Lucasfilms grand Oscar campaign

The Star Wars films are not Kodak Theater movies,
they are your local theater movies.

Other than some of the stunning technical achievements,
of which ROTS was the most Star Warsy, I don't believe
any writing, directing or performance was particularliy
Oscar worthy.

But then again, why should it be?

A large chunk of GL's greatness is his disconnection
from mainstream Hollywood. He and his acolytes
are out in the desert making movies no one
else would make. No one else could make films
like GL and ILM.

My question is, why isn't this enough for fans?

One of my favorite films of all time was "Highlander."
Can't think of any part of it that is fit for
an Oscar nomination.

Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar.
John Williams has had like 47 nominations.

While I was glad for the exposure that the cast of
LOTR received for ROTK's win, the ROTS cast doesn't
need that same sort of exposure.

Does it make a movie better for you when it wins gold?

 

I give you that on Highlander. Even as good as Connery is, that film wouldn't quite qualify as Oscar worthy.

 

rots wont win anything since lucas intentionally lowered the bar for any quality in the prequels, i know its in the 'style' of crappy movies, i forgot how silly of me. what a good excuse for lucas

 

I've got news for you: ROTS is pure quality and if LOTR:ROTK could win 11 Oscars (which it didn't deserve by a long shot I might add) then ROTS is worthy of winning at least 11 as well!

 

We'll see next week if McDiarmid nabs a GG nomination. If he does, my hopes will be raised high he'll get an oscar nom.

 

i've watched your posts and all you do is bash.what are you even doing here ??

 

The only categories that have a shot are

Visual FX
Sound
Sound Editing
Best Supporting Actor - Ian McDiarmid

And even Ian's a long shot to get nominated.

 

I've got news for you: ROTS is pure quality and if LOTR:ROTK could win 11 Oscars (which it didn't deserve by a long shot I might add) then ROTS is worthy of winning at least 11 as well!

You're kidding, right? I mean, I love Star Wars in general, and thought ROTS was great, but there is no question in my mind that LOTR:ROTK deserved every Oscar it won. If there was justice, yes, ROTS would get more nominations than it will more than likely earn, but Jackson's LOTR trilogy was a masterful accomplishment that Star Wars fans should stop being so jealous of. It makes SW fans sound petty. Accept both are great franchises and trilogies. And in Jackson's case, he had stronger actors to work with.

 

posting an opinion like you

 

For as much as I feel no film can top RotS in 2005, I believe the only legitimate shot they have at winning is for special effects. I truly hope Ian would win but is he really THE best supporting actor in 2005 excluding our own bias?

 

Difficult question, but I for one can't think of anyone doing a better performance than Ian so far this year.

 

And using the word "crappy" really makes that opinion sound intelligent. Way to go!

 

As much as I would love to see Ian McDiarmid get an Oscar nod (he deserves it), what I want to see happen for ROTS come Oscar night is a win in all the tech categories, especially the visual effects category. The PT has so far been shunned by the Academy in the tech categories. TPM got hosed when it lost to The Matrix. Those "bullet-time" f/x were cool at the time, but became far to commonplace in other, lesser films as well as TV commercials. And looking back, they were not nearly as revolutionary as the digital f/x ILM created for TPM. ILM raised the bar on FX once again with TPM-hell, they were the ones who built that bar in the first place with the original film. I also felt AOTC should have won, but it had a LOTR film to compete against and Hollywood seems to love Jackson as much as it loathes Lucas. Gollum was a very good GC effect, but ILM made Clone Troopers that fooled most of us into thinking they were guys in suits the first time or two we saw them. And Yoda still looked like a Muppet, but that was the point! A Muppet without Frank Oz's hand up it's butt! Don't get me wrong, I love LOTR. But looking back at those films, one can see the digital "seams" in many fx shots that just aren't visible in the majority of ILM's PT work. And Gollum would have not happened as he did without Jar Jar paving the way for cg characters. I've always felt that GL's being a Hollywood outsider was a major contributor to the Academy not granting Oscars for the tech awards for the PT. Matrix was very much a Hollywood production, mainly due to Joel Silver being involved. And LOTR, while still under the Lucas-style creative control of Peter Jackson, was probably seen as a more serious film than SW and was funded with Hollywood studio money. Sounds like some crazy Hollywood conspiracy theory, I know. But there is politics in Tinsletown, too, you know. Here's hoping that SW gets it due come the 2005 Oscars. ROTS may not be the best picture of 2005 (although I thought it was), but it was certainly the best looking.

 

if your opinion is always gonna be "lucas is a b**** and ROTS sucks because of CG" then i suggest the bashers sanctuary

 

The official site has posted an article about the Oscar ads here, with many in there I hadn't seen before.

 

Please keep in mind that there are no "technical" categories on Oscar night even though a lot of people refer to Make-Up, Sound or Effects awards as such. technical Oscars are being awarded a week prior and that is where you get awards for groundbeaking new technology. The visual effects Oscar is NOT for the technical side of the effects (at least it shouldn't be) or for the development of new software to render clothes or something but rather for the ARTISTIC use of those effects. Please keep that in mind before you bash winners of those category. The Academy (in theory) decides whether Yoda is a greater ARTISTIC triumph than Gollum, not whether new software was written for 40,000 wrinkles or so.

The Costume Design Oscar is similar. This is awarded for the artistic use of costumes, i.e. choosing the right costumes, colours etc. to illustrate character, create mood etc. This Oscar is not awarded for "How many crazy gadgets can you put on Natalie Portman's head". You need to understand the diffference between artistic quality and "crazy and outlandish"

 

Weebaca_the_hut:

While I think you ad a bit of much needed intelligence to these forums, I believe your argument does not rest on the merits of why films are and are not nominated for Oscars.

The Academy looks to the entire picture - the whole, of one body of work. In this instance, they look to the lead actors, their supporters, their direction and come to a conclusion. They don't necessarily judge on which film was the most entertaining.

In this respect, any of the SW films loses for Best Picture. Not because the film wasn't entertaining or that the storyline wasn't compelling - but because of direction, acting, screenplay, etc. I would dare say that if you were to ask any one of the actors - save Ian McDiarmid - if they should be nominated, they would answer no.

Having said that, I think your argument still hinges on some bias against George Lucas, digital effects or science fiction/space fantasy in general. I would posit that there is probably some bias against big, blockbuster type films getting nominated. But Lucas has every right to campaign for his actors the same way everyone else does. He is not at a disadvantage. Your comments about directors and studios advertising "For Your Consideration" on behalf and in support of their actors is probably true, but it does not speak to the merits of the conversation.

And that is: the actors in SW are undeserving of a nomination with the exception of Ian McDiarmid. But I would even say that a nomination for him is also problematic because it seems like all the talk is about awarding him an Oscar for his body of work in 5 films - when it should only be one. Of course, we can argue this because most people agree that this is why ROTK swept the Oscars because FOTR and TTT didn't win.

As far as Best Director, no nomination is deserved. Lucas is more of a technical director than an actor's director. And being an actor's director is what the Academy wants. Put acting and directing together and we see why no nominations will be forthcoming.

Let's argue on the merits of the films, not necessarily perceived bias or the legacy of SW. It degrades your otherwise sound argument.

 

I'm so glad to see LucasFilm using an awards campaign for Revenge of the Sith. Everyone involved with the film was working at the height of their abilities and they should be recognized. Especially Trisha Biggar.

 

I think you mixed up our usernames. His name is Tyranus_the_Hutt, not Weebacca_the_hut. My name is Weebacca.

 

my bad. so many names, so little time

 

Sigh. Just because Lucas isn't an "actor's director" doesn't mean he isn't deserving of a nomination, at least. Your statement, however, is absolutely true, and it explains why so many other "technical directors" never recieve Oscars for directing. Guys like Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Terry Gilliam. It's a damn shame that the Academy favors such an outdated outlook that doesn't give proper respect to these kinds of filmmakers, whom I would describe primarily as "visual" directors rather than "technical."

 

If I was on the Acadmey Ian McDarmid would have a statue in Febuary

 

I thought that acting was rather good (besides Anakin). And just because he's a "technical director", doesnt mean he's not a director.

 

Regardless of how the Academy views SW (or any sci-fi) films as a whole, there is probably still some Hollywood bias against Lucas. Remember that GL ditched the Academy, Director's Guild and Writer's Guild back around the release of ESB. The fines that the Director's and Writer's Guild were firing at him, Kershner and Kasdan (I think) for putting their respective credits at the end of the film instead of the beginning (in order to preserve continuity) pissed GL off and was the final straw that led GL to say goodbye to Tinsletown for good. Unfortunately, it also meant that the Director's Guild would not allow GL's first choice for ROTJ's director (some guy named Spielberg) to helm his "final" SW film. Yet today we see numerous films that save their credits until the end. But in 1980, that just wasn't done all that much and was frowned upon when it did. So, to some of the Academy's old-school members, Lucas's middle finger to the studio system back in the day may still be reason enough for some to ignore SW come Oscar time regardless of how good or bad GL's films may be seen.

And back in '77, ANH got plenty of noms, including Best Picture, Original Screenplay, Director, Score and Supporting Actor (Alec Guiness). After that, it was sound and f/x awards only.

 

The only thing I'm suprized about is the Original Score being omitted. Williams will probably get a nomination for WOTW insted of the ROTS score. Meh. Too bad he didn't do the GoF score (as he did all the other movies) then he coulda had 3 noms. Hehehehe....

I thought the ROTS score was good.. meh.

There is no chance of any other movie winning in the visual and sound fx categories.

Sorry to say it, but I thought there were some very bad acting moment from Ian and Ewan in this movie. But, there were some awesome ones, so I guess it balences out.


OT: I have a feeling Cinderella Man is gonna win the big one... meh..