Best Animated Feature Submissions
Juan F. Lara
has the press release about which movies got submitted and accepted for the
Best Animated Feature award.:
"Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights"
"Alibaba and the Forty Thieves"
"Eden"
"El Bosque Animado ( The Living Forest )"
"Hey Arnold! The Movie"
"Ice Age"
"Jonah - A VeggieTales Movie"
"Lilo and Stitch"
"Mutant Aliens"
"The Powerpuff Girls Movie"
"The Princess and the Pea"
"Return to Neverland"
"Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
"Spirited Away"
"Stuart Little 2"
"Treasure Planet"
"The Wild Thornberrys Movie"
Seventeen films. That means five nominations, right?
Oh, dear. "Escaflowne" and "Metropolis" :-( aren't listed? Does anyone
know what happened to those two films? I HOPE they reconsider "Metropolis".
B-( "Pokemon 4Ever" also isn't listed. Disney probably didn't submit it.
So the CGI characters in "Stuart Little 2" were in the film long enough
to qualify it for this category. It's like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".
"The Princess and the Pea" was this video release from Hyperion Pictures
( the Brave Little Toaster movies ) that got distributed by Disney. I didn't
know it had a theatrical release.
So what are "Eden" and "The Living Forest"? Anyone know?
- Juan F. Lara
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
Ethan Hammond
Paul Poroshin
> "Ice Age"
> "Lilo and Stitch"
> "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
> "Spirited Away"
> "Treasure Planet"
And I hope, naturally, that either Lilo & Stitch or Treasure Planet win.
Actually I hope that Treasure Planet wins, so we'd get that Academy Award
for Best Animated Feature 2-disc DVD release.
Lord Jubjub
Ethan Hammond <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Lilo & Stitch! Though I'm torn between that one and Spirited Away.
Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara <j...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> "The Princess and the Pea" was this video release from Hyperion Pictures
>( the Brave Little Toaster movies ) that got distributed by Disney. I didn't
> know it had a theatrical release.
Whoops, I was wrong. "The Adventures of Tom Thumb and Thumbelina" was
the Hyperion Movie. "The Princess and the Pea" is this movie that I've seen
mentioned in animated-movies.com but I don't really know much about. Here's
the official website
http://www.princess-and-the-pea.com/
When did this movie get released?
Also I found an official website for "El Bosque Animado"
http://www.elbosqueanimado.com/
It's from Spain. The site lists a number of awards it's won in Spain. Anyone
know when and where that film got released in the US?
pj
news:jubjub-482788....@corp.supernews.com:
> Lilo & Stitch! Though I'm torn between that one and Spirited Away.
as much as i loved lilo & stitch, i betting on spirited away to take the
award though; it had the most critical acclaim for the year. ice age,
lilo & stitch, etc were probably more commercially successful, but in the
end, the academy usually goes with substance over popularity.
Nargun
> as much as i loved lilo & stitch, i betting on spirited away to take the
> award though; it had the most critical acclaim for the year. ice age,
> lilo & stitch, etc were probably more commercially successful, but in the
> end, the academy usually goes with substance over popularity.
LOL
Louis
--
Louis Patterson l.patt...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
"You have plundered this dead man's property, you have all
the toys you need to keep you alive; now may we move on?"
- Balthamos, _The Amber Spyglass_
R. A. Clemson
Poroshin <poro...@optonline.spam!net> wrote:
> I'd nominate:
>
> > "Ice Age"
> > "Lilo and Stitch"
> > "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
> > "Spirited Away"
> > "Treasure Planet"
I second this and I think that Spirited Away deserves to win.
Derek Janssen
>
> Finally! http://www.oscar.org/press/pressreleases/2002/02.12.11.html
> has the press release about which movies got submitted and accepted for the
> Best Animated Feature award.:
>
> "Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights"
> "Alibaba and the Forty Thieves"
> "Eden"
> "El Bosque Animado ( The Living Forest )"
> "Hey Arnold! The Movie"
> "Ice Age"
> "Jonah - A VeggieTales Movie"
> "Lilo and Stitch"
> "Mutant Aliens"
> "The Powerpuff Girls Movie"
> "The Princess and the Pea"
> "Return to Neverland"
> "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
> "Spirited Away"
> "Stuart Little 2"
> "Treasure Planet"
> "The Wild Thornberrys Movie"
>
> Seventeen films. That means five nominations, right?
> Oh, dear. "Escaflowne" and "Metropolis" :-( aren't listed? Does anyone
> know what happened to those two films?
Yep: They opened past the one-year limit for imports.
(And we KNOW we've told you that before--Many times. Here's a Q-Tip,
clean 'em out...)
> "Pokemon 4Ever" also isn't listed. Disney probably didn't submit it.
Probably because THEY forgot it ever existed, too. ; )
> So the CGI characters in "Stuart Little 2" were in the film long enough
> to qualify it for this category.
(Because the director's reputation was in all-animated projects, and
could probably escape clean with a convincing alibi.)
> It's like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".
And the fact that it won't even make the cut should enforce the general
"Oh, don't even START!" sentiments...
It's already an audience-voted category, we don't want it going any
farther downhill from there.
> "The Princess and the Pea" was this video release from Hyperion Pictures
> ( the Brave Little Toaster movies ) that got distributed by Disney. I didn't
> know it had a theatrical release.
Did "Tom Thumb & Thumbelina" similarly get a name-only video-excuse
billboard release last year? (Egads, btw. Brr. Shudder.)
> So what are "Eden" and "The Living Forest"? Anyone know?
Forget those, I'm still puzzling over "Mutant Aliens"... 0_o?
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> as much as i loved lilo & stitch, i betting on spirited away to take the
> award though; it had the most critical acclaim for the year. ice age,
> lilo & stitch, etc were probably more commercially successful, but in the
> end, the academy usually goes with substance over popularity.
>
Is that why Jimmy Neutron got as far as
Best 3 nomination last year? ;-)
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sta...@cif.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> "Juan F. Lara" wrote:
> >
> > Seventeen films. That means five nominations, right?
> > Oh, dear. "Escaflowne" and "Metropolis" :-( aren't listed? Does anyone
> > know what happened to those two films?
>
> Yep: They opened past the one-year limit for imports.
> (And we KNOW we've told you that before--Many times. Here's a Q-Tip,
> clean 'em out...)
>
Specifically, LA theatre release on the year of the Award,
but foreign theatre release within 2 years of the Award.
According to:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/anime.htm
Metropolis and Escaflowne both opened on 1/25/02,
albeit they were shown in festivals and cons in 2001
(IIRC, festivals and cons don't count as theatre release).
So either there's some other requirement they missed
or they were not submitted at all.
>
> > So what are "Eden" and "The Living Forest"? Anyone know?
>
> Forget those, I'm still puzzling over "Mutant Aliens"... 0_o?
>
They're already aliens, yet they're also mutants?!
Is that any worse than the normal aliens? ;-)
Ethan Hammond
Wait, what? They do? AH HA HA HA HA!!!! ROTFLMAO
Juan F. Lara
Oh, man, check out the trailer that's in this website. :-) It's an art film
from Polish graphic artist Andrzej Czeczot. There's a good review of this
movie at http://www.animationmagazine.net/features/7_12.html that praises its
bold artwork. I believe the article, though after reading about the plot I
get the impression that it's the kind of movie for people who thought "Spirited
Away" was too pedestrian. :-) I'd love to hear comments from anyone who's seen
this film.
Also, it turns out that animated-movies.com has a good site about "The
Princess and the Pea". http://www.animated-movies.net/ThePrincessAndThePea.html
That film was made by a small studio called Swan Animation. It's founder,
Mark Swan, is a veteran of many different Disney and Bluth movies. The website
has an interview with Mark Swan that's a great read.
Jim Ryan
> "Alibaba and the Forty Thieves"
> "Eden"
> "El Bosque Animado ( The Living Forest )"
> "Hey Arnold! The Movie"
> "Ice Age"
> "Jonah - A VeggieTales Movie"
> "Lilo and Stitch"
> "Mutant Aliens"
> "The Powerpuff Girls Movie"
> "The Princess and the Pea"
> "Return to Neverland"
> "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
> "Spirited Away"
> "Stuart Little 2"
> "Treasure Planet"
> "The Wild Thornberrys Movie"
I am suprised that "Return To Neverland" made it-- I didn't think it
met the length requirement.
Any speculation on what the five finalists will be? My guess would be:
Ice Age
Lilo & Stitch
Spirit
Spirited Away
And either "Thornberrys", "VeggieTales" or one of the foreign animated
films.
Jim
PS This has been a running topic in the Animation forum on About.Com.
If anyone is interested in talking about it live, you can join us
online Tuesday nights at 9:00pm EST at
http://animation.about.com/gi/chat/cs.htm.
redkanary
Bill Plympton's latest, I believe.
-Red
John Holderried
>
> > So what are "Eden" and "The Living Forest"? Anyone know?
>
> Forget those, I'm still puzzling over "Mutant Aliens"... 0_o?
>
> Derek Janssen
> dja...@rcn.com
Derek,
Are you puzzling over what the film is, or over how it got the
nomination? Anyway, it's directed by Bill Plympton, and was
released in select cities in 2002 - you can see the film's
web-site at www.mutantaliensmovie.com
John Holderried
Assoc. Producer, "Mutant Aliens"
Pook!
built a post that went like this:
> Finally! http://www.oscar.org/press/pressreleases/2002/02.12.11.html
>has the press release about which movies got submitted and accepted for the
>Best Animated Feature award.:
>
> "Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights"
> "Alibaba and the Forty Thieves"
> "Eden"
> "El Bosque Animado ( The Living Forest )"
> "Hey Arnold! The Movie"
> "Ice Age"
> "Jonah - A VeggieTales Movie"
> "Lilo and Stitch"
> "Mutant Aliens"
> "The Powerpuff Girls Movie"
> "The Princess and the Pea"
> "Return to Neverland"
> "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
> "Spirited Away"
> "Stuart Little 2"
> "Treasure Planet"
> "The Wild Thornberrys Movie"
Does anyone know what the voting requirements are for the Best
Animated Feature category? Because I wonder if with so many small,
art-house, almost-never-released-to-theaters-here movies if this
category might not fall prey to something that Roger Ebert has talked
about before in relation to the Best Documentary category.
In order to vote in the Best Documentary category, the members of the
academy have to have seen all of the films nominated. But since
documentaries don't traditionally have wide screenings, what some
filmmakers do is this: They only have one or two screenings of their
film after the nominations are announced, and they stack the
screenings with people who will vote for their film. The end result is
that the only people who have seen ALL the films are ones who will
vote for that filmmaker's documentary. This is how it's rumoured that
last year's award winner, the movie about the Olympics hostage
standoff, got the award.
If it's a similar requirement for Best Animated Feature, I can see one
of two things happening. Either one of the smaller art-house or nearly
direct-to-video releases will do this and will win in a surprise
upset, or more likely the people voting will lie about having seen all
of the films nominated and only a movie with a wide release and a high
boxoffice will have a chance of winning.
Right now I'm leaning towards saying that Lilo and Stitch will win,
which I'd be happy with since it was a really good movie, but Spirited
Away was better and is IMO more deserving, but either way if the above
scenario works out it doesn't really have a chance.
--Pook! ^_^
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> Does anyone know what the voting requirements are for the Best
> Animated Feature category? Because I wonder if with so many small,
> art-house, almost-never-released-to-theaters-here movies if this
> category might not fall prey to something that Roger Ebert has talked
> about before in relation to the Best Documentary category.
>
> In order to vote in the Best Documentary category, the members of the
> academy have to have seen all of the films nominated. But since
> documentaries don't traditionally have wide screenings, what some
> filmmakers do is this: They only have one or two screenings of their
> film after the nominations are announced, and they stack the
> screenings with people who will vote for their film. The end result is
> that the only people who have seen ALL the films are ones who will
> vote for that filmmaker's documentary. This is how it's rumoured that
> last year's award winner, the movie about the Olympics hostage
> standoff, got the award.
>
I believe only a screening committee will watch all submissions
and who will then nominate up to 5 films for the Award.
Only afterwards will the rest of the Academy voters watch those films,
and only those films that are nominated.
I don't think it's too much to ask for some of the few thousands or so
Academy voters to watch all (up to 5 only) nominated animated films.
I think the Academy also mails out tapes of nominated films for voters
to watch at their leisure (voters have the responsibility to watch).
If that doesn't answer your question, here's the place to start:
http://www.oscars.org/75academyawards/rules/rule07.html
> If it's a similar requirement for Best Animated Feature, I can see one
> of two things happening. Either one of the smaller art-house or nearly
> direct-to-video releases will do this and will win in a surprise upset
Not likely, with all the heavyweights in there.
On the contrary, it'll be Disney and Dreamworks
who will be doing the most pushing.
> or more likely the people voting will lie about having seen all
> of the films nominated and only a movie with a wide release and a high
> boxoffice will have a chance of winning.
That is always a possibility with any film category,
and it is the responsibility of the Academy voters
to follow the rules or lose their privilege.
Anyway, even if a voter watches all nominated films in a category,
there is no preventing that a wide release or high box office
will still affect the way he/she votes.
I'm sure many of you can understand that mentality.
David Bulmer
"Juan F. Lara" <j...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:at8g8l$nvc$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> Finally! http://www.oscar.org/press/pressreleases/2002/02.12.11.html
> has the press release about which movies got submitted and accepted for
the
> Best Animated Feature award.:
>
> Oh, dear. "Escaflowne" and "Metropolis" :-( aren't listed? Does
anyone
> know what happened to those two films? I HOPE they reconsider
"Metropolis".
> B-( "Pokemon 4Ever" also isn't listed. Disney probably didn't submit it.
Well hang on, isn't Escaflowne a really old film? Re-release or not, the
board would have to be pretty raving anime fanboys to drag something so old
into this year's awards, surely?
It'd be like putting The Snowman in just because a new DVD's out.
> So what are "Eden" and "The Living Forest"? Anyone know?
>
I was wondering that.
-
Buml0r
Derek Janssen
>
> I believe only a screening committee will watch all submissions
> and who will then nominate up to 5 films for the Award.
The award was not conceived as a major award with a large number of
nominees (as opposed to the no shortage of Picture and Actor
submissions), so "up to" is the key word, as with Sound and Makeup.
If it's a slow year, the rules allow three nominees...Four, if Jeff K.
spends too much on beating a dead Horse Movie. Five would be a serious
stretch, and though possibly likely this year, I wouldn't expect it
*every* year.
> I don't think it's too much to ask for some of the few thousands or so
> Academy voters to watch all (up to 5 only) nominated animated films.
> I think the Academy also mails out tapes of nominated films for voters
> to watch at their leisure (voters have the responsibility to watch).
>
> > If it's a similar requirement for Best Animated Feature, I can see one
> > of two things happening. Either one of the smaller art-house or nearly
> > direct-to-video releases will do this and will win in a surprise upset
>
> Not likely, with all the heavyweights in there.
> On the contrary, it'll be Disney and Dreamworks
> who will be doing the most pushing.
>
> > or more likely the people voting will lie about having seen all
> > of the films nominated and only a movie with a wide release and a high
> > boxoffice will have a chance of winning.
>
> That is always a possibility with any film category,
> and it is the responsibility of the Academy voters
> to follow the rules or lose their privilege.
Every voter "follows the rules" when the committee's looking, but it's
pretty well taken for conventional-wisdom granted that if an Animated
title didn't get a major studio release whereas half the other nominees
did, it's only curiosity that *requires* you to screen it--They may get
around to Ice Age to justify sticking it on the major list, but I don't
quite see them rushing to the Princess & the Pea screenings...
Due to expectations of how one could go wrong, it's "safer" to miss an
Animated film screening than a Foreign Film or Documentary: After a
week of screening real contenders, you don't feel as if you're missing
much for not seeing "Wild Thornberries".
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Joshua Kreitzer
>
> Does anyone know what the voting requirements are for the Best
> Animated Feature category? Because I wonder if with so many small,
> art-house, almost-never-released-to-theaters-here movies if this
> category might not fall prey to something that Roger Ebert has talked
> about before in relation to the Best Documentary category.
>
> In order to vote in the Best Documentary category, the members of the
> academy have to have seen all of the films nominated. But since
> documentaries don't traditionally have wide screenings, what some
> filmmakers do is this: They only have one or two screenings of their
> film after the nominations are announced, and they stack the
> screenings with people who will vote for their film.
The Animated Feature voting requirements are different from the
Documentary voting requirements (which do require Academy members to
have seen all the nominees).
For Best Animated Feature, the nominations are decided by a screening
committee. To participate in the nominations, committee members are
required to see 80% of the eligible submissions (which would be at
least 14 of the 17 submissions for 2002).
http://www.oscars.org/75academyawards/rules/rule07.html
All Academy members can vote for Best Animated Feature in the final
vote once the nominees are selected. As in most categories, that
means that they are not required to see the nominees. By contrast,
Academy members must have seen all the nominees in order to vote in
the Documentary, Short, or Foreign Language categories.
Joshua Kreitzer
grom...@hotmail.com
Joshua Kreitzer
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Derek Janssen wrote:
>
> > "Juan F. Lara" wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, dear. "Escaflowne" and "Metropolis" :-( aren't listed? Does
> > > anyone know what happened to those two films?
> >
> > Yep: They opened past the one-year limit for imports.
> > (And we KNOW we've told you that before--Many times. Here's a Q-Tip,
> > clean 'em out...)
>
> Specifically, LA theatre release on the year of the Award,
> but foreign theatre release within 2 years of the Award.
>
> According to:
> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/anime.htm
> Metropolis and Escaflowne both opened on 1/25/02,
> albeit they were shown in festivals and cons in 2001
> (IIRC, festivals and cons don't count as theatre release).
> So either there's some other requirement they missed
> or they were not submitted at all.
According to IMDB: http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0270933
ESCAFLOWNE was released in Japan on 6/24/00. Thus, it was ineligible
for the 2002 Oscars.
Under current rules, once a film is released anywhere, it has to be
released in Los Angeles County either in the same calendar year, or in
the next calendar year, to be eligible in most categories, including
Best Animated Feature. (There are different rules for the Foreign
Language, Documentary, and Short categories.)
I'm under the impression that COWBOY BEBOP and MILLENNIUM ACTRESS,
both of which are set for U.S. release in 2003, were released in Japan
in 2001. If so, neither would be eligible for the Oscars next year.
Joshua Kreitzer
grom...@hotmail.com
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" wrote:
> >
> > > or more likely the people voting will lie about having seen all
> > > of the films nominated and only a movie with a wide release and a high
> > > boxoffice will have a chance of winning.
> >
> > That is always a possibility with any film category,
> > and it is the responsibility of the Academy voters
> > to follow the rules or lose their privilege.
>
> Every voter "follows the rules" when the committee's looking, but it's
> pretty well taken for conventional-wisdom granted that if an Animated
> title didn't get a major studio release whereas half the other nominees
> did, it's only curiosity that *requires* you to screen it--They may get
> around to Ice Age to justify sticking it on the major list, but I don't
> quite see them rushing to the Princess & the Pea screenings...
If I got the Academy rules right,
I don't think the Academy voters would need to see P&tP
unless the animation screening committee,
who are the ones required to watch all eligible submissions,
recommends it for Best Animation nomination.
The voters need only see the nominated films, AFAIK.
> Due to expectations of how one could go wrong, it's "safer" to miss an
> Animated film screening than a Foreign Film or Documentary: After a
> week of screening real contenders, you don't feel as if you're missing
> much for not seeing "Wild Thornberries".
The animation screening committee is not a big group of people.
And these animation screeners need not belong
to many or all other categories' committees.
Is it too unrealistic for this small group
to watch all or most of the 17 eligible submissions?
(And it's only 17!
Compared to some other categories, that's very manageable.
Plus, most animated films are 90 min or less,
compared to 2-hr live-action movies.)
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> "Juan F. Lara" <j...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:at8g8l$nvc$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> > Finally! http://www.oscar.org/press/pressreleases/2002/02.12.11.html
> > has the press release about which movies got submitted and accepted for
> the
> > Best Animated Feature award.:
> >
> > Seventeen films. That means five nominations, right?
> > Oh, dear. "Escaflowne" and "Metropolis" :-( aren't listed? Does
> anyone
> > know what happened to those two films? I HOPE they reconsider
> "Metropolis".
> > B-( "Pokemon 4Ever" also isn't listed. Disney probably didn't submit it.
>
> Well hang on, isn't Escaflowne a really old film? Re-release or not, the
> board would have to be pretty raving anime fanboys to drag something so old
> into this year's awards, surely?
>
You may be thinking of the Escaflowne TV series,
which was way back in 1996.
The Escaflowne movie opened in Japan just in 2000,
but still going over the 2-yr limit requirement by 1 yr,
so that's why it was not submitted.
pj
>
take a look at the list of the nominees and winner for best film for 2001.
note that the list doesn't contain stuff like episode 2, mib 2, etc...
as for the animated film category...2001 was first year for that category.
i vaguely recall that the category was announced in the latter part of the
year, so there wasn't many submissions. those that were submitted were...
jimmy neutron, monsters inc., and shrek. in the end, shrek won because the
voters deemed it better in terms of animation, story, acting, etc...
so, in short...yes they do prefer substance/overall quality over commercial
success. then again, i'd love to hear the reasoning as to why jimmy
neutron or monsters inc. should've won.
D B Malmquist
For "Cowboy Bebop" - crap, you're right!
http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0275277
Perhaps Sony should grab a theater (if any in LA are left...) and
do a quicky "Oscars" run at the end of the year.
But for "Millenium Actress", IMDB says it actually opened theatrically
in Japan in 2002:
http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0291350
IMDB claims it ran at Big Apple Anime Fest before opening in Japan.
Weird, if true. Maybe IMDB is wrong?
Side note: IMDB now seems to have a large amount of info about
Japanese seiyuu; interesting. No clue whether it's comprehensive
or not.
- dbm
K. Jeffery Petersen
Well, in my own subjective opinion, either of the two was a better film than
Shrek. But Monsters, Inc. should have won: it had stronger characters, a tighter
storyline, didn't fall apart halfway through and become nothing more than a
vehicle for some weak, forgettable one-liners, and was more technically
proficient.
But, hey, Shrek was seen as the big moneymaker. During the summer frame, it had
legs and was the biggest movie. Monsters Inc. opened larger, but got clobbered
by Harry Potter so it fell just a bit short of Shrek's total (even though it
actually won out in the worldwide box office). In just about any other year, MI
probably would have gotten close to 300 million.
Damien Roc
Ethan Hammond
>
> > Wait, what? They do? AH HA HA HA HA!!!! ROTFLMAO
> >
>
> take a look at the list of the nominees and winner for best film for 2001.
> note that the list doesn't contain stuff like episode 2, mib 2, etc...
Of course Episode II and MIB2 just came out in the summer of 2002.
And I bet LOTR2 will get a nod this year, not sure if it will win
but it will get nominated.
Last 5 movies to win best picture:
1998 Titanic
1999 American Beauty (this may have been 2000 I can't remember)
2000 Can't remember
2001 Gladiator
2002 A Beautiful Mind
> as for the animated film category...2001 was first year for that category.
> i vaguely recall that the category was announced in the latter part of the
> year, so there wasn't many submissions. those that were submitted were...
> jimmy neutron, monsters inc., and shrek. in the end, shrek won because the
> voters deemed it better in terms of animation, story, acting, etc...
And it was also one of the most economically successful films.
Shrek 2 is coming out next year.
Nargun
> "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" wrote:
> >
> > I believe only a screening committee will watch all submissions
> > and who will then nominate up to 5 films for the Award.
>
> The award was not conceived as a major award with a large number of
> nominees (as opposed to the no shortage of Picture and Actor
> submissions), so "up to" is the key word, as with Sound and Makeup.
> If it's a slow year, the rules allow three nominees...Four, if Jeff K.
> spends too much on beating a dead Horse Movie. Five would be a serious
> stretch, and though possibly likely this year, I wouldn't expect it
> *every* year.
possibly likely, is it? You sure that it's not just possibly possible? Or
likely to be certain? Maybe it's just concievably probable? I'm not sure
that your dogmatism on the issue is justified. [or perhaps it's just that
if you hedge any more, you'd be topiary...]
Louis [I demand that I may, or may not, be Vroomfoldel]
Michelle "Ms. Geek" Klein-Hass
Winner: Lilo and Stitch
Shoulda been Winner: Spirited Away
-.\\<-H-
--
Ms. Geek (Michelle Klein-Hass)...terrorizing Usenet since 1992!
Charter member, SPCM, (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Menchi)
Paranoia City chapter.
"Families of Japan, it is not too late to enjoy Turkey with Gravy."
-- Chairman Kaga
"I am not looser than clams!" -- Zoogz Rift
Derek Janssen
>
> > The award was not conceived as a major award with a large number of
> > nominees (as opposed to the no shortage of Picture and Actor
> > submissions), so "up to" is the key word, as with Sound and Makeup.
> > If it's a slow year, the rules allow three nominees...Four, if Jeff K.
> > spends too much on beating a dead Horse Movie. Five would be a serious
> > stretch, and though possibly likely this year, I wouldn't expect it
> > *every* year.
>
> possibly likely, is it? You sure that it's not just possibly possible? Or
> likely to be certain? Maybe it's just concievably probable?
Five nominations are "possibly likely" this year, as opposed to "not
bloody likely" next year. : )
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Pook!
have built a post that went like this:
>pj wrote:
>>
>> so, in short...yes they do prefer substance/overall quality over commercial
>> success. then again, i'd love to hear the reasoning as to why jimmy
>> neutron or monsters inc. should've won.
>
>Well, in my own subjective opinion, either of the two was a better film than
>Shrek. But Monsters, Inc. should have won: it had stronger characters, a tighter
>storyline, didn't fall apart halfway through and become nothing more than a
>vehicle for some weak, forgettable one-liners, and was more technically
>proficient.
>
>But, hey, Shrek was seen as the big moneymaker. During the summer frame, it had
>legs and was the biggest movie. Monsters Inc. opened larger, but got clobbered
>by Harry Potter so it fell just a bit short of Shrek's total (even though it
>actually won out in the worldwide box office). In just about any other year, MI
>probably would have gotten close to 300 million.
I couldn't agree more. Shrek was witty and acerbic and looked good and
certainly provided some hearty laughs, but Monsters Inc did all that,
looked better, and had *heart*. The best Shrek could manage was a
hackneyed "idiot plot" pivoting around an incredibly cliched "Person
hears only part of a conversation and storms off" plot device.
Monsters Inc. was innovative, far more visionary and unique, more
tightly scripted, had characters who were more three-dimensional, had
a villain who wasn't a complete cardboard cutout, etc. While Shrek
didn't aspire to be much deeper than a puddle, a movie that does and
pulls it off should be given more respect, IMO.
I really think that the only reason Shrek won over Monsters Inc. was
because a lot more Academy voters SAW Shrek than Monsters Inc., which
is why I'm afraid that Spirited Away probably doesn't have a
snowball's chance of actually winning (although it'll undoubtedly make
it into the final five nominees.) I think that the Academy members
would probably make an effort to see all the films in the "important"
categories that they vote on (Actor, Actress, Best Film, etc.) but I
can easily see a lot of them going "Oh well, it's just the CARTOON
category...my kid saw this one, so I'll just vote for it."
--Pook! ^_^
Don Del Grande
>> I believe only a screening committee will watch all submissions
>> and who will then nominate up to 5 films for the Award.
>The award was not conceived as a major award with a large number of
>nominees (as opposed to the no shortage of Picture and Actor
>submissions), so "up to" is the key word, as with Sound and Makeup.
>If it's a slow year, the rules allow three nominees...Four, if Jeff K.
>spends too much on beating a dead Horse Movie. Five would be a serious
>stretch, and though possibly likely this year, I wouldn't expect it
>*every* year.
The rules make a brief reference about "an average score of 7.5 or
more". I assume is an N-to-10 scale, but how low they go is not
mentioned (after the "Hoop Dreams" scandal a few years back, the
Documentary committee switched from 4-10 to 6-10, with an 8 average
needed).
>> I don't think it's too much to ask for some of the few thousands or so
>> Academy voters to watch all (up to 5 only) nominated animated films.
>> I think the Academy also mails out tapes of nominated films for voters
>> to watch at their leisure (voters have the responsibility to watch).
I think the studios themselves, rather than the Academy, send out the
films, usually with "FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION" stamped all over it. I
have to wonder - how many Academy voters give the animated films to
their kids, or at least ask their opinion as to who should win?
(Which reminds me...which animated movies have "For Your
Consideration" ads in, say, Animation magazine?)
> Every voter "follows the rules" when the committee's looking, but it's
> pretty well taken for conventional-wisdom granted that if an Animated
> title didn't get a major studio release whereas half the other nominees
> did, it's only curiosity that *requires* you to screen it--They may get
> around to Ice Age to justify sticking it on the major list, but I don't
> quite see them rushing to the Princess & the Pea screenings...
> Due to expectations of how one could go wrong, it's "safer" to miss an
> Animated film screening than a Foreign Film or Documentary: After a
> week of screening real contenders, you don't feel as if you're missing
> much for not seeing "Wild Thornberries".
Then again, they could always watch the "The Wild Thornberrys" TV
series and pretty much get the idea as to what is happening.
(Speaking of which, looks like somebody's star may have fallen a bit;
the latest commercial mentions that it includes the voices of (among
others) Lynn Redgrave, Tim Curry, and Flea (of Red Hot Chili Peppers),
but no mention of Lacey Chabert as Eliza ("'Party of Five'? What's
that? 'Lost in Space'? I only remember Joey..."))
----------------------------------------------
Don Del Grande, del_g...@netvista.net
Then again, maybe they want people to think Eliza and Darwin voice
themselves, the way the "Ice Age" DVD commercial mentions Ray Romano,
John Leguizamo, Denis Leary, "and Scrat"
Arnold Kim
Nargun <lou...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.102121...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, pj wrote:
>
> > as much as i loved lilo & stitch, i betting on spirited away to take the
> > award though; it had the most critical acclaim for the year. ice age,
> > lilo & stitch, etc were probably more commercially successful, but in
the
> > end, the academy usually goes with substance over popularity.
>
Lord of the Rings made a lot more money than A Beautiful Mind.
Arnold Kim
Arnold Kim
Ethan Hammond <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3DF988...@worldnet.att.net...
> pj wrote:
> >
> > > Wait, what? They do? AH HA HA HA HA!!!! ROTFLMAO
> > >
> >
> > take a look at the list of the nominees and winner for best film for
2001.
> > note that the list doesn't contain stuff like episode 2, mib 2, etc...
>
> Of course Episode II and MIB2 just came out in the summer of 2002.
> And I bet LOTR2 will get a nod this year, not sure if it will win
> but it will get nominated.
>
> Last 5 movies to win best picture:
>
> 1998 Titanic
> 1999 American Beauty (this may have been 2000 I can't remember)
> 2000 Can't remember
> 2001 Gladiator
> 2002 A Beautiful Mind
American Beauty was 2000. 99 was Shakespeare in Love.
Still, ABM, AB, and SiL weren't exactly summer blockbusters
Arnold Kim
_still_ bitter that Being John Malkovich wasn't nominated for Best Picture
Diamondback
> award though; it had the most critical acclaim for the year. ice age,
> lilo & stitch, etc were probably more commercially successful, but in the
> end, the academy usually goes with substance over popularity.
Perhpas you can explain the statuette that Julia Roberts received then?
Christopher J. Sypal
<sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
>You may be thinking of the Escaflowne TV series,
>which was way back in 1996.
>The Escaflowne movie opened in Japan just in 2000,
>but still going over the 2-yr limit requirement by 1 yr,
>so that's why it was not submitted.
Actually, didn't it come out last year, thus it was elligible for last year's
awards?
Ethan Hammond
>
> Ethan Hammond <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3DF988...@worldnet.att.net..
> > >
> > > > Wait, what? They do? AH HA HA HA HA!!!! ROTFLMAO
> > > >
> > >
> > > take a look at the list of the nominees and winner for best film for
> 2001.
> > > note that the list doesn't contain stuff like episode 2, mib 2, etc...
> >
> > Of course Episode II and MIB2 just came out in the summer of 2002.
> > And I bet LOTR2 will get a nod this year, not sure if it will win
> > but it will get nominated.
> >
> > Last 5 movies to win best picture:
> >
> > 1998 Titanic
> > 1999 American Beauty (this may have been 2000 I can't remember)
> > 2000 Can't remember
> > 2001 Gladiator
> > 2002 A Beautiful Mind
>
> American Beauty was 2000. 99 was Shakespeare in Love.
Thank you!
> Still, ABM, AB, and SiL weren't exactly summer blockbusters
>
> Arnold Kim
> _still_ bitter that Being John Malkovich wasn't nominated for Best Picture
It was just too weird for conventional taste.
I don't really like it that much myself.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
Not according to Box Office Mojo;
it came out in the US this year 2002/01/25:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/anime.htm
It was shown on 2001 in cons/festivals, which don't count.
But it came out in Japan on 2000 - 1 yr over the limit.
Laters. =)
STan
Scott Schimmel
It was also a better movie. ABM played fast and loose with facts in
order to wrap up a typically Hollywood nice feel-good movie. -_-
--
Scott Schimmel * Ex ignorantia ad sapientium;
http://schimmel.sandwich.net * ex luce ad tenebras.
"You really aren't normal, are you?" - Miki Koishikawa
j. mclean sloughter
> "Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Nargun <lou...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
>>news:Pine.OSF.4.10.102121...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, pj wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>as much as i loved lilo & stitch, i betting on spirited away to take the
>>>>award though; it had the most critical acclaim for the year. ice age,
>>>>lilo & stitch, etc were probably more commercially successful, but in
>>>
>>the
>>
>>>>end, the academy usually goes with substance over popularity.
>>>
>>>LOL
>>
>>Lord of the Rings made a lot more money than A Beautiful Mind.
>
>
> It was also a better movie. ABM played fast and loose with facts in
> order to wrap up a typically Hollywood nice feel-good movie. -_-
>
>
Whereas everything in Lord of the Rings was true?
It wasn't even true to the book, and the book itself was all lies. None
of that ever actually happened.
If we're judging a movie's worth by how accurate to reality it is, then,
sure ABM wasn't all true, but there was more truth than in Lord of the
Rings.
-mclean
Nargun
He said "usually".
Louis
Nargun
No shit, sherlock. Your point?
j. mclean sloughter
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, j. mclean sloughter wrote:
>
>
>>Scott Schimmel wrote:
>>
>>>"Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nargun <lou...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>>news:Pine.OSF.4.10.102121...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, pj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>as much as i loved lilo & stitch, i betting on spirited away to take the
>>>>>>award though; it had the most critical acclaim for the year. ice age,
>>>>>>lilo & stitch, etc were probably more commercially successful, but in
>>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>end, the academy usually goes with substance over popularity.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL
>>>>
>>>>Lord of the Rings made a lot more money than A Beautiful Mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>It was also a better movie. ABM played fast and loose with facts in
>>>order to wrap up a typically Hollywood nice feel-good movie. -_-
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Whereas everything in Lord of the Rings was true?
>>It wasn't even true to the book, and the book itself was all lies. None
>>of that ever actually happened.
>>If we're judging a movie's worth by how accurate to reality it is, then,
>>sure ABM wasn't all true, but there was more truth than in Lord of the
>>Rings.
>
>
> No shit, sherlock. Your point?
>
> Louis
That it's rather silly to argue that FOTR is superior to ABM because ABM
wasn't factual, both because FOTR is less factual than ABM, and because
that's just a ridiculous criterion to begin with.
There're lots of good movies that aren't factual. "Grave of the
Fireflies" takes all sorts of liberties with what actually happened, but
that doesn't mean that it's a bad film.
-mclean
Scott Schimmel
>Scott Schimmel wrote:
>> "Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>Lord of the Rings made a lot more money than A Beautiful Mind.
>>
>> It was also a better movie. ABM played fast and loose with facts in
>> order to wrap up a typically Hollywood nice feel-good movie. -_-
>
>Whereas everything in Lord of the Rings was true?
No, everything in LotR -wasn't- true. That's kind of the point. LotR
never pretended to -be- a true story. ABM was every bit as much a
fantasy as LotR, but it didn't own up to it. :p
Arnold Kim
Scott Schimmel <schi...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:3dfce40...@netnews.voicenet.com...
> "j. mclean sloughter" <jslo...@gonzaga.edu> wrote:
> >Scott Schimmel wrote:
> >> "Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> wrote:
> >>>Lord of the Rings made a lot more money than A Beautiful Mind.
> >>
> >> It was also a better movie. ABM played fast and loose with facts in
> >> order to wrap up a typically Hollywood nice feel-good movie. -_-
> >
> >Whereas everything in Lord of the Rings was true?
>
> No, everything in LotR -wasn't- true. That's kind of the point. LotR
> never pretended to -be- a true story. ABM was every bit as much a
> fantasy as LotR, but it didn't own up to it. :p
The same for every other movie based on a true story. It's called dramatic
license.
Arnold Kim
Scott Schimmel
You'd have a point, were the changes in ABM made in order to improve
upon its drama.
Unfortunately, that's largely not the case. What they did with that
movie wasn't dramatic license... it was whitewashing. :p
Besides, none of that addresses LotR being a better movie. ^_- It was
tighter, more fully realized, and (sadly enough, considering it was an
adaptation...) more original in its treatment than ABM. ABM is the
kind of movie Hollywood churns out by the dozens, some years; LotR is
the kind of movie Hollywood wishes it could churn out by the dozens.
;p
(But then, Best Picture is often shaky...)
Ethan Hammond
> >>
> >> No, everything in LotR -wasn't- true. That's kind of the point. LotR
> >> never pretended to -be- a true story. ABM was every bit as much a
> >> fantasy as LotR, but it didn't own up to it. :p
> >
> >The same for every other movie based on a true story. It's called dramatic
> >license.
>
> You'd have a point, were the changes in ABM made in order to improve
> upon its drama.
>
> Unfortunately, that's largely not the case. What they did with that
> movie wasn't dramatic license... it was whitewashing. :p
If you really want to hear about Nash's homo erotic fantasy's
and exploration you can read the book.
> Besides, none of that addresses LotR being a better movie. ^_- It was
> tighter, more fully realized, and (sadly enough, considering it was an
> adaptation...) more original in its treatment than ABM. ABM is the
> kind of movie Hollywood churns out by the dozens, some years; LotR is
> the kind of movie Hollywood wishes it could churn out by the dozens.
> ;p
>
> (But then, Best Picture is often shaky...)
The thing is LOTR won't win until Return of the King.
I mean I saw The Two Towers at midnight on Tues/Wed
and it was better than FOTR.
robert stephens
Ethan Hammond wrote:
But (following the earlier parts of this thread)...
it was much farther from the book than the FOTR.
-Robert
R. A. Clemson
IMAX format. The IMAX version of The Lion King will start on Dec. 25.
Treasure Planet was made for IMAX and the picture and sound are just
amazing in the IMAX format. The sound during the Cosmic Storm
sequence is incredible.
If you can, you should catch the film in IMAX before it's too late.
Treasure Planet will never been screened in IMAX again.
Invid Fan
<raa...@att.net> wrote:
> There is less than a week to catch a screening of Treasure Planet in the
> IMAX format. The IMAX version of The Lion King will start on Dec. 25.
>
Ah, ok. I figured TP would end Friday, as there's already one showing
of The Two Towers on the local IMAX.
> Treasure Planet was made for IMAX and the picture and sound are just
> amazing in the IMAX format. The sound during the Cosmic Storm
> sequence is incredible.
>
> If you can, you should catch the film in IMAX before it's too late.
> Treasure Planet will never been screened in IMAX again.
Is it IMAX ratio, or widescreen?
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS