MUNKY Film Award Nominations- Page 2

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 10:05pm

Do you guys think that MUNICH will be this years big looser? I thought it was brilliant, but it seems that most people feel the opposite. I'm having COLD MOUNTAIN flashbacks...

[LionessInWinter]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 10:16pm

I saw it yesterday. I thought it was mostly a very entertaining thriller, but not special enough to knock out some other favorites. I thought the acting was very good all around, but nothing that stands out for awards. Perhaps a couple of tech awards, if anything.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 10:40pm

It will probably win Best Editing.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 11:42pm

I think MUNICH's reception has been even colder than COLD MOUNTAIN. Its precursor performance has been abysmal -- only one nomination from the guilds (for Spielberg), and even Kushner was snubbed. At this point, its Oscar chances are riding on Spielberg's reputation alone. Expect it to battle it out with WALK THE LINE for that fifth Best Picture slot.

[LionessInWinter]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 11:47pm

Someone just sent me an article from Variety that says Munich was basically snubbed from BAFTA noms, too, except for direction and adapted screenplay. Didn't make the film longlist in the first round. Said screeners didn't get to them on time....though there were screenings of it.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 11:57pm

WALK THE LINE is the big box-office movie this Oscar season (how sad is that). There's always at least one blockbuster nominated for Best Picture; it's this year's JERRY MAGUIRE.

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 1:01am

Thanks!

Updated On: 1/9/06 at 01:01 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 11:57am

But KING KONG has certainly done better box office than WALK THE LINE...

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 12:21pm

True, munk. However, the Academy tends to embrace biopics more often than fantasy films.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 12:36pm

Yes, but look at why. It's not because of box office. The few fantasty films (LOTR series) that the Academy DID recognize were undeniably and unbelievably well-made films. When, other than LOTR, has a fantasy film come alone like those that the Academy should even waste their time on?

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 12:49pm

Star Wars?

I see your point, but the biopic is one of the predictable staples of the Oscars.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 12:59pm

Yes, but look at why. It's not because of box office. The few fantasty films (LOTR series) that the Academy DID recognize were undeniably and unbelievably well-made films.

Plus it took three years of convincing. It should have already won in 2001 for FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. (Nominating it was a no-brainer, though.)

But KING KONG has certainly done better box office than WALK THE LINE...

Yes, but there was a backlash and lots of negative press when KONG didn't meet those astronomical box office expectations.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 10:32pm

My point exactly, broadway.

Personally, I don't believe that STAR WARS is an Oscar-worthy film at all - but let's just say for right now that it is. That was what, around 1975? Thirty years ago. That's my point.

[MUNKY]

Posted: 1/10/06 at 5:31am

Wha...wha...WHAT?...MY film award nomination? Freaked me out there for a minute munkustrap. This is friggin' cooool. Had a busy holiday and still catching up on some films.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/10/06 at 12:33pm

Hahaha. Sorry, the Munky's were established before you joined

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/10/06 at 5:15pm

Thirty years ago. That's my point.

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/11/06 at 12:02am

You said something about the academy (more or less) snubbing fantasy films, like KING KONG. I said, it's because good fantasy films don't come along very often. Let's say STAR WARS was the last academy award worthy film before LOTR...that was thirty years ago.

My point is that the academy isn't snubbing fantasy films, but it's because fantasy films are generally of such poor quality that they don't DESERVE to be recognized. That's all.

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/11/06 at 12:13am

Oh, I see.

Here's the thing: I love King Kong, and I know you do too. As far as the Academy is concerned... Maybe it's BP spot will go to Capote, Walk the Line, or what have you, but even though this is a superior fantasy film, I'm just not feeling the love for it.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/11/06 at 1:14am

My point is that the academy isn't snubbing fantasy films, but it's because fantasy films are generally of such poor quality that they don't DESERVE to be recognized. That's all.

If STAR WARS isn't considered a snub (and I really don't think it is -- its quality is overrated), then there's also THE WIZARD OF OZ, JURASSIC PARK (a better movie than THE FUGITIVE), 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and the original 1933 KING KONG.

But I agree, most fantasy films were campy and of pulp quality, until LOTR came along.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/11/06 at 3:08am

I can't speak for or judge Hollywood in the 1930's...so I have no opinion on KING KONG (which is literally unwatchable) or OZ. JURASSIC PARK was an entertaining, well put together, well acted film - but nothing oscar worthy.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/11/06 at 4:49am

I agree but then I also agree that it's a better film than The Fugitive. But then I think Showgirls is a better film than The Fugitive and Tommy Lee Jones has the least deserved Oscar win in history.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/12/06 at 12:52am

Agreed!

VOTE BITCHES

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 5:12pm

One day left of voting.

Many of the races (best actor, actress, supporting) are extremely close - tied in some instances.

If you haven't voted, do so now.

Thanks!

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 5:51pm

ooh you're pre-empting the Globes. Fun.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 6:06pm

Thanks for remembering Renee.

A single tear rolls down my cheek for the exclusion of Crash for Best Picture...