The 2005 Oscar Nominees

[Anakin Flair 0]

Probably the only reason Fellowship didn't win Best Picture in its year was because it was part of a trilogy, and everybody acknowledged that ROTK would win Best Picture in the end, so it was no harm, no foul.

[godthedog 0]

Unfortunately, a film like Spiderman 2 (or Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban, or The Incredibles) is unlikely to be a best picture nominee (or even a realistic contender) because of the inherant bias against the particular film genre (and towards sentimental tripe, for example the A Beautiful Mind win over Fellowship of the Ring, Gosford Park, In the Bedroom and Moulin Rouge!, as well as the unnominated Ghost World and Mulholland Drive) and target audience (given the average age of AMPAS members).

'spider-man 2' has WAY more sentimental schmaltz than ANY of the "best picture" nominees. it's a very good kind of schmaltz that works and gives the movie that extra heart it needs, but the big speeches are far more cheesy and sentimental than anything in 'million dollar baby', 'ray' or 'finding neverland'.

 

Guys, you have to realize that the Oscars are for so called prestige pictures, artsy stuff.

"prestige pictures" are very different from "artsy stuff." prestige pictures are usually epic in scale, sort-of character based, and very conventional in form. 'lawrence of arabia', 'gladiator', 'unforgiven', etc., are prestige pictures. what most people call "artsy stuff" tends to toe the line on visual style, have characters who aren't necessarily goal-oriented or individualistic or special, and be experimental in form. 'waking life', 'mulholland drive', etc., are artsy. the most "artsy" of the best picture nominees by far is 'sideways', and that's the black sheep of the bunch.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Artsy pictures rarely win. Usually the like going for the bigger event picture (Titanic, Gladiator, LOTR, Braveheart, etc.). I think it is one of the reasons Aviator is the favourite. It is a bigger film than MDB or Sideways.

[Blade2kxx 0]

would anyone who knows what he's talking about say that 'titanic' was the best movie of 1997? or that 'gladiator' was the best movie of 2000? or that 'ordinary people' was the best movie of 1980?

I feel Gladiator WAS the best movie of 2000, but I didn't become a movie buff until 2003...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I also thought that Gladiator was the best movie of 2000, but I happen to be a fan of that genre, so I'm probably biased. I would have been fine with CTHD winning, but I thought Traffic was way too predictable and poorly edited.

[Jingus 0]

And I thought Traffic was a far better movie than Gladiator, so there ya go, like I said earlier: subjective.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I Think the Academy definately should have shown more love for "The Incredibles" Plus, no love for Giamatti? Fuck that!

[CBright7831 0]

According to littlegoldenguy.com the following movies should win:

 

here

[CBright7831 0]

here

[LivingLegendGaryColeman 0]

Probably the only reason Fellowship didn't win Best Picture in its year was because it was part of a trilogy, and everybody acknowledged that ROTK would win Best Picture in the end, so it was no harm, no foul.

This is my problem with the Oscars though. It should be best of that year. If Fellowship was the best that year, who cares if it is a trilogy? If that's the issue, don't bother nominating it then. I felt Two Towers probably should have won the year it was upm when Chicago won (I liked it, it did some unique stuff, but VASTLY overrated) and something else should've won last year than Return of the King. They made up for every year, giving ROTK everything and it kinda shot the credibility. Everything else got tossed to the side. I mean, the way it was, if it wasn't such an ensemble cast, I bet they would've thrown them the Best Actor, Best Actress and so forth awards too.

 

This is the same thing with the Russell Crowe winning for Gladiator and Washington winning for Training Day mess, is that the Academy gives "make-up" awards, and I just don't think it is right.

[CBright7831 0]

It pisses me off that people like Frank Oz and Andy Serkis were denied Oscar nominations because they portrayed puppet/digital characters.

 

That's another flaw of the Academy.

[bob_barron 0]

Why is a red 'x' going to win a bunch of Oscars?

[CBright7831 0]

Why is a red 'x' going to win a bunch of Oscars?

The poll pictures were there last night.

 

Oh well.

 

See what I'm talking about here.

 

Click on home.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

It pisses me off that people like Frank Oz and Andy Serkis were denied Oscar nominations because they portrayed puppet/digital characters.

 

That's another flaw of the Academy.

I agree with Oz. But Serkis had to act out the performance on set, and then repeat his exact movements in studio later. He had to do double the work of a normal actor, and they merely replaced him with a digital image. He wasn't a puppeteer or anything like Oz. He completely acted out the part, and it was a revolutionary performance. Nobody believed you could create a realistic digital character until Gollum. It changed the industry. It is just the Academy not being with the times.

[Ripper 0]

Andy Serkis is the most ripped off in terms of the award in recent history to me. because the guy's performance was simply amazing. You completely forgot that it was a digital character, and not because of the technology, but because he brought so much life into it with his performance.