Page 1 of 2

Chicago won the Oscar?!

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:48pm
by fgalkin
What The Frellin Fuck!? :shock:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:52pm
by Nathan F
Gleh...

The stupidest movie to hit the screens always wins the oscars...

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:53pm
by Dalton
The artsy-fartsy flicks always win Best Picture. Didn't you know?

If anything, the MTV Movie Awards are more of an indication of what the public thinks is good. At least it's not the AMPAS clowns patting each other on the backs and sharing a circle-jerk over their arthouse films.

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:55pm
by Captain tycho
Well, everyone knew TTT was gonna get screwed.
It's all politics...

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:55pm
by Stravo
Score another one for the Weinstein "voting machine" This is the same fuck that stole the Best Picture from Saving Private Ryan :x

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:56pm
by Durandal
Jesus, the trailer for The Two Towers (the one with the Requiem for a Dream remix) makes everything else look like shit in comparison. I mean, come on. Chicago is fun and all, but The Two Towers is fucking epic.

And where the FUCK was it for Best Adapted Screenplay? Are these people severely retarded? Or how about Peter Jackson for Best Director? Did the movie nominated for Best Picture just get up and direct itself?

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:57pm
by fgalkin
Captain tycho wrote:Well, everyone knew TTT was gonna get screwed.
It's all politics...
That was a given, but what about Gangs of New York? Or the Pianist?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:59pm
by Captain tycho
Durandal wrote:Jesus, the trailer for The Two Towers (the one with the Requiem for a Dream remix) makes everything else look like shit in comparison. I mean, come on. Chicago is fun and all, but The Two Towers is fucking epic.

And where the FUCK was it for Best Adapted Screenplay? Are these people severely retarded? Or how about Peter Jackson for Best Director? Did the movie nominated for Best Picture just get up and direct itself?
It didnt win BEST ADAPTED SCREENYPLAY!??!! :shock: :shock: :x
WHAT THE FUCK!?
So mad... :x :evil:

Posted: 2003-03-23 11:59pm
by fgalkin
Dalton wrote:The artsy-fartsy flicks always win Best Picture. Didn't you know?

If anything, the MTV Movie Awards are more of an indication of what the public thinks is good. At least it's not the AMPAS clowns patting each other on the backs and sharing a circle-jerk over their arthouse films.
And when a real art movie comes along, it gets screwed . :roll:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:03am
by Sokar
I know, the bile burns my throat as well over the almost complete snubbing of TTT........at least "Spirited Away" won for best Animated film, a nod to the power and beauty that is a Miyazaki film......*sigh* every thing on thoes lists were such contrived crap compared to TTT......

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:05am
by fgalkin
Sokar wrote:I know, the bile burns my throat as well over the almost complete snubbing of TTT........at least "Spirited Away" won for best Animated film, a nod to the power and beauty that is a Miyazaki film......*sigh* every thing on thoes lists were such contrived crap compared to TTT......
While TTT was good, it was inferior to FoTR, and it was second to Gangs of NY.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:12am
by Joe
I thought Gangs was a bit too messy to be considered better than TTT.

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:16am
by Nathan F
Durandal wrote: And where the FUCK was it for Best Adapted Screenplay? Are these people severely retarded? Or how about Peter Jackson for Best Director? Did the movie nominated for Best Picture just get up and direct itself?
I honestly wouldn't say best adapted screenplay, seeing as how it didn't exactly follow the book to a tee, unlike FOTR.

Although it was an excellent movie, and a great sequel to FOTR.

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:16am
by fgalkin
Durran Korr wrote:I thought Gangs was a bit too messy to be considered better than TTT.
But Daniel Day-Lewis compensated for all that (and this brings us to another screwing by the Academy.) :evil:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:32am
by Durandal
Nathan F wrote:I honestly wouldn't say best adapted screenplay, seeing as how it didn't exactly follow the book to a tee, unlike FOTR.
Part of adapting a book to the screen is making the necessary changes so that it will flow more nicely on the screen. Peter Jackson made some big changes, to be sure, but a lot of those changes were necessary to make the presentation of the film better. Jackson managed to squeeze The Two Towers into three hours while keeping the major themes intact and staying true to the overall vision Tolkein had. That at least deserves a nomination, which it didn't receive.

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:44am
by Nathan F
Durandal wrote:
Nathan F wrote:I honestly wouldn't say best adapted screenplay, seeing as how it didn't exactly follow the book to a tee, unlike FOTR.
Part of adapting a book to the screen is making the necessary changes so that it will flow more nicely on the screen. Peter Jackson made some big changes, to be sure, but a lot of those changes were necessary to make the presentation of the film better. Jackson managed to squeeze The Two Towers into three hours while keeping the major themes intact and staying true to the overall vision Tolkein had. That at least deserves a nomination, which it didn't receive.
Oh, yeah, definitely. What I meant to say was that I hope that he doesn't screw around with RotK too much, of which I am afraid he will do for some reason.

But, we will have to wait and see.

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:47am
by fgalkin
Nathan F wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Nathan F wrote:I honestly wouldn't say best adapted screenplay, seeing as how it didn't exactly follow the book to a tee, unlike FOTR.
Part of adapting a book to the screen is making the necessary changes so that it will flow more nicely on the screen. Peter Jackson made some big changes, to be sure, but a lot of those changes were necessary to make the presentation of the film better. Jackson managed to squeeze The Two Towers into three hours while keeping the major themes intact and staying true to the overall vision Tolkein had. That at least deserves a nomination, which it didn't receive.
Oh, yeah, definitely. What I meant to say was that I hope that he doesn't screw around with RotK too much, of which I am afraid he will do for some reason.

But, we will have to wait and see.
Screwing with the book too much is one of the problems I have with TTT. Another one is that I grew tired of all the beuaty and the excellence of the visual effects. If there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, then, this is it.

That's why I think Gangs were superior.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Posted: 2003-03-24 01:43am
by Yogi
I personally thought TTT was crap. Then again, I couldn't even sit through Chicago.

Bleh, these things are impossible to measure.

Posted: 2003-03-24 02:23am
by Captain tycho
Yogi wrote:I personally thought TTT was crap. Then again, I couldn't even sit through Chicago.

Bleh, these things are impossible to measure.
You..though...TTT....was CRAP!?

BURN HERETIC! :twisted:

Posted: 2003-03-24 06:29am
by Montcalm
I`m not surprised movies like this always come out one one or two month before the Oscars and get most of the trophies,while movies that were in theaters for month get shit :twisted:

Re: Chicago won the Oscar?!

Posted: 2003-03-24 06:46am
by Darth Gojira
fgalkin wrote:What The Frellin Fuck!? :shock:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Tell me about it. WTF are those academy guys smoking? Is that why TTT was almost ignored, or why AOTC was nominated in only ONE category. Is that why Chicago got 4 oscars. The only upside was Steve Martin, and that's a no brainer. That's it, back to swigging 7-up from the bottle again....

Re: Chicago won the Oscar?!

Posted: 2003-03-24 06:46am
by Darth Gojira
fgalkin wrote:What The Frellin Fuck!? :shock:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Tell me about it. WTF are those academy guys smoking? Is that why TTT was almost ignored, or why AOTC was nominated in only ONE category. Is that why Chicago got 4 oscars. The only upside of the awards was Steve Martin, and that's a no brainer. That's it, back to swigging 7-up from the bottle again....

Posted: 2003-03-24 06:59am
by HemlockGrey
Why did Chicago win so many awards? I mean, 'Congratulations! You made Moulin Rouge:Part 2!'

Posted: 2003-03-24 07:05am
by Darth Gojira
HemlockGrey wrote:Why did Chicago win so many awards? I mean, 'Congratulations! You made Moulin Rouge:Part 2!'
I think that's why. For some bizzare reason, Moulin Rouge became the most overrated movie in years. I never saw any good things in it. I mean, I kept wishing for MacGregor to pick up a lightsabre and slice some battle droids and extras. I'm just not a musical guy, I guess...

Posted: 2003-03-24 12:22pm
by Durandal
I liked Moulin Rouge. I thought it was pretty cool, but it went on for too long.