Potential Oscar Candidates for 2002

Tools    





Now With Moveable Parts
The CGI at the end was crap.

It really was. That Scorpion/King/Rock/Thing, was so lame...I was laughing at it. It looked totally fake and computer animated. Part of good CGI, is making it look like a real threat, I was sure Brendan Frasier was in no real danger of that thing...it was just too lame. I did like the army of doggie-beasts...those were real looking and mighty frightening.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
I'm still scratching my head over that one. What the hell were they thinking??? I mean they used the same CG people from the first movie to do the work in this one. What happened???
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



Now With Moveable Parts
That's what I'm sayin'. I also noticed that they used WAY more CGI in this one, than in the first one. JUst have to say, the first one I liked better. On the second one, I could almost hear," This should dazzle and amaze you." I wasn't dazzled.



I think Jim Carrey in "The Majestic" will get a nomination. I'm hearing great things about that movie, and his performance in it. I hate to say that they "owe him" (that's the wrong way to choose Oscar winners, IMO)...but he's certainly been snubbed before. Not even a nomination for "Man on the Moon"? He was dead-on. What more can you ask for? I'll bet Will Smith gets a nom. for his truobles in "Ali" though. Consistent? Nope. Oh well!



Now With Moveable Parts
I agree. A nomination was in order here. Let's face it...the day Jim Carey gets nominated for anything oscar related...is the day...I don't know...something remarkable happens. The critics just don't like him...and the academy wil never validate him. Never. If they do, I'll be one shocked Boop.



Guy
Registered User
Originally posted by sadesdrk
I agree. A nomination was in order here. Let's face it...the day Jim Carey gets nominated for anything oscar related...is the day...I don't know...something remarkable happens. The critics just don't like him...and the academy wil never validate him. Never. If they do, I'll be one shocked Boop.
Carrey should've really gotten the nomination (and victory?) for The Truman Show and Man on the Moon! His performance in the Grinch was also interesting and should've gotten some consideration. Now with the majestic coming out he may get a nomination.

The academys screwed him over twice because of their politics, it makes me mad



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Is Jim Carrey obnoxious..yes. Is he a pretty grotesque guy..yes. Does he deserve an Oscar..YES.

Jim Carrey deserves an oscar, he last three works have been quite good, even for Jim Carrey standards. "The Grinch", "Man on the Moon", "The Truman Show", all good flicks. He did very well in all of them, and deserved some recognition for them. At least a pat on the back, or a "Did a good job pardner." He has gotten bupkis, and it's a sad fact.

Poor guy..



He's gotten bupkis, huh?

Well, first of all the guy makes at least $20-million bucks up-front per film,and has been making that wage since The Cable Guy. That doesn't even factor in the enormous loads o' money he earns on the backend if they're hits (which they usually are).

Secondly, he has received many nominations and awards for his work, just not any Oscars. He's gotten FIVE Golden Globe noms (The Mask, Liar,Liar, The Truman Show, Man on the Moon and How the Grinch Stole Christmas) with two wins (Truman and Moon). He's been nominated for a ScreenActorsGuild Award. He's won Best Actor from the Boston Society of Film Critics (for Man on the Moon). He's been nominated by the Chicago Film Critics Association, the Toronto Film Critics Association and the London Film Critics Circle. He's won three Blockbuster Entertainment Awards out of five nominations. He been nominated for EIGHTEEN M-TV Movie Awards and won NINE.

Thirdly, he makes at least TWENTY-MILLION DOLLARS PER PICTURE.

Don't cry for the guy because he doesn't have any Oscars. Boo-fu*kin'-Hoo. Poor baby. How does he even get out of bed in the morning?
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



I don't think it was meant that way. Despite what he's got, he's been snubbed. I think the rest is just a case of mild exaggeration: I doubt any of us really feel sorry for him OVERALL. Just in that particular way...which isn't a big deal. I don't think anyone here actually pitys him.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
I didn't say I pity him...it's just sad that people with less talent get an oscar, and those with talent, a few films behind them, don't.



Is anyone able to tell me if Apocolypse Now Redux is able to be nominated. It IS a whole new film, right?

Could it win the Best Picture that it's predesessor never did??
__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com



I seriously doubt it. How is it a whole new film? I read that there were some fairly significant changes...but I wouldn't call it a whole new film, unless I've been significantly misinformed.



Everyone says what a meaningless, stupid, political awards the Oscars are all the time, then they get upset when somebody they like doesn't get one.

The Oscars are meaningless. They're a nice trinket when given, and inside the industry it can give temporary clout to those who previously may have not been able to get their names attached to the highest-profile projects. But they add absolutely nothing to a person's body of work in real terms. If they do good work, they do good work. If you enjoy 'em, enjoy!

The list of super-talented people who've never won Oscars is often more impressive than those who have. Hitchcock never won for his direction, neither did Kubrick, nor has Scorsese or Altman. Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson have both won directing Oscars. Cary Grant never won for his acting, nor did Richard Burton, Peter Sellers, or Albert Finney. Who has more Oscars than those names combined? Whoopi Goldberg and Marisa Tomei. Yikes.

The Oscars are kind of fun to try and predict each year. We watch them even though we know they rarely reward talent (certainly not the most worthy films and performances of any given year) and the show is a crashing borefest. Yet we watch. But getting angry because Jim Carrey doesn't have one is very silly to me. There are lots of actors and dozens of directors I'd like to see get Oscars before Carrey - and I'm not just saying that because I think he's almost completely unfunny (though I'll take him over Adam Sandler any day of the week...not much of a choice in my book) and marginally talented as an actor. But in that vein...

Man, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, William H. Macy, Sean Penn, Albert Finney, Steve Martin, Clint Eastwood, Forest Whitaker, John Hurt, Ian Holm, Johnny Depp, Rip Torn, Jeff Bridges, John Malkovich, Gary Sinise, Bob Hoskins, Willem Dafoe, Albert Brooks, Kenneth Branagh, Larry Fishburn, Ed Harris, Gary Oldman, Tim Roth, Ian McKellen, Harrison Ford, Edward Norton...this is just a small sampling of some of the many names I'd like to see called LONG before Jim Carrey's. Every single one of them is a better actor and has a more substantial body of work than Carrey. If you're gonna be upset over somebody not getting an Oscar yet, cry out for Morgan Freeman, wail for Marty Scorsese, light a candle for Hitch. Don't give me any of this Jim Carrey nonsense.

Even though I don't care for Carrey, I think his best work yet was in The Truman Show (one of Peter Weir's weaker efforts)...yet I didn't think it was one of the five best performances of 1998...not even top ten material.


But diff'rent strokes! If you want to see Carrey as being "snubbed" and one of the greater affronts in Academy history, go right ahead. But I'm gonna call you on it and give you an ear full (or rather, an eye full via web chatter).



TWT: It's a redux, not a Director's Cut. They totally recut the entire film from scratch. That's why I'm asking. I don't know the rules. I think it SHOULD be able to be nominated. But I'm not arguing with you over how it's a whole new film. I'm sick of arguing.

Holden: Thankyou. I would shake you by the hand if I could. You pretty much said everything that needs to be said, not just over Carrey winning an Oscar, but over the entire thing in general. Especially the names; Scorcese, Kubrick, Hitchcock.

I mean come on, people.



It's purely subjective, Holden. The Oscars are a big deal, like it or not. The Oscar is almost universally hailed as the biggest award an actor can receive...so you can go on and on, if you like, about how it does not actually make an actor's performance any greater...but none of us said it did, and it doesn't really matter. If you were an actor, I'd bet you'd really want one.

Carrey has delivered an Oscar-worthy performance, and was not even nominated for it. Therefore, I'm voicing my complaints publicly. No one is about to start crying ( ), and none of us are losing sleep over it...just a mistake the Academy made, IMO.

Silver: wasn't looking for an argument...but even a redux, IMO, shouldn't count. It's the same basic story, and the same actors, doing a lot of the same things. Let me put it this way: if it were a crappy film, should it be allowed? I think the motivation and push for it to become eligible has to do with the perceived snub it apparently received upon initial release, rather than the actual merit of the argument on whether or not it should truly qualify as a new film.

Anyway, if you're tired of arguing already, you'd never last a week living my life. I argue a lot...but that's partially because I frequent like 4 different forums regularly.



Yes, but even in the narrow perspective of the Oscars alone, I don't think Carrey has much to pine for or gripe about. He's not even on the list of 100 greatest Academy snubs. Not even close.


And Bullet, I don't think the recently recut Apocalypse Now is elligible for Oscar consideration this year. Recut and remastered or not, it is still essentially the same film and not as completely different as you'd personally plead to the Academy. I don't know the official rule, but I'm next to positive it doesn't count as anything other than 1979 elligibility.

If the Academy had to make a judgement call very time a previously released film had footage added to it, the Studios could easily trot out a Lawrence of Arabia or Casablanca every few years, just to get nominations. They would have to spend time judging how much new material is really there. Is there a percentage over the original film's running time that will qualify or exclude? Does the same footage in a dfifferent order constitute a new film? What about films that are re-cut shorter, like BladeRunner? Who would make these decisions? A special panel? You know what wonderful work the special panel that nominates the documentary features each year has done, do you want another such body making judgement calls?


Nah, it's out of the per view of what the Academy is trying to recognize each year with the Oscars. You only get one bite at the apple, and Coppola's Apocalypse, Redux or not, took it in March of 1980.



Really? I didn't think it won, did it? No, it didn't. Was it nominated? If so, well.

Anyway. I don't care. I had high hopes, that's all.
Holden, just from your viewpoint. What do you think the five nominations for Best Picture will be?



Now With Moveable Parts
I know I've said it before and I'll just have to say it again...It's not us, the fans, that make such a big deal out of the oscars...it's the actors themselves that hold it in such high regaurd. The fans just follow suit, because we want our favorites to receive the honor they want so badly. I never cried for Jim Carey, I just think he should have gotten one by now...because you know he wants one, and why shouldn't he have one. Like you said Holden, he's paid extemely well. There is a reason for that; he brings in the masses. It's like Julia Roberts, I can't stand her, but people flock to her movies like flies on s***. So I guess I can't deny she's got something going for her right? Same with Jim. Roberts got her title, Jim should get his too.



SilverBullet - Apocalypse Now was one of the five nominees for Best Picture at the '80 ceremonies. The other four were All that Jazz, Breaking Away, Norma Rae, and Kramer vs. Kramer. Kramer won Picture, as well as Director (Robert Benton), Actor (Hoffman), Supporting Actress (Streep) and Adapted Screenplay (Robert Benton again), plus four other nominations.

Apocalypse Now had eight Oscar nominations: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor (Duvall), Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Art Direction and Adapted Screenplay. It won two, for the Sound and Vittorio Storaro's Cinematography.


As for potential nominees this year, like most years Hollywood holds most of its big guns back for December (or January and February in wide release), so I can't make a very good educated guess. Thus far Memento is the only thing I see that will probably get some nods, definitely Screenplay and hopefully Director, Actor (Guy Pearce) and others.

Ben Kingsley's performance in Sexy Beast is a virtual lock for a Supporting Actor nomination, but I don't expect the movie itself will make the cut. I loved The Pledge and think Nicholson's work may get some looks, but the film was a boxoffice dud and firmly divided both critics and audiences, so I don't really expect anything.

Just blind guessing on how good I hope coming high-profile movies will be or which ones might generate enough 'whatever' to get Oscar nominations, I'll say Memento, Scorsese's Gangs of New York, Cameron Crowe's Vanilla Sky, Michael Mann's Ali, and Lasse Hallstrom's The Shipping News. But since Memento is the only of those five I've seen, obviously it's much too early to say.

You can't really play this game until mid to late January. Ask me again then, I'll have PLENTY of opinions.