Oscar season begins (1 Viewer)

[Rob Bartlett]

That Gladiator won is only a testament how dreadful 2000 was (especially in contrast to the excellent 1999).

Well, 365 days later an even worse Russel Crowe film in an even worse year when faced with direct competition that was all clearly, indusptedly superior.

I don't know how people feel about FOTR, but you have to admit it says something that it managed to steer general opinion away from the reality 2001 was a wasteland, at least until November.

 

[Chad R]

Nothing is indisputable when it concerns a subjective award.

 

[Nathan V]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That Opie dropped out of the Alamo to direct the Missing sort of implies that the Missing is better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard dropped out of the Alamo because he didn't get the budget he wanted, plus he wanted to film R rated material, but Disney said no. Those two factors could have no impact on the presentation.

I disagree. A film about an historical event, particularly a violent one, benefits greatly from being accurately represented. I don't feel that you can present a historical battle realistically in a PG-13 film. You can't cut out all the (realistic) violence if you're aiming for realism. The movie'll feel fake (ex. Pearl Harbor). There's also the budget factor. This implies that Disney doesn't have too much faith in the film. These restrictions (budget, rating) do impact the presentation, especially in this case. There's no question about it Even if John Hancock makes a terrific film under these restrictions, it goes without saying that his film could have been better had these restrictions been lifted.

Opie has no such restrictions with the Missing. Logically speaking, it will be the better of the two films; of course, we don't know that yet. If the Missing is anything like Opie's previous effort (Beau. mind), then The Alamo has a terrific chance of being astronomically better.

On another note, how are they going to handle Kill Bill? Poeple are saying Volume II will be delayed till next year. (4th quarter is busy as hell) If so, is that a 2003 or 2004 release, or what? Will each part be judged separately, or will voters get to see Vol. II early? Not like it'll get any nominations, but it's an interesting situation.

Oh, and Last Samurai is a LOCK for a cinematography nom, John Toll's doing it. And Rob Richardson's shooting Kill Bill, so if by some bizarre quirk of fate the academy loves that film, he'll probably get a nom too.

Any updates on the Russell Crowe boat thing? (nothing's gonna make type out a 9-word title)

Regards,
Nathan

Regards,
Nathan

 

[David_SG]

Also, remember that all of the "industry buzz" around ROTK winning Best Picture to award the trilogy is not from Academy voters, a good majority of whom are no longer in the industry, and certainly aren't talking to the press about their preferences six months before they cast a vote. This buzz is generated by studio marketing people who know that Oscar gold translates to more dollars. The Weinstein's built a studio around this precept.

Sure, a lot of the buzz does come from the studios, but more reputable sources like Variety also have ROTK as the frontrunner at this stage as well. And as Weinstein has proved, campaigning does make a big difference. So where is the buzz behind the other films? Cold Mountain is supposed to be Miramax's top contender, but I haven't heard much about it at this point. Last year at this time, Chicago was well on the radar as a top contender. Harvey has his hands tied a bit due to recent rules regarding campaigning, and that and the shorter Oscar season can only benefit ROTK.

 

[Chad R]

Another point I thought about the Brothers Weinstein. They have been accused of being a tad vindictive, and since they passed on LOTR I would bet they take particular pride in putting all of their resources behind one of their movies to beat it. Don't understimate their abilities to get movies into the race (Chocolat) and win (Chicago).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Tom Cruise's star power will boost The Last Samurai to contender status.

Like it did with Vanilla Sky.

A film I love BTW, but which died in the eyes of the Oscars other than Paul's song.

I am not sold on Alamo simply because Howard walked away from it. If he, of all people, felt the film needed an R rating, then I suspect that you are looking at the difference between "nice" and "Oscar-worthy" in what they are trying to do with it.


The fact that Master and Commander got moved is a good sign for it, as is Crowe's presence.


Cold Mountain and In America feel like the two films with the strongest chance at a nomination beyond ROTK. But I base that only in following other people's reactions, trailers, buzz, plot synopsis, etc.


I think City of God will be forgotten unfortunately, though an Editing selection would make a lot of sense even as it stands now. IMO, it should go up for many other noms, but I've resigned myself to the fact that it won't. It didn't make last year's Foriegn cut, got released back then anyway, and will now be forgotten for the other awards. Oh well, I'll still cherish the DVD when it streets.


I'm curious to see what Ridley Scott's Matchstick Men does, at the very least with the acting. It's not being run out like an Oscar contender but the trailers make it appear to be a good actor's film. Hope I'm not wrong about that.

 

[Seth Paxton]

What I remember was that a lot of people came to feel that he really should have won the previous year for The Insider, so there was a lot of pressure for him to win as a "make-up" award.

Sorry Andy, but apparently (as quoted earlier in this post) such thinking doesn't actually exist. Sure you and I have heard the rumblings of such a thing, but that was all BS I guess.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

Yeah, good call on that one. No one has EVER suspected that a body of work enters into the picture when honoring someone.

For an Honorary Oscar? Sure. Thalberg award? No problem. Best Picture award to a 2nd or 3rd film to honor a body of work, when the first film came away empty-handed? Unlikely. For starters, there is absolutely no precedent -- which is not to say that it couldn't happen, but statistically it's an improbable event. Godfather II won, but then again so did the first one. If FOTR had won, things would have been more probable for TTT and ROTK. But it didn't, and as far as Hollywood is concerned, the "bloom is off the rose." The LOTR trilogy doesn't have the heat it had in late '01/early '02. If -- and this is a big if, as I have not seen ROTK -- if ROTK is perceived as "more of the same" by Academy voters, its chances of winning are extremely slim, it not altogether negligible.

Is that "sound logic"?

Disclaimer: I'm rooting for ROTK! (provided that the movie will be as great as I think and hope it will be...) Maybe I'm just being cynical, but knowing Hollywood, I truly feel it has no chance whatsoever.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think ROTK has the best chances of winning (of the trilogy) for the simple fact that it will probably be the best film in the series. Why? The best source material, more time spent focusing on the added special effects elements (plus the experience from the first two films), the emotional ending, the amazing shots and sequences that we're bound to see, and the fact that everyone has been looking forward to it for almost 2 years. Unless it's a real let down, there's no way that it won't be a strong contender, if not a shoe-in.

 

[David_SG]

if ROTK is perceived as "more of the same" by Academy voters, its chances of winning are extremely slim, it not altogether negligible.

I'll agree with that, but I'd be willing to bet this one is gonna have an ending!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

No one ever claimed that TTT wouldn't get nominated; only that it wouldn't win.

Actually, it WAS claimed, quite vociferously, Matthew. By a lot of people. Or else Seth and I would not remember it so well.

I make few prognostications on ROTK and the Oscars. But it was claimed OFTEN it would not be nominated.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’ve been reading this discussion (and similar ones in a good many other threads), and it seems to me it is kind of hard to predict any outcome for Return of the King based on other film’s historical performance (regarding Oscar nominations and wins).

This for at least two reasons: the structure of The Lord of the Rings is not that of a story and sequels (as has been mentioned a couple of times) and that the other, Oscar-worthy sets of films were not conceived and executed at the same time, as was LOTR.

As we all know, Tolkien felt so strongly that he had written a single work that he was opposed to it being published as three books. Thematically the second and third books (and films) are not sequels, but are all parts of a single whole. In addition, the films were made as a whole.

In the case of films like the various ‘Godfathers’, no consideration was given to any other film (or, so far as I know) and further parts of the story, when the first film was made. The second and third parts were true sequels, following well after the initial film.

One can make the argument that Star Wars (at least the first three films) was conceived by Lucas as a single unit, but when the first film was made, there was no further planning for the remainder of the story. And when the rest was shot, it was by different directors and under different circumstances—so much so that the first film was reworked (among other reasons) so that its look would be consistent with the remaining films.

AFAIK, LOTR is unique in being a single story told in three films, all done at the same time and under the same conditions with the same crew—at least where everyone from the cast and crew to the audience to the voters in the Academy all know this to be the case.

Since this is unique, it follows that its treatment by the Academy has no precedent and that we therefore can make no predictions based on history.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

I personally don't recall people claiming TTT wouldn't be nominated, but I'll readily accept your contention that they did (I wasn't one of them, it seemed obvious to me at the time that TTT would be nominated...) I do recall many people claiming TTT was a "lock" for Best Picture, as it was "the best book of the trilogy", from many sources. I'm hearing that again this time around, which gives me pause.

Also, while LOTR was conceived and written by Tolkien as one large story (which was broken up into three parts, despite his reservations), will Academy voters think or know that? They know that the films were shot simultaneously, but is Joe Q. Assistant Producer enough of a Tolkien fan to understand the history of this saga? I'm betting against it.

Anyway, people are making some solid points and I'm glad this debate is raging without anyone calling me "Soda Monkey." God I hate that.

 

[Chad R]

Again, the writers for Variety are not Oscar voters. They, like us, are nothing more than prognosticators at this stage. Although we love to speculate, most of this talk is moot until the end of the year. At this time last year "Gangs of New York" had all of the requisite buzz (and the Brothers Weinstein backing it) which did not translate into a win, only nominations. Will ROTK get nominated? Absolutely possible. Is it likely that three nominations for best picutre (an impressive fete) is all the academy wishes to endow these films with? Also possible.

 

[Craig S]

Since this thread was initially started after Dave Poland's initial Oscar column, I thought I'd resurrect it as Poland has weighed in with his 2nd look at this year's race:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columni...ar/030925.html

Poland's current charts ranking the contenders are here:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columni...25_charts.html

In addition, on Friday Jeffrey Wells posted a detailed look at the early race:

Link Removed

Interestingly, both of these guys (who are often at odds) are making the point that the shorter Oscar season this year coupled with a very full slate of big studio Oscar-friendly event movies means that the smaller films may be completely shut out. Wells is saying that the winner is almost certain to be one of these 7 as-yet-unseen films (all big studio holiday releases): RotK, Cold Mountain, Mona Lisa Smile, Big Fish, Master & Commander, The Alamo, & The Last Samurai.

RotK is clearly the front-runner right now, if there can even be such a thing when none of the main contenders have been seen. Poland has it ranked number one on 4 of his 8 charts, including Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Supporting Actor (Sean Astin). Wells, who is NOT a fan of the LotR films, says this:

Are you aware that in the minds of many people out here, RETURN OF THE KING (New Line, December 17th) has already been decided upon as the likely winner? In the minds of some of these supporters, the inevitability kicked in last year. This is the long-awaited conclusion of the fabulously successful RINGs trilogy, and it's made so much money, and a Best Picture Oscar would be a tribute not just to KING but all three films. I know it sounds premature, but this mindset is out there and gaining.

In the past two years Wells was VERY late in acknowledging FotR & TTT as legitimate BP nomination contenders, so for him to make this statement this early in the game must mean there is something to it.

Of the other films, Cold Mountain has apparently been racking up some impressive scores at recent screenings (according to its producer), and The Alamo has been getting some positive buzz as well (although Wells admits he doesn't know anyone who's seen it).

Of course, this is all just talk until all of these films actually start getting seen & reviewed, which will be mid-December. Anything can happen, although the chances of a dark horse coming out of nowhere to be a major contender look to be pretty slim at this point.

 

[Chris]

I can't think of "Finding Nemo" having the traditionally nominated Disney song number.. so the Song category should be pretty open; I'm hoping a number from "A Mighty Wind" manages to get a nod (though it's a longshot)

 

[Craig S]

I'm hoping a number from "A Mighty Wind" manages to get a nod (though it's a longshot)

Amen to that. The only question is which song?? There are several strong contenders. You could go with "Eat At Joe's", "Never Did No Wanderin'", or "Kiss At The End of the Rainbow". I have to say, however, that I would love to see the entire cast perform the title song, with its hilarious final line, during the worldwide Oscar broadcast!!

I'm not aware of any other contenders at this point. We do know that Annie Lennox will sing the credits song of RotK, so that's a potential. I'm sure some of the big commercial films due later this year will have the standard treacly Oscar-bait glop warbled by some "diva" over the credits.

But truly, anyone who's familiar with the folk music genre knows what a brilliant job Christopher Guest & his fellow actor/songwriters did in coming up with all those tunes. They deserve the Oscar.

 

[ThomasC]

What do the X's mean on the charts?

 

[Craig S]

I think those are names on his previous chart that he now considers out of serious contention.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I like Poland's look toward Depp for PotC, but I think he is missing another angle that such a view gives us. Seabiscuit won't get a nom I think because PotC will be viewed as the better summer film, even if PotC isn't Best Pix material.

Depp can get the nom for the film giving it the obligatory nod as well as recognizing that while the film was good in many aspects it was Depp who appears to have been most responsible for how enjoyable the picture was.

And that attitude leaves voters thinking "yeah, what WAS the big deal about Seabiscuit". It is VERY tough to get a nom out of the summer and with films like Master and Commander, In America, or even Mystic River coming along I think Seabiscuit is very easily forgotten. Just think about the summer films from previous years that got Best Pix noms. If they aren't standouts above the crowd (including BO during their runs) it is very tough to wedge in. Is Seabiscuit really stronger than Road to Perdition or A.I.? And does Seabiscuit have the sub-noms that those films did (like cinematography)? It doesn't seem like it.


I would consider Matchstick Men to have a better shot at the nom even since it seems to be regarded as just as "deep" and has the Ridley Scott direction going for it.

In the past two years Wells was VERY late in acknowledging FotR & TTT as legitimate BP nomination contenders, so for him to make this statement this early in the game must mean there is something to it.

Exactly.


There is what we or they think SHOULD win, and then there is what we or they think WILL win. Those lists can vary quite a bit, as in the case of Wells.

Besides the "lifetime achievement" attitude of rewarding all 3 films by giving it to ROTK, which you would have to be defiantly ignorant to not acknowledge as a common approach to the Oscars in general, there is also the aspect that ROTK represents what was previously nominated before WITHOUT AN ENDING but that now does come to an emotional conclusion. If anything that eliminates one of the previous 2 films' biggest weakness in Oscar competition. Resolution gives audiences satisfaction.


Personally I think the more interesting debates center around the other contenders because that field still feels more wide open.

All I know is that I'm very happy that the Oscars are a month earlier this year. Hopefully that means earlier engagements for these Oscar contenders.

PS - City of God gets that December DVD release. You have to feel that a lot of that timing has to do with this year's Oscars since the film certainly could have come to DVD months ago after its JAN/FEB theatrical dates. Who knows how much they will push it, but I do know that I would personally nominate it for Best Pix and I'm hoping that it does get some serious discussion (though I'm doubtful).