Chicago won the Oscar?!
Posted: 2003-03-23 11:48pm
What The Frellin Fuck!?
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15799
That was a given, but what about Gangs of New York? Or the Pianist?Captain tycho wrote:Well, everyone knew TTT was gonna get screwed.
It's all politics...
It didnt win BEST ADAPTED SCREENYPLAY!??!!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?
And when a real art movie comes along, it gets screwed .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.
While TTT was good, it was inferior to FoTR, and it was second to Gangs of NY.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......
I honestly wouldn't say best adapted screenplay, seeing as how it didn't exactly follow the book to a tee, unlike FOTR.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?
But Daniel Day-Lewis compensated for all that (and this brings us to another screwing by the Academy.)Durran Korr wrote:I thought Gangs was a bit too messy to be considered better than TTT.
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.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.
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.Durandal wrote: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.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.
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.Nathan F wrote: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.Durandal wrote: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.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.
But, we will have to wait and see.
You..though...TTT....was CRAP!?Yogi wrote:I personally thought TTT was crap. Then again, I couldn't even sit through Chicago.
Bleh, these things are impossible to measure.
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....fgalkin wrote:What The Frellin Fuck!?
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....fgalkin wrote:What The Frellin Fuck!?
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
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...HemlockGrey wrote:Why did Chicago win so many awards? I mean, 'Congratulations! You made Moulin Rouge:Part 2!'