Official 2013 Oscar Nominations Thread (1 Viewer)

[joshEH]

No John Hawkes, no Ben Affleck. Interesting. I thought that they were both locks on this. No Kathryn Bigelow, which is pretty terrible, since the movie got screenplay and picture noms, among others. Like...WTH?? Did it direct itself? (And Flight -- really?)

 

[Jeff Adkins]

No John Hawkes, no Ben Affleck. Interesting. I thought that they were both locks on this. No Kathryn Bigelow, which is pretty terrible, since the movie got screenplay and picture noms, among others. Like...WTH?? Did it direct itself? (And Flight -- really?)

I agree. Although I didn't really think Samuel Jackson would get nominated, I thought for sure that Bigelow, Hawkes and Affleck would.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by joshEH
No John Hawkes, no Ben Affleck. Interesting. I thought that they were both locks on this.
No Kathryn Bigelow, which is pretty terrible, since the movie got screenplay and picture noms, among others. Like...WTH?? Did it direct itself?
(And Flight -- really?)

Denzel's performance was deserving of his nomination. The writing nomination is a different matter.
Crawdaddy

 

[TravisR]

No Kathryn Bigelow, which is pretty terrible, since the movie got screenplay and picture noms, among others. Like...WTH?? Did it direct itself?

I thought her work on Zero Dark Thirty was better than The Hurt Locker and she won the Oscar that time.

 

I'm so excited and happy for all of the "Lincoln" nominations. It's already one of my all-time favorite films.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I did see "The Beasts of the Southern Wild", but something just didn't really sit right with me, maybe it was the impressionistic narrative from the point of view from the little girl, perhaps that's the perceived brilliance of the film. I found it hard to genre-lize it as sci-fi, maybe more like speculative fiction in movie form.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by joshEH
No John Hawkes, no Ben Affleck. Interesting. I thought that they were both locks on this.
No Kathryn Bigelow, which is pretty terrible, since the movie got screenplay and picture noms, among others. Like...WTH?? Did it direct itself?
(And Flight -- really?)

Yeah, I thought Hawkes was a lock.
I was a bit surprised that Hunger Games didn't get some costuming nods, definitely over Mirror-Mirror and Snow White & The Hunstmen

 

While I'm sure all the movies nominated for the major awards are of high quality, I still think that it is a disgrace that over the last two tears, phenomenally well received films, commercially and critically have been overlooked, WITH A VACANT SPOT FOR BEST PICTURE! This means none of these movies recieved even 2% of the vote. Harry Potter was phenomenal and without a doubt my favorite film of last year. This year, Dark Knight, and Skyfall should have both been nominated, and neither one was. How does Avatar get a nomination for Best Picture and none of these did? And does Les Miserables get a free nomination because Tom Hooper's last film won Best Picture? TDKR, Skyfall, and HPATDHP2, are great films with emotional resonance that transcends their genres, and all should have been nominated. The Academy won points with me with the LOTR nominations and wins, but IMHO they have taken a step back into the world of art house snobbery. And I'm a person who has liked just about every Best Picture nominated film I have ever watched.

 

[Craig S]

I completed zoned over the fact that Life Of Pi scored 11 noms, just one shy of Lincoln's haul. That's a pretty amazing showing for a film which had been relegated to second-tier status behind presumed stronger contender like Les Mis, Argo & ZDT. All of these three are dead, IMO, as far as winning BP. Lincoln is the front-runner, but I think it's a weaker leader than we have seen in several years. I would have to put Silver Linings Playbook as its main competitor, because it is an actor's showcase and as we know actors make up the bulk of the Academy membership. We could be looking at a replay of 1998.

 

[Larry-Bender]

Richard Gere should of been nominated for Arbitrage.

 

[Number 6]

Baffling, in my opinion, that Django Unchained was nominated for Best Picture and Best Screenplay. Truly baffling. This smacks of the classic bandwagoning that out-of-touch Academy members often get up to. Tarantino apologists will surely disagree, but Django was an unrestrained and often incoherent mess. Flat, one-dimensional characters (simple archetypes, really), absent motivation for these characters, hazy pacing, and an illogical and flimsy plot that does not bear up under scrutiny are not typically hallmarks of Oscar nominated screenplays or pictures. Christoph Waltz, however, is the one saving grace. While his character fell prey to lazy writing, his performance rose above it. It was the one thing that kept the film afloat for me.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Cloud Atlas got no love in the Make-up category.

 

[joshEH]

At least Quentin doesn't get to punch Tom Hooper for taking his Best Director-spot. I like the Skyfall song, but I strongly believe that they nommed it just to get Adele to sing it on the show and pop their ratings. [VIDEO]http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIt0fmRn-GM[/VIDEO] Let's pray something exactly like this happens again this year. If only to see Daniel Craig pick up Adele in his arms as they are lifted offstage together.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Quote:

Just need to see Zero Dark Thirty (tomorrow or Saturday) and Amour (not playing in this area yet) to finish off my 2012 Oscar viewings.

Same for myself, however...
Recently saw Amour.
It is everything that I had feared it would be going into it.
It is a masterpiece for certain, and Ms. Riva certainly deserves the Oscar nod,
but it's a most difficult, depressing film to sit through.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Nothing too surprising, but I thought the awards hunters actually made some pretty good films this year overall. Lincoln is about as traditional an "Oscar movie" as you can get, but it was genuinely a great film, so I'm happy for its nominations.

 

[TravisR]

Tarantino apologists will surely disagree...

Ugh. I know that people love name calling and easy labels when it comes to political discussions on the internet but I hope it doesn't happen for movies too.

 

[Number 6]

Ugh. I know that people love name calling and easy labels when it comes to political discussions on the internet but I hope it doesn't happen for movies too.

No name-calling intended. As a screenwriter myself and a screenwriting instructor at a major university, I regularly am in the trenches regarding critical reaction to contemporary screenwriring--it's part of my job. (Which is not to say my opinion is of any more value than anyone else's, mind you. Just that I might look at things a bit more process-oriented than some folks.) I often find that Tarantino is a writer whose work often escapes any real critical examination by his exuberant admirers--it's gold, no matter what he puts up on the screen and damn anyone who says otherwise. When there is the rare moment of admission that the work might not be perfect, it is usually swiftly followed by something along the lines of "Well, it's still better than _______." Ergo my (perhaps misplaced) 'apologist' remark. Blind admiration for an artist's work--and Tarantino's is a prime example--concerns me--at least in the case of developing writers. Tarantino is abundantly talented and some of his work has moments of real brilliance. Unfortunately, these moments, these teachable moments for developing writers, often get caught and lost in the undertow of all the 'noise' of his approach altogether. And, sadly, what he does well (or used to do), his real skill at the subtle groundwork of building characterization, is completely ignored in favour of all of the sensational (and far less effective) trappings of his work. As I'm fond of pointing out to students, it's one thing to have your favourites--we all do and should (I have some pretty 'bad' ones myself)--but it is an entirely different matter to judge craft on its technical merits--which, one would like to believe, is exactly what the Oscar competition is all about. At least that's what it is presented as (and what my comments referred to.) So, please, accept my apologies for my 'apologist' remark.

 

[James David Walley]

The general rule-of-thumb for handicapping the Best Picture race is to look for those films with nominations for both director and editing as well. Often, all five (in the old days) nominees qualified. This year, only three do: Lincoln, Life Of Pi, and Silver Linings Playbook.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Life of Pi is perhaps the quietest 10+ nominated film ever. I'm glad it got such recognition, but I really think it only has a decent shot at winning Score. This is a race between Lincoln and Silver Linings Playbook, folks. Lincoln has the edge if only because it appeals to both the actors and the technical voting blocks.

 

[Chris Will]

Really rooting for John Williams to pick up his 6th Oscar! Lincoln is the best score of the year IMO. Baffled by Skyfall's score nomination, I thought it was a very mediocre score. I would have nominated The Amazing Spider-man (Horner), The Hobbit (Shore) or John Carter (Giacchino) before Skyfall.