I haven't seen "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" or "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings" so I can't say why, but how come one got all the Oscar attention (Rings) and the other not (Potter).

Both are in the same genre - magic and sorcery - and both came out towards the end of 2001. Both were huge money makers, and both were wildly popular with youths.

Why was "Lord of the Rings" singled out as the better picture over "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone?" (Apparently Eric Cartman and the gang of South Park think 'Lord' is the better film, too.)

Best Animated Feature nominees will be Lilo & Stitch, Ice Age, and Spirited Away.

Robin Williams deserves a nomination for One Hour Photo, but he probably won't get one.

because Lord of the rings is a better film in every way. Superior acting, superior script, superior direction, cinematography, sound, score, and special effects. Sure they are both Fantasy movies that have Wizards in them that did good at the box office but the comparison ends there.

Also to the person who thought Ian mcllelan deserved the nod for Best supporting actor this year. As much as sir Ian deserves one for the last movie, his performance was not particularly noteworthy in this film. No actor will be nominated for a role in TTT IMO, but if one were, it would have to be Andy Serkis for Gollum in a supporting role, but even that wont happen this year.

I am holding out for a nom for direction and picture though its just I dont think they will get any of the major ones again this year. ROTK may be a different story.

updated.

Hands down best actor is
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS GANGS OF NEW YORK