Director of Brand Strategy
|
So the Oscars are tonight! I'm sort of ambivalent about quite a few of the nominees and several administrative decisions on AMPAS's part this year, but I'll be watching nonetheless. I saw the last two nominees this afternoon, so I've seen 'em all. Curious to know what others think the results will be and people's reactions after the fact.
I just have a feeling the reason they are 'trying' 10 Best Movie nominees is because they had chosen the top 5 before Avatar opened and couldn't stomach dropping one for Avatar, so added it to the list, but couldn't come out with a top 6, so grabbed four more to round it up to 10.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Well, they don't really "choose" the movies that get nominated. Academy members make nominations and the top suggestions are put on the final ballot. Some awards are nominated by committees specializing in the given field, such as documentaries, foreign films, shorts, and technical awards, but even then, there's no round table where a bunch of Hollywood insiders decide on five nominees and throw the rest out.
They also announced that they'd have an expanded top award list quite a while ago—like over the summer—so it's got nothing to do with a specific film.
The real reason they're doing 10 this year is, I suspect, financial. In the past, getting an Oscar nomination has been a boost in ticket sales or home video rentals for the nominees, but films up for other awards don't see as much of a bump. By nominating more films for best picture, they're, I assume, hoping to increase the income for more movies, and thus make the industry as a whole look stronger. While I think that many of the movies on there are quite good, I don't think that many of them are really Best Picture material, and they're only there because the category was expanded.
I'm hoping Hurt Locker or District 9 get the Best Picture nod, though I'd put money on it Avatar cleaning house.
Okay, here's my predictions:
Best Picture: An Education
Best Actor: Morgan Freeman
Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Christopher Plummer
Best Actress: Gabourey Sidibe
Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Mo'Nique
Best Animated Film: Up (as much as I'd like to see Coraline or The Secret of the Kells win)
Art Direction: Avatar
Cinematography: The White Ribbon
Costume Design: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Directing: Avatar
Documentary Feature: Which Way Home
Documentary Short: China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province
Editing: Inglourious Basterds
Foreign Language Film: The White Ribbon
Makeup: The Young Victoria
Music (Original Score): The Hurt Locker
Music (Original Song): Crazy Heart
Short Film (Animated): A Matter of Loaf and Death
Short Film (Live Action): The Door
Sound Editing: The Hurt Locker
Sound Mixing: Star Trek
Visual Effects: Avatar
Writing (Adapted): Precious
Writing (Original): The Hurt Locker
So far, I'm 3 for 7 and I've only seen Up, Up in the Air, Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, Food Inc, Star Trek and Transformers 2.
6 for 11. Predictions based totally off judging how the politics of Hollywood will pick, not on quality of story or quantity of money.
Ah well, wound up only 8 for 24, much lower than my previous year's efforts. But I am happy to see Avatar not getting any of the 'big' awards.
|
Ah well, wound up only 8 for 24, much lower than my previous year's efforts. But I am happy to see Avatar not getting any of the 'big' awards.
This is interesting. You're happy that Avatar didn't get any of the 'big' awards because Hollywood politics didn't understand or relate to the film? I've found that the Oscars often don't have their finger on the pulse of cultural interest.
I think their Best Picture choice is interesting, The Hurt Locker may be about to have a negative gross, if Jeffrey Sarver's suit goes through. I also thought it sad that one of the The Hurt Lockers producers had to email some of the Academy members to beg them to vote for it as Best Picture. But I will admit that Oscar politics seems rather confusing to me, so I shall gracefully leave it to those who know about it.
|
|
Ah well, wound up only 8 for 24, much lower than my previous year's efforts. But I am happy to see Avatar not getting any of the 'big' awards.This is interesting. You're happy that Avatar didn't get any of the 'big' awards because Hollywood politics didn't understand or relate to the film? I've found that the Oscars often don't have their finger on the pulse of cultural interest.
I think their Best Picture choice is interesting, The Hurt Locker may be about to have a negative gross, if Jeffrey Sarver's suit goes through. I also thought it sad that one of the The Hurt Lockers producers had to email some of the Academy members to beg them to vote for it as Best Picture. But I will admit that Oscar politics seems rather confusing to me, so I shall gracefully leave it to those who know about it.
Avatar's not getting best picture has less to do with a lack of powerful story than with the Academy's relationship with James Cameron. Back when Titanic won Best Picture it was up against some GREAT movies and actors: L.A. Confidential (Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe), As Good As It Gets (JACK, Helen Hunt), Good Will Hunting (Robin Williams, Matt Damon, Minnie Driver, Ben Affleck, Stellan Skarsgård), and The Full Monty (okay they needed a British picture). Even though Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt BOTH won for acting, Titanic took the big prize. I don't doubt a big portion of the reason it won is because of the money it made.
I'm not saying Titanic was a bad movie. But it is very formulaic. I just caught him on Actor's Studio last week and he told the audience that the sole reason he wanted to make the picture was to fund the expedition to Titanic. His pitch to get their money was "It's Romeo & Juliet on the Titanic". He (and Leo and Kate) did a superb job on the film, but my main question has always been, if it hadn't grossed $600 million, would it have been nominated for Best Picture? This time around, the Academy nominated Avatar but decided the purse wasn't as important.[/rant]
Anyway, in regards to how Hollywood politics works, consider Tom Hanks' career and his early Academy Awards. His first nod was in 1988 for Big; up against Hoffman (Rain Man), Gene Hackman (Mississippi Burning), Edward James Olmos (Stand and Deliver), and Max von Sydow (Pelle the Conqueror). Hanks was the comedic nomination and was known only as a comedic actor at the time.
Jump forward to 1993 when he starts in Philadelphia, his first REAL dramatic role, playing a gay man infected with AIDS. Even though this was the SAME year that Liam Neeson was up for Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, they gave it to Tom because the probably thought "he'll never do a drama again, while Liam's ALWAYS doing these Oscar-quality performances".
Then the unexpected happened: Forest Gump. Not only was the movie loved by all, but Tom's portrayal of Forest was WAAAAAY beyond the other actors up for the award that year (Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption, Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George, Paul Newman - Nobody's Fool, and John Travolta - Pulp Fiction) and they HAD to give it to him. Now, he's more well known for his dramas than his early comedies (*cough*Bachelor Party*cough).
EDIT: By the way, it's actually me, Matt D., I just changed my default alias.
Christoph Waltz is the only good choice
Avatar didn't win because it is Sci-Fi... Same as Star Wars and E.T. It's just how it is.
Avatar didn't win because it is Sci-Fi... Same as Star Wars and E.T. It's just how it is.
I don't know though...I think Avatar didn't win because it's just not oscar "great" imho. It's a fun movie to watch, and you only have to partially check your brain at the door, but it didn't have much depth to it. Star Wars to me is kinda the same thing (excluding empire...that is a badass movie all around), a movie I liked but I would never consider it oscar worthy. I was kinda hoping District 9 would have won...but that was a crap shoot.