Author Topic: 2005 Oscars  (Read 3783 times)

Fellfrosch

  • Administrator
  • Level 68
  • *****
  • Posts: 7033
  • Fell Points: 42
  • Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder.
    • View Profile
    • Fearful Symmetry
2005 Oscars
« on: January 31, 2006, 02:29:04 PM »
http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2006/oscars

No real surprises in the nominees this year, though it's interesting that the 5 Best Pictures line up with the five Best Directors--that doesn't happen often.

Also of note is the dreamy George Clooney, who racked up four nominations--only two other people have ever had four nominations in a single year (Warren Beatty and Orson Welles), so that's pretty cool.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." --Mel Brooks

My author website: http://www.fearfulsymmetry.net

42

  • Staff
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2006, 03:28:15 PM »
More importantly, all the shiny CG animated films got snubbed for best Animated Film. Course, I completely agree with having Corpse Bride, Howl's Moving Castle, and Wallace and Gromit duking it out.

I can't believe Hitchhiker's Guide's "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" got snubbed for best song.

I hope best Documentary goes to "March of the Penguins," but there is a good chance that it will be backstabbed by "Murderball."
« Last Edit: January 31, 2006, 03:28:40 PM by 42 »
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

Spriggan

  • Administrator
  • Level 78
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • Fell Points: 31
  • Yes, I am this awesome
    • View Profile
    • Legacies Lost
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2006, 03:38:13 PM »
Eh, this year's Oscars looks bland and boring with all of the main categories a one horse race.
Screw it, I'm buying crayons and paper. I can imagineer my own adventures! Wheeee!

Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.


Shrain

  • Level 34
  • *
  • Posts: 2030
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Gargoyles have all the fun.
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2006, 04:13:29 PM »
Cinderella Man only got two nods. *grumble*
Lord Ruler and Lady Protractor were off on vacation, thus the angles running amok.
--Spriggan

"The movie of my life must be really low-budget."
--Harry Dresden in DEAD BEAT

The Lost One

  • Level 13
  • *
  • Posts: 560
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Good lawyers live well, work hard, and die poor.
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2006, 08:01:26 PM »
Quote
Posted by: Make Love the Spriggan Way Posted on: Today at 12:38pm
Eh, this year's Oscars looks bland and boring with all of the main categories a one horse race.  


I agree, of course, I haven't been terrible impressed by the movies released last year. I should also say that it seems that who actually wins an oscar in a particular category sometimes depends on who people want to win for political or social reasons and not which movie actual has the best song, score, director, custom, ect.. I get a little tired of the political/social engineering that hollywood tries to do and the oscars is when it is most apparent. Or I'm just bitter that "So long and Thanks for All the Fish" wasn't even nominated.
A peasant between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.

Oldie Black Witch

  • Level 19
  • *
  • Posts: 952
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Speaker of Undead Languages
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2006, 09:27:40 PM »
I'm crushed that Batman Begins didn't get nominated for sound editing.

Poor Peter Jackson. No big kudos for King Kong.

42

  • Staff
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2006, 10:29:22 PM »
Batman Begins did get a Razzie Nod. Katie Holmes for Worst Supporting Actress.
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

Mad Dr Jeffe

  • Level 74
  • *
  • Posts: 9162
  • Fell Points: 7
  • Devils Advocate General
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2006, 10:53:03 PM »
she wasnt that bad.
Its an automated robot. Based on Science!

Fellfrosch

  • Administrator
  • Level 68
  • *****
  • Posts: 7033
  • Fell Points: 42
  • Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder.
    • View Profile
    • Fearful Symmetry
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2006, 11:10:12 PM »
I apprecdiate her much more in the role looking back on it now on DVD. She wasn't bad, she was just up against Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Liam Neeson--anyone would look bad.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." --Mel Brooks

My author website: http://www.fearfulsymmetry.net

42

  • Staff
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2006, 10:09:37 AM »
I think Katie Holme isn't up to par with the rest of her competition for the Razzie. I don't think being miscasted is enough of a reason. Her competition gave truly aweful performances.

I also hope that Tom Cruise sweeps all the categories he's been nominated for in the Golden Rasberries.

http://www.razzies.com/
« Last Edit: February 01, 2006, 10:29:30 AM by 42 »
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

Nessa

  • Administrator
  • Level 32
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Fell Points: 5
  • Giving life to demon spawn since 1999
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2006, 11:38:47 AM »
Some of Katie Holmes's attention has to do with activities outside the movie studio. People are basing their opinions of her acting on her strange behavior with Mr. Cruise. It doesn't seem fair, but there it is. I thought she was fine in Batman Begins.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2006, 11:59:41 AM by MrsNessaC »
"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter--'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."  -  Mark Twain

Check out my book reviews at http://elitistbookreviews.blogspot.com/

Sigyn

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Nonononono
    • View Profile
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2006, 01:20:32 PM »
What do you know, I don't care about Katie Holmes. But did Fell really call George Clooney "dreamy"? Ew.
If I had any clue, would I be here?

House of Mustard

  • Level 44
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Fell Points: 3
  • Firstborn Unicorn
    • View Profile
    • robisonwells.com
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2006, 02:46:53 PM »
I'm surprised that Bewitched got so many Razzie nominations.  It wasn't good, but it wasn't awful.

Besides -- where was Stealth?
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.

www.robisonwells.com

Fellfrosch

  • Administrator
  • Level 68
  • *****
  • Posts: 7033
  • Fell Points: 42
  • Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder.
    • View Profile
    • Fearful Symmetry
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2006, 03:06:37 PM »
My opinion of the Razzies fades every year, because they seem more focused on celebrity than on any actual quality of the movies involved. Of course, you could say that about the Oscars as well, so maybe it's a subtle commentary.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." --Mel Brooks

My author website: http://www.fearfulsymmetry.net

House of Mustard

  • Level 44
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Fell Points: 3
  • Firstborn Unicorn
    • View Profile
    • robisonwells.com
Re: 2005 Oscars
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2006, 03:30:01 PM »
On similar lines, Tom Cruise's Razzie nomination is also unjustified.  
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.

www.robisonwells.com