( +6 hidden )
January 19, 2020 at 12:55 am #1203291926
So Happy for 1917’s win.
Would have been more for Parasite but that wasn’t going to ever happen so…
I don’t see 1917 loosing BP at Oscars now.
Director and Picture at GG
Director and Picture at BAFTA
PGA and DGA wins
Huge Box Office
I just don’t see any way it is loosing BP unless it gets La La Land treatment at Oscars.
Frankly speaking,I am also not sure that OUATIH can win Original Screenplay at Oscars although it will but…..
Kubrick-Scorsese-Nolan-Coens-PTA-Fincher-Hitchock-Spike-Tarantino-Wes Anderson-Bong Joon-HoJanuary 19, 2020 at 1:12 am #1203291928
1917 is a big cinematographic achievement, but it winning Best Picture represents everything that is wrong with the actual society.
Parasite losing again to 1917, is just what we got last year, with Roma losing to GB. This movie was universally acclaimed by critics and audiences alike as something we never seen, while 1917 already been adapted/shown (multiple times) before.
Parasite being about minorities and stuff will hurt its chances. Where it’s even sadder, is the fact that Bo Joon Ho or whatever his name is, is losing de facto Best Director.January 19, 2020 at 1:16 am #1203291932
Well PGA just threw away their vote. With no Acting or Editing nominations and no political message 1917 has no chance at a Best Picture win no matter how many precursors it wins. Once is the frontrunner by default now. This will be 2016 all over again, where the frontrunner wins the most precursors and the most awards overall (La La Land), but a more conventional Oscar-bait film takes Picture anyway.
I hope it will but not OUATIH. It should be Parasite.
𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙖𝙙, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪January 19, 2020 at 1:19 am #1203291935
Can’t believe before the Globes I thought 1917 was just going to be an also-ran and now it’s going to win Picture and probably DirectorJanuary 19, 2020 at 1:38 am #1203291946
I don’t know to y’all but 1917 deserves Best Picture.January 19, 2020 at 2:14 am #1203291965
Best win this awards season. Once had been underperforming and suddenly we have a huge contender like 1917.January 19, 2020 at 2:20 am #1203291969
So Parasite is really gonna have to pull a Crash to win huh
Parasite most likely will not win Best Picture and this is coming from someone who loved the film. I think as of now it has a very little chance. However, if Parasite wins SAG I think it has a big chance so we’ll have to wait for tomorrow’s results.January 19, 2020 at 5:41 am #1203292102
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.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. Where you lose me is your last point regarding Once Upon a Time, which has several weaknesses now including losing PGA (all recent Best Picture winners about Hollywood/show-business, as well as La La Land, also won PGA); and secondly that editing snub which I believe hurts it more than 1917 missing editing, as the latter could reasonably be expected to miss there for obvious reasons and not for lack of favour. Once Upon a Time was exactly the sort of film that I believe needed PGA to remain in frontrunner position, and last night was a huge blow to its chances, even if it wins SAG ensemble tonight. If there’s a stealth contender with the preferential ballot I expect it’ll be Parasite as it is less divisive and has far less of a target on its back; it even has some tech support with editing and production design noms. The ACE win certainly helped; it doesn’t necessarily have to win SAG but I do think it needs WGA to stay in the game, where it has a decent shot.January 19, 2020 at 7:31 am #1203292175
Read the thread. It is 1917 winning without acting and editing nominations. Also winning without any SAG nominations.January 19, 2020 at 7:32 am #1203292177
So Parasite is really gonna have to pull a Crash to win huh
Well it has the Crash or Spotlight Route if it were to win SAG tonight; if it loses SAG tonight, it still has that Moonlight route (WGA alone).
Hollywood is really narrowing its pathway to BP now, even if it wins SAG tonight (which is probable but not a certainty), due to WGA ineligibility, it would still have just SAG, films with just SAG alone haven’t won BP even once. Perhaps Hollywood can win BAFTA, perhaps it is strong enough to take screenplay without being at WGA (basically not a 3 billboard situation), we won’t know the latter until Oscar night though.January 19, 2020 at 7:33 am #1203292179
Read the thread. It is 1917 winning without acting and editing nominations. Also winning without any SAG nominations.
And as someone on Awardsdaily pointed out, this hasn’t happened since Grand Hotel, this strong stat definitely should not be ignored.January 19, 2020 at 7:52 am #1203292192
LOL People are still throwing around stats like they matterJanuary 19, 2020 at 7:57 am #1203292204
The nature of stats is that they align most of the time. They should neither be thrown out entirely or heeded more than they heed themselves, both of which I see on this page.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.