Oscar nominations

[Ben]

LotR leads with 13 nominations. I'm glad that in addition to the expected tech noms, it garnered the "real" Best Picture, Director, and an acting nod to McKellen.

Ian McKellen - Best Supporting Actor

Peter Jackson - Best Director

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Film

Best Film Editing

Best Costume Design

Best Cinematography

Best Art Direction

Best Makeup

Best Score

Best Song

Best Sound

Best Visual Effects


So, do you think it can beat "A Beautiful Mind"?

[LuthienTinuviel]

hmm ya think it can?

is there any truth to the rumour about if it wins any one of the awards, that FotR will be re-released with TTT footage?

i was just reading about all the nominations today, ive got a good feeling, but hey.. im partial, ain't i?

[Hapira_Brandybuck]

well.... the only real competition it has is HP and as far as credibility, HP LotR

_









_


see my point?

[jerseydevil]

I've seen A Beautiful Mind - and I think LOTR is going to have a hard time beating it.

I'm not sure if LOTR can win the top 3 oscars (Best Picture, Best Director and Best Supporting Actor). But I think LOTR has a good chance of winning the other ones though - especially visual effects, score and costuming.

[Anthy Rose]

Considering the academy seems to have something "against" sci-fi and fantasy films, it has an uphill battle for the Best Picture nod. When's the last time a film in one of these genres got the award. ::sighs::

I'm really pulling for Enya to win best song with "May It Be". That song has found a lot of playtime in my CD player.

[Renille]

I really don't know who will beat out whom. I never saw A Beautiful Mind, but my mother has, and she fell in love with it. But I feel quite sure LOTR will win something...at least I hope so. But really, is it possible to get 13 nomininations and not win anything?

[Starr Polish]

::shrug:: I think Sean Bean should have gotten a nomination as well. His acting was AMAZING...okay, I'm done.

Huzzah!

[Liviaine]

I think Viggo Mortensen deserved one too. I'm sure it'll win in the technical stuff.

[Gerbil]

I'm pretty sure there are precedents (sp?) for being nominated that many times and not winning anything.

But it is highly unlikely it that it comes away with nothing.
Which is great

Did Harry Pantser get any? How about 'longest film without a plot'? Or 'most annoying use of child actors'?

[barrelrider110]

Harry Potter got 3 noms in common with LOTR- Art Direction, Costume Design, and Music. I thought Potter Music was Pablum, probably got a nom just on John Williams rep alone. No visual effects nom either which I agree with. The VE in Potter were lame.

RE "A Beautiful Mind" I just saw it and can tell you that Russel Crowe did a terrific acting job, but I don't think the movie will win. It won Golden Globe best pic and GG winners rarely win Oscars. I thought LOTR had flaws but was a better overall achievement than "Mind." Didn't see any of the other contenders.

[jerseydevil]

gerbil -

I liked HP. I know that you didn't even see it -because you got into an argument with HOBBIT in another thread over that very issue, so you really have nothing to base your statements on.

Emma Watson was awesome as Hermione and Danielle Radcliffe was great as Harry and Rupert Grint made a great Ron Weasley. All the actors that played the teachers were great too. Also - I'd hate to say it - but Richard Harris as Dumbledore played a MUCH BETTER Gandalf than Ian McKellen.

Also there was a plot to the movie - which was for Harry Potter to prevent Lord Valdemort from getting the Sorcerer's Stone, thus preventing him from regaining his strength and living forever.

[barrelrider110]

Dear Jersey Devil,
I saw HP too, and liked it, although it didn't hold a candle to LoTR, particularly in visual effects or music (I listen to both soundtracks often).

Gandalf in Fellowship and Dumbledore in Sorcerer's Stone were similar characters that played different roles. Where Dumbledore is more an observer, Gandalf is an active participant. In short, McKellen had much more work to do, and comparing the two performances is like... comparing Hobbits and Dwarves.

I too thought also that Richard Harris would have made a better Gandalf than McKellen, but only because I was more familiar with him. After seeing LoTR I was pleasantly surprised. I thought Sir Ian did an outstanding job as Gandalf, worthy of an Oscar, and practically nailed the essence of Gandalf the Grey. It will be interesting to see his performance in TT and ROTK, because the character of Gandalf has undergone a subtle change.

P.S. I live in South Jersey, birthplace of the legend of the Jersey Devil. You a Piney?

[aldesign]

WOOOOOOOOT nominations are classy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cant wait till we get at least 9 of them in our Entmoot trophy cupboard

[Gerbil]

I liked HP. I know that you didn't even see it -because you got into an argument with HOBBIT in another thread over that very issue, so you really have nothing to base your statements on.

I do love it when someone accuses me of something, and by the very act of accusing me makes themselves guilty of pretty much the same thing

Go back and re-read the thread since it appears relying on your memory isn't such a good idea.

I HAVE seen the film.
I HAVE NOT read the books.

Nor, from the film, do I have any desire to read the books.

Emma Watson was awesome as Hermione

Yup she was cute, although a little too young even for my tastes

and Danielle Radcliffe was great as Harry and Rupert Grint made a great Ron Weasley.

Really? I found them to be stereotypical to the extreme, amazingly badly acted (even for child actors), and quite simply annoying.
Daniel was the most stupid looking and wooden actor I've ever yet to see, and Rupert was playing a role that even Charles Dickens would have balked at for cockney twatness.
If they accurately portrayed the characters in the book then I am indeed glad I haven't read them.

All the actors that played the teachers were great too.

Nope, they were merely satisfactory, and didn't get much screen time anyway. The old woman teacher was very good, but then again she's a class above the rest anyway.

Also - I'd hate to say it - but Richard Harris as Dumbledore played a MUCH BETTER Gandalf than Ian McKellen.

Then don't, because you are wrong. At least, you would be if I understood your point. Dumbledore was a better Gandalf? Que?

Also there was a plot to the movie

Yes, there was. Eventually. The plot itself would have fitted nicely into a half hour, although it would still need padding.
As I understand, a lot of the film was spent building up characters, history etc. - the plot is really minimal. The characters were NOT built up, the history was non-existant (bar maybe a teeny-tiny bit about Harry's past) and the plot so simple and at the end stupid (they had nothing to worry about because anyone who searches for the stone couldn't find it!) it was just boring.

All in all HP was not bad, it simply wasn't good. It was too long, effects were minimal and mostly average, the plot was bad, the cast were annoying (apart from whom I mentioned earlier and the good Robbie Coltrane who rocked in his part), and I left feeling the best thing about the film was the Lord of the Rings trailer at the start

[jerseydevil]

No - central New Jersey, by Princeton. But I did live on the shore on the edges of the pine barrens in Bricktown by Pt Pleasant. And I do go through the Pine Barrens a lot to go to Seaside, Atlantic City or Cape May. Maybe one of these days I'll get to camp out in them.

See I didn't like Gandalf in the movie at all. A lot had to do with the script as to why I didn't like Gandalf though - he came off as a weak bumbling old man most of the times - including trying to push the Gates of Moria inward - when they opened outward. Not to mention that he was talked down to by Elrond and he acted like a whipped dog walking with his tail tucked between his legs begging for his master's forgiveness when he was walking in Isengard with Saruman - before the ridiculous and laughable wizards duel.

I just think that the Richard Harris' Dumbeldore was more wise than the way Gandalf was portrayed.

[Gerbil]

Must admit, there's things I don't like about Gandalf in the film, but much of it is only evident from having read the book.
Also, none of the characters are perfect but I can deal with it.

Once again it all boils down to it being a film and PJ's adaptation.
It's NOT the books, and in some ways I've found having read the books is detrimental to seeing and understanding the film, but at the end of the day, I love the books and the film for different reasons.

Which makes me lucky, since there seem to be so many who don't.

I wonder how many people after having seen the film went and read the book for the first time and mentally are criticising Tolkien for not sticking to the book

[jerseydevil]

Then i am sorry for having accused you of not seeing the movies. I didn't feel like looking up the thread to check.

If you were bored with the movie then you should have walked out of the theater.

I also was not basing Emma Watson's performance on her looks - I'm not shallow (I hope you weren't basing it on her looks since she was 10 while she was filming). I thought she played Hermione really well and was funny. And true Rupert Grint did have some rough edges - but he had never even been in a movie before or on TV.

I will continue to say that Richard Harris's Dumbledore would have made a better Gandalf than the way Gandalf was portrayed in LOTR.

Okay - half the movie is about setting up the characters - but once they discover that someone is trying to get to Sorcerer's Stone (which happens soon after arriving in Hogwarts) - it's a mystery that they're trying to solve. I was sort of disappointed that the beginning was rushed through and that the ending was happy. I wanted HP to end with Harry being dragged back to his miserable life at the Dursley's. Instead of the Hollywood feel good ending that it has.

I thought it was a pretty good film. I can't even say whether I like it more or less than LOTR - because they are different films GEARED toward DIFFERENT audiences. I'm very disappointed with LOTR - I don't care if it did get best picture nomenation - which I don't think it will win against A Beautiful mind. What bothers me more is that it got noimenated for best adapted screen play.

At least with HP I got to know the charatcers a little better. There were a few minor characters that weren't fleshed out and I kept forgetting who they were in the movie - even though I had read the book twice.

[jerseydevil]

Well I'm looking at the movie from both sides. Just because it's Jackson's "adaptation" doesn't mean that I have to accept his changes and praise the movie. I didn't hate LOTR - I thought it was a good action adventure movie, which is the same way my friends that have not read the books view it. Not everyone is running out to the bookstore to read the books.

From a lot of the posts I've read people just are happy that the movie got made. It could have almost have been anything and just the fact that it is Lord of the Rings makes it a great movie. If I was Christopher Tolkien and I had seen the script - I would probably have been against it being made too. I don't care if it was nominated Best Picture or not.

[Gerbil]

If you were bored with the movie then you should have walked out of the theater.

Ah, but that doesn't make sense to me - the ends of films are usually the good bits. No point on walking out and missing what might be a great film. Also, I am a bit of a fantasy fan as well as a CGI fan. Both reasons that made me want to see the film. In the end I was disappointed, but I've not yet walked out of a film yet (came close watching Deep Blue Sea though - it's AWFUL!).

I also was not basing Emma Watson's performance on her looks - I'm not shallow (I hope you weren't basing it on her looks since she was 10 while she was filming).

She's cute
Heh, I just have certain reputations to play up to - if I hadn't come across as a pervert I'd have had FrodoFriend complaining
I actually did like her character - she'll make a great stroppy stuck up woman when she's older. Which of course for the adults is the point - they get to see something they recognise as an adult trait. Unlike Harry 'low-IQ' Potter and errr...... the cockney git who is just plain annoying. Oh and while I'm on it, the 'evil' boy couldn't have been more stereotyped if they'd tried. They were so OBVIOUS - everything they said and did you could see coming a mile off. This was why to me the film had no suspense and was ultimately boring.

And true Rupert Grint did have some rough edges - but he had never even been in a movie before or on TV.

Then what is he doing in the film? Sorry - that's a casting mistake, pure and simple.

I will continue to say that Richard Harris's Dumbledore would have made a better Gandalf than the way Gandalf was portrayed in LOTR.

I think this one I'm happy to accept is down to personal taste
I think IM was fantastic - and the fact he was dumbed down slightly is a fault of the script, not his acting ability. Roll on TTT and RotK when he should get some serious meat to play with.

I wanted HP to end with Harry being dragged back to his miserable life at the Dursley's. Instead of the Hollywood feel good ending that it has.

How does the book end?

I'm very disappointed with LOTR - I don't care if it did get best picture nomenation

It's not perfect, I'm quite happy to admit. But I think that the only way to stop people being disappointed in a film of LotR is simply to not make it - when something is so close to so many peoples' hearts, you'll never be able to get it 100% right for everyone.

What bothers me more is that it got noimenated for best adapted screen play.

True, it's one of the more unlikely awards it's up against, but because I want the films to be a success, I'm happy to take it having a bit of fortuitious luck in some of the nominations

[jerseydevil]

Well the films are made anyway - so irregardless of whether they even were nominated for an Oscar - it's too late. It's not like the standard sequel (since it isn't a sequel) where the studio first sees how the first film makes out at the box office to determine whether the others will be made. The movie studios don't really care that much about the Oscar, they do of course - mostly for advertising purposes, but not as much as the bottom line. Since I saw LOTR 6 times - I don't think they'll be complaining even if they come away with none - except for maybe visual effects - which I think they deserve.

I think a little bit less of Jackson's vision replacing Tolkiens - would have been nice. I am aware that you can't make a movie verbatum from a book - but there really is not much left that Jackson didn't change - other than the underlying plot of taking the Ring to Mordor. Look at Aragorn - Jackson completely "adapted" or "interpreted" his character into a whimp that has abandoned his heritage.

I am hoping that Gandalf does become more of the wise wizard in TT. If he's still making those STUPID faces I'll scream. I did point out, in a post above, that my problems with Ian McKellan was mostly because of the script and probably director/direction. Actaully I think my whole problem is with the script. Every problem I have is with that. The acting was great in the movie, the scenery, the special effects, the music.

I did figure your perverted comment about Emma Watson was directed at FrodoFriend. I just felt the need to point out that she was ONLY 10 when she filmed HP.

ENDING FOR HP: after the train arrives in London, Harry's uncle meets him at the train station and drags him back to the car and won't even say anything to Ron or Hermione or their family. The movie ends too happy in my view. I wanted them to show that Harry may have been everything at Hogwarts - but at home he still does not have a life or anyone to talk to and is basically lonely.