The effect of the expanded Best Picture field

[Big Magilla]

Dave Poland makes some interesting points counter-balancing Mark Harris' argument.

http://moviecitynews.com/2014/01/20w2o- ... -response/

[FilmFan720]

Mightn't alot of this be chalked up to the fact that so many films were classified comedies at the Golden Globes, allowing them to cover the bases more throughly than usual?

Also, it seems like alot of the screenplays you cite from previous years were ineligible at WGA, where this year most of the strongest contenders (12 Years aside) were in the running.

Interesting trend, though.

It could be chalked up to the comedies, except all of the lead acting nominees had at least 2 of the 3 big precursors (Golden Globe, SAG or BAFTA), so its not like anyone is squeezing in on here due to the luck of being a Comedy at the Golden Globes.

For the WGA, I didn't take those into consideration, but I also took into consideration BAFTA and Golden Globes, so its not like they didn't have chances to show up other places.

[Mister Tee]

Interesting to note:

For this, I am considering the precursors as the organizations that overlap with Oscar voters (PGA, DGA, SAG, WGA, BAFTA) and the Golden Globes, since they are probably the highest profile other organization. I am not including any critics groups.

In the Top 8 categories, this year only saw one nomination that didn't have a corresponding precursor (Jonah Hill)

Last year saw 5 nominees with no precursor (Amour, Q. Wallis, Jacki Weaver, David O. Russell and Benh Zeitlin)

2011 had 6 nominees with no precursors (Extremely Loud, Tree of Life, Terrence Malick, Max von Sydow, A Separation screenplay, Margin Call screenplay)

2010 had 4 with No Precursors (Winter's Bone, Coen Bros., Another Year, Winter's Bone screenplay)

2009 had 3 (Blind Side, Maggie Gyllenhaal, The Messenger Screenplay)

2008 had 4 (Michael Shannon and 3 Original Screenplays! WallE, Frozen River and Happy Go Lucky)

2007 had 5 (Jason Reitman, Tommy Lee Jones, Laura Linney, Ratatouille screenplay, Away from Her screenplay)

I didn't look any further back, but this year does seem like a year with a little more consensus than usual (and odd for such a strong year). The Oscars still rejected some guild favorites (Hanks, Greengrass, Bruhl) but only had one original idea of its own (and you could chalk that up to Wolf's late opening/screening).

Mightn't alot of this be chalked up to the fact that so many films were classified comedies at the Golden Globes, allowing them to cover the bases more throughly than usual?

Also, it seems like alot of the screenplays you cite from previous years were ineligible at WGA, where this year most of the strongest contenders (12 Years aside) were in the running.

Interesting trend, though.

[Big Magilla]

this year's Miss Entitlement, Cate Blanchett

She is really your bête noire this year, isn't she?

I watched it a second time on DVD, thinking maybe I missed something the first time around, but nope. I still think Sally Hawkins gives the best performance, though Blanchett is technically proficient as usual but I still don't think it's a performance that should steamroll through awards season.

Maybe she'll let Judi Dench hold her Best Actress Oscar at one of the after parties.

You mean as a thank you for allowing Blanchett to touch all her BAFTA citations when she visited her home?

[flipp525]

this year's Miss Entitlement, Cate Blanchett

She is really your bête noire this year, isn't she? Maybe she'll let Judi Dench hold her Best Actress Oscar at one of the after parties.

[FilmFan720]

Interesting to note:

For this, I am considering the precursors as the organizations that overlap with Oscar voters (PGA, DGA, SAG, WGA, BAFTA) and the Golden Globes, since they are probably the highest profile other organization. I am not including any critics groups.

In the Top 8 categories, this year only saw one nomination that didn't have a corresponding precursor (Jonah Hill)

Last year saw 5 nominees with no precursor (Amour, Q. Wallis, Jacki Weaver, David O. Russell and Benh Zeitlin)

2011 had 6 nominees with no precursors (Extremely Loud, Tree of Life, Terrence Malick, Max von Sydow, A Separation screenplay, Margin Call screenplay)

2010 had 4 with No Precursors (Winter's Bone, Coen Bros., Another Year, Winter's Bone screenplay)

2009 had 3 (Blind Side, Maggie Gyllenhaal, The Messenger Screenplay)

2008 had 4 (Michael Shannon and 3 Original Screenplays! WallE, Frozen River and Happy Go Lucky)

2007 had 5 (Jason Reitman, Tommy Lee Jones, Laura Linney, Ratatouille screenplay, Away from Her screenplay)

I didn't look any further back, but this year does seem like a year with a little more consensus than usual (and odd for such a strong year). The Oscars still rejected some guild favorites (Hanks, Greengrass, Bruhl) but only had one original idea of its own (and you could chalk that up to Wolf's late opening/screening).

[Big Magilla]

I doesn't appear that way to me.

[Greg]

I suspect that Saving Mr. Banks and Inside Llewyn Davis came closer than anything else to taking the tenth slot had there been one, but both films general lack of support in most categories mystifies me.

Considering how the nominations in other categories for non-Best-Picture-nominated films went, it appears that Blue Jasmine would have taken the tenth slot.

[Big Magilla]

I suspect that Saving Mr. Banks and Inside Llewyn Davis came closer than anything else to taking the tenth slot had there been one, but both films general lack of support in most categories mystifies me. I still think that both films were some people's idea of the year's best film whereas Captain Phillips still strikes me as an also-ran. I'm not sure if this is an exact quote, but as this year's Miss Entitlement, Cate Blanchett, said of her SAG win, "to those of you ho voted for me, thank you. For those of you who didn't, better luck next year."

[OscarGuy]

I think Saving Mr. Banks had the Captain Phillips effect you had been championing all season. You had said of Capt. Phillips that you didn't think it would top enough ballots to be selected and would end up second banana on too many to be in contention. I think Mr. Banks may have been in that unenviable position.

Having seen the film, it seemed like just the kind of film Academy voters would celebrate because it was such a rosy picture of Hollywood. Except the problem that most of the people knew or were frequently made aware of was the fact that it was a Hollywood snow job. Disney played fast-and-loose with the facts and almost everyone talked about that, at least critics. Disney certain spent a ton marketing that film and, as I posited to someone on Facebook, had they put their marketing instead into the budget for getting Frozen nominated for Best Picture, they might have actually succeeded.

Anyway, I doubt we should have ever considered Meryl's remarks to be against the campaign since the NBR awards were on a Tuesday evening and Oscar balloting ended the next day. Most of the ballots that would have been cast already had been and no amount of publicity would have shot it to the top, I'm afraid.

[Big Magilla]

Rush and Fruitvale Station were not major studio productions. There may not have been any money available to promote Rush beyond sending out the screener. Fruitvale Station was one of too many films Harvey had to shuffle. Something was going to get hurt.

The Butler was not a very good movie despite its box office. Oprah's hammy performance was not Oscar worthy. However if Harvey didn't have the year-end releases of Philomena and August: Osage County to concentrate on, his publicity machine would likely have worked overtime to get the film nominated in various categories.

Saving Mr. Banks, though, is something of a head-scratcher. It's difficult to figure out what went wrong, aide from the fact that not many people liked what they saw, which doesn't necessarily hurt a film. No film this year was more hated than The Wolf of Wall Street which obviously has more supporters than detractors.

Although I never bought into the hubbub that Banks would be the one to beat, I did think it would be nominated in several categories including Best Picture. Was it that voters did not want to award a film about Hollywood three years in a row? Were they turned off by the over-selling of the film? Or was it simply that they found the best part of the film was the nostalgia for Mary Poppins itself rather than anything new the film offered? A lot of people have remarked on the structure of the film, complaining about the back-and-forth between the then present and the past. I doubt Meryl Streep's anti-Disney diatribe at the NBR awards had much effect as it came late in the balloting.

[Heksagon]

Valid points in this topic, and it needs to be remembered that shut-outs for The Butler and Saving Mr. Banks can't be explained by saying that people didn't see the films. But for other films, it may be the case.

Does anyone here think that there is any truth in the argument that because Oscar campaigning is nowadays much more expensive, studios no longer bother to campaign properly for films that have, at best, a shot at a supporting actor or actress nomination?

I mean, it makes sense to me that with films like Rush or Fruitvale Station, studios would just decide that an uncertain supporting nomination is not worth the cost of a fully committed Oscar campaign.

It's one of the regrettable effects of the expanded Best Picture slate that with so many Best Picture nominees out there, nominations in other categories are even less valuable in marketing.

[Greg]

The article mentions how this year's Best Picture nominees dominate the nominations in all the "big" categories, but failed to mention one anomaly. The categories that are most linked to the overall success of a film are directing, writing, acting, film editing, and cinematography. The majority of nominees in all these categories come from Best Picture nominees save one, cinematography. Here, only two of the five nominees are from Best Picture nominees; and, the other nominees come from two films where cinematography is the film's sole nominee plus one film that only managed one other tech nomination.

[Big Magilla]

I think Hanks would have been a better choice than Bale; Thompson a better choice than Streep and Spencer a better choice than Roberts, but I can't really feel sorry for any multi-millionaire A-lister being left out in favor of another. Even Spencer, who is not quite in that category, isn't likely to suffer a career disadvantage for lack of another nomination. What I find perplexing is another topic Harris touched on, the rote pile-on of actors who are nominated just for being in the same film as another actor whose nomination is more deserved. Bale, Cooper and even Adams to keep Lawrence company and Hill to compliment DiCaprio are prime examples of this. Sure, this has occurred in the past, but not to the extent it seems to be happening the last couple of years.

[The Original BJ]

The problem with that argument is that shouldn't films released in the first half of the year have a little bit of an advantage there?

I have to say, the bird-in-the-hand rule didn't provide the help it usually does this year. Part of this, obviously, is the result of a competitive year in which so many of the late-breaking candidates were greeted with genuine enthusiasm. But it's worth noting...

I saw Fruitvale Station the day after the George Zimmerman verdict was handed down, and the context had me thinking, this could very well be a Best Picture nominee simply based on the cultural immediacy of its subject matter. Michael B. Jordan was probably always too young for Best Actor, but Octavia Spencer seemed a very possible nominee, as did the script. In the end, the movie didn't make it past the Independent Spirits.

The Butler, to me, was an even more curious shut-out. Not that the shut-out bothered me or anything, but a decades-spanning historical drama with civil rights themes that became a big box office hit? Doesn't that sound like a Best Picture nominee to you? And Oprah was widely talked about as a win candidate in early fall.

Speaking of folks talked about as win candidates...Robert Redford! Obviously, I doubted his candidacy all season long, but he was talked about by many as a possible Best Actor victor, and plenty of people were ready to put that nomination in ink as soon as the movie opened.

Even Tom Hanks -- though simply squeezed out by an over-crowded Best Actor field -- would qualify. He was one of the first Best Actor candidates out of the gate, giving by far his most acclaimed performance in over a decade, in a highly praised box office hit. Who would have thought back in October he wouldn't be among the five?

Again, I'm not arguing that there was anything WRONG with these omissions -- frankly, I'm glad the year-end openers were given their due, especially because quality-wise so many of them were so good. But it is worth noting that so many candidates we had already seen that seemed strong were upended, something which tends not to happen as often as it did this year.