ACE - Editor's Guild

[Sabin]

(Big Magilla @ Jan. 14 2011,11:20)

I keep scratching my head at all the recognition The King's Speech is getting. I still don't think it will win any Oscars beyond Best Actor, but its nomination total is apt to be more than I would have thought.

I'm with you. I really don't understand any technical citations.

The Academy tends to move towards the lavish for costumes and the fantastical for sets. I don't think The King's Speech qualifies for either. I think it is close to a lock for a Best Original Score win. It's a very lovely score and it's Alexandre Desplat's time to win. So, that's two. I don't think Rush or Carter have enough to do to warrant a win. Best Original Screenplay probably won't happen but it's in the cards. I think the best The King's Speech can hope for is wins for Best Actor, Original Screenplay, and Original Score, which may very well tie its total take with The Social Network (which looks strong for Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay, and that's about it).

[Big Magilla]

It seems to me that the everything is back to normal, or what is perceived as normal, this year.

After the little seen The Hurt Locker dominated last year, the little seen 127 Hours is being shafted, considered unworthy because it was a box office flop.

Which would, though, make it a prime candidate for the old lone director slot, a la Vera Drake or United 93. I still hold out faint hope for Boyle there.

I'm still hoping for Picture, Director, Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Music and Song in addition to Actor, but I think I'm whistling in the wind.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1295047205

[Big Magilla]

I keep scratching my head at all the recognition The King's Speech is getting. I still don't think it will win any Oscars beyond Best Actor, but its nomination total is apt to be more than I would have thought.

Really? Not even screenplay? What about costume, set, and score?

Costumes, maybe, because they're fairly authentic, but the sets are ugly andthe screenplay is written by an old hack, whose only previous films, If I recall correctly, were the cartoon versions of The King and I and Camelot. He also wrote the screenplay for the TV movie, Malice in Wonderland which featured a miscast Elizabeth Taylor as Louella Parsons and an even more miscast Jane Alexander as Hedda Hoppe, mouthing the most inane dialogue.

[Mister Tee]

It seems to me that the everything is back to normal, or what is perceived as normal, this year.

After the little seen The Hurt Locker dominated last year, the little seen 127 Hours is being shafted, considered unworthy because it was a box office flop.

Which would, though, make it a prime candidate for the old lone director slot, a la Vera Drake or United 93. I still hold out faint hope for Boyle there.

[rolotomasi99]

I keep scratching my head at all the recognition The King's Speech is getting. I still don't think it will win any Oscars beyond Best Actor, but its nomination total is apt to be more than I would have thought.

Really? Not even screenplay? What about costume, set, and score?

[Big Magilla]

Frenetic and obvious can be deceiving. I'm reminded of what William Friedkin said about the editing of The French Connection. The film won the Oscar and the BAFTA for its editing largely based on the car chase. Friedkin is on record as saying that that was the easiest thing in the film to edit as it was all in the choreographed stunt and camera work.

The ACE award that year went to Summer of '42, which one can also say is long and slow.

[OscarGuy]

Although I like the pace of The American, I can easily see why the ACE ignored it. It's long and slow, which are the antithesis of what the ACE likes (I haven't seen King's Speech, so I can't speak to its overall pace). Frenetic and obvious seems to be more important to editors because they can tell, yet the reality of editing shouldn't be about how noticeable the editing is. Though, I do like the editing of 127 Hours, I think it may have been too much split screen, frame-in-frame and so forth to really appeal to this group. I could see the Academy backtracking on that, but probably not.

This is one of the most Best Picture categories that exists, so I'm not at all surprised to see King's Speech here.

[Big Magilla]

It seems to me that the everything is back to normal, or what is perceived as normal, this year.

After the little seen The Hurt Locker dominated last year, the little seen 127 Hours is being shafted, considered unworthy because it was a box office flop. The same is true of The American, which has some of the most gorgeous cinematography and astute editing of any 2010 film.

I keep scratching my head at all the recognition The King's Speech is getting. I still don't think it will win any Oscars beyond Best Actor, but its nomination total is apt to be more than I would have thought.

[Sabin]

(The Original BJ @ Jan. 14 2011,10:00)

Seriously, though, The King's Speech has better photography and editing than 127 Hours? That's just crazy to me.

I actually think The King's Speech does have better editing. 127 Hours just has more editing. How shall I put this? I would fucking loathe to be handed the dailies for The King's Speech! All those ungainly images that he hand to render into a cohesive if not compelling whole? I think he almost did. Outside of Franco's exemplary Morning Show, you could have edited 127 Hours any given way and I don't think it would have made a difference. Tariq Anwar did godsend work on that film because the coverage is balls.

I think we can safely say now that were there five nominees, they would likely be Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The King's Speech, The Social Network, and not The Kids Are All Right or True Grit. In fact, the only real outside contender I see that could sneak in would be Toy Story 3.



Edited By Sabin on 1295022665

[The Original BJ]

127 Hours is, for me, the big question mark of this year's Oscar race -- much like Into the Wild several years ago.

When I saw the film, I thought it could contend in Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay, both music categories, Cinematography, Editing, and both sound categories -- and I can't say I'd be SHOCKED if it were actually nominated in any of those categories still. (Well, maybe Director.)

But I also could see it getting only one nomination for James Franco, too, a scenario which seems far more likely given the film's hobbled precursor run.

Seriously, though, The King's Speech has better photography and editing than 127 Hours? That's just crazy to me.

[Hollywood Z]

If anything other than INCEPTION wins in dramatic, I will be shocked.

I dunno, the editing of Black Swan was crazy busy and the weaving in and out of trials/timelines of The Social Network was pretty daunting. I could easily see any of those three winning.

That being said, I think the Dramatic picture line-up looks to be our nominees for Film Editing this year with a potential upset of The King's Speech by 127 Hours.

[rolotomasi99]

Another nomination for 127 HOURS stolen by THE KING'S SPEECH. The guilds clearly love this movie -- or just hate 127 HOURS.

I hope SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD wins in comedy.

If anything other than INCEPTION wins in dramatic, I will be shocked.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1295017727

[rolotomasi99]

BEST EDITED FEATURE FILM (DRAMATIC):

Black Swan, Andrew Weisblum, A.C.E.

The Fighter, Pamela Martin

Inception, Lee Smith, A.C.E.

The King’s Speech, Tariq Anwar

The Social Network, Angus Wall, A.C.E. & Kirk Baxter

BEST EDITED FEATURE FILM (COMEDY OR MUSICAL):

Alice in Wonderland, Chris Lebenzon, A.C.E.

Easy A, Susan Littenberg

The Kids Are All Right, Jeffrey M. Werner

Made in Dagenham, Michael Parker

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Jonathan Amos & Paul Machliss