WGA Nominations

Post Reply
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

anonymous wrote:
Damien wrote:The Lonely Bones is reminiscent of The Kite Flyer -- a highly (in some circles) anticipated film version of a best-selling novel which, once it is released doesn't even seem to exist. I have not heard a single person mention The Lovely Bones since it opened.
You mean The Kite Runner. ;-)
I told you it was like it didn't exist. :D
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

Damien wrote:The Lonely Bones is reminiscent of The Kite Flyer -- a highly (in some circles) anticipated film version of a best-selling novel which, once it is released doesn't even seem to exist. I have not heard a single person mention The Lovely Bones since it opened.
You mean The Kite Runner. ;-)

Anyhoo, onto the nominees:

Avatar and The Hangover will be replaced by Inglourious Basterds and Up at the Oscars.

I think Crazy Heart, Julie & Julia and Star Trek benefitted from the numerous disqualifications. They can easily be replaced by District 9, An Education, A Single Man or Fantastic Mr. Fox. Though I suppose Crazy Heart or Julie & Julia could still crossover to Oscar due to the fact that their lead performers are Oscar front-runners.

Though I don't think Star Trek's screenplay will crossover to Oscar, the fact that the writers nominated it ahead of Invictus which WAS eligible for the WGA could be indicative of the film's chances at the Best Picture Oscar race.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Damien wrote:I have not heard a single person mention The Lovely Bones since it opened.
Which is why I continue to trumpet that Tucci's nomination will be for Julie and Julia, not Bones.

I had to run out of work at 2 today (dental disaster), and Sasha's site had printed the nominees just before I left. Only problem: they weren't correct. I got here a few minutes ago, started reading all the comments, and was very confused (since Invictus WAS on that list, but Hangover and Star Trek were not).

Anyway, as for this "real" list...

It's hard to take it too seriously, given the laughably high number of blackballs. The main impact is on the films that couldn't score even in such an assisted field -- Invictus clearly isn't on the scale of recent Eastwood efforts, and if it makes the best picture ten, it'll be at spot 9 or 10.

And if The Messenger couldn't get the writers to sign on, over Avatar and The Hangover, is there really any prospect of its getting the best picture nod Dave Karger promoted?

Sabin, certainly you're correct on Up in the Air, but I question if Hurt Locker will win original -- it's a directorial feat, not the sort writers tend to promote. A Serious Man or (500) Days could upset.

And Cameron got a WGA nod for Titanic, as well, but was squeezed out at the Oscars -- in a year where he didn't have to contend with new competition from Up or Inglourious. I think he's a long shot at best.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19317
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

dreaMaker wrote:Nine also died.
I was surprised by seeing Star Trek here, but i think it does deserve the nomination.
However, i don't think the same for The Hangover.
Nor do I.

That this stupid thing was a hit doesn't surprise me. That people liked it, does.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Harry:

The disqualifications range from the writers not being WGA members to not working under WGA (or sister guild) contracts.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

OscarGuy wrote:The Lovely Bones died long ago, there's no point in even mentioning it now.

As for District 9, it was ineligible, as were Up, Fantastic Mr. Fox, In the Loop, An Education and Inglourious Basterds plus probably many others.
The Lonely Bones is reminiscent of The Kite Flyer -- a highly (in some circles) anticipated film version of a best-selling novel which, once it is released doesn't even seem to exist. I have not heard a single person mention The Lovely Bones since it opened.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

OscarGuy wrote:As for District 9, it was ineligible, as were Up, Fantastic Mr. Fox, In the Loop, An Education and Inglourious Basterds plus probably many others.
Excuse my ignorance, right now I haven´t been able to follow the precursors as much as I would like, but how come are all these films inelegible?
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
dreaMaker
Assistant
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:41 pm

Post by dreaMaker »

Nine also died.
I was surprised by seeing Star Trek here, but i think it does deserve the nomination.
However, i don't think the same for The Hangover.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

The Lovely Bones died long ago, there's no point in even mentioning it now.

As for District 9, it was ineligible, as were Up, Fantastic Mr. Fox, In the Loop, An Education and Inglourious Basterds plus probably many others.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Well, these are going to The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air. We knew it before and we know it now.

Was District 9 ineligible?

Gains for Julie & Julia, Star Trek, The Hurt Locker (for getting a win in lieu of Basterds exclusion), Avatar (what do you get for the man who has everything? His first Oscar nomination for writing.), The Hangover, Crazy Heart, Precious, and (500) Days of Summer which is looking better all the time.

Losses for Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Messenger, and It's Complicated, and BIG losses for Invictus and Nine.

At this point, saying that The Lovely Bones is losing ground is almost redundant.




Edited By Sabin on 1263241806
"How's the despair?"
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

Well, I called the original slate completely -- I had a feeling the exclusion of Inglourious Basterds and Up would result in the nominations for the two big original hits this year, Avatar and The Hangover.

Mister Tee correctly predicted that, carrying on the tradition of nominations for popular comedies, Julie & Julia would make it.

What really surprised me was the Star Trek nomination, though perhaps, as with Dark Knight last year, it's evidence of the WGA's populist slant. I highly doubt the Academy will follow suit (especially with District 9, An Education, In the Loop, and maybe Fantastic Mr. Fox among possibilites), but my god Star Trek keeps on chugging. If it gets that Best Picture nomination, I'll certainly have egg on my face after all these months.

The big loser? Invictus. At this point, its Oscar hopes are hanging by a thread.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Post Reply

Return to “82nd Predictions and Precursors”