Ten Sci-Fi and Fantasy Oscar Snubs Comments - Mania.com


Showing items 1 - 10 of 76
1 2 3 4 >  >>  
SarcasticCaveman 2/21/2013 2:40:24 AM

 I agree with some items on this list, and it does help convince me that I should check out "Looper".  However, I'm that guy that REALLY didn't care for "Dark City."  It struck me as having high ambition that it didn't really live up to.  Secondly, I'm a big Harry Potter fan.  I will be the first to admit that I'm a bigger fan of the books than the movies, but even in the movies of the series that I loved, I honestly didn't see any Oscar worthy, OUTSTANDING directing or acting, and definitely no Best Picture contenders.  I thought all the actors did a fine job bringing the characters to life, nobody made me think they should win an Oscar.  I will forever be glad that Alan Rickman got the part of Snape instead of Tim Roth though.  Tim Roth is awesome, but I don't see him pulling off the level of slick sophistication that Rickman exuded as Snape.

I whole-heartedly agree that Andy Serkis was robbed.

Wiseguy 2/21/2013 4:17:18 AM

I agree with most here, I'll let you guess which one IMO doesn't belong.

Blade Runner to me is the supreme case of "overlooked" or "snubbed". This is Ridley Scott's magnum opus and anyone that knows Ridley knows that says a lot.

karas1 2/21/2013 4:41:18 AM

Best Screen Capture Actor/Actress is a category that just doesn't exist yet.  Serkis has done amazing work as Gollum and also Caesar the ape.  Was it Oscar worthy?  I think so.  But I don't think it can be evaluated next to the performances of unenhansed actors.  It's a combination of the work of the actor and the animators.

One day there will be a special Oscar category for Best Screen Capture and if Serkis is still working at the time I bet he will win several.  And he will be remembered as a pioneer of the field. 

So far only Avatar has included both natural and screen capture performances of the same actors in the same roles and I don't think that movie put forth any Oscar worthy performances.


DarthBob 2/21/2013 4:44:53 AM

How do you not put Stanley Kubrick's snub for directing 2001 on this list?  Carol Reed won the best director Oscar for Oliver over Kubrick back in 1968.  Also, that goofball clown Roberto Benigni winning best actor over Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters is one of the worst Oscar snubs of all time.  That was the last time I watched the bloated, pretentious, self congratulatory mess of an awards show.

SarcasticCaveman 2/21/2013 4:47:04 AM

 Ah ah, kara, remember Serkis' actual face and body was seen at the beginning of "Return of the King" where it shows him murder Deagol for the ring and then hide in the Misty Mountains...but you're probably right, we're just going to need a new category at the awards.  I don't think this kind of performance is going anywhere, and will only get more popular in the future.

SarcasticCaveman 2/21/2013 4:49:10 AM

 DarthBob - I agree with you on Ian McKellen getting snubbed, but I fail to see how that was a matter of sci-fi or fantasy being snubbed.  It was a biopic.  

Wiseguy 2/21/2013 4:59:28 AM

I don't see motion capture performances ever being considered for Oscars. Even with the new tech that actually maps your face to capture your expressions at the end of the day it is still animated and the animators embelish or diminish those expressions to suit theirs or the directors' wants.

karas1 2/21/2013 5:01:36 AM

As much as we love Wrath of Kahn, I don't think it was worthy of an Oscar.  It was certainly one of the best of the ST films (my personal nod goes to ST IV as the best).  But none of them are really Oscar material.  And I don't say that because it was science fiction. 

Similarly, Harry Potter isn't Oscar worthy either.  As wonderful as the Potter films were the good vs evil story line  was too simple.

I don't think half the movies that do get Best Picture are worthy either.  I saw that movie about the silent film actor (what WAS it's name?) and while I thought it was novel and interesting and I'm glad I saw it, I was floored when it won for Best Picture. It just wasn't that signifigant.

The fact is, the Oscars are given too early.  They are judging movies that are frequently still in the theateres (when I was recieving screeners for my neighbor I got a copy of a movie that hadn't even been released yet).  So how can they really know the signifigance that the movies in question are going to have in the future?  How will they know which movies will stand the test of time and which will be forgotten?

Besides, it's all political anyway.  It's an advertising ploy.  If a movie is nominated for an award more people will want to see it.  THAT's why they decided to nominate 10 movies for Best Picture.  They didn't want to be "fair" to more genre projects.  They wanted to be able to advertise an extra 5 movies a year as Best Picture nominees. 


karas1 2/21/2013 5:04:59 AM

Caveman, I had forgotten that.  And that scene lasted what?  Two minutes?  I don't think it was long enough for Serkis to make a signifigant enough performance as Smeagol.

Wiseguy 2/21/2013 5:07:07 AM

The Weinsteins have have dirt on voters or buys them off that's why The Artist won, what a joke. But it's why I feel like DarthBob about the whole spectacle

1 2 3 4 >  >>  


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.