[MichaelPe]

Quote:

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Amelie is a better film than No Man's Land?

Suggesting? What gave you that idea?

[Steve Christou]

Oh the no! Why is Atack of Clones? I thot it was best movie of 2003! Only got the noms for Bes effecs? Hey? Comon the acting wos fantassic! Und the scriped was one of Lucases bestest! Aaargh I hait the Acamedy Awards!!

Wow! Two Towers nominated for Best Picture eh? It won't win ofcourse but I'm still ecstatic!! I hope Jackson makes it a hat-trick and gets a special AA in 2004, come on he deserves it!! As for the suggestion that the Rings trilogy has so many talented people working on it that the director hardly matters, ooooh [grinds teeth], control, must learn control... all I'll say is Peter Jackson IS the Lord of the Rings, nuff said!

[Adam Lenhardt]

I can't tell if the spelling errors are a rather bizzare attack on the AOTC script or if they're just the way you type. My apologizes if the latter.

[Tim Glover]

Thinking the same thing Adam. either that or he has had waaaaaay too much Star Wars blue milk.

[Nick Sievers]

I think its just Steve being his joking self.....I mean that in the nicest way of course.

I assumed he was making fun of some of the fan boys you might find over at AICN talkback etc.

[Glenn_Jn]

John C Reilly appears in 3 of the films nominated for Best Film The Hours, Chicago & Gangs Of New York. Is this a record?

[Seth Paxton]

Quote:

That depends on how you define "director for hire". Arguably that's what Stephen Daldry was on The Hours -- which doesn't diminish his work one iota.

In fact I would cite The Hours as exactly the sort of film with just workable direction, yet an outstanding film due to a great script and some incredible performances. Daldy does good work, but I don't think the film distiguishes itself via the direction at any point.


And I'm not saying that just anyone could have made TTT, though much of what you guys attribute to PJ is NOT his direction, but rather his CHOICES for people around him. That is more his efforts in the PRODUCTION arena, not direction.

I think his vision as a director IS STRONG. I'm not defending him being left out of the 5 best direction efforts. I'm talking IN GENERAL, that a great film can be great without great direction. And again I would point to The Hours. Heck I think Payne's direction is good, but not great, yet I think his writing on Schmidt is outstanding (a very strong point) and the acting rises to that challenge.

I wasn't even all that impressed with the DIRECTION by Polanski. I like the film even if I didn't love it like others, but I don't know that I felt that it was Polanski's direction that was creating my feelings about the film.


Whereas in 25th Hour Spike Lee picks an incredible shot looking over the heads of 2 of his characters down onto the WTC site and creates a symbolic duality between Norton's destroyed life (as his friends discuss it) and the WTC destruction. That is taking some good dialog and good acting and giving it so much more with a director's touch.

Payne and Polanski both slip in a few of those moments, but they appear to be much less frequent than Lee is putting in. For me the toughest thing to seperate from direction is editing and cinematography, not Best Pix.

[Arman]

Richard Gere is really good in Chicago but the Academy did the right thing of not nominating him. He has no place in both the Best Actor & Best Supporting Categories.

If they had nominated Gere, it would be really be a very painful campaign for the Chicago to ask the Academy voters for a clean sweep of the major awards. Richard Gere winning over Nicholson in About Schmidt or Nicholas Cage in Adaptation. or Michael Caine in The Quite American or Day-Lewis in GONY. :lol: If there are actors that have decent chances as to being nominated in Best Actor, they are Derek Luke in Antwone Fisher, DiCaprio for Catch Me If You Can and Sam Rockwell for Confessions of A Dangerous Mind.

[Seth Paxton]

Quote:

As for the suggestion that the Rings trilogy has so many talented people working on it that the director hardly matters,

First, I never said the director "hardly" matters. I said that the idea that great films must mean the best direction is a total misunderstanding of how much the verb "direction" covers.

Clearly none of you have watched all the EE. I for one can truly picture that version of the Bilbo scene as acted by Peter in pre-production as being an Oscar nominated version as well.

What's that, it's not the same without Holm, McKellan, Shore, Lesnie, the costumes, the art direction, the sound? Bullshit, that scene is being directed by PJ and stars PJ, and PJ IS LOTR. So clearly that scene, as is, would have still received an Oscar nom and would have still left FOTR as the best film of the year.


Sorry, I can't agree. While its interesting to see them working out the script and shooting style, clearly PJs acting is crap and without all the effects, costumes, score the scene just is not the same in the least. Not from the idea of classic filmmaking at least.

And PJ could be up for many other catagories anyway, which tells you that while PJ is a big part of what LOTR is, it's not JUST because of his direction. It's because he is doing SO MANY OTHER THINGS in the production. But you don't give Spike Lee a best director because you liked his portrayal of a character in the film...that's what a Best Actor nom would be for.

PJs direction was very good, his overall effort outstanding. But the idea that direction is linked perfectly to the outcome of a film makes little sense and totally spits on the efforts of hundreds of other filmmakers.

Another example would be to get out your Signs DVD and check out MNS early monster film and then honestly tell me that you think that film would make $200m were it to be released.

Great dialog, great costumes, great score, great editing, great cinematography can all make a better even if the direction isn't up to the task itself.

[Brian W.]

Quote:

Unless they reversed their decision I believe the Oscars no longer feature the performances of Best Song.

Oh, dear God, if that were only true! But that's the first I've heard of it -- I'm pretty sure they sang them last year, but thankfully in a medley.

What I said early about TTT being unusual in getting a BP nom and no director, writing, or acting noms... The last film to achieve this that was ELIGIBLE for acting noms was Jaws in 1975! Beauty and the Beast did it, but of course it wasn't going to get any acting nominations, so it's not quite in the same league as the others.

Actually, prior to 1970, this wasn't all that uncommon. In fact, in 1962, three of the five BP nominees had no other major nominations, just technical noms.

So, for your amusement and delight , here is the complete list of Best Picture nominees from 1944 on (when the BP noms were cut down from 10 to 5 -- prior to that it was 10 BP noms and 5 director noms) to receive a Best Picture nomination but no directing, writing, or acting nominations:

Jaws (1975)
Hello, Dolly! (1969)
Dr. Dolittle (1967)
The Longest Day (1962)
The Music Man (1962)
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)
The Ten Commandments (1956)
Three Coins in the Fountain (1954)
Ivanhoe (1952)
Decision Before Dawn (1951)
King Solomon's Mines (1950)