Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=75919" target="_blank"><b>Latest: LATimes: Disney's Rich Ross is really crazy: He thinks Pixar should win a best picture Osc</b></a> <p>The <i>Los Angeles Times</i> offers their reasons why Pixar's "Toy Story 3" has no chance at a Best Picture Win despite the efforts of the Disney Studios.</p>
Originally Posted By DlandDug Saw this editorial in the LA Times the other day and debated talking about it here. The line that struck me was this one: >>Because Ross is a relative newcomer to Hollywood, I guess I should explain to him how this whole circus-like Oscar process works.<< The writer is a long-time observer of the Hollywood film indistry. Does he really view Disney's Rich Ross as that much of a "newcomer" that he needs something as basic as an Oscar campaign explained? Ouch.
Originally Posted By Britain I don't want to sow seeds of cynicism, but from my point of view, I think they're scared of How To Train Your Dragon winning in the Best Animated Picture category, and so this is how they act tough. Shoot for Best Picture, make a high-profile case as to why you deserve the top award rather than The Social Network, Inception, etc. Don't even acknowledge the debate over HTTYD's merits. Then walk away with the Best Animated award, secretly feeling lucky.
Originally Posted By mapleservo I would say that Toys Story 3 was almost perfect movie. But I think in order to win Best Picture, you need to be better than perfect. I think you need to be ambitious. And while TS3 was a great story, and it was beautifully executed, I think it basically had a list of things it had to accomplish and checked them all off. Up seemed a much more likely candidate for Best Picture. I personally preferred Tangled and HTTYD to TS3. But as someone mentioned in another thread, maybe they'll give the nod to TS3 for the accomplishments of the entire trilogy. That's the only way I could see it winning and I think it's pretty unlikely.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Rapunzel was the best animated movie of all! (I refuse to call it Tangled.)
Originally Posted By magic0214 ^ I agree, although TS3 was a fantastic movie, Tangled was an overall better film.
Originally Posted By Evening Star Tangled was good, but it simply put old sensibilities into a new medium. Which while lovely may not impress the academy voters. Toy Story 3 may win the animated category.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think the best point made was that actors make up the largest voting block and they have a bit of an issue with regards to job security. Of course, I think what makes the Pixar movies particularly special is the work of the voice actors. Can you imagine Woody in the voice of anybody other than Tom Hanks...or Tim Allen's Buzz for that matter. They brought emotion to those characters.
Originally Posted By DAR I also love how they don't always go for the big voice either. I mean Craig T Nelson and Holly Hunter as Mr. and Mrs. Incredible. Ed Asner as Carl. Patton Oswalt as Remy. Albert Brooks as Marlin. These aren't box office draws. And yet they all worked.
Originally Posted By DAR BTW last Thursday TS3 just ended it's run as the second most successful animated film in the US and the most successful overall. <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=toystory3.htm" target="_blank">http://boxofficemojo.com/movie...ory3.htm</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think that Tangled is definitely better than TS3, but I think that TS3 will beat it, since a lot of voters will associate the other two Toy Story movies with it. I saw How To Train Your Dragon on a plane (admittedly, not the best environment to see a film), and I was not impressed at all. If it wasn't a flight that was long enough to see several other films after, I don't think I would have watched the whole thing. Yah, it was a good use of an hour or two, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 That article forces so many odds and ends of film trivia to make its point that it comes off as very contrived. Using Rocky as a barometer of the sentiments of the academy is a mistake. The widely held view is that Rocky won not because the majority of voters were swayed by the sentimentality of the movie, but because the field was so strong that year that the vote was split between all the other movies that would have won on their own in an ordinary year. Also It Happened One Night was a huge surprise, no one ever expected it to have any legs. Clark Gable was lent out to the studio for the movie as punishment for his rogue behavior and he was less than excited to make the film. I also think that the actors argument is bogus, since Toy Story uses A list movie actors for the voices. The biggest argument against it is that it just isn't ambitious. It isn't topical. It isn't an epic historical film. I was the one who pointed it out in another thread that the greatest chance this film has for winning is as a sympathy award for the accomplishments of the whole trilogy. If I were in charge of campaigning, I would go for that angle. Anyways I just saw the Social Network this weekend and I thought it was the best film of the year that I have seen... and it is ambitious in a way that the Toy Story films aren't. - Anatole
Originally Posted By DAR <<I also think that the actors argument is bogus, since Toy Story uses A list movie actors for the voices.>> Apart from Tom Hanks I wouldn't say the rest are A List. I'd say everyone else is from the B+ to A- List
Originally Posted By mapleservo >>I was the one who pointed it out in another thread that the greatest chance this film has for winning is as a sympathy award for the accomplishments of the whole trilogy. Ah. Sorry Anatole69. Forgot where I heard it, but I definitely agree that it's probably the only shot. That said, I think it's a long shot. It's a bit different from LOTR, where it was originally conceived as three movies telling a single story, by pretty much the same crew. I just don't think it makes as much sense to treat the Toy Story movies as a unit.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ They always conceived it as a trilogy. I think the thing that really helped Jackson was 1) he said he thought of the LOTR as a historical epic, not as a fantasy. Historical epics are one of the genres the academy favors for the best motion picture award. 2) they made all three films at the same time, and everyone was aware of how grueling that film shoot was. I think that helped bumped it up as well. TS3 doesn't have those same advantages, but the biggest thing in its favor if you lump them all together is that the first one is acknowledged for its role in the history of computer animation. - Anatole
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Considering neither Up nor WALL-E won a best picture, there's no way in hell TS3 does. Both of them were far, far, far better films than TS3.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Actually I thought the script was weak for UP and stronger for Toy Story 3. - Anatole
Originally Posted By mapleservo >> They always conceived it as a trilogy. Really? With the full arc planned out? Is this article just spin then? <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/07/news/la-en-toy-story-20101207" target="_blank">http://articles.latimes.com/20...20101207</a>) I also seem to remember Pixar having an "anti-sequel" stance initially (could've just been a bargaining tool with Disney though). And then there's those stories of how TS2 had to be scrapped completely and was reworked incorporating dropped elements of the first film. Lord of the Rings definitely reads as one giant movie broken into pieces. I just don't get that from what I've heard of the Toy Story pics.
