124 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

I was hoping for at least a nomination in one of the categories. Still, as many have already said, not surprising.

[Agent 0015]

Casino Royale should deserved really at least the techincal nominations like sound or effects. Oh well , we got the BAFTAS. I will cheer on for Little Miss Sunshine.

Edited by Agent 0015, 23 January 2007 - 08:45 PM.

[Moore Not Less]

Only
Snobs
Can
Award
Rubbish

Offer
Snobs
Cash
Await
Reward

Obviously
Superior
Casino
Absolutely
Royale

Oscar
Snubbed
Casino
Absolutely
Right......runs for cover

[dodge]

Only
Snobs
Can
Award
Rubbish

Offer
Snobs
Cash
Await
Reward

Obviously
Superior
Casino
Absolutely
Royale

Oscar
Snubbed
Casino
Absolutely
Right......runs for cover

Oprah-faves
Stop
Casino.
Awards
Rigged!

[bond_girl_double07]

Only
Sorry
Craig's
Abs got
Ripped - off

He should get an award for all that hard work!

[DamnCoffee]

I bet Cnb are having a field day anyway Bring on the Bafta's

[Qwerty]

Only
Snobs
Can
Award
Rubbish

Offer
Snobs
Cash
Await
Reward

Obviously
Superior
Casino
Absolutely
Royale

Oscar
Snubbed
Casino
Absolutely
Right......runs for cover

Interesting way to look at it.

[deth]

CR doesn't deserve an Oscar imo.... not that all films that win Oscar's are high calibur films.... but they should be.

[Mark W]

Casino Royale more than deserved to be at least nominated for an Oscar this year IMO.

Alas however, the Academy seems incapable of ever taking the Bond films seriously again. Looking back over the years, 007 films have been nominated in 9 categories - the last in 1981 for the FYEO theme song - but only won 2 Oscars - Goldfinger in 1964 (Sound Effects) and with Thunderball in 1965 (Visual Effects).

Ask yourself how did John Barry never win an Oscar for his theme music, e.g. in OHMSS?

It's a conspiracy!

[SilencedPPK]

I wish it would've at least been nominated for something, like effects or something. Heaven forbid a great movie, such as Casino Royale would ever win an Academy Award. For God sake's Borat won a Golden Globe! Ugh!

[bond_girl_double07]

Related Article/Thread here: http://debrief.comma...showtopic=38768

Craig's nuanced performance came in that dirty genre ("action movie") and therefore isn't suited for the Oscars, even though they share the same taste in attire (tuxedos).

WTF That was taken from the official Oscar website... are they admitting that they consistently overlook an entire genre? whoa!

[DaveBond21]

Whenever I browse through the Oscar-winning movies of the past, they are almost always strange choices.

The classics quite often missed out.

Awards are not important to me - I've never watched the Oscars, and I can't imagine I ever will.

[Monkeyfoahead]

I don't care if it doesn't get an Oscar. If it is a good movie I will see it even if the pompous in Hollywood say it's not worth the film to make it. As far as Craig's performance, it was gritty, real, and made you feel for the character. What's wrong with that? Maybe they should actually *Watch* the films in theatres. Oh well, there are the BAFTAS.

[Double-0-Seven]

Disappointing that it's not nominated, but not surprising.

At least we'll get to see Daniel present an award.

[witgob]

I remember reading a little while back, an article on who makes up the Academy of Motion Picture blah blah, and decided that it was just one of those rubbish gongs that real actors should be ambivalent about.

The BAFTAS on the other hand, now there

[Qwerty]

At least we'll get to see Daniel present an award.

True. Wonder what it will be for.

[Professor Dent]

Not surprising. CR didn't stand a chance at best picture, director, actor, etc. I thought the music, sound, or special effects categories were an outside chance. IMHO, no loss. I stopped watching the Oscars about 10 years ago.

[witgob]

I may tape the Oscars and just keep the bit where Daniel presents.
Otherwise - it's a big yawn.
I don't think I've ever watched one in it's entirety - although I did hang out to see how many gongs LotR would FINALLY get.

[TheSaint]

I'm hoping that Superman Returns wins for best special effects.

[Jim]

Is "I'm not watching the Oscars because Casino Royale's not in it and here's my view about the Oscars generally" any better than "I'm not watching Casino Royale because Pierce Brosnan's not in it and here's my view about Bond generally"?

Either watch it or don't but there's a whiff of boycott about this thread that seems...oddly familiar. And will probably be just as successful.

[marktmurphy]

Is "I'm not watching the Oscars because Casino Royale's not in it and here's my view about the Oscars generally" any better than "I'm not watching Casino Royale because Pierce Brosnan's not in it and here's my view about Bond generally"?

Either watch it or don't but there's a whiff of boycott about this thread that seems...oddly familiar. And will probably be just as successful.

I'm not really sure what's wrong with not watching something because you have no interest in it.

[David Schofield]

Quoting Schofield:
Owen is so absolutely lightweight (in all respects) that to compare him to Mitchum and Chandler's creation is just [color="#DDA0DD"]absurd.

I respect your right to disagree. But my respect ends when you start throwing around loaded words like absurd. You can make your point without flipping the bird at another member. So why leave home strapped for cash in the currency of courtesy?

Have a wonderful day.

I think you fail to understand. Using the word absurd was not criticism of your opinion but of the fact the Owen would be hopelessly miscast as Marlowe.

Without wanting to turn this into a fire-fight, you shouldn't take it personally that someone holds an opposite opinion so strongly: I have read the Marlowe books many times and am a huge fan of Chandler - and Marlowe isn't Clive Owen. If you, conversely, think Owen would suit Marlowe, fine. I am of the opinion it would be an absolutely ludicrous piece of casting.

[Jim]

Is "I'm not watching the Oscars because Casino Royale's not in it and here's my view about the Oscars generally" any better than "I'm not watching Casino Royale because Pierce Brosnan's not in it and here's my view about Bond generally"?

Either watch it or don't but there's a whiff of boycott about this thread that seems...oddly familiar. And will probably be just as successful.

I'm not really sure what's wrong with not watching something because you have no interest in it.

Oh, nothing - but there's a scintilla of a whisper of a ghost of a suggestion of a slight irony in some of the tone of the responses to this thread.

I have never had an interest in the Oscars, nor really in any prize I couldn't myself win. Apart from The Ashes. And the darts. And...

I'll shut up.

[bill007]

Well, at least we can console ourselves in the comfort that WE know just how good Casino Royale actually is.

Bollocks to those Academy wankers.

[kneelbeforezod]

Oh, nothing - but there's a scintilla of a whisper of a ghost of a suggestion of a slight irony in some of the tone of the responses to this thread.

I have never had an interest in the Oscars, nor really in any prize I couldn't myself win. Apart from The Ashes. And the darts. And...

I'll shut up.

I agree actually, I was thinking of standing up and defending the Oscars earlier. It definitely does seem as though people are slagging them off just because CR wasn't nominated.

There are always loads of great films that miss out on Oscars, I'm only surprised that anyone here was surprised that CR was one of them.

And personally I love the Oscars; yes its overblown, yes the wrong films frequently win... but I still watch it.

Incidently, Steve Martin was my favourite host, I still chuckle about the time he brought up the subject of violence in films and said something like "I took a young boy to watch Gladiator and he cried the whole way through... although that may be because he didn't know who I was".

[Safari Suit]

Speaking for myself and no-one else here, I think the problem with the Oscars is that some people take them too seriously. A lot of people (not here, mind you) seem to think that an actor/actress/film isn't legitimately good until they/it have been validated by an award; or if they disagre with the winner that year, they act like it's some huge great injustice and so on. I think the Oscars should be taken with a pinch of salt. If you don't like a film, it sweeping the Oscars isn't going to convince you otherwise, and if you like one, a lack of official recognition shouldn't change that or upset you.

As for this year, I wouldn't mind seeing "The Departed", I sort of have my fingers crossed for Whitaker, I think it would be interesting to see Murphy win, and I might rent the "Best Picture" (so long as it isn't "The Queen) sometime, but that's as far as it goes for me. Others will feel differently.

I do feel the ratings will be rather low this year, given that many of the films aren't that well known.

Edited by Safari Suit, 24 January 2007 - 02:45 PM.

[Johnboy007]

Is "I'm not watching the Oscars because Casino Royale's not in it and here's my view about the Oscars generally" any better than "I'm not watching Casino Royale because Pierce Brosnan's not in it and here's my view about Bond generally"?

Either watch it or don't but there's a whiff of boycott about this thread that seems...oddly familiar. And will probably be just as successful.

True. Then again I probably would not have watched it anyway because:

It's on a Sunday night.
The good awards are presented last.
Ellen Degeneres (not funny).

In any event the Oscars are going to flop miserably at the box office!

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree 100% with SafariSuit.

An Oscar is a wonderful award, but in the end it just means that a certain group of people, during a certain year, like certain films more than they did others.

How many awards did Shakespeare win? Michelangelo? Van Gogh only sold 1 painting in his life...and never won any awards. Does that mean he wasn't a good painter?

Awards for art are somewhat ridiculous, imho.

[dodge]

Quoting Schofield:
Owen is so absolutely lightweight (in all respects) that to compare him to Mitchum and Chandler's creation is just absurd.

I respect your right to disagree. But my respect ends when you start throwing around loaded words like absurd. You can make your point without flipping the bird at another member. So why leave home strapped for cash in the currency of courtesy?

Have a wonderful day.

I think you fail to understand. Using the word absurd was not criticism of your opinion but of the fact the Owen would be hopelessly miscast as Marlowe.

Without wanting to turn this into a fire-fight, you shouldn't take it personally that someone holds an opposite opinion so strongly: I have read the Marlowe books many times and am a huge fan of Chandler - and Marlowe isn't Clive Owen. If you, conversely, think Owen would suit Marlowe, fine. I am of the opinion it would be [color="#FFFF00"]an absolutely ludicrous piece of casting.

That I can live with. I'm not an Owen fan, to be honest. But it's my nature, as an American, to always root for the underdog. And part of me was hoping that Clive's apparently utter exhaustion would find a positive outlet. As a matter of fact, I'm one of the strongest proponents on this site of awarding American roles to Yanks and British roles to Brits. It saddens me that I can't come up with a single American name for this iconic role. Which led to my defensive reaction. Still pals?

[David Schofield]

That I can live with. I'm not an Owen fan, to be honest. But it's my nature, as an American, to always root for the underdog. And part of me was hoping that Clive's apparently utter exhaustion would find a positive outlet. As a matter of fact, I'm one of the strongest proponents on this site of awarding American roles to Yanks and British roles to Brits. It saddens me that I can't come up with a single American name for this iconic role. Which led to my defensive reaction. Still pals?

Sure!

My only thought on the casting of Marlowe is George Clooney: Chandler always suggested Cary Grant was his ideal casting as Marlowe, and Clooney's the closest we have to Grant. Perhaps now he's looking a bit wearier and put on a bit of weight, Clooney might do?

Then again, not quite how I'd picture his mega-liberal attititude in the part.