oscar nominations

That brings up something that bugs the crap out of me. Did anyone truly believe that Beauty and the Beast was Best Picture worthy? And if it was, why can't truly great animated films like The Incredibles and The Triplets of Bellville be nominated for Best Pic?

I know the year BatB was nominated was a week year, but come on, you're telling me that Sideways is a better movie than The Incredibles?

Also, why can't Bird be nominated for Directing? Was that not the best directed movie of the year?

And while we are on the subject of things that bug me, why is Jamie Foxx nominated as an Actor in a Supporting Role for Collateral? Was he not the protagonist in that film? Who was he supporting? Everyone was supporting him. I think he should have two nods for Best Actor.

Poke
 
Wasn't Beauty & the Beast one of the first to use a lot of computer background plates and stuff? That could be a big part of its nomination.
 
Poke said:
why is Jamie Foxx nominated as an Actor in a Supporting Role for Collateral? Was he not the protagonist in that film? Who was he supporting? Everyone was supporting him. I think he should have two nods for Best Actor.

i thought that Vincent was the protagonist as he pushed the basic plot forward, demanding to take us all to the next killer. I believed Foxx to be the antagonist in that he was always saying 'hey, lets all get along', even when he seemed to be the protagonist and pushing the plot along in a new direction, it was all in reaction rather than original action.
comment on oscars: sad thing is that as they gave Denzel a nod for that 'performance' in Training Day, what could be described as the cultural importance of Foxx's upcoming victory has been taken away - a very sad thing. This may mean that he won't win as it will not be as important a win as if someone else took it. All the Oscars are not all about films, and that is costing film big-willy-time (local saying, sorry)
 
Nique Zoolio said:
i thought that Vincent was the protagonist as he pushed the basic plot forward, demanding to take us all to the next killer. I believed Foxx to be the antagonist in that he was always saying 'hey, lets all get along', even when he seemed to be the protagonist and pushing the plot along in a new direction, it was all in reaction rather than original action.

Vincent was the antagonist. Max's motivation or goal as the protagonist was to get out of the situation with as little death as possible, which made his "let's all get along" stance actually a proactive response to the same old, same old killing of Vincent. Yes, the meeting with Vincent was the kick start of the plot (this is the case with many firt meetings between the protag and antag), but it was Max's actions that drove the story forward.

Poke
 
Vincent was the antagonist. Max's motivation or goal as the protagonist was to get out of the situation with as little death as possible, which made his "let's all get along" stance actually a proactive response to the same old, same old killing of Vincent.

his stance was in opposition to Vincent's stance. as V was the originator of the plot, his drive was primary to it all. Irrelevant of if M's stance was proactive, it only existed as opposition to another, and did not exist on its own, whereas the protagonist has self-sufficient goals, that don't depend on the actions of another.

BUT this is all following what i was taught at college that it was all about the SOURCE of the action, but if thats true then the protagonists would have been the law, and the antagonists - the criminals
and i wouldn't have liked that at all :no:

To be fair the guy who taught me lost his job over allegations of (((:censored: ))) - so its probably best not to follow his line too much.............

it was Max's actions that drove the story forward.

In truth i think it was more of an action-reaction that made both of them pro + an tagonists according to various egs in the film.
However, are you saying that an actor has to be playing a protagonist in order to get nominated for Best Actor? Is that actually how it works?
 
The categories are "Actor/Actress in a Leading Role" and "Actor/Actress in a Supporting Role." They no longer go by "Best Actor/Actress" or "Best Supprting Actor/Actress," I'm not even sure they ever did. So, going by those terms, Jamie Foxx should not be nominated for Collateral as an "Actor in a Supporting Role" because his role was not supporting.

Poke
 
Back
Top