Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by chung_sotheby, Dec 12, 2002.
As reported by E! Online:
I think you're confused.
Those aren't the official nominations. Those are the films that have been submitted for consideration. I believe any film can be submitted for consideration by it's producers.
While I enjoyed 8CN, I certainly don't expect to hear it's named called when the official noms are announced.
Joel, I know that they are not the official nominees, but I would hope that the Academy would at least be selective of which movies to consider for an Academy Award nomination. I just don't think that a movie which may just be the worst or the year should be considered for an award of artistic (not technical) merit just because it is animated.
I think the fact the artists like Kubrick, Hitchcock, Malick, Altman, Tarkovsky, Godard, Lynch, Antonioni and Scorsese have never won an Academy Award (excluding lifetime achievement) is proof enough that we shouldn't take the Oscars as seriously as we do.
Any film having its official US premiere during the 2002 calendar year is considered to be "in consideration" for Oscar nominations. So if we're going to get pissed, might as well be pissed that looking mathematically, Jackass has just as much chance of a nomination as The Two Towers or Far From Heaven, since they're both at this point "in consideration". "In consideration" doesn't mean anything yet. It never does.
And what's with all the Academy-bashing anyway? So what if films you don't like garner awards while films you like get nothing. You still like the film, don't you? All this bitching about the Academy being incompetent buffoons doesn't make one look too glorious if you're going to spend year after year calling them stupid, yet poring over their results. That's like willingly covering your hand in dog shit, then endlessly complaining about the smell. It's just a bunch of peoples' opinions, and theirs differ from yours. Let it go, and don't look for justification as to why you like a movie. If you like a film based simply on the awards it garners, you've got the wrong idea in the first place.
IMHO, as always.
I don't understand what the big deal is either. These are films that are eligible to be nominated in the Best Animated Film category. All films that are eligible to be nominated are considered regardless of whether they are good or not.
Right. If you did an exhaustive list of what was eligible for every other award, you'd find Sweet Home Alabama, Swept Away, etc.
Of course, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Metropolis being missing. Did it play LA in late '01 or something?
Guess what? Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo was eligible for a Best Picture Oscar.
Don't mean it's gonna happen.
BTW didn't Kubrick win a Special Effects Oscar for 2001?
Geez. It's bad enough when voters forget about movies released early in the year, but when the studio does...
What the hell happened to 'Waking Life' last year? Was it not submitted for consideration?
It's a lot more of a film than frickin' "Jimmy Neutron"
So, they should make the only ones eligible that are the best?
Clearly, most of these will be taken off at first sight...
I'm pretty sure the 3 nominations will go to Spirited Away, Mutant Aliens, and Lilo and Stitch will be the final results.
Spirited Away will likely be the winner, too.
I think that article provides a big clue as to the problem:
If the category only gets three nominations, I think it will go to:
Lilo & Stitch (Disney)
Ice Age (Fox)
Not my personal choices but a gut feeling.
I read about it this morning. Since there were 17 qualifying films (double last year) that there will be 5 nominations this year.
The ridiculous thing about it is that 'Stuart Little 2' is eliglible for an animated oscar. Even though it blends live action and digital anaimation, the rules state that 75% of the film has to have animation (digital or cel) to qualify. Than means that 'Attack of the Clones' could be eligible. Weird.
The Yahoo Story