Official 2020 Oscar Nominations Thread (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

From that article:

[The Irishman's] Martin Scorsese has done this a lot, and often better. Listen, I've seen Casino, in its entirety, start to finish, 20 times — that movie makes you want to be a gangster...

If he's seen Casino 20 times and his take away is that he wants to be a gangster. he may want to invest in a 21st viewing. That's as stupid as the stockbrokers who watch The Wolf Of Wall Street and think that they're supposed to get stoked by Leo's "I'm not leaving!" speech.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Frankly, for the most part, I don't really care who wins the Oscars except for a couple of people. I do have a rooting interest with Brad Pitt, but, that's mainly because I love his character in the movie. Also, I think Deakins deserves his second Oscar as he did great camera work in "1917". I'll record the show and plan to zip through it early on Monday morning.

 

[Tino]

Toy Story 4 is better than most of the movies nominated for Best Picture.

I would say some not most.

I would put it ahead of Little Women, The Irishman and Ford vs Ferrari. All the other nominees were better I thought.

 

[TravisR]

I would say some not most.

I would put it ahead of Little Women, The Irishman and Ford vs Ferrari. All the other nominees were better I thought.

I really liked TS4 so the only BP nominees that I'd put ahead of it are Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, Parasite and 1917. No slight against excellent movies like The Irishman, Little Women, Marriage Story but they ain't Toy Story.

 

[Tino]

I really liked TS4 so the only BP nominees that I'd put ahead of it are Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, Parasite and 1917. No slight against excellent movies like The Irishman, Little Women, Marriage Story but they ain't Toy Story.

I really liked it too.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

These diversity controversies every year just drive me nuts. Do the simple math: The longer any of these award shows exist, the more the qualified voters have been there for a long long time. It's always going to be your grandfather's picks. The Grammys were always 5-10 years behind the culture. I don't think the Beatles got in until 1988 (that exaggeration is a joke, people, but not really). Unless you start up a new awards show every year like Dick Clark did one year, things are bound to be a bit stale, and that show went stale pretty soon after, as well.

The Academy can dump a big number of diverse new members into the mix but it will never match the real population numbers. Women are 52% of the population, but the industry is going to take a while longer to catch up to that number, if ever. Black members, are actually over-represented compared to the general population (16% vs something like 12-13%). I'd say almost a quarter of the pictures I went through during award season were solidly representative of black performers and stories: Dolemite; Harriet; Queen & Slim; Just Mercy, and so on. They just weren't as good as most of the nominees this year; it's just that simple. There is no conspiracy. Next year could be completely different.

No women were nominated for Best Director.I thought Greta Gerwig did a fantastic job with her film and actors. But was it better than the five nominees, which were all excellent? I might've bumped Scorsese for her, just because, well, no new tricks here, Marty. But again, there's this big clump of members who have been around forever, and you don't lose your membership until you die, or get kicked out for something egregious, so there's this huge underwater iceberg dragging the works down again with it's favorites or 'prejudices' (not in the 'prejudice' sense here). So a lot of history goes into some of these picks. And that's not going to change, because as long as the award show sticks around, it's always going to have an older voting body.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm very happy with the Best Picture pics this year; there's not a dog among them; and as an old fogey myself, but who works in this creative industry, we're always open to something that will surprise us; move us; get our attention; be different from the cliches and standard stories we've seen before. My pic for Best Picture was JoJo Rabbit. Tell me that story of the ultimate tolerance test is old or cliche. But seriously, folks, of any group of people voting; I seriously doubt diversity is the first thought going into the picks; and why should it be?

And tell me what other industries are this openly self-conscious and stepping all over themselves trying to be diverse?

 

[Tino]

Great post. Well said Wayne.

 

[Jake Lipson]

As I've said before in this thread, the Oscar voters are entitled to their opinions and if they only want to nominate white men, there's nothing that people outside the membership can do about that really.

But the reason it bothers me is because Hollywood runs on a system where awards recognition helps you get attention, and funding, for whatever the next thing you want to do is.

Greta Gerwig was originally hired to write Little Women. Even though she wanted to direct it, Sony was unwilling to consider her for directing her own script until after she had awards attention for Lady Bird. Then they came back to her with the directing offer she wanted in the first place.

So if diverse voices are not nominated, that makes it harder for them to get their foot in the door for the next project. And then we have a situation where it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that only men win, because the women/people of color/other diversity group aren't getting the kind of attention that brings them nominations and more chances to make movies.

Is it really going to matter in ten years if Sam Mendes wins Best Director and Greta Gerwig wasn't nominated? Probably not. Her film of Little Women will endure regardless of her being overlooked for it. But what does matter is making sure we have a system where people with different perspectives get to make movies, and Hollywood has decided that awards recognition is a part of the fuel that runs their system.

I want to see all different kinds of movies from different kinds of people with unique ideas and distinctive stories including those that would not occur to white men. So that's why the issue of diversity is important, because it ends up being reflected in the movies that come down the pike just as much as the ones that are already here.

 

[TravisR]

No women were nominated for Best Director.I thought Greta Gerwig did a fantastic job with her film and actors. But was it better than the five nominees, which were all excellent?

Greta Gerwig is Orson Welles compared to Todd Phillips. I blame her lack of nomination less on sexism than just that Warners could afford a better campaign and Joker was a much bigger hit.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

As long as you have it where the number of best director nominees does not match the number of best picture nominees, it’s going to continue to seem unfair to someone each year. The simple fact is that films don’t direct themselves and if a film was considered worthy of being up for best picture, more often than not that’s because it’s also one of the best directed films. Those two categories should be tied together, not so that every BP automatically gets a BD nomination, but so that it’s technically possible for that to happen. If the Academy decides this year gets nine BP slots then it should automatically be nine BD slots. Especially because if a film isn’t nominated for best director, it is virtually impossible for it to win best picture. So right at the start, they’re prejudicing the category by having “real” nominees and “just an honor to be nominated” nominees.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Warners could afford a better campaign

I would absolutely take out Todd Phillips and put Gerwig in. That being said, considering that Little Women was for Sony, I'm not sure I would say that they have less resources. However, they had to split their focus and support both Little Women and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for awards campaigns, and Joker was really the only horse Warner had in the race, so they were able to put all of their resources behind that one film.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For Best Director, I believe the nominations are determined only by the directing branch of the Academy, and then all members regardless of specialty may vote for the winner. It is also simply possible that they did not feel Little Women was one of the five best directed films of the year. Because they’re not transparent, it’s very difficult to know what the thinking is. I tend not to put too much stock in thoughts like “the movie is great, there aren’t enough awards to go around, let’s give her the writing nomination instead”. I just don’t think it works that way the majority of the time. I’m not even convinced that the studio ad campaigns are that effective in moving the needle all that much.

 

[Jake Lipson]

For Best Director, I believe the nominations are determined only by the directing branch of the Academy, and then all members regardless of specialty may vote for the winner.

You are correct.

I tend not to put too much stock in thoughts like “the movie is great, there aren’t enough awards to go around, let’s give her the writing nomination instead”

That would not be possible in the process to determine the nominations because, as you noted, they are branch-specific. So the directing branch, which left her out, probably didn't know what the writers branch was going to do and vice versa. That being said, because everyone from all branches may vote for the winners, it's very possible that people who feel that she was snubbed in directing may now choose to vote for her to win Adapted Screenplay instead.

I’m not even convinced that the studio ad campaigns are that effective in moving the needle all that much.

The studios seem to think they do, because they keep spending large amounts of money to mount big campaigns every year. If they didn't think those were an essential part of the process of winning an award, they would just stop doing that and save the money.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think there’s a lot of things studios do because they’ve always done it without actually considering whether it makes sense to continue doing so. In many ways, these companies are legacy companies stuck in outmoded ways but fear and/or inertia favors the status quo.

Netflix, just to pick an example, has apparently spent a combined hundreds of millions of dollars on their awards push this year. The Irishman is no more likely to win Best Picture as a result. They sent out red papal-style slippers to voters to pitch The Two Popes; it does not appear to have pushed the film into front runner status in any category.

I think the most it does, most of the time, is just make the people who worked on the film in question feel that their efforts were appreciated by the studio that financed their project. I don’t think Netflix cares that much about awards in the grand scheme of things. I think they care that they can use their history of pushing things for awards as part of their pitch to talent for why they should bring their project to Netflix. Apparently that was part of what lured Scorsese in addition to the film funding: that Netflix promised they’d push his film hard for awards consideration as if they were a major studio, and not simply promote it to drive subscriptions.

 

[TravisR]

For Best Director, I believe the nominations are determined only by the directing branch of the Academy, and then all members regardless of specialty may vote for the winner. It is also simply possible that they did not feel Little Women was one of the five best directed films of the year. Because they’re not transparent, it’s very difficult to know what the thinking is. I tend not to put too much stock in thoughts like “the movie is great, there aren’t enough awards to go around, let’s give her the writing nomination instead”. I just don’t think it works that way the majority of the time. I’m not even convinced that the studio ad campaigns are that effective in moving the needle all that much.

I think that it's like how Marvel or Star Wars movies don't really need to spend hundreds of millions on ads but they still do it, studios still spend money on For Your Consideration campaigns because it helps to keep reminding people about a movie or person for the Oscars.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I had thought about using that analogy

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Although there are a lot of good movies nominated this year, I would say that I loved Toy Story 4 more than any of the Best Picture nominees this year that I saw (everything but 1917.)

Last time, when Toy Story 3 was nominated for Best Picture, they had a fixed number of ten nominees before switching to the sliding between-five-and-ten rules that they use now. (Up was nominated the same way the year before.)

By nominating the third and then not nominating the fourth which is equally good, the Academy has demonstrated that the only reason the third got in is because they had to fill ten slots, unfortunately. Now, the new rules will prevent any animated film from being shortlisted for the big prize ever again and they will continue to relegate animation to the "kids table" of the Animated Feature category.

Disagree. If the existence of a separate award "relegates" movies, then "Roma" and "Parasite" wouldn't have gotten noms these last 2 years.

I also think it's a mistake to assume that a "TS3" nom means the 10 slots thing is the only reason we got no "TS4" nom.

You have to compare competition and general thoughts about the films. Even though both of those movies got similar RT scores, I think "TS3" is better regarded. "TS4" seemed to get a lot of "it's good but" reviews - I don't sense that it was seen as being on the same high level as "TS3".

Using my own reviews for examples, if RT included them, I'd have rated both "3" and "4" as "Fresh", but my attitude toward "3" is substantially more positive.

"4" is an enjoyable movie, but I think it's clearly the weakest of the series and don't believe I'm in a minority when it comes to that assessment.

I'm not even sure it'll win its own category!

 

[Tino]

Here are my predictions on who will win the Oscar at tonight’s Academy Awards

Best Picture....1917
Best Director....Sam Mendes
Best Actress....Rene Zellweger
Best Actor........Joachin Phoenix
Best Supporting Actor...Brad Pitt
Best Supporting Actress...Laura Dern
Best Original Screenplay....Parasite
Best Adapted Screenplay...Jo Jo Rabbit
Best Animated Feature...Missing Link
Best Documentary Feature...Honeyland
Best International Feature....Parasite
Best Original Score...Joker
Best Original Song....Rocketman
Best Sound Editing....1917
Best Sound Mixing.....1917
Best Makeup....Bombshell
Best Costume Design....Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Best Cinematography....1917
Best Production Design....1917
Best Film Editing....Ford vs Ferrari
Best Visual Effects....1917
Best Documentary Short....Learning To Skateboard In A Warzone (If you’re a girl).
Best Short Film (Live Action)...Yhe Neighbors Window
Best Animated Short Film....Kitbull

Another tough year with plenty of worthy nominees and lots of room for potential upsets.

And The Oscar Goes To......

 

[SamT]

I have to add that I'm completely baffled on how Once Upon a Time ...in Hollywood got a best picture nomination. I thought the movie had nothing interesting in it and was not particularity good or anything.

 

[Tino]

C’mon people. Get those predictions up.

We used to have a contest here years ago. I think I tied once with @Edwin-S and won due to a documentary win tiebreaker.