So Peter Jackson didn't get the Academy Award for Best Picture/Best Director. Better luck next time.

[Chris K.]

So I stayed up last night to watch the overblown and overated Academy Awards ceremony just to see if THE LORD OF THE RINGS would win Best Picture and Best Director. To my suprise, both went to Ron Howard (?) and his film A BEAUTIFUL MIND. As much as I was disappointed, Jackson has another two years for Best Film and Best Director. And in a strange way, I really felt that Jackson would not win (kinda' scares me a bit).

So Ron Howard and his shinny bowling ball head can keep the Academy Award for the over hyped A BEAUTIFUL MIND, which I liked as well. But to me, I consider Ron Howard to what some consider Lucio Fulci to be: a journeyman hack. I mean, Howard may have hit it big with APOLLO 13 and A BEAUTIFUL MIND, but this is the same Ron Howard who made the AWFUL flick PARENTHOOD and THE GRINCH (I am keeping SPLASH out because that film had some good elements and was a slightly funny picture).
Howard is a talented director, but unlike Jackson he seems to have a hard time to make a film that is well suited for him. Jackson and Howard are two different directors with different films, but if somebody asked if I wanted to watch a Peter Jackson or Ron Howard film, give me Jackson anytime of the day.

But, did anybody who watched the Academy Awards last night feel the same way I did, or was it entirely different on the results?

[systemcr4sh]

It was a huge crock. Jackson should've won hands down, Also, Memento should've won for Best Editing, and Screenplay written directly for screen, Screw the academy awards.


AND PERL HARBOR WON AN AWARD! WHAT KIND OF A WORLD IS THIS?

-dan

[John Morgan]

I knew A Beautiful Mind was going to win, when I heard the list of movies that were nominated.  Sci-fi/fantasy never wins.  Even if it is the BEST writing and BEST acting and BEST everything else, it will never win.  For some reason, the Academy never takes those films seriously.  Sadly, many very good films get overlooked because of this type of politics.  

I also know that Moulon Rouge would not win.  Recent musicals are considered comedy styles.  Since the Academy feels the same way about sci-fi as it does about comedy, animation, and musicals, they will win over "historical movies."

I watched a show a few years ago were a film critic discussed why Beauty and the Beast didn't win best picture.  He indicated that the Academy looks at movies for in different ways for different genres.  Thats why animation, scifi, fantasy, and musicals have a harder time in winning best picture.  They "like" historical pictures, therefore histoical pictures win.

Now that is not to say if there are good fictional movies out there that are "realistic" that they will not win over a bad historical picture.  But if there is a bad historical picture, it will win over a good sci-fi picture.

[John Morgan]

I knew A Beautiful Mind was going to win, when I heard the list of movies that were nominated.  Sci-fi/fantasy never wins.  Even if it is the BEST writing and BEST acting and BEST everything else, it will never win.  For some reason, the Academy never takes those films seriously.  Sadly, many very good films get overlooked because of this type of politics.  

I also know that Moulon Rouge would not win.  Recent musicals are considered comedy styles.  Since the Academy feels the same way about sci-fi as it does about comedy, animation, and musicals, they will win over "historical movies."

I watched a show a few years ago were a film critic discussed why Beauty and the Beast didn't win best picture.  He indicated that the Academy looks at movies for in different ways for different genres.  Thats why animation, scifi, fantasy, and musicals have a harder time in winning best picture.  They "like" historical pictures, therefore histoical pictures win.

Now that is not to say if there are good fictional movies out there that are "realistic" that they will not win over a bad historical picture.  But if there is a bad historical picture, it will win over a good sci-fi picture.

[John Morgan]

HEY! I only hit post once.  What's going on here?

[StatCat]

I don't even bother to waste my time to watch shows like that. They are overhyped and worthless and I personally don't like hollywood and the slew of famous actors out there. Peter Jackson is a great director but I didn't like lord of the rings at all. Maybe because it's subject matter doesn't really appeal to me. There were several fast cuts in that movie that I remember being confused with. You can't really compare Ron Howard to Peter Jackson because they really do come out of different backgrounds. Peter Jackson is the filmaker I bet some people are surprised with where his career is at now if they have known him since his early films but many people probably consider his name new. I wouldn't of expected Jackson to win at all because I guess most prestigious movie goers consider Ron Howard to have a more well known background with the general public. You could only hope Jackson will one day make a film in the same vain as brain dead, or bad taste and be able to release it with a bigger budget then before.

[The Honn]

Wait a minute...Pearl Harbour won an award? WHAT THE HELL FOR?!

[Chris K.]

Of course you CAN'T compare Peter Jackson to Ron Howard! It is absurd to do that. As I said earlier myself, these two have different genre's and aims at filmmaking.

But I find Jackson to be better than Howard because Jackson made different types of movies that such so-called "sophisticated" directors like Ron Howard, or Steven Speilberg for that matter, would not touch because THEY ARE AFRAID TO. Unlike Jackson, his films BAD TASTE, MEET THE FEEBLES, BRAINDEAD, and HEAVENLY CREATURES put Peter on the International Map as an excelent filmmaker who worked for low cost and still made a bundle both Internationally and in the U.S. Howard, however, must be pampered with a $12 million budget unlike Jackson who had the balls to make films in his early career that cost less than that and made them look better than the Hollywood fare that is being churned out today. Can you imagine Speilberg making a film like BRAINDEAD? I can't because he is unfamiliar with the generic horror-comedy. But Jackson can.

And they say Jackson should be ashamed of his earlier films. I got news for them, without his earlier films he would still be working at his dead-end job as a photolithograher at the paper he worked for and not have made THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Or without Sam Raimi making THE EVIL DEAD, he wouldn't have made the wonderful A SIMPLE PLAN or the upcoming SPIDERMAN film. It's amazing how these "closed minded" people cannot accept that fact.

So in the end, Jackson still has two more years for the Academy Awards. In the meantime, I still will continue to watch a Peter Jackson film over a Ron Howard flick. To me, it's just that easy.

[Jay O'Connor]

> I don't even bother to waste my time to watch shows like that.


Neither do I; as a musician I know that the gulf between the Grammys and anything akin to good music, so I assume the same with the Oscars

[Matt S]

Pearl Harbor won an Oscar for Best Sound Editing.

Personally, I didn't think either A Beautiful Mind or Lord of the Rings deserved the Oscar for Best Picture.  I would have given it to Gosford Park.

As for those of you who don't watch the Oscars, I too think a lot of it is crap.  But, the money the Academy makes off of the ratings for their awards shows goes towards the preservation and restoration of older films.  In other words, if you watch the awards, you indirectly help save older films.

[Cullen]

"In other words, if you watch the awards, you indirectly help save older films."

Reason enough to watch the silly things.

[Jay O'Connor]

Or at least leave the TV running while you are doing something else

[J.R.]

I could barely stomach all the "Isn't it great to be a movie star?" vibes coming from everybody. Whn Julia Roberts squealed "I love my life!" I wanted to reach into the TV and b***h slap her giant teeth right out of her head. In fact, the makers of LOTR seemed to be the only ones with any dignity. At least that and Black Hawk Down, the only truly deserving films, came away with awards.

[Future Blob]

   The Good: The Sidney Poiter (or however you spell it) award was touching. The Circus was pretty impressive also.

    The Bad: Pearl Harbor won anything..bleagh

     The Ugly: the vibe mentioned above, the general "We're celebrating ourselves" thing, seeing poor Donald Sutherland doing the announcing, I felt so bad for him.

       Too bad there isn't a televised B-movie award show. I would have died if someone in their speech had said," I'm giving my award to a movie that was robbed of it years ago: Killer Klowns from Outer Space."

[Jay O\'Connor]

> > The Bad: Pearl Harbor won anything..bleagh

I thought having a big, high budget, over-hyped movie like Peal Harbor only winning stuff like "best sound editing" to be sorta a 'left-handed' compliment.  Damming with faint praise