Message Forum: Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006

Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006

Posted By: Sam, on host 64.140.215.100
Date: Friday, February 3, 2006, at 16:43:00
In Reply To: Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006 posted by Stephen on Friday, February 3, 2006, at 14:50:52:

> > Serenity and Sin City lost that race last December when they failed to make the short list. It's true -- "Best" means "Most" in these tech categories.
>
> Then Sin City should've won, because everything but the actors, cars and guns is a special effect.

Ok, "Most Obvious," then. Like how you wouldn't see a Sound Effects nomination for a low-key thriller that uses subdued atmospheric effects instead of LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF KABOOOMING.

Replies To This Message

Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006 - Darien - Fri, 2/3/2006, 23:12:29
- Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006 - Sam - Sat, 2/4/2006, 13:12:31
  - Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006 - Gharlane - Mon, 2/6/2006, 19:28:42
    - Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006 - Nyperold - Wed, 2/8/2006, 10:25:35
    - Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006 - Howard - Mon, 2/6/2006, 19:39:24
      - Re: Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations 2005/2006 - Faux Pas - Wed, 2/8/2006, 11:24:59

RinkChat Username:
Password:
Email:		(optional)
Subject:
Message:	> > > Serenity and Sin City lost that race last December when they failed to make the short list. It's true -- "Best" means "Most" in these tech categories. > > > > Then Sin City should've won, because everything but the actors, cars and guns is a special effect. > > Ok, "Most Obvious," then. Like how you wouldn't see a Sound Effects nomination for a low-key thriller that uses subdued atmospheric effects instead of LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF KABOOOMING.
Link URL:		(optional)
Link Title:		(optional)

Replies To This Message

Post a Reply