For BEST PICTURE and I'll buy that... Now I know this topic is bound to generate some differences in opinion for sure and is questionable amongst Comicbook Geeks whether it really is or not, but for the most part, the character of SPIDERMAN has been better portrayed out of any comicbook hero out there including YES, BATMAN... I also think his motive for wanting the Academy to do the right thing and give SPIDERMAN II The BEST PICTURE Nomination is to broaden there horizons and lighten up a bit and recognize other films other than the usual serious picture that always seems to get the Win.. Anyway, here is an excerpt I found from another site citing his intentions from JOBLO:


Ebert's memo to the Academy: Spider-Man 2 = Best Picture

Watching Ebert's syndicated TV show yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised by his annual memo to the Academy. He stated that he hopes that the Academy puts aside their usual "snobbery" and properly nominates Spider-Man 2 for best picture. I couldn't agree more. Both he and his partner, Richard Roeper, hopes that the Academy is able to remember back more then three months to properly honor worthy films. Ebert correctly thinks that Spider-Man 2 is the best movie ever made in that genera and certainly one of the best films produced in 2004. He mentioned director Sam Raimi's remarkable work and noted that Spider-Man 2 contained true depth and emotion that matched its fun adventure and action.

Ebert's right, Spider-Man 2 deserves a best picture nomination but I'll go him one better. Tobey Maguire deserves a best actor nomination for his role as Peter Parker as well. That role required real presence and real emotion and few young actors would've been able to deliver such a deep performance. Hell, if Johnny Depp can be nominated last year for playing a goofball pirate, why not Tobey?


:2up:

I don't expect it, but I do expect a win or two, especially for FX. Tobey perfectly captures and plays both Peter Parker and Spider-Man, and J.K. Simmons brought J. Jonah Jameson to life in a way that was better than anybody could have dreamed. I'd like to see one of them get recognized for pulling off an acting job that took some serious skills to do right.

So far I only knew that Ebert gives out his stars unter the influence of alcohol, but now it seems he even apears drugged on tv

I don't know about best picture, but I could handle a Raimi nod for best director. The scene where Doc Oc uses his arms for the first time in the operating room is two minutes of the best direction i've ever seen.

Yes! I agree with him! Give the film the recognition it receives.

It deserves some Oscars. I would love it to be Best Picture of 2004. That was might favorite movie of 2004!

I cannot believe this...a kiddie superhero movie nominated for best pic? Please

its a good movie, but nowhere near best pic...to popcornish

Lord of the Rings was nominated all 3 times.

I know...and it should not have been. ROTK winning was awful.

Mystic should have taken it home

This would be awesome!!! And well deserved too!!

I agree with you, but I also think FOTR deserved it over A Beautiful Mind. I'm glad that the snobbish academy took their collective heads out, and noticed that it doesn't have to be a drama to be the best movie of the year. I hope to see more of it. It was great and deserving that Johnny Depp was recognized for POTC. His performance last year was one of the most memorable in recent memory. I hope that last year was only the beginning, although last year's show was a travesty in and of itself.

I'm moving this to the Oscar forum...any memo to the academy belongs in the Oscar section.

If you have any questions about this, PM me.

I would love to see Spiderman 2 with a best picture nom and raimi with a BD nom.

Besides the fact that Spider-Man II is not even close to being Oscar worthy, I don't even think it's really that good of a film, period. It was some nice summer popcorn fun, but that's it. Spider-Man II being nominated and stealing the place away from The Aviator, Sideways, Million Dollar Baby, Finding Neverland, Hotel Rwanda, Ray, or any other great film that is up for being nominated would BE the travesty, not the other way around.

Ebert is getting worse and worse each year. I can take his "thumbs up" to some of the bland summer popcorn films like he has been doing, because the films overall are some good fun to watch, but when he goes as far as to recommend Spider-Man II being nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, I can only be incredibly glad that he does not choose the nominees. I never thought I'd ever say this (because it wasn't true not too long ago) but I like Roeper much more than Ebert at this point.

PEACE, Mike

Spider-Man 2 was better than any movie nominated last year, so, yeah, I wouldn't mind a nomination for it this year, even though it's not going to happen.

I usually like Ebert's choices. This is just silly. He is just hurting his image by doing this. I am not big fan of LOTR movies. I would have preferred Mystic River winning best picture last year. But LOTR movies are far superior compared to Spiderman 2.

I think if a film is widely considered the best or one of the best of its genre, it should also be considered a Best Picture contender. Be it fantasy, a CGI film, horror, or superhero.

I thought Spiderman 2 was a huge improvement over the first film. Is it one of the 5 Best Pictures of the 2004? That's up for debate.

Nah. I don't agree with your comments though, Mike. Spider-Man 2 is a near-perfect popcorn flick. However, the screenplay reeks of phony-ness. It's incredibly cliche. I think the movie itself is among one of the BETTER ones of the year, and I wouldn't necessarily mind a nominee. After all, what IS Oscar worthy? The Oscars are almost as big a joke as the Razzies (which never reflect worst, but, instead, takes movies that star actors and actresses they hate and those are, without a doubt, the winner). Each yeah, it's ALWAYS about who was snubbed. Last year it was Sean Penn, Peter Jackson, Renee Zellweger, and Lord of the Rings. The year before that was Nicole Kidman. Before that was Denzel Washington and Ron Howard. Truth is, the Academy always plays it safe now and never chooses what's Oscar-worthy. It's almost like no one reflects the movie as a whole anymore but rather the people behind it. Which might be why Johnny Depp might win Best Actor over Jamie Foxx or Leonardo DiCaprio.

Basically, the Academy's got to get out of the continuing patterns and nominate what's right the FIRST time (such as Charlize last year).

So...

if the script is great, the acting is great, the direction is wonderful, the special effects are top notch, the editing is sharp, and the music is perfect, it's not worthy of an Oscar because of the subject matter?

The script wasn't great.

I kinda get what MikeQ. is saying about it not being Oscar worthy, now (Even though I still believe the Oscars are somewhat of a joke). The script may have been passable, but anything with lines like "Go get 'em tiger" or "Isn't it about time someone saved your life?" shouldn't be up for an Oscar. These aren't the corniest lines, and they aren't noticeable to most, but they do indicate an indolent writer who was more interested in keeping the audience's attention than fully making the characters seem...bright?

It's not getting a nominee anyways, so this speech is really there just so Ebert can "stand out" from the other critics as one who won't always go with the standard pick.

It's a comic book movie man, it's supposed to indulge in somewhat over-the-top lines. And still, when it comes to young relationships, trust me, the things people say can be VERY corny!

Dude, the "Go get Em Tiger" line was lifted straight from the SPIDERMAN Comics and that's what makes these movies just so damn good and YES, I'm saying that SPIDERMAN II would have to rank up there with either the Original SUPERMAN or even it's sequel SUPERMAN II... The movie was simply that damn good and for those who choose not to think so?? I think it's more of a case that your not as big a fan of the comic SPIDERMAN as others are... I am completely blown away by the amount of posters I've seen who said SPIDERMAN II just wasn't that good and have to wonder what kind of stash you all have been puffing on??

There we go, and that, in a nutshell, is it.


The film is more faithful to the comics than the Lord of the Rings films were to Tolkien's book. You might not like the nature of the comics (which is more or less the same as the nature of this film), but with regards to the film's faithfulness to the material, it did a splendid job. This is a great film.


And yes, I have read the Spider-man comics and Lord of the Rings, and have seen all films, so I know what the hell I'm talking about when I say that Spider-Man 2 is a more faithful adaptation.

Spider-Man being more faithful to the original material hardly a reason to say it's Oscar worthy. Infact, hardly any films being adapted for previous sources are literal translations, and LITERAL translations can be very bad because there are some things that can be done in books (or comics) that just don't work in film (I'm not saying Spider-Man II is bad, it's not, but it's not even close to being a GREAT film, and not Oscar worthy, in my opinion). To put it simply, saying that Spider-Man II is more worthy of an Oscar nomination than Lord of the Rings because Spider-Man is closer to a literal adaptation is the worst argument I have ever heard.

PEACE, Mike

PEACE, Mike

[To put it simply, saying that Spider-Man II is more worthy of an Oscar nomination than Lord of the Rings because Spider-Man is closer to a literal adaptation is the worst argument I have ever heard.

PEACE, Mike

PEACE, Mike [/quote]


Where did I say that it being a more faihtful adaptation makes it Oscar-worthy?