Preliminary Oscar Predictions

[anonymous1980]

I don't necessarily agree with "if The Hobbit is slightly worse than the trilogy people are going to pounce on it", but if the film is generally very good yet - even by a little - doesn't quite measure up to the standards of the trilogy, then it's not getting nominated. There was tremendous anticipation for the first LOTR film, and the success of that film helped maintain anticipation for the rest of the trilogy. Everybody talked about it. It was a box office bonanza and won all those awards. It became ingrained in popular culture. But that was eight years ago. I'm not sensing much anticipation for the new Hobbit film other than from diehards. This year, people seem to be clamoring more for Les Miz (and - post-release - Lincoln for the older viewers) than The Hobbit, and James Bond has taken the title as this year's pop-culture zeitgeist. Perhaps the clamor will appear and build a few weeks before its release, but the prior trilogy had year-long anticipation and chatter from the general audience. I enjoyed the trilogy, but when it was over it was over. There was a sense of finality to it. Done. The new trilogy is less a continuation and more a hitting of the reset button. So, that's where the quality of the film comes in. It had better be truly excellent to win back any cross-over audiences that may be weary of it all by now, like me, or to get Best Picture consideration.

QFT.

Look at me: I'm not excited for The Hobbit at all! And I *love* the original trilogy. I own the extended editions on DVD, I've exhausted through the material. I've seen the entire trilogy three or four times! Even having seen the trailers, it feels like a been-there-done-that. I'm still gonna see it. I'm hoping to be proven wrong. But, yeah, I'm frankly more looking forward to Les Miz that The Hobbit.

And the Academy already blew their wad, giving it all the awards in the sun.

So yeah I really, really think it has to be spectacular in order to be get any major nominations. And I doubt it will be. It could still be a really good film, very good, even but it won't do better than tech noms.

FYI: I've already proposed a bet to Wes. I don't know if he'll accept it.

[Sonic Youth]

From today's Hollywood Elsewhere:

Winds Favoring

A guy who's always talking to Academy members says they're mentioning Amour a lot. On its own, no prompting. I'm mentioning this in the wake of Michael Haneke's film having won four European film awards today -- Best European film, best director, actor and actress. And I've seen it three times now (once in Cannes, once at a screening, once on a screener). So I'm reading the signs and feeling the juju and I don't know what else.

I would like to see Amour. But no matter how great it may be, I don't think I'd like to see it three times. Whoever wrote this must have a steel constitution.

[Sonic Youth]

Since Harry Potter was brought up, I'll say this thread reminded me of the very entertaining and very exhausting 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 2' thread from last year. It may be interesting to re-read it in light of this discussion. I think some friendly bets were made? Maybe there should be some betting now.

I don't necessarily agree with "if The Hobbit is slightly worse than the trilogy people are going to pounce on it", but if the film is generally very good yet - even by a little - doesn't quite measure up to the standards of the trilogy, then it's not getting nominated. There was tremendous anticipation for the first LOTR film, and the success of that film helped maintain anticipation for the rest of the trilogy. Everybody talked about it. It was a box office bonanza and won all those awards. It became ingrained in popular culture. But that was eight years ago. I'm not sensing much anticipation for the new Hobbit film other than from diehards. This year, people seem to be clamoring more for Les Miz (and - post-release - Lincoln for the older viewers) than The Hobbit, and James Bond has taken the title as this year's pop-culture zeitgeist. Perhaps the clamor will appear and build a few weeks before its release, but the prior trilogy had year-long anticipation and chatter from the general audience. I enjoyed the trilogy, but when it was over it was over. There was a sense of finality to it. Done. The new trilogy is less a continuation and more a hitting of the reset button. So, that's where the quality of the film comes in. It had better be truly excellent to win back any cross-over audiences that may be weary of it all by now, like me, or to get Best Picture consideration.

King Kong's reception "dismal"? In which universe is a film which gets good reviews and makes over half-a-billion dollars worldwide considered dismal? The Universe of Outsized Expectations? King Kong's reception was fine. It wasn't a huge Oscar performer, and it didn't meet the unreasonable box office expectations forced upon it (in other words, it didn't beat Titanic at the box office). And because of this, conventional wisdom maintains that King Kong was a failure. Conventional wisdom is wrong, or at least it likes to change the rules as to what succeeds and what doesn't. But even if it was a failure on its own terms, putting it in the same sentence as The Lovely Bones - which really WAS a critical and box office turd - is ridiculous.

Oscar Guy, anyone can be logical and come up with a range of conclusions. But logic gets you nowhere if the premise is weak to begin with. Yes, Tarantino had no Best Picture nominations in between Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards. Another way of stating that is: Quentin Tarantino's films have already been nominated twice. Saying he had no nominated films in a 15 year span is taking an impressive acheivement as well as proof that the Academy is open to Tarantino's films, and recasting it in a poor light. Martin Scorsese had no films nominated in between Goodfellas and Gangs of New York. That's a 12 year span. Would that have been a good reason to doubt The Aviator's chances for a Best Picture nomination? Logically, yes. Which is why logic sometimes gets us nowhere.

Plus the only real film Tarantino made in between Pulp and Inglorious was Jackie Brown. Kill Bill was an epic film chopped into two incomplete halves (or so goes the legend; I don't know if I believe it myself) and Death Proof was stuck in an omnibus film released in early spring. You make it sound as if he has a career of indifferently received filmmaking, when in actuality his filmmaking has been very sporadic. I don't know if Django is Oscar worthy or if it will get nominated, but I do know that the studio seems to think so. They're promoting the hell out of it and they gave it a sweet holiday release date. And who's the production company for the film? It's The Weinstein Company! Oscar Guy, you're not really underestimating the power of Harvey this year, are you?

[Big Magilla]

From today's Hollywood Elsewhere:

Winds Favoring

A guy who's always talking to Academy members says they're mentioning Amour a lot. On its own, no prompting. I'm mentioning this in the wake of Michael Haneke's film having won four European film awards today -- Best European film, best director, actor and actress. And I've seen it three times now (once in Cannes, once at a screening, once on a screener). So I'm reading the signs and feeling the juju and I don't know what else.

[MovieWes]

The Hobbit isn't just part of some popular franchise. It's part of the most storied franchise in Oscar history; a franchise with a combined 32 Oscar nominations, 3 of which were Best Picture nominations, and 18 wins, one of which was a win for Best Picture in a perfect 11 for 11 clean sweep. Peter Jackson has a career total of 9 Oscar nominations, one of which came after Lord of the Rings, and an Oscar for Best Director.

It seems to me, Irvin, that you're still sore that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 failed to score a Best Picture nomination last year. The major difference between The Hobbit and Harry Potter is that the Potter franchise didn't have the great track record at the Oscars that LOTR did. I'm not saying that The Hobbit is a lock for a Best Picture nomination by any means, but it is in a much better position to score major Oscar nominations than Deathly Hallows 2 ever was. It should at least be in the discussion at this point. The first reviews are going to start coming out in about 2 days, and unless the critics declare it a soul-crushing disappointment on par with The Phantom Menace or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, then it should probably remain in the discussion until the precursors start telling us otherwise.

At the very least, it should score a PGA nomination just based on how difficult it was to get made in the first place. After all the setbacks, which included lawsuits, labor disputes, studio bankruptcies, fires that destroyed major sets, and losing the original director, it was a miracle this movie was even made and must have taken someone with real vision and perseverance to see it through.

[OscarGuy]

I think you're overestimating the potential love for Django Unchained and Amour. From all accounts, Amour is a very difficult film to watch and isn't quite what the Academy tends to recognize.

Re: Amour. In the last 30 years, only four true foreign language films have been nominated for Best Picture. I didn't count The Artist. Despite being produced by a foreign director, producer and crew, it was a silent film that featured not a single line of non-English dialogue. Of those four films, two were released by Sony-owned studios, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon by Sony Pictures Classics, and The Last Emperor released by Columbia (though, I'm not sure Sony owned Columbia back in 1987). The other two, Life Is Beautiful and Il Postino were both Miramax films.

You might say: well, the 1980's and 1990's are far removed from the 2010's and 2000's. You would be right. And all but one of those, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, were nominated in those earlier decades. It's been twelve years since a true foreign language film has been nominated for Best Picture and it was an epic film that tickled the imagination. I don't doubt Amour will have some strong supporters, but I don't think it will be enough.

As for Django Unchained. Why does everyone think this is a lock for an Oscar nomination when other than Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's only Best Picture nomination came from a WWII revenge drama that focused on Jewish protagonists. I'm not saying that Django doesn't have a chance at being nominated, but all things considered, someone who claims that is a surefire nominee while dismissing The Hobbit is doing so for personal reasons and not logical reasons.

After the dismal reception of King Kong (which was nominated for several Oscars, btw, and even won) and The Lovely Bones, those who liked his prior work will be hoping for something spectacular with The Hobbit. If it's a disaster, then I could see the logic behind it failing to catch on with Oscar voters, but if it's even close to being well received, it could easily fill the blockbuster slot. Of the films that I see listed, there are a couple of films that will be 100+ million at the box office, but only one of them is likely to be a real blockbuster: Les Miserables. Django has potential, but even Inglourious Basterds finished at just over $120 million.

One of the reasons the Academy expanded to 10 potential nominees was that it was tired of being lynched by the public for ignoring critically acclaimed blockbusters. Last year didn't have any film making more than $200 million in the Best Picture lineup, but looking at the 9 films that did, only Harry Potter can be even closely compared and that franchise hadn't been liked at all by the Academy. The year before, we had Toy Story 3 and Inception, and before that Avatar, Up and The Blind Side. There are already ten films this year that have crossed the $200 million threshold, five of them had strong support from critics: The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Skyfall and Ted. Ted and The Avengers are right out and Hunger Games isn't getting screeners (at least to critics), so you can probably toss it. Even though Dark Knight Rises had solid critical support, it was considered something of a disappointment from Nolan's prior film and will ultimately be sidelined again I believe.

That leaves Skyfall, The Hobbit and possibly Les Miserables from this year's crop. Skyfall could break into the final ten and I'd consider it more likely to do so than Amour. Heck, I don't even think Beasts of the Southern Wild has much of a chance comparatively. Les Miserables seems a given (I'll know more when I watch my screener this afternoon). The question is still The Hobbit. I see it having a tough time cracking the final Best Picture slate, but a lot depends on how critics view the film. If they call it Jackson's return to form, I could see it getting nominated (his first three films, universally loved by critics, broke barriers by being nominated and none of them were surefire nominees at the time with most expecting Two Towers to fail to score a nomination) as a continuation of the franchise.

And comparing The Lord of the Rings to Star Wars is ludicrous. Lucas has never been much of a writer, but Jackson has been. Heavenly Creatures was his first Oscar nomination for screenwriting. Lucas' prequel trilogy was born not from an actual literary source but from his own mind. The Hobbit has a literary background and, from all I'm familiar with, is the more beloved book ranking higher than The Lord of the Rings in most conversations I've heard. Other than it being turned into a trilogy after a wildly successful prior trilogy, is there any real logical reason to equate Peter Jackson and George Lucas?

[anonymous1980]

I'm also going to add that The Hobbit has TONS of competition this year. Nearly EVERY "Oscar"-able movie pleased the critics well enough and are good enough to have fan bases. Do you really think there are 200 or 300 LoTR fans within the Academy who will rank The Hobbit as #1 in their ballots ahead of Argo, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Zero Dark Thirty, Moonrise Kingdom, Silver Linings Playbook, Django Unchained, Amour, The Master, Life of Pi, etc.? Perhaps you may have a case if two or three of the late releases flopped and was panned hard. But that's not the case.

I think it has to be SPECTACULAR to overcome those odds. For now, I'm only predicting it to have a FEW tech noms.

[MovieWes]

Ah but The Godfather is a sprawling, epic crime drama. The Lord of the Rings is fantasy.

The first two Godfathers, yes. The third, not so much. And The Hobbit is a big-screen epic based on a beloved literary classic that follows a trilogy that was nominated for 32 Oscars and won 18, with all 3 entries being nominated for Best Picture, and the last film tying the record for most Oscar wins ever AND setting the record for the biggest clean sweep ever. And as for it being fantasy, so what? In the past several years, the Academy has nominated Avatar, District 9, Up, Inception, Toy Story 3, and Hugo, not to mention all 3 Lord of the Rings films. I really don't think that they are as uptight about so-called "genre films" as they have been in the past.

It will take something TRULY extraordinary for the Academy to tap the fantasy well again.

Either you've forgotten that the Academy has nominated sci-fi/fantasy films since Lord of the Rings came out, or you think that Avatar and Hugo were nominated a decade ago.

I'm frankly not very optimistic about The Hobbit since it's a relatively short book, that was turned into a trilogy.

It's a relatively short book in which a lot of things happen with very little description. If they were to literally adapt the book without expanding on any of the details, it'd be a pretty crappy movie. If you want a faithful adaptation that's short on details, I guess you can watch the old Rankin/Bass cartoon. Anyway, they're not just adapting The Hobbit. They're adapting The Hobbit + the parts of the Appendices of The Return of the King + parts of Unfinished Tales. It's also my understanding that some story elements from The Lord of the Rings that didn't make it into the original set of films have made it into this trilogy, such as the Barrow Downs (I hear that Radagast is going to fill in for Tom Bombadil) and the Beregond and Bergil subplot, with Bard, Bain, and Bilbo filling in for Beregond, Bergil, and Pippin.

Peter Jackson is entering into George Lucas territory.

How is that? Because The Hobbit is a prequel to Lord of the Rings in the same way that The Phantom Menace was a prequel to Star Wars? Or is it because King Kong and The Lovely Bones weren't as successful as Lord of the Rings? Since Lord of the Rings, he's directed an actor to an Oscar nomination and received an additional nomination for Best Picture for District 9. In his entire career, he's directed 11 movies (not including The Hobbit), one of which was critically panned. He's produced 2 additional films, District 9 and The Adventures of Tintin, both of which were liked by critics and audiences, despite Tintin underperforming in the US (it was a blockbuster internationally).

If the film is even just SLIGHTLY worse than Return of the King, people are gonna pounce on it.

So basically what you're saying is, people are going to pounce on The Hobbit if it's anything less than the quality of a film that not only won a perfect 11 out of 11 Oscars, but is also one of the top 5 most successful movies of the past decade?

I think Les Miserables will be the December blockbuster to get in Best Picture.

Are you implying that Les Miserables is going to gross over $430 million domestically?

[FilmFan720]

I'll second what Sabin said...maybe it is just the circles I am in these days, but I have heard very little excitement about The Hobbit, whereas the second and third seemed to be treated as the event of the year. I actually keep forgetting it is even coming out this year. I don't think it will gross near what the first few films grossed, and I don't think it is going to be too major of a contender awards wise (although it could sneak into Best Picture on name and fanboys alone)

[Sabin]

I will fully cop to not giving The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a second thought in this race. And honestly? I didn't give The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring a second thought either. Literally, the same consideration I gave to the first of that trilogy, I give to this one. And there is no reason why I shouldn't be excited for more of Peter Jackson's Tolkein series. I have yet to read the book so it's all going to be as new to me as the first one was.

That being said, I don't know anyone who is excited for it. At least right now. Maybe as we get closer. There's a little bit of ill-will for splicing it up into three movies but we'll see if people complain when they see the films. A slew of technical noms seem guaranteed.

[anonymous1980]

Ah but The Godfather is a sprawling, epic crime drama. The Lord of the Rings is fantasy. It will take something TRULY extraordinary for the Academy to tap the fantasy well again. I'm frankly not very optimistic about The Hobbit since it's a relatively short book, that was turned into a trilogy. Peter Jackson is entering into George Lucas territory. If the film is even just SLIGHTLY worse than Return of the King, people are gonna pounce on it.

I think Les Miserables will be the December blockbuster to get in Best Picture.

[MovieWes]

Okay, so I may be basing this on tweets from Tweeter, but I think a lot of people are underestimating the chances of The Hobbit. Also, I see Les Misérables becoming this years Dreamgirls.

I've thought this all year long. I don't think you can reasonably write this off when you consider that The Lord of the Rings is the most nominated and winningest film franchise in the history of the Oscars, as well as one of only two franchises to have all 3 films nominated for Best Picture. Maybe it is more of the same, but this is the same Academy that nominated The Godfather Part III for Best Picture despite it being universally loathed. Based on the recent trailers and TV spots, it looks like it's going to be different enough from the previous trilogy to prevent it from feeling stale, but is going to maintain the same technical wizardry and love for the source material as its predecessor. It's also going to be the BIG hit at the box-office during the height of Oscar season, something that worked reasonably well not only for the original trilogy, but for Avatar and Titanic. When was the last time we had a mega-blockbuster in December that failed to grab a Best Picture nomination? You'd have to go all the way back to Beverly Hills Cop in 1984.

Of the top grossing live-action films of all-time (adjusted for inflation) that were released in December...

1. Gone with the Wind (1939) - $1,604,234,300 (won)
2. Titanic (1997) - $1,075,667,300 (won)
3. Doctor Zhivago (1965) - $985,635,500 (nominated)
4. Avatar (2009) - $772,206,800 (nominated)
5. The Sting (1973) - $707,794,300 (won)
6. The Graduate (1967) - $679,479,400 (nominated)
7. Love Story (1970) - $555,785,300 (nominated)
8. Beverly Hills Cop (1984) - $533,171,100 (not nominated)
9. The Bells of St. Mary's (1945) - $498,196,100 (nominated)
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) - $489,419,200 (won)
11. The Towering Inferno (1974) - $487,322,800 (nominated)
12. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) - $458,338,700 (nominated)
13. Tootsie (1982) - $451,817,300 (nominated)
14. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - $439,745,400 (won)
15. The Poseidon Adventure (1972) - $435,921,600 (not nominated)
16. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) - $435,106,300 (nominated)
17. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) - $431,936,000 (won)
18. Swiss Family Robinson (1960) - $427,235,500 (not nominated)

Please note that I left out 1937's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which would be #4, due to the fact that it is animated. Also, #19 and 20 are The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and Meet the Fockers, which are not in the same box-office league as the other 18 films listed above (which The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is sure to join). Also, The Poseidon Adventure, with 8 nominations, is one of the top 4 most nominated films ever to not receive a Best Picture nomination. If The Hobbit can hit $450 million and get at least the same level of acclaim as Avatar, I'd say a Best Picture nomination is pretty much inevitable.

[MovieWes]

Best Picture
Amour
Argo
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Miserables*
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Best Director
Ben Affleck - Argo*
Tom Hooper - Les Miserables
Peter Jackson - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Ang Lee - Life of Pi
Steven Spielberg - Lincoln

Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
John Hawkes - The Sessions
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables
Joaquin Phoenix - The Master*
Denzel Washington - Flight

Best Actress
Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook*
Emmanuel Riva - Amour
Quvenzhane Wallis - Beasts of the Southern Wild
Mary Elizabeth Winstead - Smashed

Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin - Argo
Leonardo DiCaprio - Django Unchained
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - The Master*
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
Matthew McConaughey - Magic Mike

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams - The Master
Sally Field - Lincoln
Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables*
Helen Hunt - The Sessions
Maggie Smith - The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Best Original Screenplay
Amour - Michael Haneke
Flight - John Gatins
The Master - Paul Thomas Anderson
Moonrise Kingdom - Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola*
Zero Dark Thirty - Mark Boal

Best Adapted Screenplay
Argo - Chris Terrio*
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo Del Toro
Les Miserables - William Nicholson
Lincoln - Tony Kushner, John Logan, Paul Webb
Silver Linings Playbook - David O. Russell

Best Animated Feature
Brave*
Frankenweenie
ParaNorman
The Painting
Wreck-It Ralph

Best Foreign Language Film
Amour (Austria)*
The Intouchables (France)
A Royal Affair (Denmark)
???

Best Film Editing
Argo - William Goldenberg*
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Jabez Olssen
Les Miserables - Chris Dickens
Lincoln - Michael Kahn
Zero Dark Thirty - Dylan Tichenor

Best Cinematography
Anna Karenina - Seamus McGarvey
The Dark Knight Rises - Wally Pfister
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Andrew Lesnie*
Life of Pi - Claudio Miranda
Skyfall - Roger Deakins

Best Art Direction
Anna Karenina - Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Dan Hennah, Ra Vincent, Alan Lee, John Howe
Les Miserables - Eve Stuart*
Lincoln - Rick Carter, Jim Erickson, Peter Frank
The Master - David Crank, Jack Fisk, Amy Wells

Best Costume Design
Anna Karenina - Jacqueline Durran
Les Miserables - Paco Delgado*
Lincoln - Joanna Johnston
The Master - Mark Bridges
A Royal Affair - Manon Rasmusson

Best Makeup
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey*
Les Miserables
Lincoln

Best Sound Mixing
The Avengers
The Dark Knight Rises
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Miserables*
Skyfall

Best Sound Editing
The Avengers
The Dark Knight Rises
Life of Pi
Skyfall*
Zero Dark Thirty

Best Visual Effects
The Avengers
Cloud Atlas
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey*
Life of Pi
Prometheus

Best Original Score
Anna Karenina - Dario Marienelli
Argo - Alexandre Desplat
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Howard Shore*
Life of Pi - Mychael Danna
Lincoln - John Williams

Best Original Song
"From Here to the Moon and Back" from Joyful Noise
"Skyfall" from Skyfall
"Suddenly" from Les Miserables*

[bizarre]

I always alphabetize titles without the articles as long as I know the language well enough to recognize there is an article.

This is the problem. Inevitably, in the case of non-English language films that don't change their original titles on release in an English-speaking market, the only ones that will be paid attention to in this way are French, Italian or Spanish. In my personal logs and lists I find it handier (and more accurate... 'The' is a word) to alphabetise the article as well.

[bizarre]

Brief Grammar-Nazi PSA: Les Miserables is properly alphabetized under "M", in the same way that The Hobbit is alphabetized under "H" and The Sessions is alphabetized under "S"

I don't ignore articles when I alphabetise, which is why I have it under 'L' and all 'The...' titles under 'T'.