Poll: Which film do you think deserves the Academy Award for "Best Picture"?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
The Lord of the Rings--The Two Towers
62.50%
10 62.50%
The Hours
6.25%
1 6.25%
Chicago
12.50%
2 12.50%
Frida
6.25%
1 6.25%
Adaptation
0%
0 0%
I don't really know the movies!
12.50%
2 12.50%
Total 16 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Oscar predictions!
#21
Quote:Originally posted by Crazy4Orlando
In total, Chicago won a whopping six Academy Awards. Confusedhades: That was probably a good movie--I've never seen it--but really? Did it deserve those six awards???

Yes, in my opinion, it did. Just as Steve Martin said, in response to all the rumors of Miramax greasing the pen-hands of voters, "They made a really good movie that a lot of people liked."

Quote:And I feel that Gangs of New York was very cheated. Daniel Day Lewis was so good in that film! :ohno: And I was almost positive that Martin Scorcese was going to win for Best Director. :roll: What does the man have to do to get an Oscar?

I was actually shocked that Scorcese didn't get the Oscar. Not that I felt he deserved it, or that Roman Polanski didn't, but rather I just figured he was due, and the Academy is known for acknowledging people (albeit late) when they are due. This was one of the few times that I actually agreed with the Academy in regards to one of the "big" awards of the night. Scorcese didn't do anything new in Gangs of New York. He is a master director already, and that's been fairly recognized worldwide for some time. But Gangs wasn't his best peice of work nor his worst. It was simply Scorcese doing what Scorcese does.

For him, it was another day at the office.

Quote:Originally posted by gilthoniel
Finally, they probably figured the "Visual Effects" award at least gives a nod to the Gollum character, although personally I think Andy Serkis should have been nominated as well.

Out of curiousity, where do you think that Serkis should have been nominated? Supporting Actor? He really doesn't fall in that category, since it really wasn't him that was on the screen. I've felt, since the question came up, that a new category was in the cooker for sure, something like "Best CGI Actor". But then again, who else would be nominated in that category? It's simply too new for Serkis, even though he will, in retrospect, be credited as breaking ground for other actors and other actor awards.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#22
Quote:Originally posted by RobRoy
I was actually shocked that Scorcese didn't get the Oscar. Not that I felt he deserved it, or that Roman Polanski didn't, but rather I just figured he was due, and the Academy is known for acknowledging people (albeit late) when they are due. This was one of the few times that I actually agreed with the Academy in regards to one of the "big" awards of the night. Scorcese didn't do anything new in Gangs of New York. He is a master director already, and that's been fairly recognized worldwide for some time. But Gangs wasn't his best peice of work nor his worst. It was simply Scorcese doing what Scorcese does.

For him, it was another day at the office.

Well, note that Randy whats-his-name, the musical composer for many animation films, was nominated a total of SEVENTEEN times before he won an Oscar for original animated feature score! :laugh:

Quote:Out of curiousity, where do you think that Serkis should have been nominated? Supporting Actor? He really doesn't fall in that category, since it really wasn't him that was on the screen. I've felt, since the question came up, that a new category was in the cooker for sure, something like "Best CGI Actor". But then again, who else would be nominated in that category? It's simply too new for Serkis, even though he will, in retrospect, be credited as breaking ground for other actors and other actor awards.

Well, I hope in a future Academy Award show, Andy Serkis does get recognized for his great work portraying the frail character in the name of Gollum. It can't be ignored!
Reply
#23
Quote:Originally posted by Crazy4Orlando
Well, I hope in a future Academy Award show, Andy Serkis does get recognized for his great work portraying the frail character in the name of Gollum. It can't be ignored!

I don't think that a lack of an Academy nomination has detracted from Serkis' efforts. Quite the opposite, because there was no where to put Serkis, he has received as much if not more recognition for his work.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#24
Was Serkis in any other films before LOTR??? :confused: I've never heard of him until FOTR & TTT. :question:
Reply
#25
Quote:Originally posted by Crazy4Orlando
Was Serkis in any other films before LOTR??? :confused: I've never heard of him until FOTR & TTT. :question:

Yes, he has quite a list of credits to his name. You can go to http://us.imdb.com/Name?Serkis,+Andy to see the list of his acting resume.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#26
Quote:Originally posted by RobRoy
Out of curiousity, where do you think that Serkis should have been nominated? Supporting Actor? He really doesn't fall in that category, since it really wasn't him that was on the screen. I've felt, since the question came up, that a new category was in the cooker for sure, something like "Best CGI Actor". But then again, who else would be nominated in that category? It's simply too new for Serkis, even though he will, in retrospect, be credited as breaking ground for other actors and other actor awards.


Well that's a tough one, but I was thinking of Supporting Actor. The character used his facial expressions, body language and voice. What was he doing if not acting?

But I definitely see your point. What was the movie about firing all the actors and using digital body doubles? It could be a slippery slope.
Reply
#27
Quote:Originally posted by gilthoniel
Well that's a tough one, but I was thinking of Supporting Actor. The character used his facial expressions, body language and voice. What was he doing if not acting?


True enough, but at the end of the day it was a CGI that did all the "acting". Granted, based on Serkis, and I don't want to dimminish the efforts that he put forth, but the character was a CGI, just like Jar Jar Binks, or the new C3PO who are all computer generated, but based, in part on the movements of their voice-actors. I can see a new category being needed in these cases, as they become more and more used, but I guess that depends on if they become more and more used.

Honestly, I don't see how CGI would ever replace live actors when they were called for. Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within showed us just how far full computer animation has come. There are scenes in that movie that look just too real. But we still pay homage to the live actors, just as we pay homage to athletes, since it's a human acheivement, and that is what's impressive.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#28
I'm looking forward though to the day when CGI is as easy as every day theatre make up, and films can make any CGI intermeshing with live acting without a serious budget strain.

I think, once cgi acting gets to the ease of live acting then we're in for some serious art! Spontinuity is the factor which CGI still lacks.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#29
moif - About what you said on making CG more common in movies like theater makeup . . . :bg: Well, if I heard correctly, while working on the film, the LOTR digital effects crew created a new program just for the film. There were many effects like teh CG character Gollum, the cave troll, etc. Perhaps this program will eventually make its way to the market.

RR & Gilthoniel - I don't think the CG thing really matters, does it? He was indeed acting and it takes great skill to pull of that character JUST by voice. If he isn't nominated in that category, where else does he belong?
Reply
#30
C4O

I hope so, because it will certainly make for some interesting films I think.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#31
I heard something about Adrien Brody--the guy that won the Best Actor Award--that he was the youngest actor to ever win an Oscar. Is this true?

P.S. Adrien Brody is 29 years old, if anyone wants to know.
Reply
#32
He is the youngest person to win the Best Actor Oscar.

Here are some nifty facts about young people and Oscars:

Youngest nominee for Best Actor: Jackie Cooper, age 9, for "Skippy" (1931/2).

Youngest nominee for Best Actress: Isabelle Adjani, age 20, for "The Story of Adele H" (1975).

Youngest winner for Best Actress: Marlee Matlin, age 21, for "Children of a Lesser God" (1986).

Youngest nominee for Best Supporting Actor: Justin Henry, age 8, for "Kramer vs Kramer" (1979).

Youngest winner for Best Supporting Actor: Timothy Hutton, age 20, for "Ordinary People" (1980).

Youngest nominee AND youngest winner for Best Supporting Actress: Tatum O'Neal, age 10, for "Paper Moon" (1973).
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction.
Reply
#33
How old was the little girl who won Supporting Actress for The Piano? I forget her name.
Reply
#34
Wasn't it Anna Pacquin??
Would you like some salsa for that chip on your shoulder? - JD, Scrubs

Asparagus Tribe Leader
Reply
#35
Quote:Originally posted by gilthoniel
How old was the little girl who won Supporting Actress for The Piano? I forget her name.


It was indeed Anna Paquin, and she was born in 1982, so she was 12 when she won for "The Piano."

Between her and Tatum O'Neal, it looks like "Best Supporting Actress" is the award to aim for if you're a pre-teen star!:bg:
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction.
Reply
#36
Who is Anna Pacquin? Could anyone post a pic or a link of her back then and now? :bg: I would be eternally grateful! :lol:
Reply
#37
Quote:Originally posted by Crazy4Orlando
Who is Anna Pacquin? Could anyone post a pic or a link of her back then and now? :bg: I would be eternally grateful! :lol:


[Image: aptp05.jpg]

This is Ms. Paquin in "The Piano."
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction.
Reply
#38
This is Ms. Paquin as an adult.

[Image: AnnaPaquin_Vespa_837236_400.jpg]
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction.
Reply
#39
Thanks, Vicki, I think I know who she is now. Recognized the name, just needed a face to go with it! :bg:
Reply
#40
Yeah, thats Anna Paquin alias Rogue in X-MEN
Man who drop watch in toilet bound to have shitty time
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  2012 Oscar Nominations - Hollywood chooses to treat Harry Potter badly FilmGuy 14 2,138 April 21st, 2012, 03:10 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Oscar Noms at First Glance: A Banner Year? RobRoy 1 353 January 22nd, 2009, 06:40 PM
Last Post: Luthien_001
  Oscar nominations...thoughts? dasher 3 636 March 1st, 2008, 03:42 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Ireland Online: Nicole Kidman's 2003 Oscar win "bittersweet" Michael 0 764 September 16th, 2007, 03:51 PM
Last Post: Michael
  'The Departed' wins best-picture Oscar RobRoy 1 526 February 27th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Last Post: dasher
  Oscar Nominations RobRoy 13 1,127 February 3rd, 2005, 10:49 PM
Last Post: Alantriel the Elf
  Oscar Picks ThePharoah 14 1,134 February 3rd, 2004, 06:52 PM
Last Post: Running Man

Forum Jump: