LA Critics Winners

For the films of 2018
nightwingnova
Assistant
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by nightwingnova »

Lost track of the discussion on leading/supporting classification. This is the latest post I found.

Just saw The Favourite.

My brief analysis of the size of Olivia's Colman's role - she gets perhaps as much screen time as her female co-leads; while she is the center of the action, she really serves as background for the fighting; while she conveys a complex character, she is nowhere near the amount of varied substantive activity as the other actresses; she doesn't really participate in the action as much.

My verdict: while there is precedence for a short performance to hang over a movie and to dominate the action so much even when s/he is not on film (i.e., Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs) that it has justified leading classification, as good as Colman is, this doesn't feel like it. I would go with Colman as featured actress. The movie is more about her favorites fighting over her rather than about her.

Mister Tee wrote:
dws1982 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote: Best actress seems a muddle, not least because many, like these critics, aren't certain if Colman is lead or not. Something like six different actresses have won awards so far. it's always possible that, like last year, the TV awards could hand down an edict and wreck the suspense, but right now this looks like a race that could stay interesting.
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

rolotomasi99 wrote:You are repeating exactly what I asked MaxWilder: Is box-office success or failure being used as a baromoter of what movies Academy voters are enjoying (like BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY), or is box-office an arbiter of quality (i.e. only bad movies fail and only good movies succeed) which actually influences Academy voters' tastes. You have clarified your viewpoint, while MaxWilder has not. That is literally all I wanted to know! :cry:
I agree with Mister Tee and Precious Doll. They did a good job explaining how/why/when box office matters to Oscar voters.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:None of this is because people disregard their own opinions and check the gross chart before marking ballots (way to build a straw man, rolo). They happen because, even in this benighted age of pre-sold franchises, there's some relationship between how audiences respond to a film (recommending their friends to go see it) and how Academy voters vote -- i.e., they'll vote for things they like, and their tastes aren't a galaxy away from those of general audience.
You are repeating exactly what I asked MaxWilder: Is box-office success or failure being used as a baromoter of what movies Academy voters are enjoying (like BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY), or is box-office an arbiter of quality (i.e. only bad movies fail and only good movies succeed) which actually influences Academy voters' tastes. You have clarified your viewpoint, while MaxWilder has not. That is literally all I wanted to know! :cry:
Mister Tee wrote:I think Grant certainly CAN still win -- and I'd be delighted if he did. But he's got factors working against him, and his film's failure to catch fire at the box-office is chief among them. If you think that box-office is 100% irrelevant, you haven't been watching the same years of Oscar history I have.
Not to start up another argument, but I thought the reason we almost had to endure a Best Popular Film category at this year's Oscars was because the Academy has been ignoring box-office for the films they reward lately.
Precious Doll wrote:I think its perceptive of failure that plays a part too.
This is such a great point. BLACK KLANSMAN made $48 million domestically and $40 million overseas and is considered a success while FIRST MAN will end up making around $45 million domestically and $55 million overseas but is a failure. The difference is the former had a $15 million budget and was considered a difficult sell while the latter had a $59 million budget and seemed like a surefire populist film. The same thing with WIDOWS which will probably earn more than BLACK KLANSMAN both domestically and internationally, but its $42 million budget makes it seem like a failure. As you said, Precious Doll, it is more about perception than actual numbers.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Precious Doll »

Mister Tee wrote:
I don't get why people would even question the relationship between box office and awards. We've talked for weeks here about how First Man and Widows -- each with a Metacritic score of 84, the same as Get Out last year -- have faded as awards hopefuls, because they've fizzled commercially. And, conversely, how Bohemian Rhapsody is soaring as a possibility because of its unexpected near $200 million gross...with many thinking Mary Poppins Returns, a dire 67 on Metacritic, could make the best picture list as well, because it's thought a likely smash hit. It's not exactly a secret that films perceived to be successful (relative to their niche -- $40-50 million for indies like Three Billboards or Lady Bird is considered boffo) often do well with Oscar voters, while films that crash and burn (like Detroit) don't.
I think its perceptive of failure that plays a part too.

As per Box Office Mojo (which one should keep in mind shows lower actual b.o. results because some countries b.o. is only reported to a certain level - once the film is out of the top ten or twenty or thirty, then they stop reporting the figures but I admit that it doesn't make a huge difference):

First Man: Worldwide gross $100,503 million against a budget of $59 million (+ advertising costs?) (44.6% gross US, 55.4% international)
Widows: Worldwide gross $67,108 million against a budget of $42 million (+ advertising costs?)(59% gross US, 41% international)

I think the general rule of thumb is a film should make roughly 3 times it cost at the global box-office to 'break even', but the ultimate outcome of profitability is more complex than that. For example the studio's get more of the cut from the US box office than they do from the international box office.

They may come near to at least recouping their cost with ancillary earnings (downloading, physical media, TV, etc). I think the biggest handicap that both films faced is that audiences were very mixed on them. Though they both made very decent amounts of money they are perceived as flops due to their budgets against their respective box office.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? would have been made on a much lower budget and as yet to hit most of the international market. I can understand it perceived as a failure box office wise but I get the impression that audience reaction to the film is less divided.

I'm hopeless at predicting what a film is going to make at the box-office but I find it fascinating looking at the end result on a global level. I cannot begin to stress how important global box office is nowadays.

If there is a success story against the odds this year it has to be Bohemian Rhapsody.

Bad publicity during the making, ho-hum trailer(s) that barely hinted at Freddie Mercury's sexuality and then lots of negative reviews. On a modest budget of $50 the film has amassed $604,873 reported as of now (US $176,298 million, international $428,575) 29.1% vs. 70.9%. Its still number one in South Korea since it opened on 1 November and made another $5 million there last weekend. The only thing stopping the film making $1 billion worldwide is that the Chinese 'market' is not familiar with Queen. Prior to the films release who would ever have guessed that this film would recite a SAG ensemble nomination. But kudos that saw it coming because I've not come across another film that, despite its mediocracy, is already beloved by the movie-going public virtually around the world.

Its another example of 'perception'.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8636
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

Boy, a whole lot of vitriol was spilled here in reaction to one offhand comment I made. Let me respond to some of it:

I don't get why people would even question the relationship between box office and awards. We've talked for weeks here about how First Man and Widows -- each with a Metacritic score of 84, the same as Get Out last year -- have faded as awards hopefuls, because they've fizzled commercially. And, conversely, how Bohemian Rhapsody is soaring as a possibility because of its unexpected near $200 million gross...with many thinking Mary Poppins Returns, a dire 67 on Metacritic, could make the best picture list as well, because it's thought a likely smash hit. It's not exactly a secret that films perceived to be successful (relative to their niche -- $40-50 million for indies like Three Billboards or Lady Bird is considered boffo) often do well with Oscar voters, while films that crash and burn (like Detroit) don't.

None of this is because people disregard their own opinions and check the gross chart before marking ballots (way to build a straw man, rolo). They happen because, even in this benighted age of pre-sold franchises, there's some relationship between how audiences respond to a film (recommending their friends to go see it) and how Academy voters vote -- i.e., they'll vote for things they like, and their tastes aren't a galaxy away from those of general audience.

Of course, there are occasional films or performances that manage to win major Oscars in spite of their films falling short commercially. Generally, those efforts are boosted by significant showings at critics' awards. The Hurt Locker was the rare film that swept the old-line NY/LA/National Critics' groups (and even many of the second- and third-tier fell in line for it); this enabled it to prevail despite being the lowest-grossing best picture winner since the 50s. (It also helped that its chief rival Avatar, was clearly -- beyond all the 3-D effects -- not a serious movie.)

Some actors cited here fell into the same category. Christoper Plummer, advantaged from the start by his association with the most famous movie of the 60s, won the vast majority of critics' awards given out in 2011 (the person who won the rest, Albert Brooks, wasn't even nominated for his Academy-unfriendly Drive); this helped him march virtually unopposed to the win at the Oscars. Jim Broadbent didn't have that same sort of sweep, but he did have, as others have pointed out, two other Oscar-nominated films on his resume that year, films that WERE box-office successes -- and even with that, recall he lost SAG to Ian McKellen, for the far more widely-seen Lord of the Rings.

Richard E. Grant is wonderful in Can You Ever Forgive Me?, but his film -- starring a beloved woman who's been a number one box-office champion -- has struggled to manage a $7 million gross. That's worse than The Wife (itself no great shakes commercially), and well under movies like Carol or The Danish Girl. This suggests, for whatever reason, some audience resistance to the film, and it'd be silly not to expect some of that resistance to carry over to Academy voters. The best hope Grant would have to battle past that would be to storm through the critics' groups. And all my original comment meant to point out was that, though he'd won a few prizes, he wasn't managing the overwhelming wave that, say, J.K. Simmons achieved. There are other candidates (Elliott, Ali, Driver) that could manage to top him, and the fact that their films are considerably more widely seen will be a help to them. Which was all my original comment said.

I think Grant certainly CAN still win -- and I'd be delighted if he did. But he's got factors working against him, and his film's failure to catch fire at the box-office is chief among them. If you think that box-office is 100% irrelevant, you haven't been watching the same years of Oscar history I have.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Precious Doll »

MaxWilder wrote: Timothee Chalamet may be the internet’s boyfriend but that doesn’t mean anything in real life. I’m talking about the kind of popularity one builds over years of working and working well with others. The Oscars are an industry award, you know.
I suppose the only missing ingredient in this discussion of Eddie Murphy's lose is who he lost to: Alan Arkin.

Alan Arkin: a much respected former leading man (in the 60s/70s), now character actor, very much liked by the industry, appearing in a successful well received film (Little Miss Sunshine) and giving the sort of performance in a supporting role that the Academy are comfortable to reward.

I don't and never did buy any of that Norbit stuff in relation to Murphy losing. It was just a blip that appeared at the time, everyone in Hollywood has them. It was a combination of Murphy having burnt some bridges over the years (i.e. enough people in the Academy don't like him), his film didn't receive an expected Best Picture nomination didn't help him (which Little Miss Sunshine did and that probably helped Arkin a little bit) and they simply preferred to give the award to Alan Arkin when weighing him up with Murphy.

In the end the Academy had more reasons to give that award to Arkin over Murphy. have to admit that I was shocked that some people were predicting Murphy, but everyone has their own internal logic. I would have voted for Jackie Earl Haley myself.
Last edited by Precious Doll on Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

rolotomasi99 wrote:
MaxWilder wrote:Eddie Murphy lost because people don't like him all that much. (If there's an Oscar myth, it's that voters consider only the performance. This works the other way, too. Allison Janney won because she's The Beloved Allison Janney.)
Hmmmm. I failed to consider the "likability" factor. Using that metric, it seems we have a good idea of who the winners in each acting category will be just based on their reputation as genuinely beloved people:
Melissa McCarthy
Rami Malek
Timothee Chalamet
Emma Stone
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Not that popularity could be one factor, particularly in a close race, but that it’s the only factor. Thank you for understanding me so perfectly! :D

Your joke predictions aren’t even right, by the way. Hollywood likes the hell out of Bradley Cooper. If/when he wins best actor he’s going to get the loudest applause of the night.

Timothee Chalamet may be the internet’s boyfriend but that doesn’t mean anything in real life. I’m talking about the kind of popularity one builds over years of working and working well with others. The Oscars are an industry award, you know.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by rolotomasi99 »

MaxWilder wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:No, but just like folks saying NORBIT cost Eddie Murphy his Oscar, I find these Oscar myths silly and am surprised to see anyone on this board perpetuating them. If you feel passionately enough to keep repeating it, I feel passionately enough to ask you why. :wink:
Eddie Murphy lost because people don't like him all that much. (If there's an Oscar myth, it's that voters consider only the performance. This works the other way, too. Allison Janney won because she's The Beloved Allison Janney.)
Hmmmm. I failed to consider the "likability" factor. Using that metric, it seems we have a good idea of who the winners in each acting category will be just based on their reputation as genuinely beloved people:
Melissa McCarthy
Rami Malek
Timothee Chalamet
Emma Stone
MaxWilder wrote:I didn't invoke this supposed rule; I just piped up because I thought your counter-argument was weak. Look at all the wins/noms Vikander received for Ex Machina, which came out the same year as The Danish Girl. Surely that helped her candidacy. You need to take a broader view.
Seems like she should have won for EX MACHINA then since it was much more successful with audiences and critics.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

rolotomasi99 wrote:No, but just like folks saying NORBIT cost Eddie Murphy his Oscar, I find these Oscar myths silly and am surprised to see anyone on this board perpetuating them. If you feel passionately enough to keep repeating it, I feel passionately enough to ask you why. :wink:
Eddie Murphy lost because people don't like him all that much. (If there's an Oscar myth, it's that voters consider only the performance. This works the other way, too. Allison Janney won because she's The Beloved Allison Janney.)

I didn't invoke this supposed rule; I just piped up because I thought your counter-argument was weak. Look at all the wins/noms Vikander received for Ex Machina, which came out the same year as The Danish Girl. Surely that helped her candidacy. You need to take a broader view.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by rolotomasi99 »

MaxWilder wrote:Relax.

I didn’t think your Broadbent/Vikander examples were good. Suddenly it’s “my rule” that commercially underwhelming movies can’t and shouldn’t win Oscars?
No, but just like folks saying NORBIT cost Eddie Murphy his Oscar, I find these Oscar myths silly and am surprised to see anyone on this board perpetuating them. If you feel passionately enough to keep repeating it, I feel passionately enough to ask you why. :wink:
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

Relax.

I didn’t think your Broadbent/Vikander examples were good. Suddenly it’s “my rule” that commercially underwhelming movies can’t and shouldn’t win Oscars?
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by rolotomasi99 »

MaxWilder wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:Sure, Plummer was a living legend, but Broadbent was as well known in Hollywood at that point as Grant is now. Similarly, Alicia Vikander (a nobody at the time) won in Supporting Actress for a film which earned $11 million.
Grant may not win, but I highly doubt the film's box-office performance will have anything to do with the Oscar voters' decision.
One box office total doesn't tell the whole story. Broadbent was also in Bridget Jones and Moulin Rouge that year, and Iris had the Miramax machine behind it. The Danish Girl starred the reigning Best Actor winner and was Tom Hooper's follow-up to the The King's Speech and Les Miz. Vikander was also in Ex Machina that year, earning double nominations at both GG and BAFTA.
So those folks were able to overcome low box-office due to the various factors you describe which have nothing to do with their performance, but Grant is unable to do the same thing?

Help me to understand your low box-office = no Oscar rule. Do you think the box-office is low because no one likes the movie and think Grant is undeserving of an Oscar; or a low box-office indicates not enough people in the Academy (a group of folks who rarely pay to see films thanks to screenings and screeners) actually saw the movie in order to give Grant the votes needed to win; or a low box-office is so shameful to Academy members that even if they saw the movie and loved Grant's performance they feel he should be punished because his low budget film failed to make a large profit? :?

The first two scenarios I can maybe believe, but are not as huge of hurdles as some around here seem to think. The third scenarios is so stupid I find it hard to believe anyone around here is actually arguing that...and yet I keep reading about how this movie or that actor is going to miss out on a nomination simply because it was deemed a box-office disappointment. I guess I figured THE HURT LOCKER beating AVATAR finally put that ridiculous theory to rest.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by rolotomasi99 »

OscarGuy wrote:Richard E. Grant isn't well known in Hollywood? He's been a respected character actor since the 1980s. He's a "That Guy" and certainly has more of the profile of a J.K. Simmons than anyone since Simmons. With over 120 credits, he's worked with tons of actors in Hollywood. I'd say he's got a real shot at SAG and probably the Oscar.
Not to mention BAFTA, considering he is well loved by his fellow Brits.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by OscarGuy »

Richard E. Grant isn't well known in Hollywood? He's been a respected character actor since the 1980s. He's a "That Guy" and certainly has more of the profile of a J.K. Simmons than anyone since Simmons. With over 120 credits, he's worked with tons of actors in Hollywood. I'd say he's got a real shot at SAG and probably the Oscar.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

rolotomasi99 wrote:Sure, Plummer was a living legend, but Broadbent was as well known in Hollywood at that point as Grant is now. Similarly, Alicia Vikander (a nobody at the time) won in Supporting Actress for a film which earned $11 million.
Grant may not win, but I highly doubt the film's box-office performance will have anything to do with the Oscar voters' decision.
One box office total doesn't tell the whole story. Broadbent was also in Bridget Jones and Moulin Rouge that year, and Iris had the Miramax machine behind it. The Danish Girl starred the reigning Best Actor winner and was Tom Hooper's follow-up to the The King's Speech and Les Miz. Vikander was also in Ex Machina that year, earning double nominations at both GG and BAFTA.
Post Reply

Return to “91st Academy Awards”