The Oscars

by **Jaszalcatraz** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:11 am

Although I'm happy for New Line Cinema for winning 11 Oscars on a gamble called LOTR, I'm truly dissapointed with the Academy for not giving an Oscar to Bill Murray.

by **azazel** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:25 pm

Dude, Sean Penn W O N whoooooo hoooooooo

one of my fav. actors never really recognized by the bozos at the Academy..he was more deservin than Bill Murray..

just look at his string of performances that went unrewarded!

plus, his act in Mystic River was just amazing.. :twisted:

by **CtrlAltDel** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:18 pm

Good for Sean Penn...finally he got what he always deserved! he was always underrated and underused.

abt ROTK, i agree its a technical marvel, but did it deserve the "Best Picture" and the "Best Director" prizes? IMO, there were quite a few movies that were more qualified for the prize, like "Mystic River" fo instance.

by **azazel** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:32 am

It was more or less a consolation man..

1 Oscar for 3 movies.. :wink:

by **vivek** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:52 pm

bill muray was brilliant in Lost in Translation, but some how it seem the academy awards jury is biased towards real big budget extravanagnza. The skewness towards LOTR 3 was not warranted at all. It is a great movie : no doubt, but certainly not 11 awards. Given the fact that Matrix and Kill Bill were not considered for nominations due to non-compliance to academy rules went in favour of LOTR. :?:

by **vivek** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:55 pm

bill muray was brilliant in Lost in Translation, but some how it seems the academy awards jury is biased towards real big budget extravaganza. The skewness towards LOTR 3 was not warranted at all. It is a great movie : no doubt, but certainly not worth 11 awards. Given the fact that Matrix and Kill Bill were not considered for nominations due to non-compliance to academy rules went in favour of LOTR. :?:

by **Jaszalcatraz** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:13 am

Although discussions abt Bill Murray and LOTR might never end, I am very happy that the Academy has finally recognized Tim Robbins. Andy Dufresne is one of my favourite characters of all time.

I hope Johnny Depp and Edward Norton do win an Oscar in the near future and don't go the Sean Penn way (unrecognized for sooo long).

Also I do hope Bill Murray stops being such a recluse and makes more movies.

by **azazel** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:34 am

vivek wrote:bill muray was brilliant in Lost in Translation, but some how it seems the academy awards jury is biased towards real big budget extravaganza. The skewness towards LOTR 3 was not warranted at all. It is a great movie : no doubt, but certainly not worth 11 awards. Given the fact that Matrix and Kill Bill were not considered for nominations due to non-compliance to academy rules went in favour of LOTR.

OK, point by point..havent seen LIT yet but im sure Bill Murray was as good as everyone who's seen the movie is ravin about..

the part where u said jury being biased abt big-budget extravaganzas, whats that got to do with Bill not winning? i dun think Mystic River would qualify for that..n i assure u Sean Penn was also brilliant n thoroughly desrved his win!

2ndly, LOTR won mostly in the technial categories n rightly so..no acting nominations here..that sez a lot :wink:

3rdly, whats the deal with Matrix n Kill Bill not complyin with academy rulses? I was lookin fwd to see atleast Uma Thurman nominated for an oscar....

by **Jaszalcatraz** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:37 pm

Kill Bill dint comply with the Oscar rules? wat's that all about?

by **vivek** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:16 pm

Kill Bill Vol 1&2 and Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were shot in one go. They are split movies and cannot qualify as two movies which Taratino and Wachowski Bros. wanted. The Academy rules wanted them to send either one movie or none.

Please get this thing confirmed.

by **Jaszalcatraz** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:37 pm

Then how come the LOTR triplogy were niminated for the Oscars? They were shot in one go.

by **vivek** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:46 am

thats because Peter Jackson sent ONLY part 3 for nominations, he did not send 'the twin towers' for nominations. Tarantino and Wachowski wanted both the 'movies' to be considered for nominations.

by **vivek** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:46 am

thats because Peter Jackson sent ONLY part 3 for nominations, he did not send 'the twin towers' for nominations. Tarantino and Wachowski wanted both the 'movies' to be considered for nominations.

by **azazel** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 12:43 pm

ok,

but dun u think QT would atleast wait ill Vol.2 comes out??

whats the point in sendin a movie which hasnt even released for nominations..

Matrix 2/3 i get it but .. y not Kill Bill??

aaah..forget it..whats the point now neway..

The Oscars

The Oscars

Who is online