILL a bunch of elitist idiot (Score:2, Interesting)
Art Direction - THROWAWAY #1
Costume Design - THROWAWAY #2
Directing
Film Editing
Makeup - THROWAWAY #3
Music (Score) >
Music (Song) > Between them, ONE counts as THROWAWAY #4
Best Picture
Sound - THROWAWAY #5
Visual Effects - THROWAWAY #7
Writing (Adapted Screenplay) - THROWAWAY #8
Of the list of 11 nominations, only THREE are not in throwaway categories - that is to say, the crap categories the Academy came up with after the Star Wars debacle so that in the future, much-beloved films could be pointed to with a "but it won an Oscar for visual effects, we're being nice by letting you have that".
COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORING THAT WITHOUT THE ACTORS, ROTK AND LOTR IN GENERAL WOULD HAVE SUCKED.
Come on. Sean Astin's Samwise Gamgee was BRILLIANT. Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf, an incredibly difficult role to hold up to the scrutiny of those who have read the books inside and out and KNOW Gandalf, and yet he pulled it off.
Andy Serkis's Smeagol/Gollum. Three times now they have dissed him.
I would like to FUCK the ACADEMY, for being COMPLETELY FUCKING WORTHLESS AND IRRELEVANT.
Congratulations to the "winners" in the actor categories. Your "award" is only worth the chocolate that's wrapped up inside that gold foil.