Page 1 of 4
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:25 am
by MovieWes
I just realized that if No Country for Old Men sweeps the Picture, Director, and Screenplay categories (which it most likely will), the Coen brothers will join Leo McCarey (Going My Way), Billy Wilder (The Apartment), Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather, Part II), James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment), and Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King) as the only people to win all three categories.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:09 pm
by cam
OscarGuy wrote:I hope so. I love There Will Be Blood. It's the best film made this decade, IMO.
I heartily agree, Wes. Day-Lewis is wonderful and memorable as well. I am sorry that Dano was not picked for a nomination.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:44 pm
by Big Magilla
Juno has been advertised heavily in my neck of the woods, Michael Clayton less so, No Country, Blood and Atonement very heavily the last couple of weeks.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:36 pm
by Sabin
I've seen no ads for Michael Clayton or Juno so far.
You see no ads for 'Juno'? Wow.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:49 pm
by The Original BJ
OscarGuy wrote:Though, Atonement has been bombarded in advertising.
This is incredibly true, particularly in LA.
I like the film, but I am beyond tired of hearing/seeing ads exalting Atonement's masterpiece-ness.
Ratatouille's ad campaign has also been astonishingly aggressive around town -- a little surprising to me given that its big award is practically a gimme.
Edited By The Original BJ on 1202255379
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:53 pm
by OscarGuy
I hope so. I love There Will Be Blood. It's the best film made this decade, IMO.
Of course, I'm looking mostly at the Variety site and since it's a big industry source, I would assume the ads you're seeing are advertising to people to go see the film, not for it to win the Oscars, which is all the ads I ever see on Variety.
Though, Atonement has been bombarded in advertising. It's always there, so although No Country's getting sizable attention, Atonement is spending the most.
I've seen no ads for Michael Clayton or Juno so far.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:27 pm
by Sonic Youth
OscarGuy wrote:I've seen only a handful of ads for Blood, but shit tons for No Country.
That's funny. I've seen lots of ads for ''Blood'' on TV. And very strong ones, too, like it's being seriously campaigned.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:15 pm
by dws1982
Sonic Youth wrote:I still haven't gotten around to seeing "There Will Be Blood", but my mother - this saintly woman - assured me it's "a fucking masterpiece".
There Will Be Blood seems destined to go down as the 2007 "masterpiece" that I just don't get. I admire it, but I still don't think Anderson has made the masterpiece that he keeps trying his hardest to make. I was actually almost with those strong admirers (well I wouldn't have called it a masterpiece) until that coda. And Daniel Day-Lewis is a ham! No one wants to admit this, as if it means his performance isn't good--I thought it served the character--or he isn't a good actor, but he's a ham. (This was the only performance of his I've liked since The Unbearable Lightness of Being, for what it's worth.)
One clarification about the co-production status of Blood and No Country: Blood is distributed domestically by Paramount Vantage, internationally by Miramax, while the opposite is true for No Country. It could just be that Miramax is running the better promotional campaign. Or it could be that Scott Rudin, producer of both, but nominated only for No Country, pulled strings to keep the Oscar push for Blood minimal enough that it wouldn't jeopardize his Oscar chances.
Edited By dws1982 on 1202267732
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:02 pm
by OscarGuy
I wonder if the reason we're not seeing more hype about There Will Be Blood is that Paramount Vantage has determined No Country will be the year's Best Picture. Paramount Vantage/Miramax co-produced both films, but the one they are advertising is No Country. I've seen only a handful of ads for Blood, but shit tons for No Country. This will either A) backfire and result in neither film winning and something like Michael Clayton, Atonement or Juno taking the top prize. or B) result in a No Country victory leaving all the There Will Be Blood fans to lament it wasn't taken more seriously.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:51 pm
by Sonic Youth
Bog wrote:So you are going to be disappointed and shocked when No Country wins Oscars for most, if not all of its nominations...not even Wes will be shocked....
Sasha on Oscar Watch is also selling that possibility. But were it to happen, I'd be shocked. "No Country" may win THE most Oscars of the night - assuming it's a Best Picture winner, which is looking more and more likely - but I doubt it will win MOST of its noms... unless five out of eight is considered "most". And even so, it's not quite domination.
Bettestreep makes one good point. For years now, AMPAS has been very stingy - or altruistic, depending on your perspective - with the Oscars, generously giving out the awards to many films and leaving the Best Picture winner with relatively few.
2007: The Departed, four Oscars. (Granted, that's 80% of everything it was nominated for, but still... it was only nommed in five categories.)
2006: Crash, three Oscars.
2005: Million Dollar Baby, four Oscars.
2003: Chicago, six Oscars (out of thirteen nominations).
2002: A Beautiful Mind, four Oscars.
2001: Gladiator, five Oscars (out of twelve nominations).
2000: American Beauty, five Oscars.
Finally, we get to 1999 and Shakespeare In Love (7 Oscars) and then Titanic and The English Patient (a gazillion each). Yeah, I know, we did have 2004 and Return of the King, but there were very unusual circumstances around that one.
These days, AMPAS doesn't want to be in the business of enabling a juggernaut. And "No Country for Old Men" ain't the sort of film that produces Oscar juggernauts. Hell, it ain't the sort of film that wins Best Picture. At all. It STILL doesn't seem right that this sort of un-Oscary film is a frontrunner. And I'll be happily astonished if it wins.
P.S., I still haven't gotten around to seeing "There Will Be Blood", but my mother - this saintly woman - assured me it's "a fucking masterpiece". (Please bear in mind, we had this conversation ten minutes after the Giant's beautiful Super Bowl victory.)
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:32 am
by Steph2
Bog wrote:but the Hudson/Dee correlation is totally irrelevant, non?
I was going to say the same thing. Pretty much the only thing they have in common is that they're both black women.
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:23 am
by Bog
bettestreep2004 wrote:If Jennifer Hudson can win on debut - then Ruby is a shoo in for a very good performance but mostly for her career.
Swinton, Ryan and Ronan are all first time nominees and the nomination should be reward enough (as it is often said).
I find most all of what you said to be unbelievably confusing...but the Hudson/Dee correlation is totally irrelevant, non? And you say Hudson can win on her debut and that's all well and good but not the 3 this year?
So you are going to be disappointed and shocked when No Country wins Oscars for most, if not all of its nominations...not even Wes will be shocked....but you hang in there with Atonement.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:40 pm
by Zahveed
Steph2 wrote:Did I really just compare poor Amy Ryan to John McCain?
Yes, yes you did.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:26 pm
by bettestreep2004
Ruby Dee had it won from the minute she was cast.
In the 80th year of the Oscars - how appropriate it would be to honour a character actress who is 80 or so?
If Jennifer Hudson can win on debut - then Ruby is a shoo in for a very good performance but mostly for her career.
Blanchett will probably be nominated a few more times (she is under 40) and will win again eventually.
Swinton, Ryan and Ronan are all first time nominees and the nomination should be reward enough (as it is often said).
I personally am looking forward to the Best Picture prize - since I am still sticking to my guns and predicting a win for "Atonement". No Country is an overrated mess and undeserving - despite the critics and guilds going ga ga over it!
It will however be a year when there are multiple winners. Thankfully the years of one film dominating all categories is over - and the rewards shared around - makes for more interesting viewing.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:58 pm
by Steph2
I agree FilmFan, and it will probably end predictably with Oscar rubber stamping SAG and going with the veteran and the record breaker. That's so like the Academy.
At this point it would be a wonderful surprise if they actually went for Amy Ryan (the most deserving) - which is kind of weird considering she originally dominated this award season. Kind of like how McCain was the only possibility we all thought the Republicans had a year ago, got lost in the media shuffle with Romney and Rudy taking the spotlight, and now it seems McCain may make a strong enough comeback to snag the Presidential nomination.
Did I really just compare poor Amy Ryan to John McCain?