*** Official 2003 Academy Awards Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

WooHoo I won three!

My luckiest year yet!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Craig,
I have that Premiere. It has Travolta on the cover (for Primary Colors). Good article.

In short, even that "tin-eared" dialogue that we don't like (and I don't like some of it) worked for the general audience. Billy Zane's groaners elicited major laughter at my various showings. JC aimed broadly, and enough of it worked for enough people. Some people confuse simple with stupid. There is little subtlety in his script, but it extremely, EXTREMELY accessible. That's a fault to many, but a genius piece of work. Even with the groaners.

I thought it was mostly some of the SW fanatics (especially the younger ones) bitter at Titanic, but LOTR sweeping brought out a new crowd. Again, I find that interesting. For a forgotten film, it seems to be mightily envied.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[nolesrule]

The Star Wars (1977) screenplay won't get any props from me for dialogue. But I've felt this way about Titanic since before I even knew there would be Lord of the Rings movies, so I'm not jumping on a bandwagon.

And considering the WGA award voters and Oscar screenplay nominators are pretty much the same group (but which group is larger?), kinda makes you wonder.

 

[Steve Christou]

In todays paper they wrote that Bill Murray had sat stone-faced throughout the event, and refused to clap when Sean Penn won, on the way out he told reporters, "If I had known this would happen I wouldn't have bothered coming".

Don't worry Bill it won't happen again.

 

[Malcolm R]

Everyone everywhere said Penn would win. Who was he listening to?

 

[Steve Christou]

Well Bill did beat Sean Penn at the British Academy Awards, probably thought he might do it again at the Oscars. And Johnny Depp beat Sean at the SAG awards.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The horse.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Tell that to Vertov and Eisenstein.

Sorry, but film is not literature nor even a live play. In fact only NARRATIVE film would really rely on a script at all. Then you have people like Kubrick who would grab a book, flip to the page and say "let's film that". When there was a script it was constantly rewritten on the set...not exactly a blueprint when the carpenters are deciding to build it different and then modify the blueprint to fit what they made or chose to make on site.

By Oscar standards EDITING is more important than the screenplay. Editing is more unique to the film arts than screenwriting, which has many other similar forms.


A great director can make a mediocre script great and a bad director can ruin a great script. The idea of a 1-to-1 ratio is insane, especially if you have spent anytime reading/writing screenplays or acting/directing film (even small ones).

Find a screenplay, like Pulp Fiction, and see how much it differs from the film (don't use a transcription). IMO most people don't recognize the difference between a story they like and a good screenplay, and none of us can be sure how much the script made the film great without reading it. I assume most Oscar voters use their experience on films to extract what they saw as a good screenplay, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of the writers have actually read the scripts before voting on the noms.

 

[GregAnderson]

I have to say that I never thought the writing was the strong point of the LOTR movie(s). But I realized that to go three years and never win for adapting that particular book would have been a little unfair. As Christopher Tolkein said, it is not a work suited to the visual medium (or something to that effect).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Me too, and not in a LOTR fanboy way. While I always loved LOTR the books I have never been as big a fan of the films. I think they are great works but at times I find some faults with them. My discussion of them shouldn't be mistaken for rabid fanboy love. I had no problem with Chicago winning last year which was another one of my top films for the year. I wasn't a big fan of ABM, but if Moulin had beat FOTR I would have enjoyed it as a winner.

But the moment of Spielberg phrasing it that way, it just worked perfectly to me. And perfect that the SF/fantasy genre master was the one doing it. Certainly it might be said that Raiders and ET both lost simply on genre alone.

 

[Craig S]

In general, guild membership is significantly larger than the equivalent AMPAS membership. The guild include everyone in the industry who is working in that discipline. AMPAS is an honorary society, membership in which is obtained by being nominated for an Oscar, or being sponsored by 2 (I think) AMPAS members.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I'd like to hear Bill's comments in context. I can see him saying that as a joking reaction.

He sure as hell didn't deserve the win for simply playing himself in only his 3rd serious Oscar-type role (Rush, RT, LiT). Meanwhile Penn and Depp are going out year after year trying to push their range...I'd say both had it coming a lot more than he did.

Once Murray has spent as much time working in roles that give him a real shot at an Oscar THEN he can feel as sorry for himself as Depp still can and Penn was until SUN night.

I think Murray is funny, I love him in LiT and even moreso in Rushmore. But let's keep in mind that all the other nominees have spent more time pursuing roles with great range. Was Murray really better than Kingsley this year even? Depp yes, Murray no.

Murray got what he deserved - an Oscar nom. Keep at it and earn the big one I say. I'd like him to do so for selfish reasons, he's good in these roles.


Do we have the ratings back for this year's show? I'd like to see if ROTK as a favorite boosted the viewership.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Seth, the ratings were a 30% improvement over last year's Oscars. Not sure how much is due to ROTK since the war was blamed for low ratings last year.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Need a shot of Jennifer Garner in her dress at the Oscars? (over 300K)

Here's a nice shot of Scarlett Johansson. It harkens back to classic Hollywood.

 

[Eric Fisher]

I was going to mention this!


Scarlett, Nicole Kidman, and Charlize Theron were all looking almost angelic

 

[Kevin_H]

I don't agree with that. RAIDERS lost to CHARIOTS OF FIRE, ET to GANDHI. Both films are considered classics. Maybe that arguement works for STAR WARS, it lost to ANNIE HALL. Who remembers ANNIE HALL, but everybody remembers STAR WARS.

 

[Quentin]

Well, I certainly remember and still adore "Annie Hall". And, it is a film you'll often see in film classes across the country.

I wouldn't use "Pulp Fiction" as your example, Seth, but your point is valid (Tarantino, as writer/director writes his screenplays VERY close to what you see). Film TRULY is a collaborative art form. Any element - be it writing, directing, editing, acting, etc. - can drag a film down. And, if one of those categories excels, it can pick a film up!

FYI, WGA members often get nicely bound scripts in the mail for nominated screenplays - similar to the "screeners". They are typically judged on character, story, theme, dialogue, structure and other elements. But, not everyone reads the screenplays - sometimes, you can just tell it was good based upon the final product.

Your class sounds interesting - so, "The Player" is considered a "bad" adaptation? "Bad" meaning "too inaccurate"? Because I LOVE the film...which makes it a good adaptation to me.

 

[Kevin_H]

I've seen it in film class as well and I think its a good movie. I don't think its better than STAR WARS though. And I think STAR WARS has stood the test of time better, many people outside of film classes don't remember ANNIE HALL.

 

[Chad Ferguson]

I just kind of wanted to vent my anger at the academy for this one. I feel that there is no way that Lord Of the Rings deserves best picture. It is a great series altogether, but at each film been judged by themselves, well, they are missing huge cahracter development and so on. Say about 2/3 of it? When there are great films like City of God which tells an epic story in it's own right, and does it in one film. Therefore, it is a complete film. I realize that this was pretty much planned from the first movies release, but still, it abuses the whole award altogether in my opinion.
Thank you

 

[Lew Crippen]

Both Star Wars and Annie Hall are included in both the S&S and AFI ‘best’ lists, with Star Wars being ranked in both pools slightly higher.

It might well be fair enough to consider Star Wars the better film, but Annie Hall is well regarded by a good many people who are not attending film classes. It is not exactly as though Woody Allen quit making films and knowledge of him and his films are consigned to the dustbin of history.