Oscars 2004 (1 Viewer)

Macccca

wazzlewoozle
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
296
Location
Where the sky hits the sea
Originally posted by White Rabbit
LOTR was the best, it deserved to win everything it was nominated for, and then some. I have not been impressed so much by any movie before this. Sure, there was hype, but for a good reason. It was superior to all of them, and deserved to win. I reckon people shun it because it is so big, you all just want to hate it because so many others love it.

..And Billy Boyd.....
yes you are right, i take this stance to be rebellious and different.
 

Lundy

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
2,512
Location
pepperland
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
rotk was great, but 11/11 is overkill. Spread the love! This was the most boring ceremony in recent memory. No surprises.
 

Cactus

Sorcerer's Apprentice
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
487
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Originally posted by jim_green
LOTR winning best picture.. what a travesty, only nominee it was superior to was Seabiscuit. Lost In Translation not at least getting recognition for Best Directing really annoyed me as well. Not to mention Scarlett Johansson not even getting a nomination. Well Oscars.. screw you, you guys are crap crap crap. I hope Peter McMonkey Jackson gets attacked and thrown down a crack in the earth by midgets..
This forum is about opinions. I happened to enjoy the entire LOTR trilogy very much, as did I enjoy a number of other films that came out in the last year, including the others nominated. Your opinion on Lord of the Rings is welcome here, but your comments about Peter Jackson are uncalled for and offensive.
 

Loz#1

"03'er"
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
4,464
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Lundy
rotk was great, but 11/11 is overkill. Spread the love! This was the most boring ceremony in recent memory. No surprises.
Yeah I agree. It was so predictable.
 

Benny_

Elementary Penguin
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
2,261
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Cactus
This forum is about opinions. I happened to enjoy the entire LOTR trilogy very much, as did I enjoy a number of other films that came out in the last year, including the others nominated. Your opinion on Lord of the Rings is welcome here, but your comments about Peter Jackson are uncalled for and offensive.
Meh, you just have no sense of humour :p
 

glycerine

so don't even ask me
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
3,195
Location
Petersham
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
okay... I really enjoyed fotr and ttt... I didn't enjoy rotk, I found it boring... in my opinion, it's like they rewarded the entire trilogy in one night, which is unfair, because taken as an *individual* movie, rotk falls flat next to a lot of its competitors.. had they said "okay, we want to give the award to THE TRILOGY", that might've been a bit different
 

Trigger189

XYLENE-FREE ZONE
Joined
Nov 29, 2003
Messages
835
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Originally posted by glycerine
taken as an *individual* movie, rotk falls flat next to a lot of its competitors.. had they said "okay, we want to give the award to THE TRILOGY", that might've been a bit different
I know that's your opinion, but I would just like to share my thoughts on the matter :) I agree with what you said in terms of the other categories(eg screenplay which shouldve gone to Mystic River), but in the Best Picture cateogry, I dont think there was any question about RotK's win. Mystic River I loved, but I think this also had too much hype (big director, big actors) - the movie was good - brilliant acting, great directing - however, it was just an average story (done before) that was sugarcoated, I feel. Lost in Translation, I also loved. But come on, in comparison to a huge epic like RotK? Master and Commander and Seabiscuit were just there to fill up the other spaces

In my opinion RotK deserved it...and what does it matter if they were rewarding the whole trilogy? After snubbing them the past two awards its not such a big deal to reward their hard efforts. Trilogys like this rarely come around..theres always more awards ceremonies for these "DRAMAs" to win in the future.

btw, what movies were you refering to when you said rotk falls flat next to its competitors?
 

Macccca

wazzlewoozle
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
296
Location
Where the sky hits the sea
Originally posted by glycerine
okay... I really enjoyed fotr and ttt... I didn't enjoy rotk, I found it boring... in my opinion, it's like they rewarded the entire trilogy in one night, which is unfair, because taken as an *individual* movie, rotk falls flat next to a lot of its competitors.. had they said "okay, we want to give the award to THE TRILOGY", that might've been a bit different
exactly, lotr won, not rotk
 

Benny_

Elementary Penguin
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
2,261
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Ok I probably overreacted a bit before, sorry. :D Still, it would be ironic if Peter Jackson were to get attacked by midgets. I guess if LOTR had any reason for winning it, it is in recognition of the vasts amount of effort that must have gone into it, which if fair enough.
Anyway I agree with Trigger mostly except about Master and Commander, which I felt was a far superior epic as a single movie than ROTK. Seabiscuit though was an above average movie that was really there more because of the story's cultural significance to American history. It was a decent movie as well, but probably not Oscar worthy.

So IMO 3 nominated movies were ROTK's superior. It's true that there will be plenty of Oscars for good drama in the future, but I'm just a little ticked that the Academy decided to save its recognition for LOTR in such a great year for movies. Would've been much more logical to recognise it in 2001 when the winner was 'A Beautiful Mind', another one of those Seabiscuit level movies, or last year when it was 'Chicago'.

Oh and has anyone noticed the trend in the last 16 years that Actors tend to get recognition for playing characters who have psychological problems or were mentally impaired? Here are some examples

2003- Senn Penn- Mystic River
1997- Jack Nicholson- As Good as it Gets-
1996- Geoffrey Rush- Shine
1995- Nicholas Cage- Leaving Las Vegas.. kinda, he was alcoholic
1994- Tom Hanks- Forrest Gump
1988- Dustin Hoffman- Rain Man

Also reconised

2002- Adrian Brody- The Pianist- Jewish musician in WWII..not sure if there was psychological trauma since I haven't seen it
2001- Russell Crowe- A Beautiful Mind- Russell didn't win, but we all know why that was

Actresses

2003- Charlize Theron- Monster
2002- Nicole Kidman- The Hours
2001- Halle Berry- Monster's Ball
2000- Hilary Swank- Boys Don't Cry
1993- Holly Hunter- The Piano
1990- Kathy Bates- Misery

These are just from the movies I have actually seen, so there may be a lot of other ones as well. Seems the way to get recognition with the Academy is to get a role as a mentally scarred person. Not taking anything away from the performances of any of these actors/actresses though... except possibly Halle Berry, because she won the award for the wrong reason.
 
Last edited:

Trigger189

XYLENE-FREE ZONE
Joined
Nov 29, 2003
Messages
835
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Originally posted by jim_green

2003- Charlize Theron- Monster
2002- Nicole Kidman- The Hours
2001- Halle Berry- Monster's Ball
2000- Hilary Swank- Boys Don't Cry
Four years in a row the character was an ugly bitch. amazing.
 

dark`secrets

<insert title>
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,703
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
aww.. isnt that abit harsh? besides oscars are based on talent.
 

Trigger189

XYLENE-FREE ZONE
Joined
Nov 29, 2003
Messages
835
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
it was all in good fun. honest. (although i did say the characters, not the person) i seriously think they all deserved it. although I havent seen Monster. If Charlize didnt win, it most definately shouldve been Naomi Watts. She was awesome.

and oscars arent always based on talent (although this year they did recognise smaller and better films), if its not politics then its overrated movies (although I liked Mystic River, Sean Penn's other film 21 Grams is much better, but the hype that went with Mystic River put it into the background) and over the top campaigns (ie Miramax).
 
Last edited:

Misturi

[Studying...]
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
2,056
Location
Greater West
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Originally posted by Fry
it's not fair! Pirates of the Caribbean should've won at least one award, esp. for visual effects or make up. LOTR just stole the show. But yay for Billy Crystal for mentioning Johnny Depp as the 'sexiest man alive'.
Originally posted by bubz :D
oh man johnny looked hot.
Originally posted by Fry
so true! i LOVE his new haircut and he should smile more often..he looks so damn sexy!! did you know that 13-year old girl who got nominated for Whale Rider got to meet him? man, she's so lucky..
Originally posted by cleopatra
I thought it was cool, i wish Johnny won, but i was happy enough to juz look at him...(Drools on keybord which shortcircuts)
I know what you mean...l saw him and l screamed at my mum to turn the channel over (l was sitting in the outside room while my mum was in the loungeroom) and l picked his spot where he was sitting (facing the audience he was to the left of the most left isle second row form the front). I was so upset (l shed several tears) that he didn't win anything. I was furious that Penn won instead of him.

I am just updating my pictures of Johnny on my computer (169 and counting) from the oscars.

I saw that young girl who is 13 (can't remember her 3 word name) on Sunrise and how she met and shook johnny depps hand :eek:!!!!!! He said it was such a pleasure to meet her and l'm like..no fair :(
 

Benny_

Elementary Penguin
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
2,261
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Trigger189
it was all in good fun. honest. (although i did say the characters, not the person) i seriously think they all deserved it. although I havent seen Monster. If Charlize didnt win, it most definately shouldve been Naomi Watts. She was awesome.

and oscars arent always based on talent (although this year they did recognise smaller and better films), if its not politics then its overrated movies (although I liked Mystic River, Sean Penn's other film 21 Grams is much better, but the hype that went with Mystic River put it into the background) and over the top campaigns (ie Miramax).
Was Mystic River produced by Miramax? I thought Miramax's big push this year was for Cold Mountain, which didn't go as well as they hoped
 

Misturi

[Studying...]
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
2,056
Location
Greater West
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Originally posted by bubz :D
just realised i haven't seen any of those movies o_O
l've never even heard of any of those movies... except for The hours.
 

White Rabbit

Bloody Shitcakes
Joined
May 26, 2003
Messages
1,624
Location
Hurstville
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
LOL, I've only seen the oldest - Misery. Although, I've heard Monsters Ball was good, I heard of the scene between Heath Ledger and the guy that played his dad (Billy Bob Thorton possibly?) Where he asks if he loves him. And if you've seen the movie, you know what happens. Thought it sounded like a really good scene, sad and disturbing, but good
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top