Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Even if Sylvester Stallone wins the Golden Globe, I'm thinking of leaving him off my Best Supporting Actor predictions.

I have a gut feeling that Tremblay is going to make it in.

My Sarah Paulson prediction is only a pipe dream.

On the Supporting Actor race this year: I think most people are saying only Mark Rylance has his spot relatively secure and the other four spots is basically 9 or 10 other guys playing musical chairs. I think a helpful hint is that I personally doubt that the Academy is going to nominate three or four Supporting Actor actor nominees who are the only nominations in their respective films. I mean, it's not impossible but it is unlikely. This gives Bale, Hardy, Keaton, Ruffalo and Tremblay a SLIGHT advantage over Dano, Elba, Shannon and Stallone.

I also don't think it's fair to compare Gravity and Martian box office to that of Mad Max. What made Gravity and The Martian more accessible was the simple fact that they were modern films, not post-apocalyptic films. For the post-apocalypse genre, Mad Max sits at #10 behind four hunger games films, 2 Matrixes, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, I Am Legend and World War Z, the latter two of which featured much bigger stars (and box office draws) than Tom Hardy.

Using Box Office Mojo to adjust Beyond Thunderdome's box office, it increases to $85 million at today's average theater prices.

Greg wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:I'm not sure Fury Road was that much bigger in relative terms than Beyond Thunderdome, which grossed $36 million in 1985 -- about the same as The Breakfast Club, which was considered an enormous success. Given the rise in theatre prices and, especially, the 3-D surcharge (which I have to imagine goosed Fury Road's grosses quite a bit -- even I was suckered into putting out for it), the films are closer than you're suggesting.

According to usinflationcalculator.com $36 million in 1985 is equal to about $79 million today. Even adding 20% to this for 3-D only brings it up to $95 million, still substantially less than $153 million.

In a math fight, I'm only a semi-armed man, but...1) is that specifically geared to cover theatre ticket prices, or general inflation? (For Broadway theatre, it wouldn't be near enough.) and 2) here in NY, it's $5 extra for 3-D, and another couple of bucks for IMAX (which I passed on, but many don't), so I don't know if 20% is near enough to cover the premium pricing.

Mister Tee wrote:I'm not sure Fury Road was that much bigger in relative terms than Beyond Thunderdome, which grossed $36 million in 1985 -- about the same as The Breakfast Club, which was considered an enormous success. Given the rise in theatre prices and, especially, the 3-D surcharge (which I have to imagine goosed Fury Road's grosses quite a bit -- even I was suckered into putting out for it), the films are closer than you're suggesting.

According to usinflationcalculator.com $36 million in 1985 is equal to about $79 million today. Even adding 20% to this for 3-D only brings it up to $95 million, still substantially less than $153 million.

Okri wrote:a) You know which film Mad Max reminds me of? Moulin Rouge. Genre film, unique staging within that genre, passionate fans, not-that-strong box office, a film that by hither or dither forced itself into the oscar conversation (and it's not like we were lacking for films) that ultimately wasn't going to win but seemed like a clear director's choice by virtue of it being such a director's-vision movie that ultimately they didn't go for. Heck, both were mid-May releases...

........

c) Amusingly, Fonda is closer to Smith in age than to Minelli.

a) The two films also have in common that few (certainly not I) thought of them as prime Oscar hopefuls when they passed through in May -- because of the factors you cite -- and they came on with startling strength in December (both kicking off as NBR winners). It remains to be seen if Fury Road mimics Moulin in falling a bit short on nominations day (somewhat forgotten now, but almost everyone thought Luhrman was a sure directing nominee till the moment he wasn't).

As for the relative box-office:

1. Someone thought a Mad Max movie was a good 2016 investment, or they wouldn't have given it a $150 million budget.
2. I'm not sure Fury Road was that much bigger in relative terms than Beyond Thunderdome, which grossed $36 million in 1985 -- about the same as The Breakfast Club, which was considered an enormous success. Given the rise in theatre prices and, especially, the 3-D surcharge (which I have to imagine goosed Fury Road's grosses quite a bit -- even I was suckered into putting out for it), the films are closer than you're suggesting.
3. The thing that truly baffles me about Fury Road isn't just the gross, but the ratio of its opening to final numbers. Its first weekend was $44 million -- given the critical huzzahs, a bit soft, but most assumed word of mouth would propel it to a strong multiplier. Didn't happen: it ended at $153 mil, just under a 3 1/2 multiplier. This is not generally the sign of a deeply beloved film -- for contrast, The Martian did well over four times its opening, and Gravity just shy of five times, signifying audiences did embrace them. For all the (obviously quite genuine) enthusiasm Fury Road has evoked, it didn't ever make it into the kind of hit that would suggest it to be a genre-busting Oscar success.

c) Yeah, Fonda's only three years younger than Maggie Smith (and had been doing mainstream movies longer), yet at the time Smith came off as much older -- she seemed to have entered the world middle-aged. Maybe it's something to do with the Brodie role. (Though I look and see that the three actresses who played the part over that period -- Redgrave in London, Caldwell on Broadway, and Smith on film -- were all in their early/mid 30s. A real sign of changing times/perspective: they seemed old at the time, yet Amy Adams at 41 seems young now, and I don't think just to me.)

Italiano wrote
Except that in the end Mad Max Fury Road will win more than just two Oscars. Oh, it won't win Best Picture and unlike Gravity it shouldn't even win Best Director (IF Miller is nominated, I mean) - but then Gravity wasn't just less divisive than Mad Max; it's also the kind of movie that even "people of a certain age" (and the Academy members aren't exactly teenagers) could relate to. I doubt the same can be - generally - told about Mad Max.

Moulin Rouge! was supposed to win more Oscars than Moulin Rouge! I thought would get Best Film Editing, Production Design, Costume Design, and Sound Mixing. If it was eligible for Best Song that year, it would've won that too. That's a hefty take.

So much has changed. This summer, a buddy of mine asked me how many nominations I thought Mad Max: Fury Road would get and I said "Best Makeup maybe."

Sabin wrote:If the dialogue re: Mad Max: Fury Road is indicative of the larger whole, then it's definitely akin to Moulin Rouge! People who love it, really love it, and are very defensive about its virtues which other people just flat out don't see. Gravity didn't inspire this much passion from anybody.

Except that in the end Mad Max Fury Road will win more than just two Oscars. Oh, it won't win Best Picture and unlike Gravity it shouldn't even win Best Director (IF Miller is nominated, I mean) - but then Gravity wasn't just less divisive than Mad Max; it's also the kind of movie that even "people of a certain age" (and the Academy members aren't exactly teenagers) could relate to. I doubt the same can be - generally - told about Mad Max.

flipp525 wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:

Okri wrote: Side note: If I admit Tee was right about [The Danish Girl now, do I still get to say "I-told-you-so" if it gets a best picture nomination?

The Danish Girl (which I haven't seen yet) is so obviously unloved that in just a slightly more crowded Best Actor race Eddie Redmayne could even be "surprisingly" left out on nominations morning - despite the fact that he plays the kind of role actors usually find so much to admire in. But of course this year Best Actor is so generally weak that he WILL be nominated; as for Alicia Vikander, her nomination could really come for Ex Machina, which not only is a more respected effort, but for which a Best Supporting Actress nod would seem a less clear case of category fraud.

Marco, you're going to pretty much loathe The Danish Girl.

I'm afraid you could be very right...

If the dialogue re: Mad Max: Fury Road is indicative of the larger whole, then it's definitely akin to Moulin Rouge! People who love it, really love it, and are very defensive about its virtues which other people just flat out don't see. Gravity didn't inspire this much passion from anybody.

ITALIANO wrote:

Okri wrote: Side note: If I admit Tee was right about [The Danish Girl now, do I still get to say "I-told-you-so" if it gets a best picture nomination?

The Danish Girl (which I haven't seen yet) is so obviously unloved that in just a slightly more crowded Best Actor race Eddie Redmayne could even be "surprisingly" left out on nominations morning - despite the fact that he plays the kind of role actors usually find so much to admire in. But of course this year Best Actor is so generally weak that he WILL be nominated; as for Alicia Vikander, her nomination could really come for Ex Machina, which not only is a more respected effort, but for which a Best Supporting Actress nod would seem a less clear case of category fraud.

Marco, you're going to pretty much loathe The Danish Girl.

Okri wrote:You know which film Mad Max reminds me of? Moulin Rouge.

But its nomination haul could be almost identical to Gravity.

Okri wrote: Side note: If I admit Tee was right about [The Danish Girl now, do I still get to say "I-told-you-so" if it gets a best picture nomination?

The Danish Girl (which I haven't seen yet) is so obviously unloved that in just a slightly more crowded Best Actor race Eddie Redmayne could even be "surprisingly" left out on nominations morning - despite the fact that he plays the kind of role actors usually find so much to admire in. But of course this year Best Actor is so generally weak that he WILL be nominated; as for Alicia Vikander, her nomination could really come for Ex Machina, which not only is a more respected effort, but for which a Best Supporting Actress nod would seem a less clear case of category fraud.