Lucasfilms grand Oscar campaign

Discussion in 'Revenge of the Sith' started by ROTS_Obi1, Dec 3, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jwebb1970 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2005
    star 2
    Why must the haters post? Considering the number of postive views of the PT on these boards (and the fact that the PT did well over a billion dollars domestic box office alone), it seems a bit much to call them "stinkbombs". Aleander_DeLarge, you are entitled to your opinion---however wrong it may be.
  2. TomPiltoff Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2005
    star 2
    Exactly why is it that people who just didn't like the prequels are "haters"? I'm not talking about trolling, etc. This guy just doesn't like the PT, doesn't make him a hater.

    Also, do you think that maybe all the positive views of the PT on these boards has something to do with the fact that THEY'RE STAR WARS MESSAGE BOARDS?

    The movie world, in general, did NOT like the prequels. As a Star Wars fan I hated TPM, really liked AOTC and loved ROTS. But as a fan of cinema I completely understand why they bombed and why some people can't stand them.
  3. Jedi_Hunter_505 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2004
    star 4
    Academy announces the Visual Effects Competitors

    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.


    Doesn't look good for ROTS. Of course the Academy will pick 'Kong' so that's one of three slots filled. Probably 'War of the Worlds' will make another spot, then I'm guessing either 'Narnia' or 'Harry Potter' will make another, based on how the Academy chooses films. This is all my opinion of course, I would like to see ROTS make it but, it doesn't look good with the corrupted system they use.
  4. DINVADER_RETURNS Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2003
    star 3




    The movie world, in general, did NOT like the prequels. As a Star Wars fan I hated TPM, really liked AOTC and loved ROTS. But as a fan of cinema I completely understand why they bombed and why some people can't stand them.

    Hey, ROTS got 82 percent good reviews at rottentomatoes.com and even EP1 and 2 got more good reviews than bad ones. TPM got 62 percent good reviews and AOTC got 66 percent. This compiles all mainstream reviews. More people liked the prequels than those who disliked. You can also look at the rankings of the prequels on imdb.com and their user grades on boxofficemojo.com
  5. stormcloud8 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2002
    star 4
    Yeah, seriously, such definitive "people hated the prequels" comments are really unfounded. Revisionist at best, utter lies at worst.
  6. jedi8915 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2004
    star 1


    This is true to a certain extent, but implying that had Lucas been inside the Hollywood loop he would have received the same accolades for the PT like Peter Jackson did for LOTR is proposterous. Why? Because unlike LOTR, which were spectacular in almost every facet, the PT was probably the single biggest disaster in film history. Save snippets of Sith, they were stinkbombs from start to finish.


    The PT is definetaly not the the biggest disaster in film history and anyone who says so is an ignorant PT basher. Take a look over at RT.com or yahoo movies, statistics over there will tell you that that none of the PT movies are "stinkbombs" like you would ignorantly like to think of them. A movie that is a stinkbomb would be rotten over at RT.com but all of the PT are fresh, ROTS being certified fresh with 82%, the same as the golden movie, directed by the golden director, KK. Before you ignorantly and unsupportaviley come out with such facts about the PT please get your facts sorted first, this will prevent you from looking like the basher, PJ butt licker that you probably are. [face_shame_on_you]
  7. jedi8915 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2004
    star 1



    The movie world, in general, did NOT like the prequels. As a Star Wars fan I hated TPM, really liked AOTC and loved ROTS. But as a fan of cinema I completely understand why they bombed and why some people can't stand them.[/quote]

    Yet another ignorant statement, if the movie world in general hated the prequels so much why then were they so successful. TPM is the highest grossing sci-fi movie ever, ATOC did 310 million and ROTS 380 000 the highest of the year and seventh on the all time domestic BO chart (not adjusted for inflation). Movies don't make such massive amounts of money from being hated. Check out the amount of money and the PT made and compare them to other movies, I think you will find that none of them "bombed". I get sick and tired of coming onto these boards to discuss "positive" starwars related topics and end up having to defend the PT from ignorant bashers. This thread is about Lucasfilms oscar campaign not about public opinion of the PT.
  8. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    Newsflash Jedi!

    What makes you think box office is the standard for a good or bad movie? A so-so film?

    Why do people insist on quoting box office figures to justify whether the PT, particularly TPM, is considered a quality film. Not a successful film, a quality film. There is a difference.

    And this Hollywood "has it out for Lucas" argument is sooooooooo played out. Why in the world would Hollywood bite the hand that feeds them? No one has a grudge against Lucas. And when you bring the Oscar argument and Hollywood bias into the same argument, it is so lame.

    It almost seems like you believe there is some secret memo circulated to the Academy membership and to EVERY person who writes movie reviews that Lucas' movies are not to be taken seriously.

    Movies are awarded based on merit. No more no less. Peter Jackson's movies blend each aspect of film making that the Academy loves: acting, writing, good visuals, and directing (of actors).

    Can Lucas' movies compete on any of these levels, save for visual effects? Hardly. But that isn't a bias against Lucas. Harry Potter, Batman Begins and Narnia won't win any acting, directing, writing awards either so where's the bias? I just don't see it.
  9. jwebb1970 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2005
    star 2

    Why do people insist on quoting box office figures to justify whether the PT, particularly TPM, is considered a quality film. Not a successful film, a quality film. There is a difference.

    True, "successful" and "quality" are almost always never the same in movieland. But TPM became the highest grossing sci-fi film to date not just because it was the first SW film in 16 years. People kept returning to the theaters to see it, even after the critical drubbing it took. AOTC did less BO, even though it was viewed marginally better by most critics. (I think that the press announcement 2 weeks after AOTC's release that it would hit dvd that fall played a part-that, and a little movie called SPIDER-MAN) And we know that ROTS is, and will likely remain, 2005's biggest money-maker. The point I'm trying to make here is that while BO receipts make not a movie great, the kind of cash the PT films have made must mean that the majority of people who paid to see them (and then bought a lot of DVDs) thought they were. If you didn't like the PT, that is your opinion-you're entitled to it.


    And this Hollywood "has it out for Lucas" argument is sooooooooo played out. Why in the world would Hollywood bite the hand that feeds them? No one has a grudge against Lucas. And when you bring the Oscar argument and Hollywood bias into the same argument, it is so lame.
    It almost seems like you believe there is some secret memo circulated to the Academy membership and to EVERY person who writes movie reviews that Lucas' movies are not to be taken seriously.


    It is more than a bit of a stretch to say there is a vast Hollywood conspiracy against Lucas. But as far as "biting the hand that feed them"-well, every SW film since ANH has not made Hollywood a lot of money. They (especially the PT) have made Lucas a lot of money. 20th Century Fox gets a relitively small-by Hollywood standards-percentage of distribution dollars from the SW movies. The rest goes to Lucasfilm. GL used his own vast fortune to finance the PT and used the profits from them (and all the merchandise, of course) to keep making more movies. So, no big Tinsletown studio is getting rich off SW.

    Movies are awarded based on merit. No more no less. Peter Jackson's movies blend each aspect of film making that the Academy loves: acting, writing, good visuals, and directing (of actors).Can Lucas' movies compete on any of these levels, save for visual effects? Hardly. But that isn't a bias against Lucas. Harry Potter, Batman Begins and Narnia won't win any acting, directing, writing awards either so where's the bias? I just don't see it.[/quote]

    Yes, the SW saga isn't full of Oscar-level performances (save for possibly McDiarmid this year and Guinness back in 1977) or writing. But that has never been the point or the reason to enjoy SW. As far as merit is concerned, Oscars or not, one must at least recognize the amount of work that has gone into these films. ROTS most definitely deserves an award for it's FX-they outshine everything else that has come out this year (including KK). Same goes for John Williams' score. Yes, he recycled several previous SW themes. But that only further strengthened the emotional content of ROTS, doing exactly what movie scores are supposed to do. Im my opinion, WOTW is the only other film that comes close, FX wise. No coincidence that WOTW was another ILM project.

    As far as bias is concerned, I've always felt that when it came to FX Oscars for the two previous PT films that there may have been a little bit going on. In 1999, TPM lost to The Matrix. John Gaeta's "bullet-time" stuff was cool, but ILM's bar-raising digital work on TPM (not to mention the sheer number of FX shots) was far more deserving. Gaeta has said in interviews that he fully expected TPM to win that year. In 2002, AOTC lost to LOTR:TTT. Again, the FX in Two Towers were very good-Gollum in particular. But after seeing both Two Towers and AOTC, I still feel that AOTC FX work was just a little bit more astounding. SO, where is the bias? Well, Matrix was v
  10. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    I don't believe I made any type of value judgement for or against the PT in my last post. However, I suppose now is as good a time as any to state that I am not a particular fan of TPM, but thoroughly enjoyed AOTC and ROTS. The box office figure cannot be denied - TPM raked in an incredible amount of jake.

    I think you nailed it as far as TPM goes. The movie was sustained by repeat viewings. People that liked it and wanted to see it again. But you're also correct that it was drubbed by critics. AOTC was better reviewed but fared less at the box office. It still does not answer the quality question, however. Particularly as it relates to the Academy.

    Lucas pockets the lion share of the dough. But the phrase "a rising tide floats all boats" still carries in Hollywood. Lucas has made a ton of money for Hollywood - as an industry than probably anyone else. I can't think of one reason why they would hold a bias against Lucas for being "too independent". its not like he's jumping ship entirely and making films in Bollywood.

    As far as SW and Oscar is concerned - when did I say that SW wasn't enjoyable? That isn't the point. Any SW film must be judged individually - that's how individual oscars are rewarded - NOT on the culmination of 3 works as a whole. Match SW up against any Best Picture nominee in the 3 years of release for each film and SW loses fairly.

    In terms of soundtrack - Oscars are rewarded based on new work - a new body of music. In SW, the opening theme is the same, the same music is heard. Whether the context or part of the film this music is introduced is different doesn't matter. It is the same music. Williams does not bring us anything new save for a few moments of interlude music and during the lightsaber battles. On any count, an Oscar nomination is not deserved here.

    In terms of special effects, I think it could go either way. TPM brought a multitude of new effects to the table. No doubt about it. But bullet time was new and seemed innovative. That's why it got the nod. Also, it is often hard to discern a special effect shot in a SW movie, from an actuall special effect. In other words, most of the backgrounds in SW are digital. Should we call this a special effect even though it is merely a background? I think this muddles things. As far as LOTR, special effects shots were clearly visible and used, not as background, but as wide angle shots of armies or of Gollum. I believe this is why LOTR won. So, if there is a bias, I believe it is against entire digital landscapes versus actual special effects shots. But I don't believe there is a bias against Lucas for this.

    Finally, it is universally recognized that ILM is the standard for all work to be judged by and against. There is no bias against it or its creator. SW will win on merit.

    Ok, now really finally. I would probably give the nod to McDiarmid, not because of his body of work, but because of his character in ROTS. Not solely the evil mastermind that we considered him to be, McDiarmid plays Palpatine as an almost perverted uncle or father figure - gently playing to Anakin's weaknesses and building him up to suit himself. I like this because it highlights the nuance that the Sith must exert in order to remain hidden and operate with such stealth. McDiarmid's portrayal shows the seductive and perverse nature of the Sith - to prepare themselves to throw everything and everyone away to achieve a singular goal.



  11. DMan304 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 2
    My rant won't be several paragraphs long, so I feel stupid after those arguements above.

    ROTS has no chance in hell with Lord of the Rings 4: Return of the Kong in there. How is the chosen boy supposed to sweep the oscars again?
  12. Darkwish Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2001
    star 4
    Yeah right. ROTK is better than ROTS.
  13. DMan304 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 2
    You realise I meant King Kong, right?
  14. Billy_Dee_Binks Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 29, 2002
    star 4
    Alright:

    ROTS was the highest grossing film of 2005. HOWEVER, Hollywood DIDN't make a lot of money out of it because 20th Century Fox only made profit with the distribution fees!!!! NOT the BO!
    And that is exactly WHY the AA (or SS of movieland) will not give any gold to Lucas, ILM, Trisha Biggar, John Williams or Ian McDiarmid.

    Now why did Peter Jackson win 11 mostly undeserved awards? Because HE WORKS FOR HOLLYWOOD. The BO gross went to New Line Cinema. Also, double-standards. LOTR movies are new and hip (like Spiderman and Batman Begins- always material that hasn't been touched in a while) and it has oh, so superior stuff about it. WAKE UP, 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T!!!!

    I am glad GL finances his work himself and thus keeps the money he makes of it. If that would not be the case amazing companies such as ILM, PIXAR, THX would have never existed. ILM would have never gotten #1 SFX house in the World- that's for sure.


  15. CommanderJamesBond Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 1
    Peter Jackson is an overrated cow. His only good films are based off the highest selling fantasy novel of all time.

    Anyway, I think it'd be awesome Ian McDiarmid got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He deserves it. But I doubt it'll happen...
  16. Billy_Dee_Binks Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 29, 2002
    star 4
    Well, neiter Ian McDiarmid, nor Trisha Biggar nor John Williams got any nominations.

    I'm pissed of, especially about Trisha Biggar not getting at least a nod.
  17. RebelScum77 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2003
    star 6
    The Oscar nominations don't come out until Janunary 31st. :confused:
  18. Billy_Dee_Binks Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 29, 2002
    star 4
    Really? So what did I read on SW.com today?[face_thinking]

    Click the link:
    http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/publicity/news20060111.html

  19. RebelScum77 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2003
    star 6
    Those aren't official nominations, but that they are on the short list to get on the nomination list, which I think is only 3 films.

    I don't think that means Trisha is out, because I'm not sure costume design has a pre-nomination process, same with soundtracks. More than 3 are given nominations if I'm not mistaken.
  20. JediPrettyBoy Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 10, 2005
    star 4
    ROTK won all of those Oscars because the Academy wanted to acknowledge all of the work that went into all three films.

    It wouldn't have been fair to let the other two movies clean everybody elses clock in the previous two years before ROTK since there were other movies which were deserving of acknowledgement as well.

    However, in the year that ROTK came out, everybody else should have just stopped releasing movies temporarily.

    EDIT: 2003 was a bad time for The Matrix sequels to come out.
  21. Mos_Eisley Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2004
    star 3
    "Worst disaster in film history"?

    Hmmm, I think you need to watch more films. That's quite the exaggeration.

    I wish I could make such popular disasters.

    Oh, and by all means, let's start evaluating films based solely on what the movie world thinks because Hollywood always puts out high caliber material. [face_whistling]

    ANH got panned by some critics back in '77. I guess that means it's a total turd.

    GL should just get customized Star Wars Oscars made in the form of main characters throughout the saga and give them to all the people that worked so hard on all six films.

    That'd be way cooler than just an ordinary, crappy Oscar anyway.
  22. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    I doubt there is a proper context for calling anyone who posts on these boards a star wars hater. There is however a legitimate word for people who negatively address Peter Jackson: jealous.

    He is in fact, not an overrated cow. He has dropped like 70 pounds and is regarded as a great director. But so is Lucas - just not in the acting sense.

    I maintain that TPM grossed so much because of repeat viewings by SW fans and the exuberance of a general public that had not experienced a SW film in over 20 years. But the critics hated it from a story, acting and dialogue standpoint. Technically, they admired it.

    Films don't win Oscars with SW dialogue and acting. LOTR won NO acting awards. There is no bias against Lucas. He just needs to refind the magic of telling a story. He pretty much recaptured it with Sith.
  23. darthzeppo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 21, 2005
    star 3
    hey phillip !
    if Hollywood don't hate lucas then why no nominations for best costume?
    Good or bad films the PT had fantastic costumes. Better than LOTR, which just looked like a rehash of Anglo Saxons.
  24. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    I would agree with this assessment - but I found several of your other comments ill-formed and naive.

    There's no accounting for taste. Not only do I disagree with your perspective, but in terms of the text I've emphasised, you are FACTUALLY WRONG, too. Williams wrote a thick body of entirely new music for each prequel, and in the cases of The Empire Strikes Back and The Phantom Menace especially, a considerable number of entirely new themes. I'm not convinced that the people who form the Academy have it in for George Lucas - they just have it in for decent filmmakers and decent filmmaking in general. Incredible auteurs like Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino have never received recognition for their motion pictures. Halle Berry, in a display of unfettered emotion which only exacerbated the sheer absurdity of it all, was the first black actress to win a "Best Actress" award - despite the likes of Pam Grier, Alfre Woodard and Whoopi Goldberg turning in significantly better and more varied work in previous years and decades. The Academy famously failed to consider the wonderful makeup of Stuart Freeborn, too, when he worked with Kubrick on 2001, as they didn't realise that the "Man Apes" weren't actually real. John Williams was completely snubbed for his incredible and culturally-profound work on Superman and The Empire Strikes Back - both significantly richer and more engaging works than his 1977 Star Wars score. The Academy also threw Lucas' submission for Frank Oz's work as Yoda back in his face, telling him that puppetry wasn't a valid artform. Finally, as has been discussed, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were both heinously denied the Oscars for "Best Visual Effects". A nomination/win is always an honour, but whenever someone receives either, someone else may be - and almost certainly is - undeservedly missing out.

    Phil, pardon my candor: what gibberish is that?

    Honestly, what were you saying there? I do not comprehend the nature of your point at all. Are you saying that more subtle visual effects integration work - such as background plates - is less favoured by the Academy than overt uses - such as sprawling armies in panoramic shots? Your concluding sentences puzzle me immensely and appear to be making a separate value judgement entirely. I've got news for you: anything added to a
  25. battlewars Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2005
    star 4
    i hope kong wins for effects it definitely deserves it, what with new york, skull island, and of course kong himself. great effin job as far as i'm concerned
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.