Home Forums Movies 2020 Oscar Predictions (Part 10)

2020 Oscar Predictions (Part 10)

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 495 total)
Created
1 month ago
Last Reply
4 weeks ago
499
( +5 hidden )
replies
30451
views
95
users
Gabe Guarin
77
John Berchmans
48
thatnerdgreg
32
  • thatnerdgreg
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203292983

    1917 may not seem divisive on surface but it may strike voters as emotionally cold due to its lack of connection to its own central characters. Once Upon a Time leaves an impression and has characters you can root for.

    The film isn’t divisive at all. And there’s nothing cold about it’s relationship with it’s characters. It has very emotional moments with them. I find Schofield much easier to root for than Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth, two characters that I legitimately loved.

    I think the distaste you’re seeing for 1917 is possible evidence that it is not the consensus choice most seem to think it is.

    You’re clearly very biased against the film winning. Almost all of the “distaste” for it on this forum is coming from you.

    The Cool Guy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 16th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203292989

    I have 1917 winning because I feel it getting into writing helps it more than the acting & editing snubs hurt it. The movies only legitimate shot at an acting nomination was George McKay who was in one of most crowded acting categories of the century, 2x Oscar Winner Robert De Niro, Golden Globe Winner Taron Edgerton, and Oscar Favorite Christian Bale all missed this year. It missing editing is very reminiscent to Birdman especially because of the similar filming styles, and while Birdman got ACE Eddie it was also in a significantly weaker 2014 Comedy/Musical lineup.  It getting writing is huge, not only because it beat out critical favorites in The Farewell & WGA + BAFTA nominee Booksmart, but also with other 2010’s World War movies like Dunkirk, & Hacksaw Ridge missing out. Once missing editing is a huge deal, some would cite the films length, but The Irishman was nearly an hour longer and still got in. Parasite in my opinion is 1917’s biggest threat as of now.

    Gabriel Guarin
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 23rd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293004

    I have 1917 winning because I feel it getting into writing helps it more than the acting & editing snubs hurt it. The movies only legitimate shot at an acting nomination was George McKay who was in one of most crowded acting categories of the century, 2x Oscar Winner Robert De Niro, Golden Globe Winner Taron Edgerton, and Oscar Favorite Christian Bale all missed this year. It missing editing is very reminiscent to Birdman especially because of the similar filming styles, and while Birdman got ACE Eddie it was also in a significantly weaker 2014 Comedy/Musical lineup. It getting writing is huge, not only because it beat out critical favorites in The Farewell & WGA + BAFTA nominee Booksmart, but also with other 2010’s World War movies like Dunkirk, & Hacksaw Ridge missing out. Once missing editing is a huge deal, some would cite the films length, but The Irishman was nearly an hour longer and still got in. Parasite in my opinion is 1917’s biggest threat as of now.

    I’ve gone through all the reasons why 1917 is not the frontrunner you are propping it up to be.

    Let me break this down for you: 1. Yes, all the branches vote for Best Picture, but at the end of the day it’s the actors that have the biggest influence in the final decision, being the biggest branch. There’s no way you can minimize their importance, and there’s also no way you can argue 1917 is mainly driven by the actors which is what they’ll be looking for. If 1917 was THAT strong, then shouldn’t somebody from that movie have been able to manage an Oscar nomination? The only two films in the past 10 years to win Best Picture with so much as less than two acting nominations were The Hurt Locker and Argo, both unstoppable juggernauts (regardless of Ben Affleck’s director snub). 2. If producers, directors and crafts were able to put a film over the top, then by that logic Gravity should’ve won Best Picture. Hell, it won DGA + PGA and still couldn’t win. Which brings me to my next point: every Best Picture winner the past 10 years are clearly actor-driven, or at least the acting was a significant part of the movie. How many people are going to say the performances of the relatively unknown newcomers George McKay and Dean-Charles Chapman were among the first things they remembered about the movie, or to put it another way, how many people are upset that they didn’t get an Oscar nomination? 3. “The Editing thing is irrelevant because Birdman” First of all, Birdman’s editors still got recognition BAFTA and ACE Eddie regardless of their Oscar snub, in contrast to 1917’s Lee Smith being snubbed by BAFTA and ACE Eddie. Even if ACE missed it because of its late release, there’s no reason why BAFTA shouldn’t have nominated it given how much they loved the movie otherwise. Second of all, Birdman is the only example since Ordinary People in 1980 that we have to go on, and I could argue 1917 wasn’t even 6th in place for an Editing Oscar nod, and I would similarly argue Birdman comfortably WAS 6th in place for an editing Oscar bid for reasons I just listed above. The editing snub was also a death knell to Roma. We dismissed that because the editing wasn’t particularly flashy, and we paid for that. 4. I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt and chalk up 1917’s SAG miss as the result of a late release. I will give you that. But I’ll also reiterate a previous point, if the Academy was THAT in love with 1917 and loved the performances of the main actors, surely they would’ve given it at least one acting nomination., something EVERY Best Picture winner has had under the preferential ballot the past 10 years. 5. The last film to win Best Picture without either acting or editing nominations was 1932’s Grand Hotel. You can’t take an 87-year-old rule lightly. 6. Aside from not winning at some places where it arguably should have and missing that editing nod, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has very few weaknesses. If 1917 can get away with an editing snub (which I still say it can’t for reasons I’ve just described in detail), then so can Once Upon a Time. Even a film being divisive is relatively subjective. Wasn’t Green Book getting all sorts of backlash last year? Like Green Book, Once Upon a Time is driven by its writing and acting, not to mention featuring well-known actors. It’s currently predicted to win for acting, writing and at least one technical award (Production Design), so you can guarantee the Academy will consider it strongly when casting their ballots.

    To add on, the reasoning that the lead acting race was one of the most packed in recent years doubles down as an invalid excuse when we have nominees like Roma’s Marina de Tavira who had no precursor nominations leading up to that last year, which shows that the Academy can nominate anyone they want. Which brings me back to a point I had previously made: if the Academy were THAT in love with 1917, MacKay should’ve been able to earn a nomination.

    Thatcher, Prime Minister of GoldDerby
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 3rd, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293015

    Darlings, stop it and accept it. This is going to be a boring year, just like the last ones. Thatcher has been warning you since the beginning. Dunkirk 2 is going to win. It’s plain and simple. Most of you just don’t want to accept it. Your Prime Minister has been saying it! Only the new Disgustantino rubbish can upset. And it is not happening at all. Wake up, dear citizens.

    As a famous singer said, "ain't nobody gonna Thatcher, Thatcher, Thatcher!"

    Golden Girl
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293026

    I just want to reiterate the question – is the “87-year-old Grand Hotel rule” still an even comparison in the era of the preferential ballot? I feel like our new precedents only go back about 10 years now.

    Gabriel Guarin
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 23rd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293426

    I just want to reiterate the question – is the “87-year-old Grand Hotel rule” still an even comparison in the era of the preferential ballot? I feel like our new precedents only go back about 10 years now.

    It was back when the Oscars were first starting. There’s a reason it hasn’t happened since then.

    Golden Girl
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293466

    It was back when the Oscars were first starting. There’s a reason it hasn’t happened since then.

    Yes, I understand that. I’m just saying that the logistics of voting changed dramatically in 2009. IMO, these older stats have a little less relevance. We’ve seen winners break the mold since the introduction of preferential ballot. I feel there should be a some more emphasis on what has happened since the 2009 change in terms of BP.

    That being said, while I think 1917 is the current frontrunner, I believe that Once and Parasite are still very much in the game. All three films have statistical positives and negatives.

    Hammad Asif
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 4th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293536

    What’s Grand Hotel rule?

    Kubrick-Scorsese-Nolan-Coens-PTA-Fincher-Hitchock-Spike-Tarantino-Wes Anderson-Bong Joon-Ho

    Golden Girl
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293545

    What’s Grand Hotel rule?

    Gabriel has mentioned that the last film to win BP without acting and/or editing nominations was Grand Hotel from 1932, ie- it hasn’t happened in 87 years.

    I just feel that this has to be taken with a grain of salt in light of the perferential ballot and how multiple films in the past decade have broken multiple long standing stats.

    Hammad Asif
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 4th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293563

    Gabriel has mentioned that the last film to win BP without acting and/or editing nominations was Grand Hotel from 1932, ie- it hasn’t happened in 87 years.

    I just feel that this has to be taken with a grain of salt in light of the perferential ballot and how multiple films in the past decade have broken multiple long standing stats.

    Woah 87yrs is long

    But,Stats are made to be Broken.

    Kubrick-Scorsese-Nolan-Coens-PTA-Fincher-Hitchock-Spike-Tarantino-Wes Anderson-Bong Joon-Ho

    Golden Girl
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293680

    And Parasite takes SAG! We have a race!

    The Cool Guy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 16th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293720

    And Hollywood is officially third!

    FreemanGriffin
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 19th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293726

    1917 vs. Parasite! Love them both! (:

    The Cool Guy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 16th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293742

    1917 with PGA, and probrably DGA, and BAFTA. Parasite with SAG Ensemble, and probrably WGA. This is about to be interesting.

    thatnerdgreg
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203293787

    1917 vs Parasite. Should be fun.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 495 total)

The topic ‘2020 Oscar Predictions (Part 10)’ is closed to new replies.

Similar Topics
Brayden... - Feb 25, 2020
Movies
eninbol... - Feb 24, 2020
Movies
Jeffrey... - Feb 24, 2020
Movies