Fall Predicitons

[VanHelsing]

I've seen both the trailers for The History Boys & Bobby and I am not intrigued. Maybe I'll go and view them again later. I'm not sure if The History Boys can make it for Best Picture although Bobby looks like it has a shot.

[Sabin]

There seems to be a lot of love for 'The History Boys'. Maybe there was just too much love going into it. The trailer is well-crafted, but I can already see an issue with leaden 'Hytner-ian' compositions. Maybe campaigning it as a Comedy is for the best.

[Big Magilla]

I thought the History Boys preview looked excellent, but the trade paper reviews, which Sonic has posted, do not make it sound like a best picture contender, more like bottom half of ten best list material.

I think, at this point, Flags of Our Fathers, Dreamgirls, The Queen, Babel and either Little Children or Bobby are the most likely nominees.

[OscarGuy]

I saw a couple of previews today which make me question the race as I've seen it. The History Boys preview wasn't that good and doesn't make the film seem that interesting. The Bobby preview, on the other hand, makes that film look stellar.

I think Bobby could be a surprisingly strong candidate for Best Picture this year.

[Penelope]

It's easy to understand the support for The History Boys. It's one of the most awarded plays ever, brought to the screen by the original director (who scored acting nominations for Nigel Hawthorne and Helen Mirren a decade ago) with the original cast, and is being sold as a Brit version of Dead Poet's Society. This isn't to say that it will definitely make it in, but if the acclaim at least approaches the level that originally greeted the play, then it's surely a contender.

[rolotomasi99]

as i remember both "gladiator" and "braveheart" were very bloody films. yes, it was a more action violence which is celebrated while more adult oriented violence is frowned upon. still, "braveheart" had one of the most intense torture scenes in a mainstream film (until "the passion of the christ" that is) and "gladiator" had some very graphic shots of people being decapitated and split in half. "black hawk down" was even more intensely violent and it did quite well with nominations. yes it failed to grab a best pic nom, but i think that had to do more with quality than violence (it was good, but not good enough for best pic).
i do not see how being a remake of an obscure (yes, i highly doubt more than 10% of the academy has even seen "internal affairs") asian film is going to hurt its chances. it's not like scorsese is remaking "citizen kane" here.
the critics are already backing this one it seems. after last year, the academy may be wise not to piss of the critics again. before anyone writes a response, i am not saying the academy is going to make their decision for best picture based on what the critics think, i am simply saying they are going to want to acknowledge a truly great film (at least in nominations) and avoid the collective bitch-slap they received from the film critics after the "crash" debacle.

furthermore, i am not sure what other oscar tracking sites other people frequent, but at oscarwatch.com they break down what the critics are saying about certain contenders and review after review highlights the acting chops of one leo dicaprio, not jack nicholson. sure, crazy jack will probably get a nom, but leo is the one who is receiving the kind of reviews that heath ledger received last year. it's as if his talent is only now being recognized. people are calling this a career defining performance and the heart of the film. again, we can all judge for ourselves in the next coming weeks whether the film lives up to its hype. something tells me that scorsese fans and general cinema lovers are not going to be disappointed.

p.s. sorry oscarguy for not recognizing your support of "the departed." i just do not get this bizarre groundswell of support for "the history boys." "little children" i can understand, but not the brit play starring a bunch of nobodies. i am sure it will be fun, but not best picture material.

[Penelope]

According to Inside Oscar:

1928-29: Frank Lloyd won BD for The Divine Lady, Weary River and Drag, but none of them were nominated for BP.

[Okri]

rudeboy (or anyone), has that ever happened before? We've discussed the films that have won best picture without a director nod. Has a person won best director without a corresponding best picture nomination?

[rudeboy]

The things standing in the way of The Departed are the fact that it's a remake of a recent and well-liked arthouse hit, and it is, by all accounts, as violent as anything Scorsese's ever made - when was the last time a truly gruesome film won the top award? Even The Silence of the Lambs only had a very few moments of outright, in-your-face nastiness, and that had the advantage of being one of the box-office phenomena of it's time. The Departed simply doesn't sound like best picture material to me.

I am starting to believe that Scorsese might finally take the best director oscar - part of me hopes it happens, if only to end decades of multitudes screaming, year after year, for him to be recognised. In fact it's possible that a long-standing rule could be broken this year, of a director winning without a corresponding best picture nomination.

[OscarGuy]

I have had The Departed in my Best Picture line-up since I began my list in June. I have never wavered in my opinion that it will go all the way. I'm less certain about Little Children than others and I am faltering in my view of History Boys as a contender. However, I think Nicholson is the only actor guaranteed a slot at the nominations.

[rolotomasi99]

as fun as this whole lead vs supporting debate has been, i would like to get back to the focus of this thread by pointing out that "the departed" is getting the best reviews of the year (and that will probably still be true by the end of the year). more importantly, scorsese is getting the best reviews since "goodfellas." i cannot understand why so many of you are still so convinced that the academy is going to totally ignore him this year. i think this film is going to be a major contender. if it does any bit of business at the box office (more than $50 million) it is a lock for a nomination, but even if it cannot break out into the mainstream ("goodfellas" never did) it should not be counted out of the competition.
the way i see it, the nominations would probably be:
best picture
director
screenplay (not sure whether it will be original or adapted)
editing
l. actor -- dicaprio
s. actor -- nicholson
s. actor -- damon
cinematography and score are also possible but less certain. i am not saying this film will go all the way (it's supposedly darker than anything scorsese has ever done...which is saying quite a bit), but to think "the history boys" or even "little children" are going to be able to completely blow past this film in nominations is ridiculous. i guess my argument will either soften or strengthen after i see it this weekend.

[rolotomasi99]

yeah, i have to say i have more optimism that not only would females be pretty well represented, but you would also have two years where a supporting actor would take the award. granted, both those supporting actors were arguably leading (but we still have not established what constitutes leading -- importance or just screen time). in fact del torro won the s.a.g. award as a leading actor so there was clearly lots of support for his performance. i know many people will disagree with me, but i think 2001 was an incredibley bad year for lead performances (except for the two leads from "in the bedroom" who both lost). we know how much politics played in that year's choices, so if we took that out i think broadbent would have actually been able to squek by with a win. debateable yes, but still possible.

2005: Phillip Seymour Hoffman
2004: Jamie Foxx (with Swank close behind)
2003: Charlize Theron
2002: Nicole Kidman
2001: Jim Broadbent
2000: Benicio Del Torro (with Roberts close behind)
1999: Kevin Spacey (with Swank close behind)
1998: Gwenyth Paltrow
1997: Jack Nicholson
1996: Frances McDormand

[Big Magilla]

Yes, sadly the drama category is usually better represented than the comedy category.

Admittedly the line between comedy and drama can be blurred as well. In 1950 the Screenwriters Guild nominated All About Eve for best written drama and gave it the award for best written comedy, which is where I clearly place it.

I'd place Walk the Line firmly in the drama category, not the comedy category. For 2005 consideration, the films that come quickest to mind as best written comedies are Transamerica, The Family Stone, Thumbsucker, The Chumscrubber, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Casanova, Corpse Bride, Just Like Heaven and The Baxter as well as The Squid and the Whale to which most I'm sure would add The 40 Year-Old Virgin, The Wedding Crashers and Hitch.

[The Original BJ]

Yes, the line between original and adaptation is blurry, sometimes strangely so (Before Sunset is adapted because it's a sequel . . . but The Barbarian Invasions is original?).

But I prefer that method to drama/comedy mainly because I think it's very rare to have a year when the number of great comedy scripts is equal to the number of great drama scripts. The only year in recent memory I can think of with plenty of comedy scripts to nominate would be 2002.

And think about 2005's comedy slate! What would be the nominees? The Squid and the Whale? And then . . . ? What? Throw in musicals and you could have Walk the Line, although I think that's cheating since it's really a drama. You'd have an AWFULLY weak comedy slate while leaving out a good bunch of dramatic scripts, IMO.

[Big Magilla]

I do think there should be two awards for writers, but the distinction should be between comedy and drama as they were for many years in the screenwriters guild where in the case of clearly recognized adaptations, original authors were also named.

Now, see, I respectfully disagree with this, too. Why not differentiate, as well, between drama, comedy, musical, fantasy, horror, etc.

Better to keep it original vs. adapted, which is more clearly defined, imho.

Why not? At one time the Screenwriters Guild gave awards for best written western as well. It depends, though, on the number of films being produced in a particular genre. Why give an award for best written musical when only one or two or three films are eligible? Why not combine them with comedies, or in the rare instance of a tragic musical, with drama?

Clearly my opinion on this is in the minority, if indeed it is considered at all having already gone out of fashion.