DGA Nominees

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I expect the five PGA nominees to be the five Oscar nominees, but if any of them are vulnerable it's probably Ron Howard.

In preferential balloting where he might be expected to come out fourth or fifth on people's lists of five a la the DGA, the Broadcast Critics and the Golden Globes, his placement was expected, but given AMPAS' odd ballot counting, he would have to be the number one or two choice on a lot of ballots. But if not Howard, who?
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Zahveed wrote:What if Frost/Nixon fell off instead of Milk or The Dark Knight. Certainly the latter two are on weaker ground, but Frost/Nixon falls in a generally accepted field whereas the other films have sects of those that are sincerely passionate about it.

Alot of people are arguing this, on the "who could really LOVE Frost/Nixon?" basis. But I'd have said much the same about The Hours, Master and Commander, Ray -- it was mind-boggling to me more people would go to the wall for any of those as the year's best film than for, say, Far from Heaven, In America or Eternal Sunshine.

But, apparently, there's a pocket of voters who like their movies serenely unchallenging. It's like that famous Sen. Roman Hruska line about a Supreme Court nominee -- "Okay, he's mediocre...but there are alot of mediocre people out there; they deserve representation, too"

Frost/Nixon has, in fact, run the precursor table 100%. I don't bet against precedent like that.




Edited By Mister Tee on 1231450254
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

rolotomasi99 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:And, please, keep in mind: Wall E was literally ineligible for DGA and WGA, left out for obvious reasons by SAG, and probably omitted because of the animation category at PGA. This "other category" issue may keep it from an Academy best picture nomination as well, but we can't know that for sure, and I'd say there hasn't been sufficient testing for people to be so adamant that the big five are set.

WALL-E is really the wild card here. we cannot really judge its support in hollywood accurately since it is ineligible for so many guild awards. if the academy did not have a feature animated category, i would say WALL-E definitely has a good chance at best picture. unfortunately, it is that animated category which could keep it from going all the way.
I agree with all this. I'll also stipulate that Wall E at this point is the only thing standing in the way of The Dark Knight as a best picture nominee (best director, I'm not so sold).

In certain ways, Wall E has a definite edge on Dark Knight: it's an original, not part of an ongoing series; it's won a major critics' best picture award; and it's of a genre (animation) that has at least once in the past yielded a best picture nod (as opposed to a comic book film). But the post-2000 existence of the animated category may render all those advantages moot.
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

What if Frost/Nixon fell off instead of Milk or The Dark Knight. Certainly the latter two are on weaker ground, but Frost/Nixon falls in a generally accepted field whereas the other films have sects of those that are sincerely passionate about it.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:And, please, keep in mind: Wall E was literally ineligible for DGA and WGA, left out for obvious reasons by SAG, and probably omitted because of the animation category at PGA. This "other category" issue may keep it from an Academy best picture nomination as well, but we can't know that for sure, and I'd say there hasn't been sufficient testing for people to be so adamant that the big five are set.
WALL-E is really the wild card here. we cannot really judge its support in hollywood accurately since it is ineligible for so many guild awards. if the academy did not have a feature animated category, i would say WALL-E definitely has a good chance at best picture. unfortunately, it is that animated category which could keep it from going all the way.
"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
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

rolotomasi99 wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:Rolo, I think you're playing revisionist history with respect to '06. Everyone on the planet predicted the same five nominees this year...but then come Oscar morning Iwo Jima was a nominee and Dreamgirls was not.

As for films that received all four Guild noms but missed Oscar, Being John Malkovich and Almost Famous, the latter of which even WON the Globe, are two examples.

ALMOST FAMOUS and BEING JOHN MALCOVICH are great examples. thank you.

i really thought there were other people on this board besides just me and italiano who thought DREAMGIRLS would not be nominated for best picture. i would also say there was nothing special about my predicting LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA knocking DREAMGIRLS out the oscar line up. i was just lucky enough to have seen both films before the nominations were announced. i think if everyone else had the same opportunity, more people would have made the same prediction.

I would still love to see a post from back then where this prediction was laid out. Not necessarily because I don't believe you, but I just seriously can't recall anyone but Italiano tooting that horn on here. Or maybe it's just that he brought it up so many times afterwards that all memory of someone else saying it has been washed away.




Edited By flipp525 on 1231448616
"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
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

The Original BJ wrote:Rolo, I think you're playing revisionist history with respect to '06. Everyone on the planet predicted the same five nominees this year...but then come Oscar morning Iwo Jima was a nominee and Dreamgirls was not.

As for films that received all four Guild noms but missed Oscar, Being John Malkovich and Almost Famous, the latter of which even WON the Globe, are two examples.
ALMOST FAMOUS and BEING JOHN MALCOVICH are great examples. thank you.

i really thought there were other people on this board besides just me and italiano who thought DREAMGIRLS would not be nominated for best picture. i would also say there was nothing special about my predicting LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA knocking DREAMGIRLS out the oscar line up. i was just lucky enough to have seen both films before the nominations were announced. i think if everyone else had the same opportunity, more people would have made the same prediction.
"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
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

MovieWes wrote:I'm starting to think that this year will be just exactly like 2005: a 5-for-5 Best Picture/Best Director line-up. The weakest link, I think, is Milk. I don't think it's going to pick up an editing nomination either.
I will bet you money I can't afford to lose that these DGA five are not both the best picture and best director nominees. That's way too rare an occurrence to have it happen twice in four years.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

The Original BJ wrote:As for films that received all four Guild noms but missed Oscar, Being John Malkovich and Almost Famous, the latter of which even WON the Globe, are two examples. Leave it to the Academy to screw over two films I adored even when they had all the precursors.
Endorse. Proof of my favorite Oscar maxim: they'll only defy all precedent if it's to break your heart.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

rolotomasi99 wrote:there are certainly films which have gotten pretty close to the guild "royal flush" and failed to be nominated for oscar best picture. DREAMGIRLS and INTO THE WILD are recent examples, but they failed to earn a certain nomination for an actual royal flush (wga for DREAMGIRLS and pga for INTO THE WILD).

however, i turn to you to confirm whether a film has ever earned the royal flush treatment but failed to earn a oscar best picutre nominee.
But, as your own post indicates, Dark Knight has NOT received the royal flush -- it was left off SAG Ensemble. (And I think people have been too quick to dismiss that as meaningless/to-be-expected. All three chapters of Lord of the Rings -- as close a precedent as I can find -- got the SAG Ensemble nod) If you want to argue the other four are set, I won't dicker. But people keep trying to slip Dark Knight in with the rest. The film has had a good two days, but it's not in the clubhouse just yet.

And, please, keep in mind: Wall E was literally ineligible for DGA and WGA, left out for obvious reasons by SAG, and probably omitted because of the animation category at PGA. This "other category" issue may keep it from an Academy best picture nomination as well, but we can't know that for sure, and I'd say there hasn't been sufficient testing for people to be so adamant that the big five are set.
User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by MovieWes »

I'm starting to think that this year will be just exactly like 2005: a 5-for-5 Best Picture/Best Director line-up. The weakest link, I think, is Milk. I don't think it's going to pick up an editing nomination either.



Edited By MovieWes on 1231446724
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

Rolo, I think you're playing revisionist history with respect to '06. Everyone on the planet predicted the same five nominees this year...and everyone commented on how impossible it would be for another film to make it...but then come Oscar morning Iwo Jima was a nominee and Dreamgirls was not. I know you say you knew that would happen, which I'm not doubting, but to act like there wasn't any consensus on this issue seems a little strange. There was consensus. And everyone for the most part was wrong.

As for films that received all four Guild noms but missed Oscar, Being John Malkovich and Almost Famous, the latter of which even WON the Globe, are two examples. Leave it to the Academy to screw over two films I adored even when they had all the precursors.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I just happen to have these figures in spreadsheets where I can get to them when I need to (and eventually, when I have time, to update them on my website so others can have access). The spoiler in all categories will be SAG. They have never lined up with any of the guilds simply because they often put in questionable, popular choices. So, with SAG in the mix, I don't recall there ever being a "royal flush". Beyond that, I couldn't say without digging for hours through figures, which I don't really have time for.

A Best Picture/Director matchup is fairly rare, which is why I try to avoid such a lineup in my own predictions. In this case, I really think Nolan will be dropped. It has nothing to do with my like or dislike of the film...the DGA nod is certainly a step in the right direction, but Nolan just doesn't seem like the kind of guy to make it to the Oscars and since many of us are fairly certain Best Picture won't go to The Dark Knight, there has to be some hobbling factor (such as no Director nod or no Editing nod) that keeps it from being a strong Best Picture contender.

However, since even The Sixth Sense managed nods in all three categories, it is entirely possible for a perfect lineup. I just don't know that it will happen...sadly, the guilds aren't helping us pick the lame duck.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

oscarguy, you are obviously a wealth of knowledge when it comes to the guilds. i am not sure if you are just really good and quick at looking this stuff up online, or you just know most of it by heart; but either way i am impressed.

however, i am surprised you are still thinking the oscar best picture nominees are not going to be:
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DARK KNIGHT
FROST/NIXON
MILK
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

i totally get what you are saying about how the pga rarely matches up exactly with best picture and the dga rarely matches up perfectly with best picture or director. i get how rare all of that is. however, how often have the same five films continously be supported by all the major guilds and not gone on to be nominated for best picture?

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DARK KNIGHT
FROST/NIXON
MILK
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
...have all been nominated by the pga, dga, wga, and sag ensemble as well as specific acting awards. only THE DARK KNIGHT failed to grab a sag ensemble, but that was not exactly surprising.

there are certainly films which have gotten pretty close to the guild "royal flush" and failed to be nominated for oscar best picture. DREAMGIRLS and INTO THE WILD are recent examples, but they failed to earn a certain nomination for an actual royal flush (wga for DREAMGIRLS and pga for INTO THE WILD).

however, i turn to you to confirm whether a film has ever earned the royal flush treatment but failed to earn a oscar best picutre nominee.

i know oscar could do anything to surprise us. it certainly did not bother them that ATONEMENT and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA were pretty much ignored by the guilds. the academy nominated them for best picture anyway. in those cases though, there was no clear consensus on what the five oscar nominees would be, while here there is very clear consensus.

maybe i am just being too overprotective of MILK. people keep saying it is the film which will be dropped, and that would make me very sad. :(
"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
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by MovieWes »

I personally think that, at this point, Van Sant is a little shakier than Nolan, but both of them are reasonably good bets. Milk was not a huge, expensive production like The Dark Knight was and probably won't rack up as many nominations as the Batman flick, which will probably rank second or third in number of nominations (after Benjamin Button and/or Slumdog Millionaire). It's also probably not nearly as popular as The Dark Knight.



Edited By MovieWes on 1231443389
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Post Reply

Return to “81st and Other 9th Decade Discussions”