90th Academy Awards - March 4th, 2018

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

And imsounoriginal, the Academy has almost never liked horror so why would that change with Get Out (which is neither the year's best horror film nor Universal's best film this year, that honor would go to Split, a film that was also massively successful but there's been no campaign mounted for James McAvoy's performance)? They'll find five original screenplays that they'll like more (The Greatest Showman will be one and I expect The Shape of Water to be another).

Because they won't see Get Out as just horror, it's a movie that's struck a nerve with just about all audiences and it gives the Academy an opportunity to honor a black filmmaker. McAvoy's performance in Split is great but the movie is too genre for the Academy, there's no way it's gonna get any recognition (and frankly I don't think it deserves to). I'm sure Greatest Showman will be an awards season player but a couple of years ago, Danish Girl looked like it checked every box for what the Oscars were looking for and was ultimately met with relative indifference. Until some of these movies are actually seen by people, it's too early to tell what's really gonna be a big player.

[Cremildo]

Get Out isn't simply a "horror movie". It's the year's biggest sleeper hit, a bonafide critical success and - above all - a film about race and the plight of African Americans, which is pretty much a favorite subject for the Academy these last few years, what with all the recurring Oscars so white controversy.

It'd be silly to say it is a lock, but it is borderline dumb to completely discard its chances this early on.

(I don't think it deserves to be nominated for Best Picture, but personal opinions ain't got nothing to do with it)

[Buscemi]

But the problem with Get Out is that it doesn't go far enough. Take away the race themes and it's another simple Blumhouse production. Get Out should have been the angriest, most uncomfortable wide-appealed film ever made. The final film is too nice (but I give it credit for having a happy ending instead of "let's kill the main character so we can make Get Out 2 and make Brian Williams' daughter the next Jigsaw"). In addition, the Oscars have gotten more conservative in recent years.

Also, the Academy punishes movies released earlier in the year. Look at Mud a few years back. Had it not opened in April, it would have been a big time contender.

And The Danish Girl did not fit every Oscar cliche. It might have a decade ago but it's now all "it must be about show business and your chances increase ten-fold if Fox released it". It's about back-patting and money, not social issues. The Academy doesn't care about "Oscars so white". Otherwise, better films like Loving and Queen of Katwe would have competed instead of giving Hacksaw Ridge a Best Picture nomination (seriously, guys, stop pretending here that Hacksaw Ridge was good).

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

And The Danish Girl did not fit every Oscar cliche. It might have a decade ago but it's now all "it must be about show business and your chances increase ten-fold if Fox released it". It's about back-patting and money, not social issues. The Academy doesn't care about "Oscars so white". Otherwise, better films like Loving and Queen of Katwe would have competed instead of giving Hacksaw Ridge a Best Picture nomination (seriously, guys, stop pretending here that Hacksaw Ridge was good).

Period piece, so it would bag nominations in the technical categories. About a topic that was/is super topical, and the Academy loves highlighting movies with a message/agenda that the industry endorses (IIRC Caitlin Jenner was big in the news at the time the movie was about to release). Starring the guy who just won Best Actor the previous year and co-starring the new "it" girl who ended up actually winning for this movie. Directed by the guy who won Best Director just a few years earlier. The pedigree was all there. Never saw the movie so I dunno if it was really worth all the hype or not, but I was surprised it didn't make more noise.

I'm with you on "it's all about back-patting," that's the only reason tripe like Birdman won. But if back-patting is always gonna beat social issues, La La Land would've beat Moonlight.

[Buscemi]

La La Land still won the most Oscars and Moonlight's win got overshadowed by Faye Dunaway's gaffe. In the industry's eyes, La La Land still won the night (remember, Best Picture is voted on differently than the rest).

And in 2015, no one was calling The Danish Girl the favorite (Focus was undergoing regime changes and the new studio head, whom eventually left shortly after, was pushing the Gramercy line). It was all about Spotlight vs. The Revenant/The Big Short/Mad Max: Fury Road (in past years, The Martian would have been a favorite).

[imsounoriginal]

Never said anyone called Danish Girl the favorite, just that sight unseen, it had all the makings of what the Oscars should've fallen for. La La Land winning the night with the most awards is fine, but Moonlight winning Picture, Adapted Screenplay and Supporting Actor is still big. I guess it's another Gravity/12 Year A Slave situation.

[AaronJ]

I'd be shocked if The Papers didn't end up with multiple big nominations, one of which will have to be Orig. Screenplay. I mean, the guy wrote Spotlight after all. He also wrote a bunch of episodes of "West Wing."

Also, Meryl playing Kay Graham? That has nomination #21 written all over it.

[Cremildo]

The Papers is a pretty good bet, sight unseen. The last time a Spielberg Oscar-bait failed to make the cut was Amistad, 20 years ago (not sure if Catch Me counts).

[imsounoriginal]

Catch Me's release date pretty much means it counts lol, but 2002 was a stacked year. Should've gotten a few major nominations but oh well, at least Walken and that great score got a nod.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Never said anyone called Danish Girl the favorite, just that sight unseen, it had all the makings of what the Oscars should've fallen for. La La Land winning the night with the most awards is fine, but Moonlight winning Picture, Adapted Screenplay and Supporting Actor is still big. I guess it's another Gravity/12 Year A Slave situation.

Out of all of the Oscar f-ups, The La La Land/Moonlight situation will still be talked about for years to come. It's now more infamous than the streaker running behind David Niven.
As for Gravity/12 Years a Slave, I STILL believe Gravity should have won.

[spanky87]

What's working against Get Out is that it came out so early AND doesn't have a strong contender in the acting or directing categories. That would've kept it in the conversation a lot longer.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

Out of all of the Oscar f-ups, The La La Land/Moonlight situation will still be talked about for years to come. It's now more infamous than the streaker running behind David Niven.
As for Gravity/12 Years a Slave, I STILL believe Gravity should have won.

I loved Gravity in theaters but barely got all the way through it just one time at home. 12YAS wouldn't have been my pick that year (Wolf of Wall Street was my choice), but I have no problem with it winning over Gravity.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

La La Land still won the most Oscars and Moonlight's win got overshadowed by Faye Dunaway's gaffe. In the industry's eyes, La La Land still won the night (remember, Best Picture is voted on differently than the rest).

And in 2015, no one was calling The Danish Girl the favorite (Focus was undergoing regime changes and the new studio head, whom eventually left shortly after, was pushing the Gramercy line). It was all about Spotlight vs. The Revenant/The Big Short/Mad Max: Fury Road (in past years, The Martian would have been a favorite).

I'm not so quick to throw Faye or Warren under the bus. The Academy clearly
f-d up on one or many levels to the point where people are still debating who actually won.
On a side note, let's be lucky that it went the way it did. Can you imagine what would have happened if the shoe was on the other foot?

[Buscemi]

Gravity didn't deserve Best Picture. It's 2001 without Kubrick's artistry or interesting characters. And the 3-D was terrible.

And the only thing standing in The Papers' way is that it won't be ready for the festivals (unless it can sneak in an AFI Fest screening). Getting into the fall festivals is extremely important (returning to Moonlight, no one was talking about that film until Toronto, before then, A24 had American Honey as their big awards film).

Whomever wins the People's Choice Award at Toronto will become a major player in the race (I have it being either The Current War or The Shape of Water). Venice, Telluride, and New York are also important but Toronto is the big one.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

Gravity didn't deserve Best Picture. It's 2001 without Kubrick's artistry or interesting characters. And the 3-D was terrible.

Agree except for this. The 3D is arguably the only thing it has going for it.

And I'm not sold on Shape of Water's viability as an awards player. Not saying it won't be good, but it might be too "weird" for the Academy.

[Buscemi]

Post-converted 3-D is like Sturgeon's Law. 10% good, 90% crap. Gravity's of the 90% (I'd only rank two films in the 10%: The Lion King and The Walk).

And the Academy gave Pan's Labyrinth three Oscars. The Shape of Water is a more mainstream film (and Fox is releasing it). It will do fine.

[imsounoriginal]

Post-converted looks just as good as native 3D these days. 3D in general is mostly unnecessary but the technology has improved tremendously. And yeah, Pan's Labyrinth did fine with the Academy, but not in any of the major categories. It couldn't even win Best Foreign Film (although I didn't have a problem with that, since Lives of Others is better anyway).

[Buscemi]

The fact that Academy nominated a fantasy film from the director of Hellboy and Blade II for Best Foreign Language Film was a win alone. Had the expansion to ten nominees happened then, there's no doubt it would have gotten a Best Picture nomination.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

Gravity didn't deserve Best Picture. It's 2001 without Kubrick's artistry or interesting characters. And the 3-D was terrible.

And the only thing standing in The Papers' way is that it won't be ready for the festivals (unless it can sneak in an AFI Fest screening). Getting into the fall festivals is extremely important (returning to Moonlight, no one was talking about that film until Toronto, before then, A24 had American Honey as their big awards film).

Whomever wins the People's Choice Award at Toronto will become a major player in the race (I have it being either The Current War or The Shape of Water). Venice, Telluride, and New York are also important but Toronto is the big one.

Well, it was a hell of a lot better that 12 Years a Slave.

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

Well, it was a hell of a lot better that 12 Years a Slave.

Is this your shtick? You spent a whole thread talking about how much you hated Selma and now you're doing the same with 12 Years a Slave.

Are you one of those IMDb refugees?