Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 12:18 PM

Michael Moore not nominated - in any category - for Oscar.

That means we don't have to see his big fat bloviating face when we watch the Oscar Awards.

On the other hand, I hope Jamie Foxx picks up on Oscar, but I think that Johnnie Depp should win the Best Actor Oscar this year. He deserves it because his body of work has been outstanding for a long time. Jamie Foxx should take home the Supporting Actor nom for Collateral. (Interesting how Cruise NEVER wins anything, ever...might it be his Scientology ties?)

Hillary Swank will win for Best Actress for Million Dollar Baby, though I wish that Kate Winslet would get it for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

And, I was thrilled to see Morgan Spurlock nominated for Supersize Me for his McDocumentary about McDonald's. He should definitely win. (Especially since I will now save thousands of dollars during the tenure of my children's childhoods because I will never go to McDonald's again.)

Shaddim · Jan 25, 2005, 12:29 PM

Seems that "The Passion" was shut out too. They probably wanted to avoid any and all controversies... which is typical given their PC nature.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 12:31 PM

The Passion is seen by many Jews as being anti-semitic. Given that a large proportion of the individuals running the movie business are Jewish, it is not surprising. Gibson still gets the "last" laugh because his payday is going to be close to something like $1 billion dollars that the movie grosses.

I always wanted to ask him how much of that he donated to any church?

ort888 · Jan 25, 2005, 12:36 PM

He held it out of the best documentary category because it was technically not allowed. It aired on TV appparently and that immediatly disqualifies it from being the best documentary. He knew it would happen when he did it too, he chose to anyway.

I don't think anyone thought it would actually be nominated for best pic. Not even Moore. I think he was just blowing smoke and trying to generate buzz.

demograph68 · Jan 25, 2005, 12:37 PM

**** the Oscars.�

lavar78 · Jan 25, 2005, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by demograph68:
**** the Oscars.�

Generally, I agree, but Jamie Foxx deserves the Oscar for best actor. He was phenomenal in Ray.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 12:42 PM

I haven't seen Ray, but I sure do like Jamie Foxx. It's tough to choose between Depp and Foxx. I say Depp because he has done SO much over his career. The PC thing to do would be to give the Best Actor to Depp and the Best Supporting Actor to Foxx. Both of them win, then.

vmpaul · Jan 25, 2005, 12:50 PM

I'm surprised Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated for 'Sideways'. It was basically a character-driven movie and he was the main character.

We just saw 'Maria Full of Grace'. Nice to see the lead (Catalina Sandino Moreno) nominated, she was excellent in it. I don't think she'll win but it was nice she was recognized.

Rather than immediately ascribe political and religious bias to the snubbing of 'The Passion', why not just admit it wasn't Oscar worthy? It got got lousy reviews. Lousy reviews from all over (local and national papers, media), so you can't just ascribe it to the industry in Hollywood.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jan 25, 2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The PC thing to do would be to give the Best Actor to Depp and the Best Supporting Actor to Foxx. Both of them win, then.

The right thing to do, would be giving Foxx the Best Actor award he rightly deserves for Ray, and leave both Collateral and Depp out of it!

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 12:56 PM

Maybe!

I wouldn't care if either wins. They both deserve it.

It would be cool if Foxx won it for Best Actor and Winslet wins Best Actress.

demograph68 · Jan 25, 2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
It would be cool if Foxx won it for Best Actor and Winslet wins Best Actress.

I hope so too.

DeathMan · Jan 25, 2005, 01:29 PM

Just out of ignorance: What movie would Johnny Depp win for?

Edit: Ah, finding neverland.

Secret Window should cancel that out, though, if you want to talk "Body of Work"

demograph68 · Jan 25, 2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Just out of ignorance: What movie would Johnny Depp win for?

Edit: Ah, finding neverland.

Secret Window should cancel that out, though, if you want to talk "Body of Work"

If he wasn't for the "OMG he's so HAWT!!!11!" factor, no one would give a **** about him.

brutal · Jan 25, 2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by demograph68:
**** the Oscars.�

+1

Daracle · Jan 25, 2005, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Michael Moore not nominated - in any category - for Oscar.

That means we don't have to see his big fat bloviating face when we watch the Oscar Awards.

Intelligent argument.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 02:03 PM

Secret Window.

<sigh>

Yeah, what WAS that all about?

That bit at the end where he's eating corn-on-the-cob had me transfixed...it was unbelievably lame.

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Seems that "The Passion" was shut out too. They probably wanted to avoid any and all controversies... which is typical given their PC nature.

It wasn't quite shut out; it got a nomination for Best Makeup. That's the only one I'm aware of, though. Not that I care much; I haven't seen it and don't intend to.

As for Moore, if I remember correctly he forewent the opportunity to get an Oscar in order to try and get Farenheit 9/11 shown on TV a couple of days before the election. He said, as I recall, that he considered losing the chances for nomination 'worth it' if he could influence the election such that Bush would lose.

I don't remember if the movie was actually shown at the time he'd planned for, though.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 02:18 PM

DID that movie ever make it on television?

Not where I live it didn't.

Does anyone know if it made it on television anywhere at all?

On another note, did anyone else see Supersize Me?

That was a great eye-opening movie. I haven't been to McDonald's since seeing that movie.

Methinks Michael Moore should watch his fellow-documentarian's movie, though.

CaseCom · Jan 25, 2005, 02:40 PM

I was rooting for "The Incredibles" to get a best-picture nomination, but it didn't get it. It did get four nominations: Best animated feature (argh), best original screenplay and two nominations for sound.

vmpaul · Jan 25, 2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:

On another note, did anyone else see Supersize Me?

That was a great eye-opening movie. I haven't been to McDonald's since seeing that movie.

Same here. In fact, I had a Big Mac earlier in the day we went to see that. I didn't know we were going to see that particular movie that day. Not that I was big on FF but I haven't been to ANY fast food restaurant since. Going on 7 months +...

Did you see it in the theater or on DVD? We saw again on DVD and the extras were definitely worth the second viewing. He interviewed the author of Fast Food Nation, that was an interesting conversation among the other extras.

BRussell · Jan 25, 2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Seems that "The Passion" was shut out too. They probably wanted to avoid any and all controversies... which is typical given their PC nature.

The Passion is up for several Oscars, including best cinematography.

SamuraiDL · Jan 25, 2005, 03:10 PM

You ****ing republicans and christians kill me.

Shaddim · Jan 25, 2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
The Passion is up for several Oscars, including best cinematography.

I was talking specifically about Best Actor, Best Picture, and Best Director (I should have been more specific)... but yes, it was nominated for cinematography, music, and makeup.

Shaddim · Jan 25, 2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by SamuraiDL:
You ****ing republicans and christians kill me.

Have a point, or are you just being a hemorrhoid?

awcopus · Jan 25, 2005, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The Passion is seen by many Jews as being anti-semitic. Given that a large proportion of the individuals running the movie business are Jewish, it is not surprising.

Don't be ridiculous. The movie contained technically brilliant cinematography and art direction, and certainly the performances were strong, but on the whole it was too overwhelmingly, x-ratedly, savagely violent for such long stretches of time... that I think for most viewers who are not believers and therefore have a shot at assessing the movie on its own merits, it was simply not that great of a movie.

To counter your explicit charge, no, Jews did not keep the movie from being nominated. Gibson's violence fetish did.

Not saying it wasn't extraordinarily moving to true-believers. Just that the movie existed was moving to them.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 03:26 PM

I'm sure it's the latter, MacNStein.

BrunoBruin · Jan 25, 2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Gibson still gets the "last" laugh because his payday is going to be close to something like $1 billion dollars that the movie grosses.

Not to mention the fact that Mel already has two richly undeserved Oscars for "Braveheart." (Although I have to say, bad as this year is, 1995 was even worse for nominations. I think if they had given the award to "Apollo 13" I'd have gouged out my eyes.)

Remember kids, there are about 6,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who select the nominees and eventually the winners. Balloting for nominations is restricted to members of the respective branch; directors nominate directors, actors nominate actors, etc. (So if you're pissed off that Paul Giamatti didn't get a nomination, don't blame "the Academy"; blame his fellow actors.) Everyone gets to vote on best picture, and the acting branch is by far the largest of the Academy, so "actor's pictures" have a leg up.

The final winners in most categories are determined by a vote of the WHOLE membership, and again, the acting branch is the largest. And actors, by and large, have execrable taste.

Shaddim · Jan 25, 2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by awcopus:
Don't be ridiculous. The movie contained technically brilliant cinematography and art direction, and certainly the performances were strong, but on the whole it was too overwhelmingly, x-ratedly, savagely violent for such long stretches of time... that I think for most viewers who are not believers and therefore have a shot at assessing the movie on its own merits, it was simply not that great of a movie.

To counter your explicit charge, no, Jews did not keep the movie from being nominated. Gibson's violence fetish did.

Not saying it wasn't extraordinarily moving to true-believers. Just that the movie existed was moving to them.

FWIW, no, I wouldn't have nominated it for best picture, there were too many gaffs in it to warrant that. However, I would have nominated Caviezel for best actor. IMO, it was the best male performance of last year (Foxx and Depp being a close 2nd and 3rd).

Steve · Jan 25, 2005, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by BrunoBruin:
Not to mention the fact that Mel already has two richly undeserved Oscars for "Braveheart."

Are you trying to say that Gibson should not have gotten an Oscar for Braveheart? Are you insane?

Mafia · Jan 25, 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by BrunoBruin:
Not to mention the fact that Mel already has two richly undeserved Oscars for "Braveheart.

heh i thought he was damn good in braveheart. and southpark..

TheBadgerHunter · Jan 25, 2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
DID that movie ever make it on television?

Not where I live it didn't.

Does anyone know if it made it on television anywhere at all?

On another note, did anyone else see Supersize Me?

That was a great eye-opening movie. I haven't been to McDonald's since seeing that movie.

Methinks Michael Moore should watch his fellow-documentarian's movie, though.

What about the chicken strips? They're the best around and not that fatty.

lavar78 · Jan 25, 2005, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
What about the chicken strips? They're the best around and not that fatty.

The best around? Are you serious? The home-style chicken strips at Wendy's are better, but Chick-Fil-A will always be #1.

drmcnutt · Jan 26, 2005, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by ort888:
He held it out of the best documentary category because it was technically not allowed. It aired on TV appparently and that immediatly disqualifies it from being the best documentary. He knew it would happen when he did it too, he chose to anyway.

I don't think anyone thought it would actually be nominated for best pic. Not even Moore. I think he was just blowing smoke and trying to generate buzz.

He held it out of the documentary catagory for two reasons.

One, he wanted other documentaries to have a chance in the Oscar race.

Two, He thought he had a chance at taking the Best Picture Oscar due to the success of the film. It took top prize at Cannes film festival.

It aired on television in Cuba and would have been eligible for the documentary catagory if he didn't take himself out of it.

He got burned looking for glory, but that's great because Super Size Me was far superior to Moore's work. I'm glad it has a chance to rise from 9/11 shadow.

Mafia · Jan 26, 2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
He held it out of the documentary catagory for two reasons.

One, he wanted other documentaries to have a chance in the Oscar race.

Two, He thought he had a chance at taking the Best Picture Oscar due to the success of the film. It took top prize at Cannes film festival.

It aired on television in Cuba and would have been eligible for the documentary catagory if he didn't take himself out of it.

He got burned looking for glory, but that's great because Super Size Me was far superior to Moore's work. I'm glad it has a chance to rise from 9/11 shadow.

ya super size me was good. i loved when he was in the car trying to eat the supersized double quarter pounder and he threw up out the window. heh

Gankdawg · Jan 26, 2005, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
He held it out of the documentary catagory for two reasons.

The biggest being is that it's not a documentary.

Cody Dawg · Jan 26, 2005, 08:52 AM

awcopus
Don't be ridiculous. The movie contained technically brilliant cinematography and art direction, and certainly the performances were strong, but on the whole it was too overwhelmingly, x-ratedly, savagely violent for such long stretches of time... that I think for most viewers who are not believers and therefore have a shot at assessing the movie on its own merits, it was simply not that great of a movie.

To counter your explicit charge, no, Jews did not keep the movie from being nominated. Gibson's violence fetish did.

You don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I have a relative who happens to be a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and he was there at the screening of the movie and yes, it was full of Jews (and yes my uncle is Jewish), and when I was talking to him he told me that there was hissing and booing all the way through the movie - and some people got up and walked out. He personally thought that Caveziel was awesome in the movie - as he was in The Thin Red Line - but that the portrayals were unfair. Gibson could have made that movie much less offensive and he did not.

Caveziel, FYI, took the role because he is a devout Catholic, BTW.

It's stupid to keep portraying Jews as the ones who put Christ up on the cross. It was the Romans, remember? Pontius Pilate to be exact.

Yes, the movie did offend Jews. It portrays Jews as sadistic. It reasserted certain misbeliefs about Jews.

SamuraiDL · Jan 26, 2005, 04:25 PM

Yeah my point is that you ****ing right wing christians are whats wrong with this country.

Mafia · Jan 26, 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by SamuraiDL:
Yeah my point is that you ****ing right wing christians are whats wrong with this country.

and oprah...

SamuraiDL · Jan 27, 2005, 06:37 PM

sorry

Millennium · Jan 27, 2005, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by SamuraiDL:
Yeah my point is that you ****ing right wing christians are whats wrong with this country.

Care to elaborate on what relevance that has in this thread?

Evan_11 · Jan 28, 2005, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Same here. In fact, I had a Big Mac earlier in the day we went to see that. I didn't know we were going to see that particular movie that day. Not that I was big on FF but I haven't been to ANY fast food restaurant since. Going on 7 months +...

Did you see it in the theater or on DVD? We saw again on DVD and the extras were definitely worth the second viewing. He interviewed the author of Fast Food Nation, that was an interesting conversation among the other extras.

So did that Big Mac taste good?

So what you're really saying is that because you have no self-control that you had give up fast food completely. Kind of like how an alcoholic has to completely give up booze.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jan 28, 2005, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So what you're really saying is that because you have no self-control that you had give up fast food completely. Kind of like how an alcoholic has to completely give up booze.

That makes no sense what-so-ever. It takes self-control to give up things that one enjoys, yet are detrimental to one's health.

You're suggesting the opposite: that eating crap whenever you want= self control, and that giving up eating crap= no self control/addiction.

That is some 180 degree bassackward 'logic' if ever I've heard it.

vmpaul · Jan 28, 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So did that Big Mac taste good?

So what you're really saying is that because you have no self-control that you had give up fast food completely. Kind of like how an alcoholic has to completely give up booze.

I had one Big Mac and now I'm compared to an alcoholic? I don't know what's more idiotic about your reponse, that your world is so black & white having one hamburger means someone has NO self-control or that you're SO judgmental that you characterize someone you've never met by reading one statement. Actually, I think both positions are equally asinine. Congratulations Evan_11, you're 2-0 on the fool quiz.

Or is it like many people, I'm always striving to better myself which includes eating a healthier diet? Eating a Big Mac once in awhile is a guilty pleasure that is well within my bounds of diet control. I just so happened to eat one the day I saw that movie. It was a funny coincidence, nothing more.

Maybe it's just that now, after learning that one McDonald's hamburger patty could be compromised of up to 1,000 different cows (which I find disgusting and potentially health endangering), that I decide the guilty pleasure of a Big Mac should happen more infrequently? That's what normal people (you now, like grown-ups?) do when they learn new stuff. They re-evaluate their previous position. Obviously, that doesn't apply to you, since you've learned everything you know (including all about me) by sitting behind your keyboard and monitor.

Zimphire · Jan 28, 2005, 12:43 PM

Evan_11 · Jan 28, 2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
That makes no sense what-so-ever. It takes self-control to give up things that one enjoys, yet are detrimental to one's health.

You're suggesting the opposite: that eating crap whenever you want= self control, and that giving up eating crap= no self control/addiction.

That is some 180 degree bassackward 'logic' if ever I've heard it.

It makes sense to me. Alcoholics have no self-control when it comes to drinking so they must completely give it up. There is nothing wrong with eating a Big Mac every once in awhile just like having a beer every once in awhile isn't bad.

Evan_11 · Jan 28, 2005, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I had one Big Mac and now I'm compared to an alcoholic? I don't know what's more idiotic about your reponse, that your world is so black & white having one hamburger means someone has NO self-control or that you're SO judgmental that you characterize someone you've never met by reading one statement. Actually, I think both positions are equally asinine. Congratulations Evan_11, you're 2-0 on the fool quiz.

Or is it like many people, I'm always striving to better myself which includes eating a healthier diet? Eating a Big Mac once in awhile is a guilty pleasure that is well within my bounds of diet control. I just so happened to eat one the day I saw that movie. It was a funny coincidence, nothing more.

Maybe it's just that now, after learning that one McDonald's hamburger patty could be compromised of up to 1,000 different cows (which I find disgusting and potentially health endangering), that I decide the guilty pleasure of a Big Mac should happen more infrequently? That's what normal people (you now, like grown-ups?) do when they learn new stuff. They re-evaluate their previous position. Obviously, that doesn't apply to you, since you've learned everything you know (including all about me) by sitting behind your keyboard and monitor.

So did that Big Mac taste good?

vmpaul · Jan 28, 2005, 03:04 PM

Yes