
The 79th Academy Awards
#91
Posted 24 January 2007 - 04:27 PM
#92
Posted 24 January 2007 - 04:30 PM
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.
Aha, very interesting. I think you're onto something cool. Tell me something. Looking back on Marlow history, how did you feel about the casting of Elliott Gould in Altman's version of The Long Goodbye? Should we stay open to off-the-wall choices like that or go for the classic approach?
#93
Posted 24 January 2007 - 04:44 PM
I think that there are a lot of good films, actors, directors and musicians too that never got this golden Oscar: bat sometimes it is a shame for the Accademy Awards (as, for a too long time, it happened to Ennio Morricone, one of the best film musicians ever).
The problem, perhaps, is not a no nomination, but The Accademy Awards itself.
#94
Posted 24 January 2007 - 05:36 PM
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.
Aha, very interesting. I think you're onto something cool. Tell me something. Looking back on Marlow history, how did you feel about the casting of Elliott Gould in Altman's version of The Long Goodbye? Should we stay open to off-the-wall choices like that or go for the classic approach?
I have no problem with the Gould/Altman take: the essence of the novel, and Marlowe, is still there, IMO: too many people few Chandler as rigidly noirish with only Bogart speaking the lines. To me, the themes of Chandler are fairly timeless and would have a relevance today: I have no desire in seeing a cod-noir film now. That said, I've always had a soft spot for Mitchum's Big Sleep - for all that movies faults, Mitch gets to say the Chandler lines!
PS - Owen/Marlowe now has its own thread: perhaps we should take this over there.
#95
Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:30 PM
"(Insert sound effect of shoe crashing though TV screen)"
I second you, pal ;-)
Edited by nicolas_suszczyk, 24 January 2007 - 06:39 PM.
#96
Posted 24 January 2007 - 07:39 PM
Think it probably shows what the Academy knows!! Like you, I thought it had a decent chance in that category, but they gave the nomination to BORAT instead... which barely even qualifies. It's just the discrimination against the action genre. Hmphh... we've gotta deal with it I guess.Well, I felt that CR would get a nomination for Best Writing: Based on material previovsly published. But, that shows you what I know.
#97
Posted 24 January 2007 - 11:29 PM
Of the titles up for Best Picture, I've seen only BABEL and THE QUEEN. I find the latter overrated in the extreme, but the former an extremely worthy nominee - a rather unlikely winner, though, but time will tell.
#98
Posted 24 January 2007 - 11:35 PM
The Oscars and credibility. Chalk and cheese, chalk and bloody cheese.
#99
Posted 24 January 2007 - 11:40 PM
I'm actually dumbfounded.
#100
Posted 25 January 2007 - 02:38 AM
#101
Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:19 AM
#102
Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:20 AM
I can't believe it has been overlooked for the "Best use of a pinball machine in a feature film" Oscar category.....
It's an atrocity.
#103
Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:28 AM
I can't believe it has been overlooked for the "Best use of a pinball machine in a feature film" Oscar category.....
It's an atrocity.
Especially as The Queen is nominated, and her pinball machine playing scene was cut from the final version!!
#104
Posted 25 January 2007 - 04:35 PM
Really they never nominate sequels of anything, Godfather II notwithstanding.
Star Wars and James Bond are the biggest series of all time right? Well The Empire Strikes Back got far fewer nominations than the original,even though most people think it was just as good. No best picture, no best score. However you feel about the recent movies, they didn't even win best special effects. You can't tell me they didn't have the best special effects of the year. Last year i started a new tradition of not watching.
#105
Posted 26 January 2007 - 02:24 AM
Godfather III was also nominated for Best Picture and several other areas in 1990, and don't forget all 3 Lord of the Rings films were nominated for Best Picture, with Return of the King winning in 2003.I was suprised. I was watching ABC's "Nightline" last night. They had a story about Dreamgirls not being nominated for Best Picture. They had an Academy voter who said it wasn't a great movie. Eventually the topic made it's way to Casino Royale! He said it was a very good movie, maybe even deserving of a nomination--"but the Academy will never recognize a James Bond film."
Really they never nominate sequels of anything, Godfather II notwithstanding.
#106
Posted 26 January 2007 - 04:04 AM
#107
Posted 26 January 2007 - 05:28 AM

#108
Posted 26 January 2007 - 05:35 AM
SW1-Phantom lost to Matrix. Hands down Matrix effects were better.Star Wars and James Bond are the biggest series of all time right? Well The Empire Strikes Back got far fewer nominations than the original,even though most people think it was just as good. No best picture, no best score. However you feel about the recent movies, they didn't even win best special effects. You can't tell me they didn't have the best special effects of the year. Last year i started a new tradition of not watching.
SW2 - Clones lost to LOTR. Hands down LOTR effects were better.
SW3 - Revenge lost to King Kong. Hands down Kong effects were better.
I agree, SW movies are awesome but they did lose out in Special effects to the better ones. Not that they lost to Scary Movie 3...
I am sure CR will end up nominated in many MTV movie awards. At least for best Torture sequence.
Edited by DavidSomerset, 26 January 2007 - 05:36 AM.
#109
Posted 26 January 2007 - 03:09 PM
But, then again, we don't love Bond movies for the sake of Oscar nominations, do we.

#110
Posted 26 January 2007 - 03:31 PM
I believe it was on Monday night that Entertainment Tonight (the nightly magazine TV show) was interviewing some talking-head about the upcoming Oscar nominations, and when it came to Casino Royale, the person said something to the effect of "The Academy would not be able to show themselves in public if they ever nominated a James Bond Film."But, then again, we don't love Bond movies for the sake of Oscar nominations, do we.
The idiot who said that has put the bomb in bombast. And s/he's invented, with her style, the world's first balloon that sinks on hot air. Now they'll all really be sorry--cause I'll never watch 'em again!
#111
Posted 26 January 2007 - 04:23 PM
Touche, dodge! ROFLMAO. ETnB'ers UNITE!!The idiot who said that has put the bomb in bombast. And s/he's invented, with her style, the world's first balloon that sinks on hot air. Now they'll all really be sorry--cause I'll never watch 'em again!



Edited by bill007, 26 January 2007 - 04:23 PM.
#112
Posted 26 January 2007 - 05:18 PM
...when it came to Casino Royale, the person said something to the effect of "The Academy would not be able to show themselves in public if they ever nominated a James Bond Film."
Wow. What an absurd, elitist view. They must really be embarrassed about giving ROCKY Best Picture back before anyone knew what a Rocky movie or Sly Stallone were. The shame of it! And these are the people (okay, maybe not literally the same people, but you get my drift) who nominated Sigourney Weaver for Best Actress in ALIENS, and showered awards on THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Ridiculous.
#113
Posted 26 January 2007 - 07:49 PM
Lotr? debatable. King Kong. No way. There's one scene in there with a dinosaur stampede that looks like it was made in the 60's. As if it the actors were filmed in front of one of a movie screen showing the scenery go by.
#114
Posted 26 January 2007 - 11:23 PM
Absolutely ridiculous. That irks me beyond belief.I believe it was on Monday night that Entertainment Tonight (the nightly magazine TV show) was interviewing some talking-head about the upcoming Oscar nominations, and when it came to Casino Royale, the person said something to the effect of "The Academy would not be able to show themselves in public if they ever nominated a James Bond Film."
But, then again, we don't love Bond movies for the sake of Oscar nominations, do we.

#115
Posted 27 January 2007 - 03:52 AM
Well, okay, whatever on that end. I didn't expect any Bond nominations to be realistic. If it makes them better to nominate Babel andI believe it was on Monday night that Entertainment Tonight (the nightly magazine TV show) was interviewing some talking-head about the upcoming Oscar nominations, and when it came to Casino Royale, the person said something to the effect of "The Academy would not be able to show themselves in public if they ever nominated a James Bond Film."
But, then again, we don't love Bond movies for the sake of Oscar nominations, do we.
But what a story that would have made -- a 44-year-old series getting a best picture nod or actor nod on its 21st try. Thats the stuff most entertainment journalists would love to have. That would have been fresh rather than the stale and unfair plotline of Scorsese being screwed over for years, Dreamgirls not getting a best picture nod, Meryl Streep and Judi Dench getting nominated for the 406th time, etc., etc.
#116
Posted 27 January 2007 - 04:07 AM
#117
Posted 27 January 2007 - 04:25 AM
The Oscars are the same as the Emmy's. Not worth
.
The best shows are ignored by the Emmy's and oftentimes the best movies are ignored by the Oscars. I haven't bothered to watch either of those BS award shows for about 10 years because they are a complete waste of time.
Yup. I'll wipe my bum with the oscar nominations sheet ('though it maybe a bit uncomfy for a well-pampered yet firm
![[censored]](https://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/38900-the-79th-academy-awards/style_emoticons/default/censored.gif)
![[censored]](https://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/38900-the-79th-academy-awards/style_emoticons/default/censored.gif)
#118
Posted 27 January 2007 - 04:38 AM
All I can think of is maybe the studios and producers share the cost of an Oscar promotion (which has gotta be expensive), and maybe Eon opted out. So maybe it's not fair that I'm blaming Sony. Maybe Eon just doesn't want to get into the Oscar contest/game. It's not like Bond movies need an Oscar. But I do feel this Bond was worthy.
John, do you think there is an enormous amount of envy of Eon? I mean, they are the only family that has been continously successful for going on 46 years in the movie business. Probably the wealthiest of any single family save George Lucas perhaps. Who have done it their own way and mainly in England?
Or do you think Eon is only interested in entertaining the masses as opposed to kissing the
![[censored]](https://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/38900-the-79th-academy-awards/style_emoticons/default/censored.gif)
#119
Posted 27 January 2007 - 04:39 AM
Are they kept in a closet most of the year.........and only let out and dusted
down a month or so before the ceremonies.
Do they live in the real world?........or do that just like to pat each other on the
back.
I couldn't believe that comment mentioned in this thread, that they could not
be seen in public if they ever nominated a Bond film.
It still appears to me that there is a stigma attached to Bond films, in that they
are considered childish by the academy!!
#120
Posted 27 January 2007 - 04:42 AM
Their loss. Not ours.
What was the most anticipated film of 2006? Casino Royale
What film did you see the night it opened? Casino Royale
What film did you make an effort to see again after it opened? Casino Royale
What film had half of London shut down and the Queen attending the premire? Casino Royale
Who kicked butt as the new James Bond? Daniel Craig
Just another year at the Oscars.
Check
Check
Check
Check
etcetera, etcetera ...