[Jason Seaver]

Quote:

i don't understand how you can remove the director from the rest of the equation. saying the hours was a great film despite the director is absurd. its decisions by the director, in every aspect of the film, which makes the film great. the script by itself is just a script. the actors by themselves are just actors. the director is what brings it all together and makes the hard decisions which ultimately effect how the film feels, flows and plays itself out.

I don't think Seth is saying the director is unimportant, or can be "removed from the equation". However, the idea of crediting the director with sole credit for how good/bad a movie is equally absurd.

You say "the script by itself is just a script". But it may be such a good script that a director merely has to be reasonably competent to make a great movie. And shouldn't the producer get some credit for recognizing that the director was a good fit for the material, assembling the cast, and doing all the administrative work that makes it possible for the director to do his job?

[Matt Stone]

Good post Jason

[Stevan Lay]

Not sure whether this question has been raised but is the Academy seriously considering on giving an award to Donald Kaufman if Adaptation. happens to win for Best Adapted Screenplay category

[Jason Seaver]

Well, hasn't the alias the Coens used to use as their editor ("Roderick Jayne"?) been a potential Oscar candidate before?

[TheLongshot]

Quote:

and the Bryan Adams treacle that marred the otherwise excellent Spirit: Stallion Of The Cimarron

Thank god for that. All those songs ruined the film for me.

It does get a little disappointing that songs that were written before films were made are ineligible when they are used for good effect in a film. I felt that way with "Come What May" in Moulin Rouge last year, to give an example. I know there are more, but I can't think of them right now...

Jason

[Julian Lalor]

The Academy has confirmed only one Oscar will be awarded if Adaptation wins for Best Screenplay.

As for Jackson's failure to be nominated for Best Director, but TTT being nominated for Best Picture, it has to be remembered that only members of the Academy who are film directors nominate the Best Director candidates whereas the whole Academy nominates for Best Picture. Obviously, the directors had a slightly different viewpoint to the general membership overall. Pretty much every year at least one of the films nominated for Best Picture fails to receive a Best Director nomination, alhough the last one to win Best Picture was Driving Miss Daisy.

[Brian W.]

I do think three things probably hurt Jackson this year:

One, he didn't campaign. I'm sure he's probably learned his lesson on that one now.

Two, he shot all three films at once, so there may be a fair number of people out there who think, "Why should we nominate him again for what is essentially the same film?" I think that hurt a LOT in the technical categories.

Three, from what I've read, many people in Hollywood assume that Return of the King is the picture to beat next year. It would not surprise me if a fair number of the director's branch thought, "A nomination for Jackson next year is a given. I'm gonna give someone else a chance this year and vote for Jackson next year."

[Brian W.]

Actually, there's a whole article about the TTT lack of major nominations in the Hollywood Reporter today:

Quote:

WHAT CAUSED 'TOWERS' TO FALL?

Feb. 12, 2003

By Josh Spector and Sheigh Crabtree

It made more money and received better reviews than its prequel, but on Oscar nomination morning, it came up with less than half the nominations its precursor garnered last year.

New Line's "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" received just six Oscar nominations, falling well short of the 13 noms that "The Fellowship of the Ring" earned last year and making it statistically unlikely that "Towers" will match even the four Oscars that the first "Rings" took home.

" 'Two Towers' was a bigger commercial and critical success than 'Fellowship of the Ring,' but it has received less nominations," executive producer Mark Ordesky said. "Is there a bit of a middle-child syndrome? It's hard to tell."

But before angry fans storm the Academy like a hollering army of orcs, it may be necessary to advance a few theories:

o Repeat business: The clearest factor in the "Towers" nomination dropoff was decisions made by the hair and makeup and music branches of the Academy. Both branches, which honored the first film with Oscars last year, viewed Richard Taylor's hair and makeup efforts and Howard Shore's musical composition as extensions of the first film and therefore not worthy of additional recognition.

"We are disappointed that we were not recognized in the makeup category because some people felt that the makeup was the same as in the first film," "Rings" producer Barrie Osborne said. "That opinion seems uninformed at best."

Osborne pointed out that in addition to the many new characters introduced in "Towers," even many of the returning characters like Gandalf have a different look in the film.

But many members of the hair and makeup branch argued that the majority of work in "Towers" was an extension of the first film. Because the film's three installments were shot simultaneously, they contend, singular makeup applications could be photographed multiple times. Looking for outstanding innovation as their litmus test, they contend that "Towers" did not represent a huge leap forward from what the first film achieved.

As for Shore, the composer wrote 160 minutes of new music for "Towers." But, Shore said, he was notified by the Academy earlier this season that his latest effort would not be eligible for Oscar consideration under a new rule proposed by the music branch of the Academy that would prohibit sequels as being derivative rather than original.

Even some other technical nominees were surprised by the lack of love the Academy showed "Towers."

"It's a weird omission," said Colleen Atwood, costume designer for "Chicago." "Who knows how these things happen?"

"The film does a tremendous service to the motion picture industry," said Chris Boyes, nominated for best sound for "Towers," his second nomination for his work on the trilogy. "Film 2 is more complex than Film 1, and Film 3 is the most complex yet. Being acknowledged for various categories is very important, but regardless of the amount of nominations this year, this movie will last a lifetime. People will be watching 'Lord of the Rings' 200 years from now."

o Campaign interruptus: While New Line supported the film, Jackson himself stayed on the sidelines, forgoing the full-fledged campaigning in which he engaged last year. Instead, he focused on finishing "The Return of the King," the final installment in the trilogy, in New Zealand.

"The campaigning Peter (Jackson) did last year really put us way behind on 'The Two Towers,' " executive producer Mark Ordesky said. "Obviously, it turned out not to hurt the second film, but it made our year of working on it extremely difficult."

Still, fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski -- a far more controversial figure than Jackson -- earned a nomination for "The Pianist" without setting foot on U.S. soil. And Jackson's lack of flesh-pressing didn't prevent him from landing a DGA nomination.

o Better luck next year: Yet a third theory advanced early this Oscar season by one rival campaign -- arguably eager to sideline "Towers" -- was that the Academy would inevitably wait until next year to reward the entire "Rings" trilogy all at once.

"I suspect that is so, which is unfortunate because Peter and everyone that worked on ('Towers') did such a tremendous job," Osborne said. "Each film in this trilogy is quite an achievement."

Ordesky, however, discounted that theory.

"I'm not sure I believe that," he said, preferring to focus on the film's best picture nomination rather than the nominations it didn't receive. "This has been a six-year odyssey of work, and it is unbelievably gratifying to reap these rewards. These films continue to exceed our highest expectations, and this is just another vote of confidence for the third film."

Added Osborne: "The thing about doing a trilogy is that we have found that each film becomes exponentially more difficult to pull off. Peter and everyone that worked on this film did such a tremendous job, and each film in this trilogy is quite an achievement."

[Malcolm R]

a fair number of people out there who think....

a fair number of the director's branch thought....

This is what's wrong with the Oscars. Voters are thinking too much. The ONLY consideration that should be given ANY weight is whether or not the effort/performance is one of the five best of the year. What happened last year, or what might happen next year, should have no bearing at all.

It also disgusts me that, by and large, any film released prior to Thanksgiving has no chance at all. There were some very good spring and summer films that deserved nominations (i.e. "We Were Soldiers" and "Minority Report"). The Academy has basically said, "if your release date falls outside the final six weeks of the year, your film isn't worthy of our attention."

They may as well just give all the statuettes to "Chicago" and save us from losing another 4 hours of our lives, and a good night's sleep, to another going-through-the-motions Oscarcast.

[Rob Tomlin]

I just have to chime in here and say how disappointed I am that Adaptation didn't get nominated for Best Picture.