NFT: Oscar Nominations are out

.

Pesci, Pacino, Hopkins, Hanks and Pitt.

Boo!

.

seen 6/9 best picture nominees so far and liked them all to varying degrees. 1917 is fresh in my mind after seeing it over the weekend, I thought it was incredible. Still need to see Parasite, Little Women, and Jojo Rabbit. Heard nothing but amazing things about Parasite.

And that's not even including others like Uncut Gems and Knives Out. Really cool original stories. Bummed to see Sandler not get a nom although I'm not sure who you take out to get him in

but I am still going to ask. How is 1917 included in this years Oscar's nominees when it was theatrically released in 2020?

If it is a timing thing, then why wouldn't all potential Oscar pictures be released around the same time frame to have the the recency bias?

Well deserved and awesome.

In comment 14776685 figgy2989 said:

Quote:

but I am still going to ask. How is 1917 included in this years Oscar's nominees when it was theatrically released in 2020? If it is a timing thing, then why wouldn't all potential Oscar pictures be released around the same time frame to have the the recency bias?

It had a limited release on Christmas to make it eligible

Strongest field in some time I would say. A lot of good movies and performances on that list.

the main Actor in the Mr. Rogers movie that Hanks is up for Supporting Actor?

In comment 14776689 Kyle in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 14776685 figgy2989 said: Quote: but I am still going to ask. How is 1917 included in this years Oscar's nominees when it was theatrically released in 2020? If it is a timing thing, then why wouldn't all potential Oscar pictures be released around the same time frame to have the the recency bias? It had a limited release on Christmas to make it eligible

That makes sense, I am surprised that more potential Oscar candidates aren't released like that. Build the hype for a "limited release", then have a world wide opening right after the holidays.

seen "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood." Was Tom Hanks not the star of the movie? I find it strange that he's in the supporting actor category.

FMIC just asked, missed it.

In comment 14776683 Kyle in NY said:

Quote:

seen 6/9 best picture nominees so far and liked them all to varying degrees. 1917 is fresh in my mind after seeing it over the weekend, I thought it was incredible. Still need to see Parasite, Little Women, and Jojo Rabbit. Heard nothing but amazing things about Parasite. And that's not even including others like Uncut Gems and Knives Out. Really cool original stories. Bummed to see Sandler not get a nom although I'm not sure who you take out to get him in

I have very complicated feelings on Parasite. I’m very happy to see a foreign film breakthrough, and I’m also very happy to see it make a boatload of money.

However, I can’t help but feel like while it’s very good, it’s not great. I wanted to like it a lot more than I actually did.

Have two more to see before the awards are given out. All in all, the best movie year since 2007, IMO.

unless I'm missing something about its release date.

Great year for movies.

In comment 14776694 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

the main Actor in the Mr. Rogers movie that Hanks is up for Supporting Actor?

Matthew Rhys who plays a journalist and gets much more screen time.

as to why the old guys screaming at clouds thinking hollywood isn't original anymore are full of shit.

In comment 14776711 threeofakind33 said:

Quote:

In comment 14776694 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: the main Actor in the Mr. Rogers movie that Hanks is up for Supporting Actor? Matthew Rhys who plays a journalist and gets much more screen time.

Thanks. I haven't seen the movie, but the trailer makes it seem like Hanks is the main guy.

We need more years like that and less like the several years before 2019.

The book that Jojo Rabbit is based on is terrible. It's plot is all over the place and there's no character development. To even have the idea to be able to turn that into a movie is impressive enough but to turn that into what Jojo Rabbit became is deserving of the award.

And don't tell me the shape of the trophy. These yahoos just had an award ceremony congratulating themselves. Do they really need another one?

In comment 14776701 Pete in MD said:

Quote:

seen "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood." Was Tom Hanks not the star of the movie? I find it strange that he's in the supporting actor category.

No, Matthew Rhys was the main actor in the film. The movie was really about him, and his life. Tom Hanks played a major role in the movie, obviously, but it was more about how he impacted the life of ‘Lloyd’ and bettered his life.

Supporting nomination is correct

should have been nominated.

I agree best supporting actor is a toughie, but I would give it to Hopkins. A tougher role, IMO

In comment 14776698 figgy2989 said:

Quote:

In comment 14776689 Kyle in NY said: Quote: In comment 14776685 figgy2989 said: Quote: but I am still going to ask. How is 1917 included in this years Oscar's nominees when it was theatrically released in 2020? If it is a timing thing, then why wouldn't all potential Oscar pictures be released around the same time frame to have the the recency bias? It had a limited release on Christmas to make it eligible That makes sense, I am surprised that more potential Oscar candidates aren't released like that. Build the hype for a "limited release", then have a world wide opening right after the holidays.

Yep it's a smart move when you know you've got a good film, like 1917. The hype builds via reviews and people go right away to see it. They did very well at the box office this past weekend

In comment 14776726 RobCrossRiver56 said:

Quote:

And don't tell me the shape of the trophy. These yahoos just had an award ceremony congratulating themselves. Do they really need another one?

The Globes are a joke. The Oscars are the only ones that matter.

As far as the real value of any of this, one’s mileage certainly may vary. I know I still get excited when one of my favorites wins. I don’t know why I feel that way, but I do.

In comment 14776706 threeofakind33 said:

Quote:

In comment 14776683 Kyle in NY said: Quote: I have very complicated feelings on Parasite. I’m very happy to see a foreign film breakthrough, and I’m also very happy to see it make a boatload of money. However, I can’t help but feel like while it’s very good, it’s not great. I wanted to like it a lot more than I actually did. Have two more to see before the awards are given out. All in all, the best movie year since 2007, IMO.

Totally agree on Parasite, and it will win International (deserves it) though I loved Pain and Glory.

I thought Uncut Gems was excellent. Weird having zero nominations.

The Farewell was also a great film, zero noms.

Joker vs 1917. IMO.

In comment 14776735 threeofakind33 said:

Quote:

In comment 14776726 RobCrossRiver56 said: Quote: And don't tell me the shape of the trophy. These yahoos just had an award ceremony congratulating themselves. Do they really need another one? The Globes are a joke. The Oscars are the only ones that matter. As far as the real value of any of this, one’s mileage certainly may vary. I know I still get excited when one of my favorites wins. I don’t know why I feel that way, but I do.

70 or 90 journalist pick Golden Globe winners. Nothing to do with the academy.

I think he was robbed in Walk the Line so I think he wins this one hands down.

In comment 14776714 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

as to why the old guys screaming at clouds thinking hollywood isn't original anymore are full of shit.

I never said this before (about movies being unoriginal), but looking at some statistics 2019 saw the third lowest tickets sold for movies in the last 25 years and had the 3rd lowest inflation adjusted revenue in that time period.

According to many surveys, price is one factor as is streaming/internet, but every survey lists the lack of interesting movies as a factor.

and not just from old guys, in fact old guys (as a demographic group) is a consistent group.

nominated is somewhat BS. I didn't think he had to do that much in that movie and wasn't a great performance by any means.

because those people that claim there is nothing interesting to watch....are watching movies on streaming, haha. Those movies, for the most part, had a theatrical releases at some point. Polls also suck because people choose answers dishonestly.

Just like sports ticket sales, i don't expect movie ticket sales to increase or stay flat. People just want to stay home and not spend the money, or deal with crowds, etc.

But when someone tells me there's nothing original being made anymore just because the Rock makes another shitty movie, I have to strongly disagree.

 

Joker the other day. My issue is that it's basically Phoenix and that's it. I didn't love the overall film as much as 9-10 others this year. I am a bit surprised with that many nominations. He was incredible though.

people judge "Hollywood" based on what there's a commercial or ad for. Many of the movies on here, or in general, don't have a huge advertising budget and get by on word of mouth. So many people answering polls see a new Marvel movie, or a big budget war movie, and won't see an ad for something smaller scale (indie movies).

In comment 14776764 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 14776714 UConn4523 said: Quote: as to why the old guys screaming at clouds thinking hollywood isn't original anymore are full of shit. I never said this before (about movies being unoriginal), but looking at some statistics 2019 saw the third lowest tickets sold for movies in the last 25 years and had the 3rd lowest inflation adjusted revenue in that time period. According to many surveys, price is one factor as is streaming/internet, but every survey lists the lack of interesting movies as a factor. and not just from old guys, in fact old guys (as a demographic group) is a consistent group.

It's a big factor for me. I'm in the suburbs with access to two theaters. It's all Marvel, Pixar, Starwars (Disney basically)

Neither theater has ever shown a Wes Anderson movie...any of them. I gotta drive into D.C. for things like Uncut Gems, The Lighthouse, JoJo Rabbit, ect. It blows.

One of my dreams is to open a single screen theater in my town, with a bar in the front. Just to screen to movies I would like to see on a large screen w/ a good sound system.

.

In comment 14776797 penkap75 said:

Quote:

.

I thought it downright sucked

In comment 14776830 cjac said:

Quote:

In comment 14776797 penkap75 said: Quote: . I thought it downright sucked

I was just about to post about being the only one who did not see the greatness in The Irishman.

[img]FORD V FERRARI

Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping and James Mangold, Producers

THE IRISHMAN

Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Jane Rosenthal and Emma Tillinger Koskoff, Producers

JOJO RABBIT

Carthew Neal and Taika Waititi, Producers

JOKER

Todd Phillips, Bradley Cooper and Emma Tillinger Koskoff, Producers

LITTLE WOMEN

Amy Pascal, Producer

MARRIAGE STORY

Noah Baumbach and David Heyman, Producers

1917

Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren and Callum McDougall, Producers

ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD

David Heyman, Shannon McIntosh and Quentin Tarantino, Producers

PARASITE

Kwak Sin Ae and Bong Joon Ho, Producers[/img]

In comment 14776880 Pete in MD said:

Quote:

In comment 14776830 cjac said: Quote: In comment 14776797 penkap75 said: Quote: . I thought it downright sucked I was just about to post about being the only one who did not see the greatness in The Irishman.

I stumbled upon Casino yesterday morning and I couldnt stop watching it despite having seen it several times. I dont know if i'll ever watch the Irishman again.

In comment 14776675 bceagle05 said:

Quote:

Pesci, Pacino, Hopkins, Hanks and Pitt.

Was thinking that as well. Some serious star power.

quite a predictable list and there are holes in the nominations you could drive a party bus through.

but how did it get nominated for Outstanding Achievement in Film editing? The movie was over three hours long! I think the "editor", longtime Scorsese collaborator and two-time Oscar winner Thelma Schoonmaker, took a minimalist approach this time around.

In comment 14777269 Pete in MD said:

Quote:

but how did it get nominated for Outstanding Achievement in Film editing? The movie was over three hours long! I think the "editor", longtime Scorsese collaborator and two-time Oscar winner Thelma Schoonmaker, took a minimalist approach this time around.

It's not well known, but that movie began as a 24 hour marathon film. Thank god for editing.

on making a movie a set length - its what's needed to tell the story. Putting things in sequence, cutting out disjointed scenes, identifying areas to reshoot or fine tune, basically extracting all of the shots and putting them together to make sense. In a way its them telling the story moreso than the director.

In comment 14776791 Motley Two said:

Quote:

It's a big factor for me. I'm in the suburbs with access to two theaters. It's all Marvel, Pixar, Starwars (Disney basically) Neither theater has ever shown a Wes Anderson movie...any of them. I gotta drive into D.C. for things like Uncut Gems, The Lighthouse, JoJo Rabbit, ect. It blows.

Where do you live? There are certainly theaters in the DC suburbs showing these types of movies

In comment 14777277 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 14777269 Pete in MD said: Quote: but how did it get nominated for Outstanding Achievement in Film editing? The movie was over three hours long! I think the "editor", longtime Scorsese collaborator and two-time Oscar winner Thelma Schoonmaker, took a minimalist approach this time around. It's not well known, but that movie began as a 24 hour marathon film. Thank god for editing.

They could have cut another hour out and I don't think anyone would have noticed

In comment 14776895 cjac said:

Quote:

I stumbled upon Casino yesterday morning and I couldnt stop watching it despite having seen it several times.

Like Goodfellas, Casino is an incredibly re-watchable film. If I come across it, I'm not flipping away.

In comment 14777398 Jim in Fairfax said:

Quote:

In comment 14776791 Motley Two said: Quote: It's a big factor for me. I'm in the suburbs with access to two theaters. It's all Marvel, Pixar, Starwars (Disney basically) Neither theater has ever shown a Wes Anderson movie...any of them. I gotta drive into D.C. for things like Uncut Gems, The Lighthouse, JoJo Rabbit, ect. It blows. Where do you live? There are certainly theaters in the DC suburbs showing these types of movies

Other side of the river in La Plata, Maryland. So D.C. or Alexandria usually for about half the stuff I actually want to see.

In comment 14776751 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

I thought Uncut Gems was excellent. Weird having zero nominations. The Farewell was also a great film, zero noms.

I thought it was horrible. I agree with no noms for that movie. It seems you either love it or hate it. I am in the latter but I can see why some people love it. Just didnt do it for me.

In comment 14776726 RobCrossRiver56 said:

Quote:

And don't tell me the shape of the trophy. These yahoos just had an award ceremony congratulating themselves. Do they really need another one?

The Golden Globes are voted on by the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., which has about 100 members, about half of whom are photographers. Most are European or Australian. It's a tiny group of reporters. The award was sort of a joke for decades, kind of a throwaway, but then somebody realized that since it honors both film and TV, it'd make a great TV show. So it became a thing for reasons having nothing to do with the award.

The awards aren't that credible, really. HFPA was famously corrupt but got embarrassed and finally had to clean up its act. The Globes voters, which are a very small group, are also very aware of what makes a good TV show, and cast the show, er, nominate actors, accordingly.

The Academy Awards are voted on by several thousand professionals in most crafts related to moviemaking. You have to either be nominated for an award or be invited in — it's a highly select group, the most select group of any awards body I can think of. That's why the Oscars have credibility and prestige.

The Academy isn't subject to the kind of corruption as the Globes and isn't as sensitive to ratings as the HFPA. Not even as sensitive as ABC would like them to be. However they moved their honorary awards to a separate event to streamline the telecast.

However, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts has its own skewed gaze. Membership is for life, and in most crafts you need a substantial body of work to get in, so the members skew old. Historically, it was "Hollywood" (Southern California) centric. Some branches are very much "old boys' clubs" that know each other and nominate each other. And the Academy is as subject to weird moments of mass stupidity as any other group. ("Forrest Gump" over "The Shawshank Redemption"? Really?)

Also, the Academy Awards were created to encourage "artistic" filmmaking at a time when the movie business was making a lot of salacious stuff and getting a bad reputation. It's "elitist" by design in that sense. It's not supposed to honor what's popular, it's supposed to encourage high-minded, artistically ambitious work that will buff the reputation of the industry. The Globes have no such pretentious.

So there ya go.

but does it have the same sort of mood and character as Snowpiercer? I wasn't quite a fan of that one.

Now that I have two of them I am completely out of touch with film releases. I had never even heard of Jojo Rabbit, Pain and Glory, or The Lighthouse until just now.

Held off seeing it because I was put off by the ad campaign. Finally saw it Friday - really, REALLY liked it. Really, really affecting.

The music cues, oddly, really moved me. Especially the last music cue. If you see it, you'll know what I'm talking about.

You should see it if/when you can.

In comment 14776676 Motley Two said:

Quote:

Boo!

I take it the lighthouse was worth the watch? I am leery of these artsy fartsy weird horror movies. Last two (the witch and some other turd I forget) were highly acclaimed and I couldn’t finish either one.

In comment 14777833 djm said:

Quote:

In comment 14776676 Motley Two said: Quote: Boo! I take it the lighthouse was worth the watch? I am leery of these artsy fartsy weird horror movies. Last two (the witch and some other turd I forget) were highly acclaimed and I couldn’t finish either one.

Well it's by the same guy that did the Witch. This is his 2nd film. I liked The Lighthouse better.
It's certainly weird, but to me it isn't quite a horror film.

There's some elements but it's more like folklore. More unsettling than trying to be scary. Like Old Timey Sea fairing folk legends meets 'Night of the Hunter' meets 'The Shining'



Dafoe gives a performance he seems born for. Absolutely perfect. And Pattinson hangs right there with him.

All that said, it might be more artsy than The Witch. It's black & white,shot in 1:19/1 ratio(almost square frame), and some unreliable narrative stuff going on, but by design and not a short coming.