Oscar Spurns Serenity by DonCoat

Why am I not surprised?

Yet, another reason to add to the long list of reasons I will never watch the OSCARS. I stopped watching them 16 years ago, and every year they make it easier and easier for me, underscoring that my decision to forsake their garbage was entirely justified.

What the OSCARS need is Jayne Cobb and Vera to pay them a visit.

"Hamster's is nice."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:56 AM

QUICKSAND

Yes, it is indeed a shame... and shows just how unoriginal Hollywood really is.

I posted a blog on this. I suggest you read it.

xoxo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:16 AM

MALNOURISHED

There were only three nominations in the Visual Effects category, but no one can tell me that Serenity doesn't belong there at the very least. It's not as effects-dominated as the nominees, but that's what makes it so great! The effects are there to tell the story, not to be the story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:31 AM

EST120

Quote:
Originally posted by DonCoat:
The Academy Award nominations have been announced, and our Big Damn Movie was shut out.

My comment is tangentially related. Here is what I have been confused about for so long. Maybe I am backwards, but why are the same movies nominated for so many categories? I understand the acting categories being related to the overall best picture or to the director because they all work together to make a movie good but why are so many of the same movies nominated for categories like sound effects and art direction? Of course, I am not familiar with how the nominating process works, so there is almost certainly a logical explanation for this. Can anyone shed some light?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:52 AM

SAMEERTIA

It's my understanding that voting Oscar members- those who make the nominations, take into account the entirety of a film; not just each seperate category.
When the ENTIRETY of a film has been found Oscar-worthy, THEN they look at the specific work of each film and determine what categories it excels in.

For example:
Brokeback Mountain is an excellent film. The cinematography is excellent, the art direction and soundtrack are excellent. The screenplay adaptation of the short story is excellent. The acting and direction are superb. Overall, the film itself is flawless.

Mrs Henderson Presents is also, overall, and excellent film. It is, in it's direction, acting, cinematography, etc, flawless.

So, they both qualify as Oscar material.
NOW, the question that has to be decided is where does one excellent film excel over another excellent film.

Mrs. Henderson Presents is GREAT, but it doesn't compete in most of the above areas when compared against films like Brokeback, Munich, etc.
Where it DOES excel over the others is in costuming,(come on! turn of the century flamboyance vs cowboy hats? Is there a competition there?) and with the performance of the undeniably brilliant Dame Judy Dench.

I BELIEVE that "Serenity" was worth a second look by the Oscar voters- That's why, in a fit of desperation, I sent DVDs to the two Academy members who I know personally.

But the plain truth is that when you hold our darling up against the top nominees, she is NOT flawless. She is not perfect. She may qualify in a variety of categories, but overall, she is not of the same caliber of film as the Oscar Nominees.
Sad. Heartbreaking. But True.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:56 AM

JPSTARGAZER

Well if a movie is deserving, it shouldn't be limited to the number of nominations it recieves. However, as of late it seems that there are only a few movies that fit what the academy (not capitalized out of disrespect) is looking for. So in a way, all the movies that get a lot of repeat nominations for categories other than acting, are basically cookie cutter. Those movies are like the kids in high school who used to spout the teacher's opinions even if they didn't believe them to get a good grade. So much for artistic expression.

"All I got is a red guitar, three chords, and the truth...the rest is up to you"
--Bono

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:02 AM

ASARIAN

Quote:
But the plain truth is that when you hold our darling up against the top nominees, she is NOT flawless. She is not perfect. She may qualify in a variety of categories, but overall, she is not of the same caliber of film as the Oscar Nominees.
Sad. Heartbreaking. But True.

Sad. Heartbreaking... and untrue! Or, if it's true, then why am I watching it over and over? And over.

"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:11 AM

DISKA

i really didnt expect it to scoop any nominations although for the love of vera i wish it had.
its been a long time since i genuinly cared about a film that was widely nominated for the oscars, sure ive liked a few but theres been none that really mattered to me - put it this way, none that i really felt deserve it.

to me our BDM is brilliantly written and directed, it contains excellent and innovative special effects, the score is beautful, the performances are astounding (especially summer's feet). there are so many things within the film that i believe deserve some kind of credible recognition that validate why this movie matters to me so much.

oscars arent the be-all and end-all of a movie's credibility or recognition. the BDM is continually topping polls and gaining glowing reviews.

"Dear diary: Today I was pompous and my sister was crazy. Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:11 AM

EST120

Quote:
Originally posted by SameErtia:
It's my understanding that voting Oscar members- those who make the nominations, take into account the entirety of a film; not just each seperate category.
When the ENTIRETY of a film has been found Oscar-worthy, THEN they look at the specific work of each film and determine what categories it excels in.

Please correct me if I am wrong. So if I am understanding you correctly, a movie that has vastly superior art direction to anything else that came out that year (I am randomly picking something) but the story is awful, the actors are awful but the sets look fantastic, it would not even get nominated?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:29 AM

RKLENSETH

Episode III only got nominated for one award and that was Best Makeup. So if Star Wars couldn't even get a visual effects nominated then Serenity will not.

Anyways, you're putting Serenity up against the top movies of the year. Serenity was reviewed by the critics as a good movie or average movie but no where close to being a great movie or perfect movie. Plus Serenity doesn't fit Hollywood's political agenda like Brokeback Mountain does. Or the year before with Million Dollar Baby (which I love by the way even if I don't agree with it's political tone).

Face it, Hollywood doesn't give awards to movies like Serenity. That's the nature of that world.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by diska:
to me our BDM is brilliantly written and directed, it contains excellent and innovative special effects, the score is beautful, the performances are astounding (especially summer's feet). there are so many things within the film that i believe deserve some kind of credible recognition that validate why this movie matters to me so much.

I agree. Artistic appreciation of anything is subjective at best. But, there should be a category for "most enjoyable" film -- for which this film certainly qualifies.

I also believe Summer Glau's performance stands up to any performance by any actress -- not just this year, but for the past several years. As diska wrote above, I also agree that the score and special effects were worthy of notice. I even thought the story was good.

Of the nominees, I've only seen "Munich" (I have no interest in the others, and won't even watch them on TV). While I appreciate other Speilberg films (several of his films are on my top 100, and my #2 film is "Schindler's List"), I don't think "Munich" was a great film. I found it incredibly disturbing and wouldn't watch it again. Contrast that with "Serenity" which I've already seen 7 times, and plan to watch repeatedly as the need arises.

That should count for something.

And don't get me started again on how Summer was overlooked. I've posted about that in several other threads, and I can't add anything to what I've already said elsewhere.

Perhaps if River was a transgendered lesbian who wanted to have physician-assisted suicide after aborting her child, then lobbied against wearing fur and the evils of big business, "Serenity" might've been hailed as "the greatest film made by mortal man". As such, I guess we'll just have to settle with the most enjoyable (and probably most addictive) film many of us have seen in a long, long, long time.

"This must be what going mad feels like."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:09 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by asarian:
Quote:
But the plain truth is that when you hold our darling up against the top nominees, she is NOT flawless. She is not perfect. She may qualify in a variety of categories, but overall, she is not of the same caliber of film as the Oscar Nominees.
Sad. Heartbreaking. But True.

Sad. Heartbreaking... and untrue! Or, if it's true, then why am I watching it over and over? And over.

"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam.

Uh, 'cuase like the rest of us, you're an obsessed fan.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:13 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:
Quote:
Originally posted by SameErtia:
It's my understanding that voting Oscar members- those who make the nominations, take into account the entirety of a film; not just each seperate category.
When the ENTIRETY of a film has been found Oscar-worthy, THEN they look at the specific work of each film and determine what categories it excels in.

Please correct me if I am wrong. So if I am understanding you correctly, a movie that has vastly superior art direction to anything else that came out that year (I am randomly picking something) but the story is awful, the actors are awful but the sets look fantastic, it would not even get nominated?

I don't think that's always the case, no. As an example from this year, Memoirs of a Geisha has gotten horrible reviews from most critic's groups in the key areas of acting, script, and direction, though even then they said it'd be up for the technical Oscars (costumes, art direction, ect.). And that's pretty much how it played out, 6 noms, none for any of the top 8 categories (acting, directing, script, ect.).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:23 AM

GROOSALUGG

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Perhaps if River was a transgendered lesbian who wanted to have physician-assisted suicide after aborting her child, then lobbied against wearing fur and the evils of big business, "Serenity" might've been hailed as "the greatest film made by mortal man". As such, I guess we'll just have to settle with the most enjoyable (and probably most addictive) film many of us have seen in a long, long, long time.

That's just too funny...

...and also more than a little disturbing, since it's undoubtedly true. These awards have became mainly about the political issues espoused by each particular film...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:58 AM

ANIMALM0THER

Well, at least others thought of our BDM and BDH's in a Oscar-worthy way.
http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2006/poll/bestresults

Why the hell isnt Jewel on this thing? I'm positive she would have secured "Best Supporting Mechanic."

I'll be in my bunk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Episode III only got nominated for one award and that was Best Makeup. So if Star Wars couldn't even get a visual effects nominated then Serenity will not.

Are you telling me Star Wars had good special effects? They were very pretty and expensive, but no way I'd put them above Serenity, hell, I wouldn't put them above Aliens. Pretty and expensive don't make special effects good or great, subtlety and immersion do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:20 AM

JAYRO

Quote:
Originally posted by ThePistonEngine:
Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Episode III only got nominated for one award and that was Best Makeup. So if Star Wars couldn't even get a visual effects nominated then Serenity will not.

Are you telling me Star Wars had good special effects? They were very pretty and expensive, but no way I'd put them above Serenity, hell, I wouldn't put them above Aliens. Pretty and expensive don't make special effects good or great, subtlety and immersion do.

Ep III was one big special effect. Sheer weight of numbers made it a shoe-in for nomination in that category.

Serenity has great effects, but to its credit it concentrates more on the story and acting. Yes, that's ACTING, Lucas, you understand?

---------------------

"May have been the losin' side. Still not sure it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:25 AM

What about War of the Worlds? How the hell did that get a nomination over Serenity? I'll admit, I watched it in Berlin and Ich spreche nur ein bischen Deutsch (I only speak a little german), but besides being clueless towards the plot, I really wasn't stunned by the visuals.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:37 AM

JAKE7

How Serenity got overlooked for Technical awards from ANY "academy" burns me to no end!

I mean, come on. I'm a big fan of ILM, but I have to admit that Zoic has them completely skunked in every way!!

Back when I watched the TV show, I was incredibly impressed with the quality and realism of the special effects. That didn't change with the BDM.

Normally, when you go from big screen to small screen, the special effects sections lose a lot. They're actually noticable. Not so with Serenity (course, they already mastered the small screen in one sense).

What really impressed the heck out of me from the movie was that all the outdoor scenery at the Training House was ALL EFFECT!! (think of the scene where Inara meets the Operative) It was better and more realistic than anything I'd seen in the latest Star Wars movies (in fact, I was shocked to find that it *was* effect!), and I was pretty impressed the first time I saw those. But, those scenes don't hold up against what I see in Serenity!

Time to stop now -- I'm gettin' a mite tetchy!

--------------
MAL: Everybody's makin' a fuss.
***********
"They just float out there, sending out raver breeding parties..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:38 AM

STILLTHEREWAITING

Quote:
Originally posted by MalNourished:
There were only three nominations in the Visual Effects category, but no one can tell me that Serenity doesn't belong there at the very least. It's not as effects-dominated as the nominees, but that's what makes it so great! The effects are there to tell the story, not to be the story.

According to Rotten Tomatos a while back:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=273129&p=2

"The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced the seven films in consideration for Achievement in Visual Effects for the 78th Academy Awards®.

The films are listed below in alphabetical order:

Batman Begins
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
King Kong
Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith
War of the Worlds

Fifteen-minute clip reels from each of the seven films will be screened for the Visual Effects Award Nominating Committee on Wednesday, January 25. At this screening the members will vote to nominate three of the seven films for Oscar® consideration.

So presumably, it wasn't one of the top 7???

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy.

If I were you, I'd run!
If you were me, you'd be good-looking

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:42 AM

SPOOKYJESUS

Did anyone spot any trade ads for serenity ala -

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:50 AM

SAMEERTIA

No, there were no trade ads for Serenity.
The two dvds that I specifically sent to Academy members were, as far as I know, the only two that were recieved. (Usually, studios send out packages to Academy members touting their hopefuls.)
Face it, gang, Universal didn't care enough about Serenity to push it the Acad.
Next time, maybe we should do it ourselves. :D

(Notice I don't say "If there's a 'next time'".)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SameErtia:

Next time, maybe we should do it ourselves. :D

(Notice I don't say "If there's a 'next time'".)

IF there's a next time. Perhaps we will be blessed with a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th season, instead of movie sequals. :-D

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:58 AM

ASARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by ThePistonEngine:
What about War of the Worlds? How the hell did that get a nomination over Serenity?

I observe that really sucky movies, plot-wise, tend to do real well with awards. I venture to speculate, because when members of a jury "don't get" the flick, they then usually conclude that it must be way over their head, and thus be very good.

Where is that man with the real big gun when you need him? :)

"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:30 AM

cartoon wrote (while others defended or argued against Academy selection 'methodology'):

Quote:
Yet, another reason to add to the long list of reasons I will never watch the OSCARS. I stopped watching them 16 years ago, and every year they make it easier and easier for me, underscoring that my decision to forsake their garbage was entirely justified.

What the OSCARS need is Jayne Cobb and Vera to pay them a visit.

Actually, Serenity not getting tapped for any Oscars has made my day. Had they gotten nominated, I'd've probably sat through the telecast just to see who showed up to accept, on the slim possibility that we actually won one.

And it was -- and still is, thanks to this good news -- my strict intention to avoid the TV the entire night of the awards. Two words: "Bareback Mountain". ...or was that "Broked*ck Mountain"? Oh, well. Y'all know the one I'm talking about. The tender, loving story of two lonesome cowpokes who find each other and stop poking... cows.

Hand to my heart, I got nothing against gays, male or female. Everybody's got to be true to themselves; I believe that. But I don't have to watch it, fer Pete's sake. I don't see how my hurling (a.k.a., "blowing chunks", "the technicolor yawn", "selling Buuuicks to a guy named Raaalph") in the theatre or in my living room is going to advance Hollywood's agenda.

Ummm... Did I say "agenda"? I meant to say, "rewriting the history of the American West to match their liberal biases." No! Wait! I meant to say, "If it had been about gay cowgirls, I'd've been right there!"

Wait! Come back! I'll be good, I promise! I...

Unpopularly,

zoid

P.S.
Freedom of speech: what a concept.

P.P.S.
The Academy Awards: what a circle-j*rk. This year, maybe literally...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by StillThereWaiting:
Batman Begins
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
King Kong
Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith
War of the Worlds

I've actually seen five of the above-listed films in the cinema this year, and I certainly think the visual effects from "Serenity" warranted inclusion in this group. Were they better? Was there more of them? I don't know. I just know, they should've at least been included with the likes of the above films in that category.

I can't understand why they would omit it from visual effects? But then, I can't understand why Summer's performance was ignored, when it was nothing short of stellar. (As much as I adored Garbo and Hepburn, etc., I don't think any of them could've played River so emotionally absorbing as Summer did -- not to mention kick someone backwards from around a pole.) (Sorry, I can't get off that backwards kick around a pole.)

"See how I'm not punching him? I think I've grown."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:11 PM

CHRISPV

I take some solace in that POS Episode III only getting one nod.

One really crappy, series destroying, soul crushing film: Umpteen million dollars

One "For Your Consisderation" ad campaign that reeks of desperation: Umpteen thousand dollars

Only receiving a best make-up nomination when your film featured next to no prosthetic work worth remembering: Priceless.

As for the listed seven films, I actually got around to see all of them, and quite frankly, I'd say that Serenity easily holds up against any of them in the FX category. They were all great spectacles, though. The FX were integral to the point where the film couldn't exist without them. Whereas I am firmly convinced that Joss could give us some damn fine Serenity shininess with 28 bucks and tin cans on wires for ships. His writing is that good.

It's all about the spectacle, folks. Remember, bigger is better.

Excuse me.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:29 PM

PRAIRIEDOGG

Sorry, but the star wars series sucks, and has sucked since revenge of the jedi. Firefly as a t.v. show spanked star wars, the bdm does it easily. Lucas relied on the special effects to tell the story and it comes across pathetically.

"You're such a boob." - River

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:50 PM

OLDFOGEY

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
... I am firmly convinced that Joss could give
us some damn fine Serenity shininess with 28 bucks and tin cans on wires for ships. His writing is that good.

Hm, I dunno about that. Just read somewhere that
Nathan Fillion charges $50. Course that may have
been before Serenity came out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:55 PM

SAMEERTIA

Quote:
Originally posted by ThePistonEngine:
Quote:
Originally posted by SameErtia:

Next time, maybe we should do it ourselves. :D

(Notice I don't say "If there's a 'next time'".)

IF there's a next time. Perhaps we will be blessed with a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th season, instead of movie sequals. :-D

Oh! PistonEngine! THAT is an "IF" I can get behind!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:55 PM

SPAINT2K

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
I take some solace in that POS Episode III only getting one nod.

I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for "best animated movie", or is that one of next year's new categories?

Steve

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:57 PM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
And it was -- and still is, thanks to this good news -- my strict intention to avoid the TV the entire night of the awards. Two words: "Bareback Mountain". ...or was that "Broked*ck Mountain"? Oh, well. Y'all know the one I'm talking about. The tender, loving story of two lonesome cowpokes who find each other and stop poking... cows.

What's a brokeduck?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:01 PM

REGINAROADIE

I know I have a separate thread devoted to this, but since I only found out about this thread now, I figured I might as well post it here and try to give a silver lining to this dark cloud.

Joss Whedon may have written and directed the movie. But the producer of the film (basically the guy that brought everyone that made SERENITY the movie it is together in one place) is Barry Mendel. Even though he's not as well known as say Jerry Bruckheimer, Joel Silver or Scott Rudin, he's produced some high quality (RUSHMORE, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS) and big grossing (THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE) films.

And this morning, along with Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, he got nominated for the Best Picture Oscar for co-producing MUNICH, another really powerful and great film.

So while it may not be SERENITY officially, it is a sort of nomination be default. So if there's one flick to cheer for at the Oscars, it's MUNICH, although I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN win 8 for 8.

I dunno. Maybe if Joss had Jayne or Mal sodomize Simon, maybe it would increase the films chances for Best Picture. Wouldn have at least brought more publicity.

Unlike others, I'm not one of those "I hate the AMPAS, they never nominate anything good" negative types. I'm a huge movie geek, so for me, the Oscars are my SuperBowl. And I like playing the Oscar game of who will win and stuff. Now normally, I have some grievances with the nomations that come out every year, but this year, I was actually satisfied with a lot of the nominees. Of the Best Picture noms, I've seen three out of five, and I think all five of them are deserving (With nominations, I can finally see GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK and CAPOTE without having to drive all the way to Toronto from Regina). I was happy to see that CORPSE BRIDE is up for Best Animated Feature, and the inclusion of ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM makes up for the exclusion of GRIZZLY MAN. While I wouldn't mind to have seen Joan Allen up for her role in UPSIDE OF ANGER, I'm OK with Reese as June Carter from WALK THE LINE up (and I'm not even a Reese fan).

And I know that genre pics only get nominated in the bigger categories if they gross like $300 million domestically. And while they sometimes give out awards to films that don't deserve it, once in a while they get it right.

In 00, they gave AMERICAN BEAUTY, one of the few films that lived up to it's title on more than one level, the Oscar for Best Picture. That'll forever put them in my good books.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"YES!!!I'm a man posessed by many demons....Polite demons that would open the door for a lady carrying too many parcels...BUT DEMONS NONETHELESS!!!! Yes. I have walked along the path of evil many times, it's a twisting, curving path that..actually leads to a charming plot garden, BUT BEYOND THAT EVIL!!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:03 PM

CYBERSNARK

The "academy" = the people who cut up River's brain.

I believe that's all that needs to be said.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:57 PM

REDLAVA

All I have to say is

. I never have watched the Oscars, and this doesn't make me want to start. There might still be hope with the MTV Movie Awards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:15 PM

GELASSENHEIT

Quote:
Hand to my heart, I got nothing against gays, male or female

yea, okay. I believe you.

Gelassenheit means Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:27 PM

PAYNE

The way I see it, Serenity really never had a chance. The Oscars are concerned with noting excellent acheivement within certain categories. To me, the best acheivement of the BDM was in telling a great and exciting story about people who seem completely real and flawed, and doing it with style. It was a smart crowd-pleaser with a lot of depth to it. You can't do that without good acting and good direction and above all good writing, but they don't have an actual category for it.

In addition, it has been noted by anybody with eyes, ears and a functional memory that the films that garner Oscar nods follow rather predictable patterns. The Oscars never really seem to know what to do with movies that are a little weird. By weird I don't mean unconventional, because Serenity had a lot of things that were normal: action, comedy, etc. And I don't mean weird in the way a lot of independent films are weird.

But... Serenity was a movie set in another galaxy in which the characters lived on a spaceship and spoke like they should be in a John Wayne flick. By Oscar standards, it was weird. Genre films just generally aren't an easy sell. I'm of the firm belief that the Lord of the Rings never would have won a damn thing if they hadn't been such a phenomenon. It's not because Oscar voters hate fantasy. It's just that genre films aren't what they look at.

It's a fact I've accepted, and the reason why I generally don't watch the Oscars — the films they look at often bore me, despite how good the acting may be, or the art direction, or the special effects. They just fail to make me care all that much. Serenity had a sort of frenetic, excited, wonderful quality that made you care about the story, the people and where their lives were going. But again, no category for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:48 PM

Let's face it, Hollywood is a good ol' boy system. If you ain't in the club (George Lucas), have a liberal agenda (Brokeback Mountain), or create a huge grossing phenomenum (Lord of the Rings), you ain't getting a nomination, much less an award.

It doesn't matter how GOOD the movie is, or how well it does in any of the particular catagories.

Half of me is glad Serenity and Joss don't have to deal with the headache. A full 150% of me is hugely disapointed, because the publicity would have been great. That's 200% of me, and I can come up with more.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:49 PM

Gelassenheit wrote:

Quote:
yea, okay. I believe you.

Yeah, do.

Mostly, I was just venting on the vacuousness of Hollywood, where opinions are not so much formed from careful introspection as they are spread like a contagion. As I said, the cause celebre effect: What is the trendy thing to believe? What is the popular cause to espouse? As a result, what movies and actors will I be giving the nod to this year for the Oscars? How will what I think and say in public affect my 'Q' ratings? ...zoid is not keen on political correctness (and neither am I).

People are inherently flawed. Many of them, regardless of sexual orientation, are desperately lonely. If they find someone to love who loves them back, then I am genuinely happy for them. Everybody deserves to have Love in their otherwise miserable existence.

But if you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- are advocating homogenized, corrected thought, you can count me out. I know what appeals to me in the arts, and two guys kissin' and cuddlin' (and other goings on) ain't it. Coincidentally, I hold no ill will towards any person who finds depictions of heterosexual relationships unwatchably distasteful, and consequently skips watching those movies.

Ruefully,

zoid

P.S.
I apologize for making a joke of the movie's name. I was just riffing, but it's only funny if everybody laughs. It's "Brokeback Mountain".
_________________________________________________

" 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.' " -St. Jayne of the Broken Scope, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:32 PM

WHITEFALL

I'm not too surprised about the Oscars. I would tentatively say that the script was not Joss' best work, seeing as how he was tied to both saving Firefly and writing a whole new story all in one movie. Plus, as mentioned in the commentary, movies where everyone knows each other are damned hard to write. So... shame there.

As for actors/actresses, and even directors, I attribute it to two things:

first, that the beauty of Firefly and Serenity has always been in the collaboritive effort, actors working great together, crew and viz effects working together... none really outshining the others. In some movies that happens, viz shows off too much, or actors show off too much, etc, and well... that gets em awards sometimes... not how Firefly works.

second: the characters our BDHs play, aside from being difficult to relate to simply because they know each other already, are also hard to relate to from a reviewer's POV because they are NOT what you come to expect from a movie, a western, a heroine flick, or really anything. What we browncoats know and love about Firefly and Serenity are these people who are an amalgamation of every character trait, in different, degrees, something every real person has, and at the same time, these fully fleshed out characters are all living in an equally fleshed out but very different world from our own. Thus, the simple reviewer (that is, reviewers who grade you down for being overly complex, since the regular viewer might not get it) will find that many acting nuances our crew do (aside from possibly being confusing becuase of the show) are lost or distorted thanks to the setting.

Ok, that was rambling... just meant in second point that we have suprisingly fleshed out people on a very different moral platform than our world today... that breeds confusion. (ie, star trek is on some level just self-rightous americans in space, a lot of sci-fi is... stargate literally

)

I survived a day in Whitefall and all I got was this lousy signature!

Terrifying Space Monkey of Destiny

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:36 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Damn, I'm starting to feel better about my Hollywood award for "best director" in 2005, if a movie as good as Serenity can't even get nominated... But then again, aren't there other awards out there that Joss can shoot for? Presuming, of course, Universal gives a damn.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, STM, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/8310.php

Pirate News TV
Knoxville, Tennessee
Winner Best Music Video
"We Never Went to the Moon"
(no rocket exhaust as Apollo LEM "blasted off" from the "moon")
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
http://piratenews.org/hollywood.html
http://ufoetry.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
...zoid is not keen on political correctness (and neither am I).

Uh, wasn't that post made by Zoid? (Confused, as the poster refers to Zoid in the third person.) Is Zoid two people? Is Zoid (uh -- trying to think of a gentle way of stating this) touched in the head -- albeit, in a nice way (like River)? Is this Zoid we're talking to now? Or is this Miranda?

Okay, seriously...

No need to apologize for your views, Zoid (or whoever you are at the moment) -- whether your views are totally rational and sane OR extreme and crazy. No one has to agree with them, and everyone has a right to state their opposition.

Speaking of PC (I guess it's no secret that I'm not a big fan, either)...

It's ironic that in a culture which champions "free speech", that people feel a need to bend over backwards to clarify something (or apologize) because something they said may not be acceptible to someone else. Or is the "free speech" embraced by the PC crowd a one-way street?

BTW, yesterday on the radio, I heard yet another misuse of that movie's title -- which I found to be both humorous and crude (also right on the mark), but not something I'd repeat in a public forum.

"There's times I think you don't take me seriously. And I think that oughta' change."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:07 PM

cartoon asked:

Quote:
Uh, wasn't that post made by Zoid? (Confused, as the poster refers to Zoid in the third person.) Is Zoid two people? Is Zoid (uh -- trying to think of a gentle way of stating this) touched in the head -- albeit, in a nice way (like River)? Is this Zoid we're talking to now? Or is this Miranda?

Well, yes, of course i'm zoid. But zoid only exists on the Internet. I, on the other hand, am a real human being, who doesn't always say the right thing, or mean precisely the words that come out of my mouth. The spoken language can be a tricky thing.

On the other hand, zoid writes things. he can wrack his brain for just the right word without interrupting the conversation. Likewise, if pre-publication review reveals a need for editing, he can go back and rephrase in order to say things just the way he wants them to be said. zoid can manipulate words in order to evoke a response, or to fully illustrate a complex idea (like this one, sheesh!).

Communicating in real life is not nearly so fool-proof. So, yes, zoid is 'real' in that he is a digitally mastered version of myself, metaphorically speaking. And I try to keep him real. I don't let him lie, or aggrandize himself. He's got to be as true to me as possible.

But there's no doubt in my mind that zoid is not the real me. If you think about it, I think you will all find that your online personae differ from the everday you in at least some small way (for some, in very large and significant ways). Even a small difference means that it's not the real you...

I was just being brutally honest with myself. Hope this helps (though I fear it will not

).

Self-Analytically,

zoid
(as dictated by Me)

P.S.
Ask Joss. It's easier to be witty when you're writing; you can edit the words for desired effect.

P.P.S.
As to your "serious" comments: I always apologize when I unintentionally offend someone. The fact that others do not, does not alleviate my responsibility to do so. But, like I said, neither 'zoid' nor 'I', in the context of this post, are interested in kowtowing to a convention that only serves to further distance people from one another. Being falsely polite leaves no one with any idea where they stand; false flattery is an insult. So, when I (or zoid) intend to jab or insult someone it's fairly unmistakeable, and neither of us (

) ever apologize for it.
_________________________________________________

"You don't know me, son. So let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Firefly, "Serenity", Part II

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Well, yes, of course i'm zoid. But zoid only exists on the Internet.

Cartoon is now more confused than Cartoon had been previously.

Cartoon!! Stop pretending to be a person!! You are not a person!! You are just text typed by a person who is confused by the explanation of the person who typed the Zoid text.

Cartoon still doesn't think that one should apologize for "unintentional" offense -- particularly as there's likely nothing which can be written (or said) that someone, somewhere isn't going to find offensive. In actuality, one can just sit still and never utter (or type) a single word, and somewhere, I guarantee you, that someone will still find that offensive.

Actually, I think I'm offending myself right now.

Yes, Cartoon agrees.

Cartoon!! Stay out of this!!

Nope. Don't want to. Freedom of speech.

But, you're not actually speaking. You're typing text.

Actually, you're typing the text. I don't exist.

See what you started, Zoid?

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 7:07 AM