2011 Oscar Nominations

For the films of 2011
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:24 pm

jack wrote:I'm going to predict that Terrence Malick wins Best Director this year.


THE TREE OF LIFE winning Director and Cinematography would be the only wins I care about. Since THE TREE OF LIFE has no chance of winning Best Picture, I have no stake in who takes the top prize. I do not think the Academy is going to award Best Picture to a children's film like HUGO no matter how well made it is. I do think Scorsese could win Director, but I am holding out hope for Malick. I just wonder if he would actually show up.
Last edited by rolotomasi99 on Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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

jack
Assistant
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby jack » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:45 pm

Enough talk of the statistics or previous Academy Award nominations. Everything that's gone before is irrespective. Looking forward to this year's Oscars I believe could start to become interesting. I've just re-watched The Tree of Life, and watched for the first time, Midnight in Paris (very much enjoyed it), and I'm starting to get the impression that Malick could win Best Director. For those who have watched The Tree of Life will know how truly magnificent this film is. I've still to watch Hugo, and clearly I've prematurely proclaimed Scorsese my choice for the win.

I'm going to predict that Terrence Malick wins Best Director this year.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12550
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:22 pm

I have a spreadsheet that tracks Best Picture winners and the categories in which they were nominated/won.
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
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:07 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:The fact is Midnight in Paris for Best Picture in the old five-slot system would have been a fluke as well. How many films nominated for Best Picture and Director were only nominated for Screenplay and a tech award, with no acting nom? It's possible there may have been a few a long time ago. But I can't think of any recent examples. I'm sure someone will provide examples if there are any. I could be overlooking something, but I doubt it's happened in the last three or four decades. Most Lone Director films don't usually have more than four nominations, and Midnight in Paris only has four as it is.


On my personal computer at home I have a break down of the Best Picture nominees for several decades showing which were nominated for Directing, Writing, Acting, and Techs. I will post it after I am done at work. [Sorry, I just realized I never transferred the file from my old computer before it crashed.]

As for your question about a Best Picture nominee with noms for Directing, Writing, and one tech (with no Acting noms): The most recent one I can think of is THE FULL MONTY. It was an art house crowd pleaser, as well as a comedy which lost the Golden Globe but won the SAG award for Ensemble. In the end it only won an Oscar for its score.

I am not sure if this settles anything for you regarding MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, but it was a fun challenge for me since I figured it out using only my memory. Would you believe I can remember all this Oscar trivia, but I have trouble remembering my own phone number even though I have had the same one for around six years? :oops:
Last edited by rolotomasi99 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 3994
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:[quote="ITALIANO]When was the last time that, under the old 5-slots format, a Best Picture nominee was only nominated in the Acting categories (and so was only loved by the Actors branch?) I think it was very, very rare. It's impossible that The Help would have made it. Impossible.[/quote]

I was bored at work so I looked at the past three decades of 5 Best Picture nominees.

Here are all the films to recieve a Best Picture nomination and only acting nominations:





:lol:

Basically there are none. [/quote]


I thought so - thanks for the research. And this, Sonic Youth, means something. And yes, of course appealing to more than one branch - even Actors and Writers, rather than just Actors - make a movie a better candidate for a Best Picture nomination, that's obvious.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Flukes do happen. And although it's not wise to speculate on a potential fluke when there are more likelier options, the fact is Midnight in Paris for Best Picture in the old five-slot system would have been a fluke as well. How many films nominated for Best Picture and Director were only nominated for Screenplay and a tech award, with no acting nom? It's possible there may have been a few a long time ago. But I can't think of any recent examples. I'm sure someone will provide examples if there are any. I could be overlooking something, but I doubt it's happened in the last three or four decades. Most Lone Director films don't usually have more than four nominations, and Midnight in Paris only has four as it is.

And without a directing, acting or screenplay nom, War Horse would also have been a fluke. If a film is going to be nominated without Best Director, it must have an acting or screenplay nod. In this case, there has been a recent example of such a film getting a Best Picture nomination, and that would be Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, but we must admit - if we're going to be honest - that was a special circumstance. Again, I will grant that there may be a better example in the long ago past, but even so a Best Picture for War Horse would have been a big anomaly.

So, as I see it all three films would have been near-impossibilities for Best Picture, but one of them had to have made it. I just picked the more generally (i.e. box office) popular of the three, but one option may be as likely as the other. If the 10 Best Pictures rule were in place in 1994, there would be no argument that Four Weddings and a Funeral, with its two nominations, would have been among the five nominated for Best Picture. No argument at all. We'd be in agreement that it wouldn't have made the cut.[/quote]



Sonic Youth, there's a difference between NO precedents and ONLY A FEW precedents. It's not the same thing.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:46 pm

rolotomasi99 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:So, thought experiment: which do we think would have been the five best picture contenders under the classic system?


When was the last time that, under the old 5-slots format, a Best Picture nominee was only nominated in the Acting categories (and so was only loved by the Actors branch?) I think it was very, very rare. It's impossible that The Help would have made it. Impossible.


I was bored at work so I looked at the past three decades of 5 Best Picture nominees.

Here are all the films to recieve a Best Picture nomination and only acting nominations:





:lol:

Basically there are none. The closest I came was A FEW GOOD MEN which was nominated for Supporting Actor, Editing, and Sound. Its Best Picture nom came at the expense of THE PLAYER which was nominated for Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Editing.

I also wanted to point out the last time Woody Allen was nominated as a director was for BULLETS OVER BROADWAY which had a total of 7 nominations. However, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (with its one other nomination) was nominated for Best Picture.


Four Weddings and a Funeral. Glad you brought it up! (Actually, I did, but everyone's pretending not to notice.)

If you're still being unproductive at work, could you look up how many films before and since Four Weddings have been nominated only for Best Picture and Best Screenplay? Or Best Picture nominees with only Director, Screenplay and a tech nod? Or a Best Film nominee with no Acting, Directing and/or Screenplay nominee (barring the unique case of LOTR)? Thanks, I need a laugh too.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:40 pm

ITALIANO wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:[quote="ITALIANO]When was the last time that, under the old 5-slots format, a Best Picture nominee was only nominated in the Acting categories (and so was only loved by the Actors branch?) I think it was very, very rare. It's impossible that The Help would have made it. Impossible.[/quote]

I was bored at work so I looked at the past three decades of 5 Best Picture nominees.

Here are all the films to recieve a Best Picture nomination and only acting nominations:





:lol:

Basically there are none. [/quote]


I thought so - thanks for the research. And this, Sonic Youth, means something. And yes, of course appealing to more than one branch - even Actors and Writers, rather than just Actors - make a movie a better candidate for a Best Picture nomination, that's obvious.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


Flukes do happen. And although it's not wise to speculate on a potential fluke when there are more likelier options, the fact is Midnight in Paris for Best Picture in the old five-slot system would have been a fluke as well. How many films nominated for Best Picture and Director were only nominated for Screenplay and a tech award, with no acting nom? It's possible there may have been a few a long time ago. But I can't think of any recent examples. I'm sure someone will provide examples if there are any. I could be overlooking something, but I doubt it's happened in the last three or four decades. Most Lone Director films don't usually have more than four nominations, and Midnight in Paris only has four as it is.

And without a directing, acting or screenplay nom, War Horse would also have been a fluke. If a film is going to be nominated without Best Director, it must have an acting or screenplay nod. In this case, there has been a recent example of such a film getting a Best Picture nomination, and that would be Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, but we must admit - if we're going to be honest - that was a special circumstance. Again, I will grant that there may be a better example in the long ago past, but even so a Best Picture for War Horse would have been a big anomaly.

So, as I see it all three films would have been near-impossibilities for Best Picture, but one of them had to have made it. I just picked the more generally (i.e. box office) popular of the three, but one option may be as likely as the other. If the 10 Best Pictures rule were in place in 1994, there would be no argument that Four Weddings and a Funeral, with its two nominations, would have been among the five nominated for Best Picture. No argument at all. We'd be in agreement that it wouldn't have made the cut.
Last edited by Sonic Youth on Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3994
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:57 pm

rolotomasi99 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:So, thought experiment: which do we think would have been the five best picture contenders under the classic system?


When was the last time that, under the old 5-slots format, a Best Picture nominee was only nominated in the Acting categories (and so was only loved by the Actors branch?) I think it was very, very rare. It's impossible that The Help would have made it. Impossible.


I was bored at work so I looked at the past three decades of 5 Best Picture nominees.

Here are all the films to recieve a Best Picture nomination and only acting nominations:





:lol:

Basically there are none.



I thought so - thanks for the research. And this, Sonic Youth, means something. And yes, of course appealing to more than one branch - even Actors and Writers, rather than just Actors - make a movie a better candidate for a Best Picture nomination, that's obvious.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4221
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:05 pm

Looking at the Broadcasters nominees -- including Nicolas Winding Refn, Michael Fassbender, Elizabeth Olsen, Tilda Swinton, Albert Brooks, and Carey Mulligan -- I have to admit that, much as I loathe this organization, their nominations this year were more adventurous than the Academy's, I think.

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:04 pm

ITALIANO wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:So, thought experiment: which do we think would have been the five best picture contenders under the classic system?


When was the last time that, under the old 5-slots format, a Best Picture nominee was only nominated in the Acting categories (and so was only loved by the Actors branch?) I think it was very, very rare. It's impossible that The Help would have made it. Impossible.


I was bored at work so I looked at the past three decades of 5 Best Picture nominees.

Here are all the films to recieve a Best Picture nomination and only acting nominations:





:lol:

Basically there are none. The closest I came was A FEW GOOD MEN which was nominated for Supporting Actor, Editing, and Sound. Its Best Picture nom came at the expense of THE PLAYER which was nominated for Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Editing.

I also wanted to point out the last time Woody Allen was nominated as a director was for BULLETS OVER BROADWAY which had a total of 7 nominations. However, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (with its one other nomination) was nominated for Best Picture. I know THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION was also nominated for Best Picture but not Director, however, I am assuming its Director nod went to RED which was a perfect fit for the odd-man-out Director nomination. I am not sure if this in any way helps answer whether MIDNIGHT IN PARIS would have been nominated for Best Picture under the 5-nominee rule, but I just wanted to point that out.
Last edited by rolotomasi99 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
Laureate
Posts: 6526
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:40 am

To further my theory that this new voting system creates a disconnect between best picture and the other categories, I call in the most unlikely of witnesses: the Broadcast Critics.

I wouldn't have noticed on my own, but someone elsewhere pointed out that the Broadcasters did terribly at their primary goal in life: predicting Oscar nominees. Though they give themselves a leg up by choosing six nominees in each category, they only managed to foretell 13 of the 20 acting citations. They of course missed the late-breakers (Oldman, Mara, von Sydow), but also four others who'd made SAG's list (Bichir, Close, Hill, McTeer). They also, with six slots, only nailed three of the directing nominees.

But, son of a bitch, they were uncanny with best picture. They of course pick ten films there, and nine of them showed up as the Academy's choices (Drive was their one extra pick). This is substantially better than the you'd-think-closer-to-the-Academy PGA did; even the five DGA nominees included a ringer in Dragon Tattoo.

It's as if the other Oscar categories responded to later developments (the burgeoning of Tinker Tailor and Dragon Tattoo, the fizzle of War Horse and Extremely Loud), but the new voting system for best picture somehow kept the situation frozen in its late December state -- which is of course the Broadcasters' forte. Truly odd.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:37 am

OscarGuy wrote:Probably because that's closer to the pronunciation Hugo would get in France where it was set/written.


Maybe, but it didn't sound French when he said it. It sounded like the car. Plus, he also mispronounced "Scorsese".
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:32 am

"Zero charisma" is too charitable. It would imply that he has no personality, which isn't true. He has negative charisma. He's a pig. He's actively unpleasant to watch, smug and obnoxious. He mispronounced several names. He not only mispronounced Hazanavicius, but read it one syllable at a time as if it were displayed phoenetically, and when he finished he made a snide face that read "Why must he have such a tough name?" And granted, it is a tough name to an American if you're reading it for the first time, which I bet he was. But Jennifer Lawrence, the young 21 year old Kentuckian standing right next to him, pronounced it correctly (or at least well enough) and effortlessly.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12550
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:20 am

Probably because that's closer to the pronunciation Hugo would get in France where it was set/written.
Wesley Lovell

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

Barrybrooks2011
Graduate
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:37 pm

Re: 2011 Oscar Nominations

Postby Barrybrooks2011 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:59 am

A couple of things I noticed when I rewatched the nomination announcement on YouTube:
Tom Sherak has zero charisma. Would it wrong to act just a tad excited? And why was he pronouncing it "Yugo" instead of "Hugo?" Also, the picture they used for Jessica Chastain was from The Tree of Life, not The Help, whereas everyone else's pics seemed to be correct.


Return to “84th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest