Joss Deserving of Oscar Nom.
Maitland McDonagh of TVGuide.com says Joss Whedon got dissed for Best Director at the Oscars.
"Who got dissed: David Cronenberg for A History of Violence, Neil Jordan for Breakfast on Pluto, Stephen Gaghan for Syriana, Danny Boyle for the utterly ignored Millions, and first-time feature directors Shane Black and Joss Whedon for their assured and hugely entertaining debuts, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and Serenity."
February 26 2006
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
fortunateizzi | February 26, 05:50 CET
Madhatter | February 26, 05:57 CET
The One True b!X | February 26, 06:04 CET
Madhatter | February 26, 06:15 CET
That said, certainly something like Walk The Line is deserving - that had a compelling human story from a long life story.
[ edited by gossi on 2006-02-26 04:17 ]
[ edited by gossi on 2006-02-26 04:18 ]
gossi | February 26, 06:16 CET
"Who got dissed: Danny Boyle for the utterly ignored Millions."
Danny Boyle got dissed for 28 Days Later as well, IMO. That was one of my favorite movies that year, if not the favorite. If any "zombie" movie was ever going to be nominated in the past history of the Oscars, that really should've been it.
[I know they weren't zombies, they were the "infected", still very much alive and human--always had a bit of an issue with people who'd seen the film still referring to them as zombies]
Kris | February 26, 06:17 CET
gossi | February 26, 06:20 CET
Madhatter | February 26, 06:42 CET
I tried to see all the films up for the major awards, but never did. Just saw Brokeback which was a gorgeous and heart breaking.
Harmalicious | February 26, 07:42 CET
But it's nice to see Joss getting a shout-out from tvguide, even though genre films are never acknowledged at the Oscars, Lord of the Rings being the rare exception.
kylie | February 26, 08:19 CET
Odysseus | February 26, 08:36 CET
I agree with Harmalicious in that I love that Joss got this shout-out – just one more thing to make people who dismissed Serenity out of hand potentially give it a second chance. That said, do I really thing he deserved a best director nom for it? Not given the field this year, no. I do wish David Cronenberg had gotten a nomination for "A History of Violence," and would have given that over George Clooney (who I thought did a very poor job directing "Good Night and Good Luck") in a heartbeat. But much as I love Serenity, and what Joss did with it, I don't really think it was one of the top-5 directed films of the year, and I firmly believe that Ang Lee, Stephen Spielberg ("Munich" was terrific, Kris), Paul Haggis, and Bennett Miller deserved their nominations.
Best Screenplay really could have been a possibility for me, though. (And would it have been under best-adapted, rather than original, since it was based on "Firefly?"). Again, all the nominations in that category were really strong (and I never say that about the Oscars), but I think Serenity could hold its own among them. Sadly, though, comedies and genre films are never, or rarely, recognized on Oscar Night. It's a sad fact (I would love to see some 40-year-old Virgin and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang love too), but it doesn't take away from the truly excellent films that were nominated.
acp | February 26, 09:28 CET
zz9 | February 26, 13:08 CET
That's not as it's been explained previously, when people said that "adapted" is anything that originally existed in another form -- in this case, it'd be considered adapted from a television series.
*shrug*
Someday, someone will have an answer to this that comes complete with a handy link citation to finalize the matter.
The One True b!X | February 26, 13:20 CET
'Munich' was enjoyable and Eric Bana was absolutely fantastic (in fact all the main players were tho' I might put Ciaran Hinds and Geoffrey Rush as best of the rest) but I just didn't become all that emotionally involved. I've had this problem with every serious Spielberg movie post 'Schindler's List' (e.g. 'Amistad', 'Saving Private Ryan' which I thought, apart from the harrowing first half hour, was hugely overrated and occasionally offensive). I can always tell where i'm meant to be moved but I just don't feel it viscerally. Also, I may be alone in thinking that tho' it was brilliantly depicted in 'Munich' surely the idea that violence and revenge corrupt those committing it is so obvious as to be almost facile ? Personally, I wanted a little more of an idea how he felt on the subject of state sanctioned murder (I don't think it's necessarily portrayed as morally objectionable in the film) and found his treatment of the politics of Israel/Palestine to be a bit superficial. One of the things that stood out tho' was the way the violence was portrayed as chaotic and totally unglamourous (it rings true to me that people could be running ten feet from each other firing their guns and still missing due to fear and adrenaline, especially if they weren't particularly experienced).
Strangely, I found 'Minority Report' (tho' not flawless by any stretch) to be the film of his that moved me most in recent years. I find the bit where Anderton realises he doesn't have a minority report but still 'chooses' not to murder anyway to be beautifully hopeful and uplifting (free will ? Meh, we don't need no stinkin' free will ;).
(And I thought A.I. was saccharine, manipulative rubbish - tho' visually stunning and sometimes very well performed but, y'know, differing opinions are all part of that spicy variety stuff).
Well, that's certainly a lot of thinking and opinionating for this time on a Sunday morning. Need a cup of tea and a lie down now ;).
Saje | February 26, 13:23 CET
zz9 | February 26, 14:27 CET
We (except maybe Joss) should actually be thankful that Serenity isn't on any of these lists. The Academy Award version of Serenity would probably lack a lot of the things we like about it. After reading the imdb entries of the movies nominated for best motion picture I can honestly say that I have absolutely no interest in seeing them. I'm exposed to enough of these topics in current events to want to see movies about them. They don't sound bad, but as a romantic escapist (is that redundant?) they don't appeal to me.
I agree, and when I see this post tomorrow I'm probably going to be wondering what I was thinking when I wrote it.
[ edited by Caleb on 2006-02-26 12:53 ]
Caleb | February 26, 14:49 CET
I also wholeheartedly agree that Millions should have made the list at least somewhere. That was a truly amazing little film, which - in my book - did everything exactly right. It certainly made my end-of-year list. Also on that list was Mean Creek, but I think that got released in America the year before, right? But if it was elligible, it should have been nominated as well.
As for Serenity, I do feel it's a good enough movie for 'best picture', but I also know that was never, ever, going to happen. As it is, the nominations this year are of a very high quality (which is funny, given all the reports that 2005 was a bad movie year) and I wouldn't know which one to do away with to make room for Serenity.
Now, as a screenplay, Serenity should very much have made it. I have not seen all the movies in the 'original screenplay' category (where I think Serenity should go - it's an original story, after all) yet, but I think I could certainly have found a place for it. I, for instance, don't think it's stronger or weaker than the screenplay for 'Crash'. I'd rate them both about equally, I'd say.
In the end though, the nominations list is pretty decent, and since Serenity is not an Oscar type movie (being genre and all) and did not have an Oscar campaign (which seems to be a prerequisite these days), I don't think we should either be surprised or at all miffed that it didn't get any nominations.
GVH | February 26, 15:26 CET
That's the key right there. If the studio doesn't put it up for an Oscar, it doesn't get in the running.
Mind you, I cannot in all honesty say that Serenity deserved any of the above nominations. I'd back Firefly for TV awards, sure, but the movie just didn't hit the marks, especially given the competition this year.
PMMJ | February 26, 18:02 CET
Wow - you are missing some really great movies, then.
Pretty obviously, I don't think Serenity had been designed to be an Oscar flick. I mean, it has zombies in it essentially. That said, if it had ballooned to be hugely successful, I bet there would have been a nomination for something - Best Face Ripped Off Special Effects.
Personally, I found Serenity both hugely enjoyable and with some really great political and/or humanistic messages. It's actually one of the most meaningful films of 2005 for me. It is a shame so many people seemingly didn't 'get' the messages, but at least they enjoyed the film.
gossi | February 26, 18:46 CET
While some of these film makers and critics are stroking each other’s ego, in the end it is the public’s opinion that really matters. How many people went to see Serenity because of BtVS? I know I did. Each season the show got better and better. When Once More With Feelings was completely snubbed I refused to ever watch any awards show again.
Serenity was not a box office, critic hit? I can deal with that. But every person I know that has seen the move has really enjoyed it. At Christmas I put Firefly on my group list and nobody ever heard of it. Same thing happened when I asked for Serenity for my birthday. Yet after sharing them with friends and family they all borrow my DVDs and tell their friends about them. In the end, who needs a bunch of dusty awards when you can have real fans?
progirl | February 26, 18:55 CET
From a career point of view, awards can do wonders. An oscar on Summer's shelf, for example, would mean Summer's next project won't be Mammoth 2. Ultimately, it's about main stream acceptance - in my ideal world, Serenity would have blown up massive, more people would have seen it, it would have won 42 oscars and there would be 4 and a half sequels in the works. And, of course, everything in my flat would be edible.
gossi | February 26, 19:07 CET
I'm with you, gossi. I think a lot of this has to do with the genre. It's not hard to spot the message in, say, 'Good Night, and Good Luck' or 'Crash', mostly because those movies are pretty much about the message. Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, because these are great movies (I'm actually very excited that there seems to be a rise in politically engaged movie making), but in a movie like Serenity, which seems to primarily be about spaceships, big fights and zombie-a-likes, not everyone's going to even be aware that there's a message to be had at all.
The things I get from Serenity are not that difficult to spot and are certainly not hidden beneath layers of subtext, so I think that most people should be able to 'get' what the movie is about. It's just that no one's looking for anything other than a fun ride from a sci-fi movie, so that's what they end up seeing.
Well, it wasn't a box-office hit, to be sure. It was, however, a critical succes in that it got pretty good reviews. Of course, despite those reviews, it managed to be oddly absent from the end-of-the-year lists of many a critic, which I found odd at best. And, ofcourse, Serenity also isn't having a great track-record in awards thus far either.
Again I have to agree with gossi. Awards can do wonders for a career. What's more, even though there are plenty of people who don't put much stock in awards, there are probably even more people who do. So it certainly wouldn't hurt money-wise, if Serenity raked in a big award or two.
But again, I don't think anyone actually expected Serenity to be nominated for an Oscar at all, it's just that on the movie alone, I think Serenity was strong enough to deserve nominations, even though it was never, ever, going to happen.
GVH | February 26, 19:33 CET
Well, as it was explained last time around, anyway, one exampel would be sequels, which apparently can't get a nom for "original" because they are a follow-up to a previous film. Serenity would be in a similar position, as a follow-up to a television series.
Again, I simply *shrug* at this point, because I can never seem to find a definitive list of definitions on any of the various awards sites.
The One True b!X | February 26, 22:13 CET
I think that's because they're pretty arbitrary. There are guidelines, but as with the difference between best actor and best supporting actor, my guess is that it's partly anyone's guess.
Take Syriana, which was nominated for best original this year, but was based on the book "See No Evil," by Robert Baer. The Writers Guild considered it "adapted," but apparently the Academy disagreed, and decided it differed so much from its source material that it should be in the "original" category. Apparently the Academy's writers branch committee makes the determination. In another year, "Clueless" was switched to "adapted" because it was loosely inspired by the plot of Jane Austen' "Emma."
For my money, Serenity should be considered an Original Screenplay, since it's not based on any previous plot, and the writer (Joss) created all the characters and the story. But I'm pretty sure that it would labeled "adapted" because of the preexistence of the Firefly 'verse, no matter that that was also Joss's creation.
All of which I suppose is moot anyhow, since it wasn't nominated.... :-(
acp | February 26, 22:32 CET
SoddingNancyTribe | February 27, 03:37 CET
Serenity, Grizzly Man, Munich, Murderball, and Broken Flowers.
I honestly believe Serenity was the best and smartest film of the year, even though it wasn't a particularly great year. (Woah, how weird is that? 2005 was a lackluster year for cinema, but I loved all the Oscar noms; 2004 was a great year and I was mixed on most of the noms. Hm.)
I would give Serenity awards for Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Actress (Summer), and Costume Design. But that's just me.
UnpluggedCrazy | February 27, 06:51 CET