Director's Guild winners

Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

Eric wrote:Rush is admittedly the highlight in this cast. I'd be cool with him upsetting Bale. Or, rather, I'd be among the 1% not apoplectic if he did.
Agree with you
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

Mister Tee wrote:I've never felt the fun go out of an Oscar race so fast.
As a highly vocal, very reassured, supporter of Social Network amongst my cohorts, I can feel an agonizingly demasculating Oscar night to come.
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Rush is admittedly the highlight in this cast. I'd be cool with him upsetting Bale. Or, rather, I'd be among the 1% not apoplectic if he did.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

matthew wrote:
Sabin wrote:The King's Speech is a reasonably well-acted film, which is to say that Hoo/pper is conscientious of Colin Firth who is very good, Geoffrey Rush who is very average, and Helena Bonham Carter who is barely there.

hmmm...I thought Geoffrey Rush was the standout in the King's Speech and had far more screen presence than Colin Firth.

Geoffrey Rush was far from "average" in The King's Speech. I think he's actually (as matthew points out) the clear standout of that ensemble, including the much-lauded Colin Firth.




Edited By flipp525 on 1296501562
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
matthew
Graduate
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: australia

Post by matthew »

Sabin wrote:The King's Speech is a reasonably well-acted film, which is to say that Hoo/pper is conscientious of Colin Firth who is very good, Geoffrey Rush who is very average, and Helena Bonham Carter who is barely there.
hmmm...I thought Geoffrey Rush was the standout in the King's Speech and had far more screen presence than Colin Firth.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Bog wrote:I'm honestly not trying to toot my own horn, just intriguing that it seems no one even considered this may be a possibility.....this is what my response was on December 17th to Greg saying to me "you don't really think King's Speech could win the Oscar over Social Network do you??":

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I posted this back in December 3rd.

http://uaadb.oscarguy.com/ikonboa....y179906

Basically, people felt THE KING'S SPEECH was like UP IN THE AIR because it came in with a bunch of hype but ultimately failed with the Academy. It was basically the curse of the frontrunner. I said it seemed THE SOCIAL NETWORK had to worry about that curse since it was winning up all the early awards particularly the National Board of Review award. I pointed out this was similar to UP IN THE AIR, and THE KING'S SPEECH was more like THE HURT LOCKER in that its support would come from filmmakers rather than critics. This was before THE SOCIAL NETWORK won almost every critics award. I did say, though, that if THE SOCIAL NETWORK won the Golden Globe for Best Drama it was a bad sign.

Much like Bog, I have no preference between the two films. I obviously want something more indie like WINTER'S BONE, BLACK SWAN, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, or TRUE GRIT to win. INCEPTION or TOY STORY 3 would be nice since it would be the first sci-fi or animated film to win Best Picture.

At this point though, I just really hope the critics learn to not pile all their praise on to one film. I am glad UP IN THE AIR and THE HURT LOCKER shared the critics awards and the Golden Globe went to AVATAR. It is always bad to see one film win every single award when there are several worthy films every year. If this teaches the critics to spread their praise around to different films being released this year, than THE SOCIAL NETWORK losing is a good thing; similar to how the reaction to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN losing possibly made the Academy look at more alternative films like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THE HURT LOCKER.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1296426532
"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
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

As we can see, by the way, this new perspective may give the edge to a certain movie for Best Picture, but throws a new light on races which seemed previously safely in the hands of Fincher's movie. Boring it isn't.
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Post by Bog »

I'm honestly not trying to toot my own horn, just intriguing that it seems no one even considered this may be a possibility.....this is what my response was on December 17th to Greg saying to me "you don't really think King's Speech could win the Oscar over Social Network do you??":


In short....yes

Further...under your prediction of the wins coupled together, I cannot be alone to feel I will be much more shocked on February 28th were Social Network and Eisenberg to win compared to King's Speech and Firth.



caveat: none of this involves how I view the Best Director race whatsoever, I find it hard to see what Fincher even did more successfully than Hooper (both lackluster), but clearly I'll admit the former is the frontrunner.



This was met with severe opposition by obviously Greg, but also Sabin and Eric among others. Remember, I have no desire to see either win the Oscar, just stating what I felt seemed most likely. I wasn't even simply just being a contrarian (my allegiance there would lie with The Fighter or Black Swan).

I still do think Fincher will win the Oscar, but the best picture door seems slammed shut, I honestly thought that series of dominos started a long while ago...
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Reza wrote:I think the only award The Social Network is going to win is for editing. And watch it lose the screenplay Oscar to Winter's Bone.

I think BLACK SWAN or 127 HOURS benefited the most from the INCEPTION snub in editing. Look at the past 10 winners of editing. Talky films only win editing (TRAFFIC and CRASH) when they have lots of quick cuts and some small "action-y" scenes. THE SOCIAL NETWORK had very smooth and subtly editing. The only way it is winning editing is if it is swept up in a Best Picture love fest of awards. There is no way it only wins editing.

As for adapted screenplay, I am pretty sure THE SOCIAL NETWORK has very little to worry about...but then I remember UP IN THE AIR losing to PRECIOUS. That was certainly the biggest shocker of last year's Oscar ceremony. If it were to lose, though, it seems the only competition would be TRUE GRIT. It had very clever dialogue like Sorkin's script, but it also had heart and characters the audience could actually like. I still think Sorkin will win, but the Coen brothers have a shot.

It would be shocking to see THE SOCIAL NETWORK go from the undisputed front runner to completely shut out on Oscar night.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1296417976
"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
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

OscarGuy wrote:I would like to know how a film that had so little direction managed to win this prize?

I wanted to know how a film like THE KING'S SPEECH with so little editing could even be nominated for an editing Oscar over INCEPTION. People said maybe INCEPTION had too much editing. Perhaps folks felt as I did that Fincher's directing was heavy handed. He got in the way of Sorkin's great screenplay, while Hooper just supported the screenplay and the actors.

Despite my problems with Fincher as the director of THE SOCIAL NETWORK, I thought he deserved the award more than Hooper (though I was hoping for a Nolan win). However, my point last year about a director supporting a screenplay seems valid here. Some said Bigelow was not a good director because she did not put a distinctive stamp on THE HURT LOCKER. Well, maybe some times putting a distinctive stamp on a movie is frowned upon when it clashes with the screenplay. Fincher should have not made THE SOCIAL NETWORK so dark and dreary, and just treated it like the comedy Sorkin wrote. Just my theory.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1296417465
"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
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Actually till very recently it seemed to be definitely boring - though fans of The Social Network didn't complain because it was all about "their" movie. Now something is changing and - though by Oscar night it could be predictable again - changes are rarely boring.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

ITALIANO wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:I've never felt the fun go out of an Oscar race so fast.
No, well, it makes things less boring - and I am not a fan of The Kings's Speech.
Really? I feel like the race is back to boring again.

I won't lie -- I was excited by the possibility of a real dogfight, where we wouldn't know the outcome of the final envelope until it was read.

But now I feel like we're back to boring, although now it's Boring and Dull which is a lot worse than Boring and Respectable, which is where it was, IMO.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

ITALIANO wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:I've never felt the fun go out of an Oscar race so fast.
No, well, it makes things less boring - and I am not a fan of The Kings's Speech.
King's Speech PGA/Social Network DGA/The Fighter SAG would have made it very exciting. I think last night's result makes it considerably less fun. And if SAG follows suit tonight (not unlikely, given their snub of Garfield was the first chink in Social Network's armor), we'll be in Slumdog territory.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Mister Tee wrote:I've never felt the fun go out of an Oscar race so fast.
No, well, it makes things less boring - and I am not a fan of The Kings's Speech.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I'm speaking blindly here, having still not seen The King's Speech, but everything about its profile -- the subject matter, the Weinstein "some movies you feel" sales pitch, the gleeful tone of the people supporting it -- suggests to me it's the reactionary choice of the year, and it's shocking to see the suddenness and vehemence of the Hollywood turn for it and, let's be honest, against The Social Network. (And if we're going to analogize to Egypt, King's Speech isn't the street protestors; it's the Mubarak government, reasserting command)

It's not like such things have never happened before. We've seen Goodfellas tossed aside for Dances with Wolves, Pulp Fiction negated by Forrest Gump, LA Confidential brushed off by Titanic. But all three of those were 1) more expected, given the Academy's middle-brow taste at the time; and 2) prefigured somewhere along the line -- two of them by NBR, and all three by the Globes. The shock is that Social Network got so far down the line and then collapsed utterly...almost as if the clock struck midnight and the film turned back into a pumpkin.

Long ago, Annie Hall won best picture, and some of us thought it was because it was the one film in the Academy's five-pack with any kind of bracing contemporary tone -- its four competitors all belonged to the warm-bath branch of cinema. We now may be seeing the reverse: all the other nominees here belong to the late 90s auteur class, and their various creative projects have split audiences, leaving the one warm-bath-er a clear path to victory. Despite the fact he's the least distinguished director of the bunch.

For this reason, though I absolutely agree the past decade's Oscar results suggest a King's Speech picture/Fincher director split would be most in sync with current trends, I don't think I'll be betting that way. Fincher will be splitting his younger voters with Aronofsky, Russell and the Coens, while Hooper will snap up every sentimentalist vote on the table. Maybe I just feel that way because, for the past six months or so, the worst possible outcome has been the norm in my life. Or because the DGA winners I've wished to see upset have trotted home to victory, while ones I've supported (like Ang Lee) have been the ones most prone to upset.

I've never felt the fun go out of an Oscar race so fast.
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”