83rd Academy Awards Nominations

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:41 am

Damien wrote:
Cinemanolis wrote:
anonymous wrote:Christopher Nolan now has 3 DGA nominations but 0 Oscar nominations.

The fact that he is snubbed again makes him the favourite for the Best Original Screenplay Oscar.

With The King's Speech, The Kids Are All Right and The Fighter nominated, Nolan won't even finish in the top 3.

I agree with Damien on two of the three. THE KING'S SPEECH is going to win this category. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT has a small chance. I would say INCEPTION is in third place. Much like BLACK SWAN, I would say the screenplay for THE FIGHTER is its weakest element.

THE KING'S SPEECH is going to win this and deserves to.
"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
Associate
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:30 am

Damien wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:What the fucking-fuck just happened?

Apparently all the editors in the Academy need to be expelled, and new blood should be brought in. INCEPTION not being nominated for editing is a fucking insult to the film itself and the editing category in general.

As Magilla has pointed out, it's BEST Editing, not Most Editing. Kudos to the Editing Branch for ignoring the mess that is Inception.



If their problem is too much editing, then how the holy hell did 127 HOURS and BLACK SWAN get nominated? I could have fucking edited THE KING'S SPEECH. THE KING'S SPEECH did not have the best editing of this year or any year in the past 100+ years of film history.

If editing nominations are just going to be used to boost Best Picture nominees, than just eliminate the category.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1295973163
"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

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7044
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:28 am

Well, my date to the ball is gonna be Winter's Bone.

The two biggest shocks of the year are the snubs for Inception for Best Film Editing and for TRON: Legacy for Best Visual Effects. Young Jeff Bridges killed its chance. I'm completely fascinated.

All about Dogtooth and Exit Through the Gift Shop, people. Outside of that, I'm happiest for my date for the ball, Winter's Bone, and especially the nomination for John Hawkes. Also for Bardem (haven't seen the film, but better he than Duvall, Gosling, or Wahlberg), Steinfeld in support (not because she's supporting but because she's going to win, I think), Weaver (because she's better than Kunis), Mike Leigh, and the makeup folk for Barney's Version.

Aside from the shut-out of Scott Pilgrim, I'm most disappointed in 127 Hours' Best Adapted Screenplay and Editing noms, the overabundance of noms for The King's Speech, mainly because it's not well-shot, well-art directed, well-costumed, and the mix is nothing special (I'll applaud the editor if only for dealing with the ungainliness of the thing, but not over other films), the lack of nominations for what was great about Black Swan which was its sound mix and effects...

Yeah. Nothing much else to really say. You get years that go as predicted and then you get years that don't. Considering that two months ago, I was predicting, like, five nominations for The Social Network, I'm pretty happy and think it still will do all right. The King's Speech and True Grit are mediocrities. It's not like The King's Speech will be quite as bad a winner as Crash, Slumdog Millionaire, or A Beautiful Mind, but it's still not a very good movie and it's win is gonna be a giant groaner. If it happens. Which I'm not convinced.

What is cool is that The Social Network just added another win to its tally that I thought was gone baby gone: Best Film Editing. With Inception out of the way, I think it owns Best Film Editing. Because it is one of the best edited films of the year. That means (putting aside Best Picture), The Social Network owns Best Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing, possibly Best Original Score. That means The King's Speech owns Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Costume Design, and possibly Best Original Score. They're basically in the same position.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Postby MovieWes » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:24 am

I think that everyone is making too much over the whole nomination count issue. The fact remains that The King's Speech failed to win a single Picture or Director prize from any critics organization, big, small, or anything in between. Last night, everyone was predicting The Social Network to win Best Picture. This morning, it picked up every nomination it was expected to with the exception of Andrew Garfield, who was always on the fringe after SAG left him off their list. The King's Speech, likewise, was nominated for everything it was expected to be nominated for, picking up only one surprise nomination in the Best Sound Mixing category. What was true last night still holds true today.

What should worry supporters of The Social Network is not that it failed to lead the Oscar nominees in terms of nominations count, but that the PGA went with The King's Speech. This was an award that seemed to be completely in the bag for The Social Network. Now, if the DGA and SAG go with The King's Speech over The Social Network, people should start worrying.




Edited By MovieWes on 1295973070
"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)

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Eric » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:19 am

Meanwhile, those King's Speech nominations really do stink up the joint. But most of you -- the sane ones -- know that.

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Eric » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:17 am

My gut hunch on what 5-deep BP would've been:

Black Swan
The Fighter
The Social Network
The King's Speech
True Grit

Maybe Winter's Bone instead of Black Swan, but definitely not Inception. Nolan snubs are what got us here in the first place, right?

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Postby Bog » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:14 am

Is there a precedent for this though? Maybe Del Toro? My first thought was the same as Italiano's, "poor Melissa Leo"...but I realized that was because my first thought was the voters wanted to put Steinfeld in a spot where they could give her an award and that was not likely to have been in lead. But no one else seems to have been able to sniff a precursor on the Leo train, so it may be more like Magilla said, not such a foregone conclusion that Steinfeld is the winner.

The thing with Del Toro (and someone may have to correct my history) was that he was winning several awards no matter what category they place him, no? The SAG lead trophy was just the icing on the cake for Finney et al. to stay home. Steinfeld has what a couple, no more than a handful of wins....tough call

I think both actress categories are easily as open as we could have hoped for now. I honestly think, despite the noms not creating a ton of surprises, that 3 of the ladies in each category legitimately have a shot, with Kidman/Williams and Weaver/Carter the only also-rans.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12350
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:05 am

Tee, I did typo that number, but I said exactly that in my post when referencing the discrepancy in the last decade. I was providing numeric proof for both victory and defeat, so that people don't immediately jump to one conclusion or the other with regard to the nominations tallies.
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
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12350
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:03 am

Sonic Youth wrote:She may well win, but in the long-term maybe it would have been best for her career to have been placed in the Lead category and not win than to win in Supporting?

Ask Anna Paquin about that. She parlayed her Supporting Actress win into a phenomenal career, mostly on television, but she has an Emmy nod, so she's not a flash-in-the-pan. I don't think this will be a Tatum O'Neal-type career flame-out. We'll see what happens in a few years, I guess.
Wesley Lovell

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

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6113
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:01 am

OscarGuy wrote:Million Dollar Baby (7 nominations, The Aviator had 8)

I believe that Aviator number should be much higher -- like, 11? Which would make it a fairly good analogy to this year's gap.

In the 60s it was hit-and-miss whether the film with the most nominations would win -- A Man for All Seasons, In the Heat of the Night and Midnight Cowboy all triumphed over rivals with significantly more mentions. For a stretch -- early 80s through 90s -- "most nominations" was a major indicator for victory; then, suddenly, it wasn't again. I'd say that makes it a particularly untrustworthy guide.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6113
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:50 am

Like most, I heard the main nominations on TV, then caught up on the rest when I arrived at my office a few minutes ago. So, I had that hour-plus to ponder the (SAG-predicted) Garfield omission, and wonder if Social Network was getting the Goodfellas/Pulp Fiction "way fewer nominations than expected". A scan of the roster quickly told me, no, Garfield was sui generis; all the other hoped-for nods came through. The King's Speech scoring in virtually every category certainly gives it bragging rights, and will lead to some labelling it the front-runner. But Social Network --with fewer category opportunities than King's -- was hardly crippled. It's a race.

No thrills for me, but also, apart from Garfield, no heartbreakers. Would have liked Gosling (and, yes, pretty much expected him and Wiiliams as a team, up or down), but of course haven't seen Bardem yet.

Very happy for Hawkes, but it's at Garfield's expense...though Renner is the doesn't-belong culprit in my book. Hype over The Town turned out misguided everywhere else, but here it prevailed.

Movies that over-performed: King's Speech (WWII royalty uplift) and True Grit (remake of John Wayne hit). Movies that under-performed: Black Swan, Inception and (1 category) Social Network. Academy confession: we're still old farts.

Even one like me who saw Nolan's omit coming is shocked by the editing miss. The film seemed very much in Bourne Ultimatum territory, and appeared 50/50 to win. Now Social Network should have a clear field, no? I can't imagine a sweep big enough to drag along King's Speech.

Agree with Damien: original screenplay is between Kids and King's. Nolan was lucky to get nominated.

As BJ says, below the line is generally where the shockers are. I honestly wondered if Waiting for Superman would be the juggernaut some were expecting. Its subject -- charter schools -- is way more controversial among lefties than Guggenheim's previous issue. (Teachers' unions certainly hate its thesis) Is Inside Job now the favorite? Restrepo?

And how about make-up? Three nominees I doubt more than a few here have seen. This branch has some history of manipulating its nominees to exclude potential winners. I recall 1994, when Interview with the Vampire -- a huge hit that might well have won -- was not only excluded, its critically/financially disastrous peer, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, was in its place...all of which led to a win for Ed Wood. I'd say Alice in Wonderland played the Vampire role here. (And odd that True Grit, with so many nods, missed here)

So, for once, the rescue committee got a controversial foreign film nominated. Presumably a sure loser, but, baby steps.

Who's going to break it to Sabin, about Scott Pilgrim?




Edited By Mister Tee on 1295971364

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15252
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:41 am

OscarGuy wrote:Melissa Leo would have probably won the Oscar in February had Hailee Steinfeld been nominated in lead where she belonged. Now, with the full-on lead-in-support power of her performance, Steinfeld becomes the frontrunner.

I don't think so.

Early on I had thought Amy Adams, who I actually think is better, would win this category, but Leo had been winning everything until now with Adams her biggest supporter. She has the advantage of playing a living person in ill health - the real Alice actually died and was revived after thirty minutes, two days before the Broadcast Film Critics Awards. This is not Tatum O'Neal trumping Sylvia Sidney.

There are those who oppose the idea of Steinfeld being nominated in this category.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7402
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:31 am

ITALIANO wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:
Poor Melissa Leo.


Why?

You will see why on February, 27th.

Best Actress will be certainly interesting - it would have been even more interesting had Steinfeld been nominated in the category she belongs to.

I was so sure Steinfeld would be nominated lead I didn't even think of the ramifications of her Supporting placement on the other nominees.

She may well win, but in the long-term maybe it would have been best for her career to have been placed in the Lead category and not win than to win in Supporting?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

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

Postby Damien » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:13 am

Cinemanolis wrote:
anonymous wrote:Christopher Nolan now has 3 DGA nominations but 0 Oscar nominations.

The fact that he is snubbed again makes him the favourite for the Best Original Screenplay Oscar.

With The King's Speech, The Kids Are All Right and The Fighter nominated, Nolan won't even finish in the top 3.
"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

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12350
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:11 am

Melissa Leo would have probably won the Oscar in February had Hailee Steinfeld been nominated in lead where she belonged. Now, with the full-on lead-in-support power of her performance, Steinfeld becomes the frontrunner.
Wesley Lovell

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


Return to “83rd Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest