DGA Winner

For the films of 2012
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Bog »

dws1982 wrote:Daniel Day-Lewis winning three Oscars for Best Actor doesn't mean the Academy thinks he's "better" than everyone who hasn't achieved that feat.
It certainly feels that is widely discussed as being the case though...i.e. Meryl "finally" waiting long enough to win, Jack not winning #2 until 1997 then seen as all set, Brando not winning for Last Tango, Tracy and Hanks winning back to back then seen as they don't need another no matter how many Inherit the Wind, Black Rock, Nuremburg, Cast Away, Saving Private Ryans they log into cinema.
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Bog »

Greg wrote:
Bog wrote: Actually, it means if you bet 8 dollars and you win you get 9 back. The 8 you originally bet plus the 1 you win.
Holy crap thanks...the way I put it I meant to say 12 as my latter number, but got confused or excited and put the number from the odds...thanks for clearing that up for my dumbass Greg...100 divided by 8 is most definitely not 8
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Greg »

Bog wrote:Trust me I'm not stupid and I also am a betting man and I know there are odds for a reason and it is impossible to argue with 1/8 odds for DDL as of this post (meaning you bet 100 bucks you win 8!)
Actually, it means if you bet 8 dollars and you win you get 9 back. The 8 you originally bet plus the 1 you win.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by dws1982 »

Daniel Day-Lewis winning three Oscars for Best Actor doesn't mean the Academy thinks he's "better" than everyone who hasn't achieved that feat. It would just mean that he got the requisite number of votes on three occasions. But it is true he is revered as a genuine actors-actor in a way that, nowadays at least, DeNiro, Hoffman, Pacino, Nicholson, et al., aren't. And it's (partially, at least) for the precise reason that anonymous states--he doesn't work often, he isn't out there tarnishing his legacy by appearing in things like Meet the Fockers or Anger Management or 88 Minutes. When he works, people take notice. I don't think that many voters would have a problem placing him at--or maybe even above--the level of the all-time greats. And even though I wouldn't have voted for him to win either of his first two Oscars, this year I'm totally fine with him becoming the first three-time Best Actor winner based on what he does in Lincoln. Although, having now seen The Master, I can confidently say that anyone other than Jackman winning would be the best choice the Academy has made here in about a decade.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by OscarGuy »

I love how people seem to think that because Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director that THIS is the reason his film has started to become a contender. I saw the emergence of Argo as a threat beginning before the nominations came out. It seemed like smaller bodies of voters were able to rally support behind other films, but the larger the voting bloc, the tendency towards middle-ground consensus began to build. I'm not saying some of these groups are large bodies, but Phoenix, SEFCA and the OFCS (which is much larger than most critics groups at just over 200 members) all went for Argo before the Oscar nominations. And while they aren't among the oldest, they are not younguns either.

So, you can put forward the idea that Argo wasn't a contender until Affleck was snubbed, but I know that I was feeling a shift in momentum BEFORE he was snubbed, so I think it's just wishful thinking to believe that these accolades are pity citations.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Bog »

But does that make those stats look right to you? Does that make Oscar correct in making him the only 3 time winner EVER? 70 to 28 in overall films made (didn't distinguished supporting turns) and 10 years for Meryl I think on DDL.

Even if this was his fifth film due to prestige and bait picks and Meryl had made 50 Music of the Hearts the stats would be still be askew in my opinion.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by anonymous1980 »

Bog wrote: Meryl Streep 2/14 winning 14% of the time
Daniel Day-Lewis 3/5 winning at a 60% clip

Does this look right? Does anyone here think Meryl Streep is inferior to Daniel Day-Lewis? Ok, this "inferior"?
Please take note that Meryl Streep works a lot more than Daniel Day-Lewis does and therefore is able to rack more nominations. Day-Lewis tends to be very picky with his film projects and they do tend to be very prestigious and baity.
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Bog »

Sabin wrote: I have no doubt in my mind that Daniel Day-Lewis is winning. Bradley Cooper, Hugh Jackman, Joaquin Phoenix, and Denzel Washington are nowhere near strong enough contenders to possibly win.
Herein lies the problem...the competition. Now clearly in my opinion Phoenix deserves this hands down, and ideally in a Forest Whitaker type walkover. But this is not happening, and Day-Lewis is a clear front runner. No one wishes voters would only envision performances when going to vote more than me, but that precedent has never been set in Oscar history, so why are we SO 110% certain that this actor at a nice young age of 55 will throw to the side the likes of Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracy, Gary Cooper, Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Dustin Hoffman, contemporaries Sean Penn and Tom Hanks...not to mention the obvious slap in the face to the likes of Jack Lemmon, Laurence Olivier, Paul Newman, and Peter frickin O'Toole. And these are simply names of Oscar history, as 2013 has brought to light someone like Jean-Louis Trintignant, who among what must be hundreds other worthy folks have barely sniffed for a sole nomination.

Trust me I'm not stupid and I also am a betting man and I know there are odds for a reason and it is impossible to argue with 1/8 odds for DDL as of this post (meaning you bet 100 bucks you win 8!), but I would be careful saying you are as certain as Amour for foreign film.

One final thought on the voting thought process: being a male, he will now be solely at the top of the list, and with what 4/5 years between wins 2 and 3 there is absolutely no reason to think he won't cruise to a 4th someday, probably soon, much the way he's become the de facto this season.

Sorry one more
Meryl Streep 2/14 winning 14% of the time
Daniel Day-Lewis 3/5 winning at a 60% clip

Does this look right? Does anyone here think Meryl Streep is inferior to Daniel Day-Lewis? Ok, this "inferior"?
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Sabin »

Just the one.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:I was four in 1985, but didn't Out of Africa win the Golden Globe for Best Dramatic Film?
Yes, but it was a lackluster win (Huston won director, Purple Rose of Cairo took screenplay), and, if you look at the rest of that year's winners (Voight, Goldberg, Brandauer and Tilly), you'll note there wasn't alot of Oscar synchronicity that year.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: DGA Winner

Post by ITALIANO »

Let's face it: there's no way that "the most beloved movie of the moment" - Argo - will end up Oscarless. So Best Editing is 100% in its hands, deserved or not (I personally found the completely invented airplane scene quite childish). It may not win anything else, but at least Best Editing it's sure now. And If it wins just another Oscar (well, especially if it's Best Adapted Screenplay,I know, but even if it's one of those minor Sound awards), in theory it could get Best Picture, or at least we won't know for sure until the last envelope has been opened. Which is of course nice, and, most importantly, not boring. (Though, if it REALLY happens, we will once more complain that the precursors have spoiled what could have been one of the biggest shocks in Oscar histiry. We can never be truly happy!).

I hope it won't happen, of course - Argo is clearly an entertaining, well-made action movie which should never been considered for such a high honor. It's not a bad movie, of course, but it's so... forgettable. And probably if Ben Affleck had been nominated as Best Director, this rather hysterical reaction would have never happened. But it HAS happened, and we can't ignore it.

I still prefer to believe that Argo WON'T win Best Picture. It's strange that now predicting Lincoln (with its 12 nominations and a Best Director nod) for Best PIcture seems so daring, but I think it's still the favorite, or at least 84 years of Oscar history tell us that it's still the favorite. But I can't deny - especially after having seen it - that it's not as strong as I thought it was.

Still, and despite the fact that Lincoln isn't what is conventionally called a "director's movie" in many ways, I don't see how Spielberg can lose Best Director. Do we really believe that the disappointed fans of Ben Affleck or, especially, Kathryn Bigelow will suddenly threw their votes to Michael Haneke?! To Ang Lee, MAYBE, but most probably to Spielberg, let's face it. Lincoln may have its problems, but its director is on safer ground.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: DGA Winner

Post by flipp525 »

Sabin wrote:It may be a ploy, but it also may be a tactical decision to attempt to control the ridiculousness that spouts from Jennifer Lawrence's mouth on a non-stop basis.
I'll take Jennifer Lawrence's off-the-cuff speeches over the robotic and practiced, faux-sincerity that Anne Hathaway's typically feature. I'm obviously as gay as they come, but I find JL extremely sexy and a big part of it is this kind of let's-all-just-get-real-here-for-a-second kind of attitude towards this whole awards business. She says "I beat Meryl!", makes fun of her co-nominees on SNL and trips on the way to the stage and it's not dented her campaign or her "brand" one bit. That says something about someone.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Okri »

OscarGuy wrote:When was the last time a slow-moving film won an editing award? That's what I'm talking about as well edited as Argo is, it's not fast-paced, it's not chaotic, it's tense but done without resorting to the type of action adventure editing cliches to which we've become accustomed.
I guess I don't think of it as a slow moving movie at all. No slower than the previous three winners, anyway.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by Sabin »

rolotomasi99 wrote
The only thing that concerns me about Daniel Day-Lewis is the historic nature of a third win (though this apparently seems to be the year of breaking Oscar precedents). Day-Lewis has been in the position of sweeping the precursors, including SAG, and then losing on Oscar night. I think it is less likely to happen this time, but there is still enough of a possibility to give me pause.
The last time that happened, Daniel Day-Lewis was in Gangs of New York, a film that wasn't really loved in a role that was borderline supporting. He didn't win the Golden Globe, and the competition was very strong. Ironically, his competition was Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt and I remembering hearing a lot of "Does he really need another one?" I haven't heard it more than in passing this year for Daniel Day-Lewis. That tells me that consensus is that Daniel Day-Lewis deserves to be the first actor to win three Best Actor Oscars.

I have no doubt in my mind that Daniel Day-Lewis is winning. Bradley Cooper, Hugh Jackman, Joaquin Phoenix, and Denzel Washington are nowhere near strong enough contenders to possibly win.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: DGA Winner

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Greg wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:Other than Anne Hathaway in Supporting Actress and LIFE OF PI in Cinematography, I am not certain about the winner in any category.
Well, I am also certain about Daniel Day Lewis in Lead Actor, Amour in Foreign Language Film, "Skyfall" in Original Song, and Life Of Pi in Visual Effects.
The only thing that concerns me about Daniel Day-Lewis is the historic nature of a third win (though this apparently seems to be the year of breaking Oscar precedents). Day-Lewis has been in the position of sweeping the precursors, including SAG, and then losing on Oscar night. I think it is less likely to happen this time, but there is still enough of a possibility to give me pause.

Original Song sometimes surprises (HUSTLE AND FLOW, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH). You know every single person who nominated LES MISERABLES for Best Picture is going to vote for its song. The question just is whether they are larger than the group who will vote for SKYFALL.

The rules for voting for Foreign Language Film are the only thing which might keep AMOUR from winning. Other folks have mentioned AMOUR had to be saved from elimination by the exec-committee. I am not sure if this rumor is true, but we have seen films wildly loved by the Academy in general (AMELIE, PAN'S LABYRINTH) lose Foreign Language Film to movies that adhere to the tastes of the older Academy members who are more likely to see all the nominees. I still think it has the best chance of all the nominees, but I have learned not to be too confident with this particular category.

LIFE OF PI winning in Visual Effects is the category I am the third most confident of (after Supporting Actress and Cinematography). There are three good reasons this film has such good chances of winning -- 1) It has amazing special effects that blend seamlessly with the actors. 2) It is a Best Picture nominee, and as we saw last year a Best Picture nomination means quite a bit for this category. 3) It is a more accessible film for the majority of the Academy, so while it might be the lowest grossing of all the nominees it probably has been seen by the most Academy members. All that being said, THE HOBBIT had absolutely amazing special effects as well, and Peter Jackson's association alone may have some folks willing to give one of his films a fourth Oscar in this category. LIFE OF PI still has the best shot, but THE HOBBIT is enough of a threat to make me wonder what will happen on Oscar night.

While I may not be satisfied with all the nominees and likely winners this year, and I am grateful for the suspense. After the past two boringly predictable Oscar nights, we are certainly being rewarded with the biggest open field I can remember.
"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
Post Reply

Return to “85th Predictions and Precursors”