Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Academy Award nominations, more detail

Expand Messages
  • Trudy Shaw
    ... From: SusanPal@aol.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Academy Award nominations, more detail
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: SusanPal@...
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:08 PM
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Academy Award nominations, more detail


      >Well, this is other Academy's version of "Tolkien can't be a serious writer,"
      right? It's fantasy, so it can't be real...

      When one movie has so many more Oscar nominations than any of the competition (LotR/Fotr's 13 to 8 by the two closest "runners-up"), it's normally the major favorite for best picture. That's not true this year. Some say that's because so many of LotR/FotR's nominations are in "technical" categories, but I wouldn't be surprised if your point is hidden underneath some of that. A fantasy movie has never won best picture, so just by being nominated LotR/FotR is unusual. Another thing that I think could affect the voting in a major way is the voters knowing that there are two more movies coming, so they have two more "chances" to reward the work, especially in the acting categories*. This may not be completely logical, but it seems to be the kind of thing the Oscar voters take into account. Wouldn't it be fitting, though, if the first fantasy movie to win best picture would be one based on Tolkien's work, whether the _first_ award is for 2001, 2002, or 2003?

      --Trudy

      *Let's keep it quiet until the voting's over that Gandalf _is_ in the other two movies. 8-)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Stolzi@aol.com
      In a message dated 2/13/02 5:11:21 PM Central Standard Time, SusanPal@aol.com ... writer, ... Well, Susan, maybe I am putting words in Dreher s mouth.
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 14, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/13/02 5:11:21 PM Central Standard Time, SusanPal@...
        writes:

        > Well, this is other Academy's version of "Tolkien can't be a serious
        writer,"
        >
        > right? It's fantasy, so it can't be real.

        Well, Susan, maybe I am putting words in Dreher's mouth. Perhaps when he
        spoke of the "old-skewing" at the Academy, he means that they simply are not
        into fantasy film like us, ahem, young dudes :)

        But there is a well-known tendency to go for "uplift" over the entertaining
        or funny or bitter film - GANDHI is often cited as an example of the sort of
        film the Academy likes to reward.


        Diamond Proudbrook
      • WendellWag@aol.com
        In a message dated 2/14/2002 9:17:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... About ten years ago, I predicted that it would be about this year that the first fantasy
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 14, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 2/14/2002 9:17:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          tgshaw@... writes:


          > A fantasy movie has never won best picture, so just by being nominated
          > LotR/FotR is unusual.

          About ten years ago, I predicted that it would be about this year that the
          first fantasy and/or science fiction film would win the Oscar and also that
          somewhere around this time the first Australian or New Zealand film would win
          the Oscar. I made this prediction based on my rule that there's a
          thirty-year lag in Academy voters' perceptions of a genre's quality. For
          instance, the best Westerns made in Hollywood came out in the years between
          1956 and 1962, but except for _Cimmarron_ back in 1931, there was no Western
          winning the Oscar until _Dances with Wolves_ in 1990 and _Unforgiven_ in
          1992. The average Academy voter is well into middle age and thus got their
          first education in film at least thirty years before. It seems to me that
          science fiction and fantasy films began being made regularly with large
          budgets a little more than thirty years ago. It further seems to me that
          Australian and New Zealand films began being seen in the U.S. with any
          regularity a little less than thirty years ago. I thus think that it's about
          the point that the first science fiction and/or fantasy film will win and
          also about the time that the first Australian or New Zealand film will win.
          _The Lord of the Rings_ fits on both counts.

          Wendell Wagner


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • SusanPal@aol.com
          In a message dated 2/14/2002 8:29:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, Stolzi@aol.com ... Yes, exactly. But LotR *also* qualifies as uplift, no? It sure does in my
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 14, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 2/14/2002 8:29:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, Stolzi@...
            writes:


            > But there is a well-known tendency to go for "uplift" over the entertaining
            > or funny or bitter film - GANDHI is often cited as an example of the sort
            > of
            > film the Academy likes to reward.
            >

            Yes, exactly. But LotR *also* qualifies as "uplift," no? It sure does in my
            book!

            Susan


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.