Oscar Predictions Thread - TIFF to NBR

[Sabin]

flipp525 wrote
From a friend of mine:
“Saw I, Tonya last night.
It’s superb. Hilarious, smart, thoroughly entertaining. Margot Robbie is getting one of those five Best Actress slots. And Allison Janney is in it for the win for Supporting. As great as Laurie Metcalfe is in Lady Bird, LaVona Harding is a part of the ages.

I had a feeling about Margot Robbie. Also working in her favor: I basically want to call the New York Film Critic's Horndog Circle Award for her now.

Hearing about Janney is very interesting. Metcalf is fantastic in Lady Bird, but (to her credit) she isn't a scenario-chewing standout that voters seem to favor like. Which is not to say anything bad about Janney's performance, which I obviously haven't seen. Rather it would be out of place in Lady Bird.

flipp525 wrote
And I’m not worried about Call Me By Your Name. The film is brilliant. I predict six nominations (Picture, Director, Screenplay, Original Song, Actor, Supporting Actor).”

Does your friend say which Supporting Actor?

[flipp525]

From a friend of mine:

“Saw I, Tonya last night.

It’s superb. Hilarious, smart, thoroughly entertaining. Margot Robbie is getting one of those five Best Actress slots. And Allison Janney is in it for the win for Supporting. As great as Laurie Metcalfe is in Lady Bird, LaVona Harding is a part of the ages.

And I’m not worried about Call Me By Your Name. The film is brilliant. I predict six nominations (Picture, Director, Screenplay, Original Song, Actor, Supporting Actor).”

[Sabin]

OscarGuy wrote
I think it's unfair to lump Stronger in with Breathe. While the latter was derided for being one of a dozen better disability-as-inspiration films, the former was quite well received. Stronger's at 96% (7.7/10) on Rotten Tomatoes and 76 at MetaCritic. It made 10 times the amount Breathe made at the box office. Further, the 7.5 rating from IMDb users isn't bad (Breathe was 6.9). Neither have had cinemascores done since neither was a wide release.

If there's a film that could be buoyed by critics and Globe voters (and SAG), it's Stronger, especially Jake Gyllenhaal who received superlative notices and whom many are still chagrined about not receiving nominations for Nightcrawler and Nocturnal Animals. Which of course means the Academy might not be favorable. The only difference here is that his Stronger character is an incredibly sympathetic one, a type of role Academy voters would adore.

Well...you're right about some of this, but here's another different. Stronger's budget was twice as big as Breathe's. Stronger cost $30 mil and made a little over $5 mil, whereas Breathe cost $15 mil and made a little over $2 mil. They're both painful flops.

[Big Magilla]

Stronger and Breathe are both the type of film that struggles to find an audience in theatres these days and will probably become extinct in a few years when the only place to find them will be on cable TV or through streaming.

Sadly, with rare exception, the only films that make money at the box office these days are animated family films, cheaply made horror movies and CGI-laden spectaculars. That doesn't mean that films like these won't be looked at on screeners by the proverbial old Academy members who vote for Oscars. While it's true that busy, working Academy and SAG members don't have the time to look at anything but the highly publicized films they get on screeners, these older Academy and SAG members do. It doesn't mean they will vote for them, but they will give them a chance.

Jake Gyllenhaal probably has a better chance at a nomination than Andrew Garfield this year, but both could make the short list now that the bigger names of Tom Hanks, Daniel Day-Lewis, Denzel Washington and Hugh Jackman are not the sure things they seemed like earlier in the year.

[OscarGuy]

I think it's unfair to lump Stronger in with Breathe. While the latter was derided for being one of a dozen better disability-as-inspiration films, the former was quite well received. Stronger's at 96% (7.7/10) on Rotten Tomatoes and 76 at MetaCritic. It made 10 times the amount Breathe made at the box office. Further, the 7.5 rating from IMDb users isn't bad (Breathe was 6.9). Neither have had cinemascores done since neither was a wide release.

If there's a film that could be buoyed by critics and Globe voters (and SAG), it's Stronger, especially Jake Gyllenhaal who received superlative notices and whom many are still chagrined about not receiving nominations for Nightcrawler and Nocturnal Animals. Which of course means the Academy might not be favorable. The only difference here is that his Stronger character is an incredibly sympathetic one, a type of role Academy voters would adore.

[Big Magilla]

I think the one we're underestimating the most for Supporting Actress is Claire Foy as Andrew Garfield's supportive wife in Breathe. Granted, the film received mixed reviews and had no traction at the box-office, but will likely get attention on screeners from the legion of fans she picked up with The Crown.

Please bet me.

Sorry, I don't bet.

I said we were underestimating her. I didn't say she would actually receive a nomination, but I'd put her chances ahead of some of the names that have been mentioned here.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Even Harvey couldn't get him a nomination for Chicago.

That’s because they got greedy and pushed him for lead when his role was clearly supporting. If John C. Reilly could get nominated for supporting, Richard Gere could’ve won.

[Sonic Youth]

I think the one we're underestimating the most for Supporting Actress is Claire Foy as Andrew Garfield's supportive wife in Breathe. Granted, the film received mixed reviews and had no traction at the box-office, but will likely get attention on screeners from the legion of fans she picked up with The Crown.

Please bet me.

[Big Magilla]

Since we're dealing with long-shot candidates, in the category that REALLY needs one -- best actor -- is there any possibility for Richard Gere in Norman? He got good reviews, the movie did a not-hideous-for-a-cheap-indie $3.8 million, and I'd think Gere is a guy with enough personal industry relationships that he'd be a candidate for what's essentially a freebie slot.

Normally, of course, there'd be no chance, but the category beyond Oldman/Chalamet is as dire as I can remember. And he did show up at the Governors' Awards last night, which is what brought this to mind.

I think Sony Classics has a better chance of getting Jamie Bell a nod for Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool than they do of getting Gere one for that. Even Harvey couldn't get him a nomination for Chicago.

[Sabin]

The Original BJ wrote
The argument that people will discover it on screeners seems suspect -- most people in Hollywood barely get through their screeners of much-ballyhooed movies. They simply aren't watching the things no one is talking about.

True. People only watch what they feel they have to. Which is what puts Breathe and Stronger in a bad place. They aren’t just flops, they’re fraternal twin flops. But best actor is still very weak so they’re only hope is the Hollywood foreign press encouraging members of the Academy to feel obligated to watch the screeners. Still a very uphill battle.

Mister Tee wrote
Since we're dealing with long-shot candidates, in the category that REALLY needs one -- best actor -- is there any possibility for Richard Gere in Norman? He got good reviews, the movie did a not-hideous-for-a-cheap-indie $3.8 million, and I'd think Gere is a guy with enough personal industry relationships that he'd be a candidate for what's essentially a freebie slot.

This is a good prediction. Gere has been trying this route a bit recently with films like Arbitrage and Time Out of Mind. In fact, this movie has National Board of Review written all over it.

[Mister Tee]

Since we're dealing with long-shot candidates, in the category that REALLY needs one -- best actor -- is there any possibility for Richard Gere in Norman? He got good reviews, the movie did a not-hideous-for-a-cheap-indie $3.8 million, and I'd think Gere is a guy with enough personal industry relationships that he'd be a candidate for what's essentially a freebie slot.

Normally, of course, there'd be no chance, but the category beyond Oldman/Chalamet is as dire as I can remember. And he did show up at the Governors' Awards last night, which is what brought this to mind.

[The Original BJ]

Yeah, I just don't see much precedent for Breathe factoring into the race at all -- it was a box-office catastrophe, quite poorly reviewed (Metacritic is at a grisly 51), and backed by Bleecker Street, hardly a studio with much awards-season muscle.

The argument that people will discover it on screeners seems suspect -- most people in Hollywood barely get through their screeners of much-ballyhooed movies. They simply aren't watching the things no one is talking about.

[Mister Tee]

I think the one we're underestimating the most for Supporting Actress is Claire Foy as Andrew Garfield's supportive wife in Breathe. Granted, the film received mixed reviews and had no traction at the box-office, but will likely get attention on screeners from the legion of fans she picked up with The Crown.

"No traction at the box office" actually manages to understate the case:

46 48 Breathe (2017) BST $17,059 -57.1% 32 -26 $533 $454,343 - 5

This is beyond a dud; the film totally didn't happen. If there were no other candidates, your theory might hold...but there are plenty with stronger claims on the slot. I like Foy on The Crown, but for voters to nominate her for Breathe would be an argument the movie itself doesn't matter even 1%.

[Big Magilla]

Good point, but while I think a nomination is possible, a win is probably not in the cards.

[CalWilliam]

It would be so outrageous if she’d finally manage to win this category with a borderline lead role, again, for the fourth year in a row, if we consider Arquette a lead. We have two character actresses in the run, let’s hope common sense will prevail.