I have to agree with everything that you have written in this email.  I am sure that the other movies that were nominated are excellent movies but there has to be other things in Sith that could have been nominated like costumes and special effects?  What about the music?  I know that I'm disappointed in the Oscars, maybe its time for a new awards show for the regular people.

Rebecca


scott4andrea <scott.weller1@...> wrote:

Hi everybody.

I'm not the only one that's unhappy that REVENGE OF THE SITH only
got nominated for one OSCAR this year, am I?

Don't get me wrong, the make up for the film was excellent and I'm
glad the Elsey Ozzie team were nominated-I'll be rooting for them
from my armchair I tell ya!!- but what about Trisha Biggar!! No
matter what you thought of the Prequels, the visual lusciousness and
wonder of them is unforgettable, and the costumes for the fnal STAR
WARS film were beautiful. It really is criminal that Biggar and her
team, as well as the other great talents at the RANCH, haven't been
nominated.

And as for the Visual Effects, SITH may not have seemed to have
anything new to show-I suppose it didn't have bullet time (like THE
MATRIX or a spinning webmeister like SPIDERMAN) but what about the
sheer amount of effects that were present this time-the sheer
variety of old and new techniques used-from the stunning opening
space battle/rescue gambit to the final duel over Mustafar-sorry,
but CHRONICLES OF NARNIA (which was great fun)and WAR OF THE WORLDS
(again I enjoyed it, but it didn't have as many visual effects, or
anything that I thought was ground breaking, as you think)couldn't
even compete with SITH on the effects front(though KING KONG
certainly deserves a nomination-he looked amazing in the Peter
Jackson film).

I suppose the Academy thinks the recent STAR WARS are merely just 
popcorn money making sequels (which they despise the notion of-even
though half of it's members have made or starred in them!!), that
there are more noteworthy, more adult, films that deserve
recognition, and that there's too much CGI in them!! (And with the
LORD OF THE RINGS films, let's be frank, RETURN OF THE KING had to
be third time lucky to win because if the Academy hadn't recognised
how good those films were by then (I personally prefered the first
two films in the saga), I think there would have been protestors
rioting in the streets worldwide!!).

What about an OSCAR for the most fun had at the cinema this year,
eh? The OSCAR academy always love to nominate films that are
moralistic, of people fighting against adversity in some way or
another, surely SITH had all that and more-you couldn't get any
better than showing how evil evolves, you couldn't get a purer form
of good and evil fighting against each other (And, as an offshoot,
is it me or is Tony Blair starting to sound like Palpatine??)

And what about cinematography-SITH had it in spades!! The beauty of
Coruscant, the underdwellings of Utapau, the fiery hell of Mustafar-
you name it.

STAR WARS has never been recognised for any acting awards since Sir
Alec Guinness was nominated in 1978, but nothing for Ian McDiarmid?
Pretty much everybody who saw the film agreed that he was fantastic
in it. PEOPLE AT THE ACADEMY, HE WAS GREAT!!! WHATS WRONG WITH YOU!!!

And what about the music. Great to see John Williams nominated for
both MUNICH and MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA, but his score for SITH was so
much more involving, so emotionally rooted, than that for MUNICH.
Williams score for SITH has proved to be one of the best in his
career, yet no nomination...WHY!!!

I love the OSCARS. In the UK, the BAFTAS don't even come close when
it comes to the glamour, style, presentation and sheer pazzazz of
the goings on at the KODAK theatre. You have Angelina Jolie..we've
got..er..Amanda Holden!!

The OSCAR people have truly got it in for Lucas- believe me. He'll
never win one now-not since 1980-when he left the
writers/director/actors guilds after the EMPIRE problems. It's the
same with Albert Broccoli with the Bond films. Both won IRVING G
THALBERG awards. Though they're great awards, recognising creative
excellence in the film making field,they ain't the same as an OSCAR
are they (I always felt that they were the runners up, poor mans
OSCARS). It was touch and go with Spielberg for a while until the
marvellous SCHINDLERS LIST came along-again the Academy had no
choice but to recognise him after the critical success of SCHINDLERS
LIST throughout the world.What's wrong with giving an OSCAR to a
director who has imbued a film saga with his creative vision-
someone, who even if he is controversial now, is still pretty much a
force to be reckoned with, ahead of his time and one of the most
passionate creative forces in the world.

Well..I'm exhausted.The rant's over, but please let me know what you
think about all this OSCAR stuff..


SCOTT

---

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.