Three Weeks from Today

For the films of 2015
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by Greg »

For what it's worth, Creed currently has a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 143 reviews.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by The Original BJ »

Mister Tee wrote:I'll be interested, if anyone went to see this (BJ?), to find out if the film actually offers something special/worth noting, or if this is just more narrative generated by people far more interested in creating stories than in responding to films.
Warner Bros. has been pretty stingy with the Creed screenings -- maybe they figure enough people will see it in wide release, or maybe even they have been caught off guard by the sudden awards buzz.

Like you guys, I'm skeptical of some of this talk -- when I start reading arguments about how this is now a legit Best Picture candidate, I really wonder if we're in an era when any movie that makes any kind of decent cultural impact must be talked about in terms of Oscars. But, at the same time, I didn't at all expect an org like Slant Magazine to give the movie four stars, so I'm certainly willing to give it a shot and see what all the fuss is about.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by Mister Tee »

A real issue, in a year like this that's unusually uncertain, is how seriously to take passing blogger fancies, the latest of which is this "Sylvester Stallone is the front-runner for best supporting actor" thing.

Having been witness years back to the shocking Don Ameche win, I can't dismiss the idea out of hand. But it still feels more like the kind of thing younger folk who write about the Oscars can believe among themselves than something Oscar voters would actually do. (Kind of like Oprah's sure nomination/potential win for The Butler two years back.)

Let's stipulate: Creed got solid reviews (Ryan Coogler being a director of talent helped), it's a box office success, and Stallone came off charmingly on Colbert and will presumably do the same elsewhere as he continues to campaign. These are all assets. But tempering this is the fact that, even if Creed is the best Rocky film since the original, it's still seventh in a long line of movies Academy members long since ceased caring about. Many of the people who voted for Rocky in 1976 are, to put it bluntly, dead -- it was the Frank Capra crowd who most avidly supported the film back then. Those voters still alive from that era are more likely those furious about its win over the legendary Taxi Driver/All the President's Men/Network. Its main support now seems to be coming from those who weren't around during the original film (or films)'s run, who are nostalgic about the whole series of films they saw before they got old enough to realize what crud most of them were. I'm wondering if the bloggers touting the loudest fall into that category; they seem to have massive affection for Stallone himself, something I doubt carries over to older Academy members, who remember Stallone most as an arrogant know-it-all whose career quickly drifted, after that early Oscar exposure, into bad and worse films for the brain-dead crowd. To boot: would they really want to honor the man today just for resurrecting his original character one last time?

It's quite disheartening to see two retreads, Creed and the new Star Wars, getting so much attention and indulgence from audiences and critics. The originals opened about six months apart in '76/'77, and between them were a one-two punch that pretty much ended the bountiful 60s/70s era. What Star Wars wrought is easy to see -- special effects, comic book stories, kiddie sci-fi. What Rocky did was resurrect the old Hollywood idea of the happy ending. Look at all the movies from the late 60s through mid-70s that had downbeat endings but were still major box-office hits: Bonnie and Clyde, Midnight Cowboy, The Last Picture Show, A Clockwork Orange, Cabaret, The Godfather (I & II), Chinatown, Cuckoo's Nest, Dog Day Afternoon. It seems hyperbolic to accuse one film of ending that tradition single-handed, but look at what followed. Bummer endings largely vanished -- or films that offered them (like Raging Bull) disappointed commercially. Rocky's fairy-tale story arc (which actually stopped short of pure wish fulfillment, only giving Rocky a split decision) set the tone for most films of the 80s -- the unbelievably glorious ending became the norm in the Hollywood blockbuster, and to a large degree endures unto this day. Because of all this, I have no nostalgia whatever for Rocky/Stallone, and find all this talk of giving him an Oscar kind of depressing.

I'll be interested, if anyone went to see this (BJ?), to find out if the film actually offers something special/worth noting, or if this is just more narrative generated by people far more interested in creating stories than in responding to films.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by Big Magilla »

There seems to be a last minute push for Stallone in Creed, a film on nobody's radar - but how many Rocky fans are there out there? It's possible, but supporting actor is already a crowded field.
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

Putting the Mara issue aside for a minute... Is Stallone suddenly (and pretty much surprisingly) getting in the supporting actor race?
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by Okri »

flipp525 wrote:
Okri wrote:b) That stated, I fully expect at least one of Mara and Vikander to miss out because I think there will be enough people who rebel at nominating them (probably Mara) in supporting without enough people voting them for lead (as leading actress, even with their absence, is potent). Vikander’s supportive spouse will be more easily shoe-horned into supporting, whereas Mara’s romantic co-lead won’t (obviously, exceptions abound). The Golden Globes have obviously twisted this somewhat now. BJ, I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m not quite brushing this off – both benefit hugely if they get nominated in lead. But I actually think it’s more likely they get left off.
Harvey Weinstein REALLY doesn't want people to know Rooney Mara won Best Actress at Cannes.

Here's a new strategy to sell your leading lady as a supporting actress: actively undermine her by hiding all her accolades from the public.

Not only has Mara's Cannes victory (over Blanchett) been omitted from posters and trailers, but now it is also intentionally left out of the cast bio on the official website (http://carolfilm.com/cast/), where even Blanchett's awards for The Aviator are listed.

Harvey Weinstein has become a parody of his former self. The old Harvey would never have to resort to sabotaging the star of his own films to sell a fraudulent category placement. Whatever is going on, they are clearly trying to position Mara as a supporting actress contender no matter what kind of nascent media backlash is brewing about category fraud this year.
Holy shit. People, check out that link.

Not only is Mara's Cannes win not mentioned, her oscar nomination for GWTDT isn't either. Sarah Paulson's Independent Spirit Award victory as a member of an ensemble is mentioned. Jake Lacey's SAG nomination as part of The Office's cast is.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by flipp525 »

That's an excellent point, OG.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by OscarGuy »

I think Harvey needs to take a hint from himself. With Silver Linings Playbook, he managed to net four acting nominations in four categories. The next year, Annapurna/Fox managed the same feat with American Hustle. Not only is such a thing rare in Oscar history, to have it happen in such rapid succession from the same director means that "historical" context is a great opportunity than simply rote recitation of the past.

He could have the first double Best Actress nominee on his hands since Thelma & Louise. Now THAT's a way to sell it. That both are playing characters in a lesbian relationship would be a further historical victory. How much would he get to crow over something like that?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by flipp525 »

Okri wrote:b) That stated, I fully expect at least one of Mara and Vikander to miss out because I think there will be enough people who rebel at nominating them (probably Mara) in supporting without enough people voting them for lead (as leading actress, even with their absence, is potent). Vikander’s supportive spouse will be more easily shoe-horned into supporting, whereas Mara’s romantic co-lead won’t (obviously, exceptions abound). The Golden Globes have obviously twisted this somewhat now. BJ, I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m not quite brushing this off – both benefit hugely if they get nominated in lead. But I actually think it’s more likely they get left off.
Harvey Weinstein REALLY doesn't want people to know Rooney Mara won Best Actress at Cannes.

Here's a new strategy to sell your leading lady as a supporting actress: actively undermine her by hiding all her accolades from the public.

Not only has Mara's Cannes victory (over Blanchett) been omitted from posters and trailers, but now it is also intentionally left out of the cast bio on the official website (http://carolfilm.com/cast/), where even Blanchett's awards for The Aviator are listed.

Harvey Weinstein has become a parody of his former self. The old Harvey would never have to resort to sabotaging the star of his own films to sell a fraudulent category placement. Whatever is going on, they are clearly trying to position Mara as a supporting actress contender no matter what kind of nascent media backlash is brewing about category fraud this year.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by ITALIANO »

Okri wrote:a) Italiano, don't worry, your sanity is secure. You went from "there is no way The Dark Knight is getting nominated" to "In a better year, we wouldn't even be talking about it. But it's still not getting nominated." Not so much a change of mind as that flash of doubt.
Oh thanks, I feel better now :) ... That could have been me.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by Okri »

a) Italiano, don't worry, your sanity is secure. You went from "there is no way The Dark Knight is getting nominated" to "In a better year, we wouldn't even be talking about it. But it's still not getting nominated." Not so much a change of mind as that flash of doubt.

b) I also agree that the competition is not nearly as dire as 2008, though I wouldn't go to bat for Sicario in any real way.

c) Filmfan, I think the 2009 film we should compare Mad Max to is Star Trek. To be clear, I'm not predicting it.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by FilmFan720 »

I agree with most everything Mister Tee has said here about the Mad Max ridiculousness.

Comparing it to The Dark Knight's failure to get a nomination only points out the other obstacles Mad Max has. At this point in the season, The Dark Knight already had an almost sure-fire major nomination in the bag (Heath Ledger) and we all had the feeling like, due to the story around his performance, he was the front-runner to win the award. Mad Max doesn't have one of those, which puts it further behind in the race. The Dark Knight also had a much more mainstream support...it seemed people of all kinds, not just fanboys or film freaks, we talking about The Dark Knight as something special. Those of us who didn't love it were more in the so-so category; it was a fine film, but it wasn't anything special. Mad Max has as many Magilla-esque haters as it does rabid supporters. The Dark Knight also felt like something more familiar: it was a superhero film masking itself as a well-made urban crime thriller, rooted in realism. It was much more akin to The Fugitive than it is to Mad Max. In the current situation, it may have snuck in, but that is a much larger uphill climb.

If anyone wants to compare Mad Max to something, I would encourage them to look to District 9. There was a surprise hit, foreign made genre Summer film that managed to make it all the way to a Best Picture nomination. Of course, District 9 felt much literary than Mad Max does (you had the sense that there was a deeper meaning to all of this) and it also had the benefit of then Oscar-favorite Peter Jackson behind it, an endorsement that Mad Max doesn't have.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by Mister Tee »

ITALIANO wrote:
Okri wrote:
c) Italiano and Mister Tee spent all of the 2008 season explaining to us why The Dark Knight was not going to get nominated. Eventually, when they came around to the idea that it might,
If I really changed my mind and at some point said that it could be nominated for Best Picture - which I don't remember honestly - I must have definitely gone crazy :D Back then it was clearly impossible - with only five nominees. Today it's admittedly different, but, I mean, IF Mad Max Fury Road gets a Best Picture nod, even with ten spots potentially available, this isn't the same Academy I've known for decades.
I can't quite remember the sequence, but I can imagine us at least having a flash of doubt, after The Dark Knight finished second at the LA Critics, and got nominations from DGA, PGA and WGA, especially since we knew the only things that could block it were an equally atypical animated feature (Wall-E) or some dull thing nobody liked. As it turned out, they went for the dull thing instead -- The Reader -- but we'll never know how near a thing it was in such a moribund year.

I'm not sure I'd agree this is a similarly barren year such as to open the way for Mad Max. As BJ noted below, the past eight weeks or so have given us a fairly wide group of decently-reviewed movies that are right in the Academy wheelhouse: Sicario, Bridge of Spies, Room, Steve Jobs, Brooklyn, Spotlight -- it seems to me most all of these would rank above something like Mad Max in nomination-likelihood, and, as BJ also said, that's not including Carol, Inside Out or Youth, or any of the hot prospects yet to be unveiled. Only having to make a batch of 10 helps Mad Max, but the competition isn't nearly as dire as 2008.

I agree the NY critics won't do anything for the film, but LA especially has some wild-hair members -- people who seem to like to promote the off-Oscar-track candidates, whether Korean lead actresses or James Franco in Spring Break. It seems as if Mad Max has become an especial favorite of this group, and they may push it for prizes. I agree with Italiano, however: that, if it gets nominated, it will mark a clear break with the Academy as I've thought I've known it.

In terms of critics and countenancing voter fraud: I think there's very good chance the three legit groups vote for Mara and Vikander in the proper spots (if they vote for them at all). But those other myriad groups are mostly not really critics -- they're Oscar-blog devotees who band together to try and create a consensus. They're likely to take their cues from Tom O'Neil/Scott Feinberg/Kris Tapley, who have always been willing to dive right in with fraud (Mara & Vikander are Feinberg's top predictions). These groups got behind Steinfeld as supporting with no compunction, and I'm afraid they'll do the same this year unless they're made too embarrassed to do so.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by ITALIANO »

Okri wrote:
c) Italiano and Mister Tee spent all of the 2008 season explaining to us why The Dark Knight was not going to get nominated. Eventually, when they came around to the idea that it might,
If I really changed my mind and at some point said that it could be nominated for Best Picture - which I don't remember honestly - I must have definitely gone crazy :D Back then it was clearly impossible - with only five nominees. Today it's admittedly different, but, I mean, IF Mad Max Fury Road gets a Best Picture nod, even with ten spots potentially available, this isn't the same Academy I've known for decades.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Three Weeks from Today

Post by Okri »

Some scattered thoughts

a) I think it’s being VERY optimistic to presume that critics will fight against category fraud; is there really a breaking point? I’m flashing back to 2010, when Julianne Moore and Hailee Steinfeld were up for recognition. Focus Features campaigned Moore accurately – as a lead. She got some precursor attention, but not much (Golden Globe/comedy, BAFTA in lead) and of course missed out on Oscar recognition. Steinfeld, campaigning incorrectly, got a whole lot more and of course, got recognized in the supporting by AMPAS. Very few critics went out of their way to correct the Steinfeld situation and Moore hardly figured and I think that lesson became really hardwired.

b) That stated, I fully expect at least one of Mara and Vikander to miss out because I think there will be enough people who rebel at nominating them (probably Mara) in supporting without enough people voting them for lead (as leading actress, even with their absence, is potent). Vikander’s supportive spouse will be more easily shoe-horned into supporting, whereas Mara’s romantic co-lead won’t (obviously, exceptions abound). The Golden Globes have obviously twisted this somewhat now. BJ, I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m not quite brushing this off – both benefit hugely if they get nominated in lead. But I actually think it’s more likely they get left off.

c) Italiano and Mister Tee spent all of the 2008 season explaining to us why The Dark Knight was not going to get nominated. Eventually, when they came around to the idea that it might, it was couched in all sorts of caveats about how 2008 was the only year it could get nominated. So, in that spirit, if a Mad Max: Fury Road was to ever get nominated, this would be the year. I could imagine it getting enough specific love and I could even see critics groups going for it as nominees/runners-up. Or if National Society/LA feels like it. Not New York. Nothing really seems to be grabbing people by the lapels like we’ve had in years past. But it’s not getting nominated for best picture/anything above the title. Maybe the PGA gives it a courtesy nomination.

d) All this talk about the box office is intriguing, but I’m wondering to what extent it will actually have a role. I don’t know why Steve Jobs will end up with a gross closer to Boyle’s 127 Hours as opposed to The Social Network. And I don’t think the studios know why either. I don’t think you can just blame the October deluge. But then I flash back to The Monuments Men. It got a mid-winter release last year. And it made nearly 80 million dollars. Now, in many respects, that’s just Oceans 11 in WWII with art (starry cast, lighthearted storytelling) and of course, it made ½ what the earlier movie made, so let’s not bring in the applause just yet. But I wonder – would Sicario make more if it had been released in early summer (post-Cannes)? With a number of films underperforming, to what extent does box office actually matter?

e) I’m more interested in seeing if the best picture field shrinks this year or not.
Post Reply

Return to “88th Predictions and Precursors”