1. Sign-up to become a member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It only takes 30 seconds to sign up, so join the discussion today!
    Dismiss Notice

Official 2020 Oscar Nominations Thread

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Tino, Jan 13, 2020.

  1. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    9,330
    Likes Received:
    3,181
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Yeah, I guess. I spend so much time in front of the TV for my website that I'm loathe to add anything else to the at-home viewing list! :D
     
  2. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    9,330
    Likes Received:
    3,181
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    That's not a "tribute" to the nominees - it's an advertisement for their BP "Showcase".

    It exists to promote that upcoming event. Why would they include 2 movies they won't show?
     
  3. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    9,330
    Likes Received:
    3,181
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    "Irishman" and "Marriage Story" got plenty of noms, and they were from freakin' Netflix!

    I just think Lopez's work in "Hustlers" was oddly overrated when the movie hit last September.

    It'd been a long time since Lopez took on a serious dramatic role - maybe people forgot she had acting talent and overstated her performance because they expected her to be terrible!
     
  4. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,112
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    I wasn't suggesting that she would know, or that Searchlight should have let it go. They did what they needed to do for their film. I'm saying that if I were a voter, I would have chosen to nominate Johansson in Lead and McKenzie in supporting on my ballot for the benefit of spreading the love around. I think McKenzie is absolutely deserving of the nomination as much as
    Johansson is. They are both sensational in that film. But I'm not going to complain about Johansson being in there.
     
    Adam Lenhardt likes this.
  5. benbess

    benbess Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,944
    Likes Received:
    2,277
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Ben


    +1

    I liked Frozen II even better than Toy Story 4.
     
    Jake Lipson likes this.
  6. benbess

    benbess Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,944
    Likes Received:
    2,277
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Ben
    If I were a voting member of the Academy, I'd vote for the following as my personal favorites out of the nominees....

    BEST PICTURE
    1917


    BEST DIRECTOR
    Sam Mendes, 1917

    ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
    Leonardo DiCaprio, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

    ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
    Cynthia Erivo, Harriet

    ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
    Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

    ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
    Florence Pugh, Little Women

    ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
    Knives Out, Written by Rian Johnson

    ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
    Little Women, Screenplay by Greta Gerwig

    ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
    Toy Story 4


    INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM
    Parasite (South Korea)

    ORIGINAL SCORE
    1917 Thomas Newman


    ORIGINAL SONG
    "Into the Unknown," from Frozen II

    SOUND EDITING
    Ford v Ferrari

    SOUND MIXING
    1917


    PRODUCTION DESIGN
    Once Upon a Time in Hollywood


    CINEMATOGRAPHY
    1917


    MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
    Judy


    COSTUME DESIGN
    Little Women


    FILM EDITING
    Ford v Ferrari

    VISUAL EFFECTS
    Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
     
  7. Message #87 of 511 Jan 13, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
    Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,112
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    As a disclaimer, I have not seen 1917, Bombshell or The Two Popes. That being said, based on what I have seen, these would be my personal picks as of right now. My mood may change later, though.

    BEST PICTURE
    Jojo Rabbit
    (Little Women, Marriage Story and Parasite are very, very close here, and I would be happy if any of them won, but I have to give the edge to Jojo Rabbit for containing a very strong message of empathy I think the world needs right now.)

    BEST DIRECTOR
    Bong Joon-ho, Parasite

    ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
    Adam Driver, Marriage Story or Antonio Bandaras, Pain and Glory (this is really hard to choose)

    ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

    Cynthia Erivo, Harriet or Saoirse Ronan, Little Women (again, really hard to choose)

    ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
    Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

    ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
    Scarlett Johansson, Jojo Rabbit

    ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
    Knives Out, Written by Rian Johnson

    ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
    Little Women, Screenplay by Greta Gerwig

    ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
    Toy Story 4

    INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM
    Parasite (South Korea) (the only other nominee I saw is Pain and Glory, which is also good)

    DOCUMENTARY - FEATURE
    didn't see any of these

    DOCUMENTARY - SHORT SUBJECT
    didn't see any of these

    LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
    didn't see any of these

    ANIMATED SHORT FILM
    didn't see any of these

    ORIGINAL SCORE

    Little Women

    ORIGINAL SONG
    "Into the Unknown," from Frozen II

    SOUND EDITING
    Ford v Ferrari

    SOUND MIXING

    Ad Astra

    PRODUCTION DESIGN
    Parasite

    CINEMATOGRAPHY
    I have no particular horse in this race but have heard that 1917 is amazing.

    MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
    Judy

    COSTUME DESIGN
    Little Women

    FILM EDITING
    Jojo Rabbit

    VISUAL EFFECTS
    Avengers: Endgame
     
  8. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Director

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    22,564
    Likes Received:
    8,045
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying.
     
    Jake Lipson likes this.
  9. Message #89 of 511 Jan 14, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
    Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,112
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    As we all know, with the exception of Best Picture, all categories are fixed at five nominees. So for anyone whose name we could rattle off as a snub, if they had gotten in, one or more of the people who did get nominated would have to be out. There is an inherit limit to how many nominations there can be. So there is almost always good work being done that doesn't get nominated.

    As long as the Best Director category is capped at five nominees and the Best Picture category can support up to ten, there are going to be directors whose films get nominated for Best Picture that don't also get a Directing nomination. That's just math. This year, unfortunately, Greta Gerwig was one of those people. I've already said I would take out Phillips and put her in, and I stand by that. But then Joker fans would be complaining about Phillips being snubbed, especially if his film was still nominated in other categories. So it would cut both ways.

    That being said, I do think this year is troubling for a couple reasons because it speaks to a systemic problem, rather than any one particular person needing to go in over another person.

    Dan Murrell, a critic for Screen Junkies/Fandom Entertainment, pointed out on Twitter today that 67% of all the narrative features nominated this year were released from October through December. 29% were released from April to September. And one single, solitary nominee (How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World in Best Animated Feature) was released from January to March. Great work is being put out all year round, but in order to get nominated for a film that came out before the end of the year, you have to make such an enormous dent in pop culture that it's impossible for the Academy to forget you. Black Panther did this last year, and Get Out did this the year before that. But those are the only two examples in recent years. So, any time the studios think they have a movie with a good shot at winning awards, it gets released in the end of the year.

    This year, the only film to receive any nominations in a major non-technical category that came out before October is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

    That creates a huge number of films that get released at the same time. I try to get to as many movies as I possibly can just as a film fan, and I don't even vote for anything because I'm not part of the industry. I still missed Waves and Honey Boy, which came and went so quickly (and opened against so many other bigger films at the same time) that I just couldn't find the time for them before they disappeared. And if I can't find the time to watch everything I want to see, how can members of the Academy, many of whom are still actively working in the industry to make movies, find the time to watch all the potential nominees, especially if so many of them are coming out at the end of the year and the awards season is so abbreviated?

    A film like Queen & Slim (which came out in November and was loved by critics) had very little buzz -- it was not predicted to appear in major categories -- and grossed $43 million total. It's basically done with its theatrical release now. There, you have a black female director and a black female writer telling a culturally relevant story about the black experience in America today, so it checks the diversity boxes that the Academy says they want to do more often. But even more than just checking boxes, it's really, really good.

    But because the working professionals who make up the Oscar voting body had to see all the higher-profile films coming out around the same time with higher-profile talent, I'm guessing many of them probably didn't even see Queen & Slim. Yes, they can get screeners, so they don't have to go to a theater like I did, but it's still a question of their time.

    Hypothetically, let's say you are an Oscar voter and you have time to see either Ford v. Ferrari or Queen & Slim before you have to fill out your ballot to nominate contenders. FvF has Christian Bale and Matt Damon being directed by James Mangold. I liked Ford v. Ferrari a lot and I'm not knocking it or its inclusion. But it makes my point. The trades sold this narrative that Ford v. Ferrari is an "Oscar film" because it comes from a pedigree of famous talent, many of whom have been nominated for Oscars before.

    Compare that to Queen & Slim, which comes from a first-time feature writer and first-time feature director, and the only name actor in it is Daniel Kaluuya (who I would have nominated in Best Actor for this role, by the way.) Critics had to see Queen & Slim to file reviews for it because that's their only job. But busy Hollywood talent, who are still working and therefore probably don't have enough time to watch every single one of the possible contenders, had to make choices. They're looking to the trades, and to other awards shows, to create a narrative for them about which films are worth prioritizing.

    So which one are you going to pick? My guess is that most voters would choose to spend their time looking at Ford v. Ferrari. The films that get huge amounts of press coverage for having famous people attached to them rise to the top. Many of them do not include diverse voices because diverse voices haven't been widely recognized in the past, which would help them get considered seriously for a follow-up film. Therefore, it is a cycle that repeats itself, making it very hard for new talent and new voices to break into the archaic system.

    I would hope that this is unintentional, in that I hope that there are not Academy members who think, "I won't nominate someone because they are a woman," or "I won't nominate someone because they are a person of color." But you had so many films with diverse voices in theaters this year that to exclude almost all of them is definitely weird. Cynthia Erivo did a sensational job playing Harriet Tubman, and I loved that movie, and she deserved her nomination for it. Vut she was also great the previous year (edit for clarity because I mean 2018) in both Bad Times at the El Royale and Widows. She didn't get in for those. She got in for playing a historical figure who was at one time a slave. She was great in all of them, but the one that the Academy considered worthy of recognition was the one where she was anchoring a story set in the past from which the world has evolved.

    The message of the movie is that slavery as an institution had to die because black people have inherent value as more than slaves. But yet the only thing people of color got nominated for this year was the slavery film, not contemporary ones. That feels a little backwards to me -- not that it's wrong to consider her for playing a slave, but that it shouldn't be the only thing represented there, because there are more worthwhile stories for women of color than just the ones where they play slaves. In comparison, the male lead actor category includes Antonio Bandaras and Adam Driver both for playing directors; Leonardo DiCaprio for playing an actor; Joaquin Phoenix for playing a comic book villain; and Jonathan Pryce for playing a Pope. The only one of those who could be considered a historical figure is the Pope, and that's still way more contemporary than Erivo playing Harriet Tubman.

    Dan also tweeted out another interesting statistic. Across all categories, there are 104 nomination slots for narrative feature films. However, all of these slots were filled by just 34 different films. So you have a relatively small number of films which are dominating the nominations by receiving recognition across multiple categories. This doesn't invalidate the quality of their work, but does raise a question. If the point of the Oscars is to help drive attention to quality work, why reward only a small group of movies? If you nominate more movies, that means more movies reap the benefits of being associated with the Oscars. If you nominate a small group of movies a bunch of times -- even if those movies are all deserving -- you're inevitably going to have other deserving work that gets shut out. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, because I don't think there should be a cap to how many times a film can get nominated. But I do think that giving serious consideration to a wider spectrum of films would result in a wider spectrum of people getting recognized. So if I were part of the Academy, I would look at these things and begin to think about ways they can get more movies to be seen by nominators.

    To start with, I would go back to having a fixed number of ten nominees for Best Picture. There are a bunch of movies every year that get snubbed, and there would still be good work that misses the cut with a fixed ten nominees. However, if there were ten, that would be a chance to recognize another great movie. Again, if the point of the Oscars is to draw attention to great movies, why would you want to nominate less of them than the rules allow you to nominate? That just seems counterintuitive to me. The Farewell is another movie that is generating a lot of talk today because it didn't get nominated anywhere. It's a great movie (which, by the way, came out in July, which speaks again to the issue of films that come out early in the year tending to be overlooked.) Why not give it the tenth slot? What does the Academy gain by only nominating nine films and excluding it?

    The Farewell is distributed by A24, which previously received Best Picture nominations for Room, Moonlight (which won) and Lady Bird. I saw all of those in November of the respective years in which they came out, which means that in order to get nominated, they went with an awards-season release date. The Farewell being released in the summer was able to do huge business for a mostly-subtitled film in America. It played at my local three-screen art house for almost three months, and was their second-highest-grossing film of the year (just for their theater.) It was able to have a long run and generate real buzz in the summer because there weren't a whole lot of serious films aimed at adult audiences coming out every week; it was able to stand out for its intended audience by opening at my arthouse the week that Hobbs & Shaw was the #1 movie in the country. If The Farewell had been released in November, it might have gotten more Academy attention -- or it could have still gone unnoticed like Queen & Slim did, we'll never know -- but I don't know if it would have been able to play as long as it did or make as much money as it did. So they chose the right date for it to make bank, but not the right date for it to win awards. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?

    As I said before, I would also be in favor of expanding the Director nominees to ten slots. Under the current system, you can usually tell which films are the "real" Best Picture nominees and which ones are filled in, based on the lack of a corresponding Directing nomination. Gerwig, in particular, seems to be the one that people are most upset about, and she would be in there for sure if there were more nomination slots. I'm not saying that they have to expand the category in order to honor women -- if they want to honor women, they should just honor women -- but expanding the category would give them more slots with which to honor women, if they don't want to have to give up any of the men to do it.

    But then, the last time they expanded a category, it didn't really work out as intended. As we all know, the Best Picture category was expanded (first to ten films and then to the sliding between-five-and-ten that we have now) because of The Dark Knight being snubbed and the alleged desire from the Academy to award more worthy blockbuster films in addition to the small indies and serious-minded awards bait that they tend to prefer. But, mostly, they've just used the additional slots to award more small films. So even if they did expand the Directing category to ten nominees, there would be no guarantee that they would actually use the extra slots to nominate women/people of color/other underrepresented groups. They could probably find ten men to nominate as easily as they could find five. So while I do think expanding the category is something to consider, I'm not sure it would solve the problem.

    On a slightly different note, the other thing I'm going to go to bat for is Toy Story 4 and animation in general. Toy Story 4 is one of the biggest movies of the year, and it obviously doesn't need an awareness boost like Queen & Slim and The Farewell do. But that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of being included. Like I said earlier in the thread, I think Frozen II should have been nominated for Animated Feature, but this goes beyond that.

    I saw a ton of movies last year and most of them were really good. Some of the ones I think are really good got nominated in major categories today. But I cannot come up with a list of ten films from 2019 that are all superior to Toy Story 4. I just can't, because it is one of the best pictures of the year. So why is it not nominated there? The Academy obviously likes Toy Story because Its immediate predecessor was nominated.

    By nominating Toy Story 3 for Best Picture and then not giving the equally wonderful follow-up the same nomination, this proves their disregard for animation. The difference between 2010-11 (when Toy Story 3 was nominated) and 2019-20 is that they had a fixed number of ten nominations when Toy Story 3 got in (and also the year before when Up got in.) They nominated it to fill the tenth slot, not because they had any intention of awarding it Best Picture. Now that they have the flexible five-to-ten rules, they can get away with not nominating ten, so they will continue to relegate animation to the kiddie table that is the Best Animated Feature category. No animated film, regardless of its quality, will ever again contend in a meaningful way for Best Picture. The only one that did was Beauty and the Beast in 1991-2, which broke in with the then-standard field of only five nominations. This is just more proof that the Academy doesn't really respect animation as a storytelling tool equal to any other, and while I'm not surprised about that, I do find it sad. But I would still rather have Toy Story 4 on the list as one of the best pictures of the year versus not, even if it wasn't going to win.

    I would also place Toy Story 4 into Adapted Screenplay in a heartbeat. Take out Joker or The Irishman, of the ones I've seen. Or take out The Two Popes. (To be 100% fair, I haven't seen The Two Popes, but I consider Anthony McCarten to be one of the very worst writers working in Hollywood today and he wrote two of the movies on my worst-of-the-decade list, so there's almost no way in hell that I would prefer Two Popes over Toy Story 4.) The other asterisk to this is that due to a super-stupid Academy rule, all sequels are automatically considered as adaptations because they are based on characters created for the corresponding original film; I think that is a bunch of bologna and sequels belong in the original screenplay category, because there is no roadmap to follow in creating them. (If it were a sequel adapted from other media, such as a Harry Potter film adapting a book sequel, then it obviously would go in Adapted, but that's not what this is.) Toy Story 4 created from a blank slate the next story in the lives of those characters, so it's not an adaptation. So I really think Toy Story 4 should be in the Original Screenplay category, but under the Academy's rules, it would have to go in Adapted.

    Oh, and I would also have nominated Randy Newman for Best Score for Toy Story 4 as well. It's hard to call this a snub because he got into that category for Marriage Story (is he contractually obligated to score all Story films?), but I personally found the score for Toy Story more memorable than the Marriage Story one. The music I remembered from Marriage Story are the two Sondheim songs they licensed for it; Newman's instrumental work for Toy Story, especially in the final scene before the credits, was far more memorable to me personally. But because Newman got nominated in this category anyway, this feels like splitting hairs. Alan Silvestri for Endgame and Christophe Beck for Frozen II are the composers who I feel should have been represented in this category that didn't make it at all. But again, their snubs go back to what I was talking about at the beginning of this post about there always being more great work every year than can fit into the categories.

    But back to Toy Story 4, while I'm on the subject, I'm just going to say this one as an absolute unrealistic wish list pie-in-the-sky item. I think there is a world in which Picture and Screenplay could have happened for it if the Academy were more willing to accept animation, but here's the one that they never would have done that I would have. If I had a voice in the Academy Awards, I would have nominated Tom Hanks in the Best Actor category for playing Woody, and I would have voted for him to win it. His work across the whole Toy Story series is one of those indelible, iconic, perfect matches between actor and role. But particularly in this film, as we see Woody's growth and his shifting perspective on his place in the world, Hanks' work with just his voice to make that arc work is as significant and vital as any live-action performance I've seen this year. By saying this, I do not mean to take anything away from the animators, who also contributed in equal measure to the success of Woody's story. But I really do think this is one of those rare vocal performances that is so central to carrying the whole film that the success of the piece is in a significant way indebted to Hanks' work. In the same way that Joaquin Phoenix had to play that version of the Joker for his movie to work, Tom Hanks had to be Woody, and he is equally important to Toy Story 4. So, yeah, I would have recognized that. I'm not saying that there is one every year or even every few years that is transcendent to this degree, but I do think there should be room to recognize truly extraordinary voice acting alongside other extraordinary acting. (For the record, the other previous voice performances that I would have nominated are Robin Williams for Aladdin and Ellen DeGeneres for Finding Dory.) And I 100% know that this was never going to happen. But I still think it should have.
     
  10. Tino

    Tino Executive Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    17,006
    Likes Received:
    8,675
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    Valentino
    An interesting LA Times Article.

    The Oscar best picture race could be over this weekend. Here’s why


    The biggest Oscar nomination this morning wasn’t Todd Phillips’ nod for directing “Joker” or Kathy Bates slipping in ahead of Jennifer Lopez in the supporting actress category. (Did you not cry along with Bates in “Richard Jewell” when the FBI returned her Tupperware and it was ruined?)

    No, the most significant nomination was “1917" earning a spot in the original screenplay category, making Mendes a triple nominee (he produced, directed and co-wrote, with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, the script) and keeping the film safe from some daunting Oscar history.

    A movie can win the best picture Oscar without earning any acting nominations. (The list includes “Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” and another war film, “Braveheart.”) A movie can win without a screenplay nod. (Remember when “Titanic” was king of the world?) But if it’s shut out in both areas, you can forget about writing that acceptance speech. You won’t need it.

    More at

    https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-01-13/oscar-nominations-2020-best-picture-analysis-1917?_amp=true
     
    benbess likes this.
  11. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    4,838
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    One CNN writer's take on the nominees:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/opinions/oscar-nominations-2020-are-a-bust-seymour/index.html

     
  12. MartinP.

    MartinP. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    1,374
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Martin
    Jake, I liked your post. You put more time into your post than most actual Oscar voters do each year. After reading it, I'm wondering if a lot of the chatter each year about the Oscars isn't really people looking for solutions to problems that aren't really problems. Here's what I mean... The Oscars have always been seen as the top honor of filmmaking and that's why they get the most attention. But for decades the average person, much less the average film critic/reviewer never had access to judge for themselves the decisions made by AMPAS. Most of us already knew what films had been nominated and even Won awards before we ever saw most of them. Then and only then could we agree or disagree with their decisions. There's no immediacy in that.

    Now almost anyone has access to films in some way with an immediacy that gets people arguing their side and trying to persuade others how great your own opinions are over others. Now it's become arguments over inclusion. People get angry over films because they have their favorites and if you don't agree with them you are just wrong.

    AMPAS voters don't select their nominations by a formula of inclusion. Only what they like. Why not? Sometimes any one of us agree with most choices and sometimes we think they're out of their minds. You think Greta Gerwig should have been nominated for directing Little Women. I think if there were ten director nominees I wouldn't think that. (By the way, that film fits in with your idea about having to watch so many films. Let's see, do I want to watch Ford V Ferrari, or the umpteenth version of Little Women?)

    Also, in an effort to expand the voting membership with more young, ethnic, women etc. members, they also have eliminated members from voting who aren't presently working in the business. Members who might actually have time to watch all these movies. SAG has a lot of members and some are selected to be on their nominating committee each year. I have a friend who was this year. He is not presently working. I forget the exact number, but in the last few months he went to dozens of screenings he was invited to all over Los Angeles. Most of the screenings had the actors from the film present and Q&A's afterwards. He told me he saw near 200 films this past year.

    In all the acting categories he had to nominate five people for each category. His success rate in the final nominees was about 30%. One category none of the people he had listed was nominated.

    I guess my point is, why all the angst over the Oscars each year? As I said, sometimes we like the nominees and/or winners, sometimes we don't. I would guess that if you took each individual AMPAS voter, you'd find that they don't vote for what the eventual nominees or winners in most all of the categories turn out to be. Think of that. It's likely true for any and all the film awards that are given out.

    Frankly, I'm just tired of the yearly tirade of those who have specific agendas. Frankly, isn't that why there are so many diverse awards given out every year? The ALMA Awards, the IMAGE Awards, GLAAD Awards, Women in Film, People's Choice and critics groups from practically every city in the U.S. -- and beyond.

    The Oscars used to be a good time and that's what they should harken back to. There's no pleasing everyone so don't try. Pleasure yourself! LoL. The Oscar voters are just doing what all of us do. Voting on what they like. Except for the current Best Picture weighted-ballot voting system. And I disagree about the ten picture noms, it should go back to 5. At least half of the films since it started would not have won without it, and you know who you are.
     
    Jake Lipson and Tino like this.
  13. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,112
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    You've hit on the one thing we can't change, and that is the subjective tastes of the voters. The Academy can (and has) made strides to have a more diverse membership in the hopes that that would result in more diverse films being recognized. Based on this year's crop of nominees, that hasn't really happened. Unless they want to install a quota system, whereupon X% of the nominees must be black or women or whatever, you can't guarantee what's going to happen. And I am not in favor of a quota system, which would undermine the meaningfulness of the award.

    But what's troubling to me about it is that they say they want to be inclusive and then they're not looking at inclusive films. If they don't want to be inclusive, and they just want to nominate white men all the time, it's their awards and they can do what they want. But what they are saying about wanting to be inclusive doesn't jive with what they're actually nominating.

    The issue of inclusion in awards matters because awards don't happen in a vacuum. They drive a lot of how Hollywood works. Hollywood makes movies based on the pedigree of talent involved. If you win an award, you're much more likely to get in the room to make another movie. Greta Gerwig was hired to write Little Women before she made Lady Bird. She wanted to direct it, but the deal that was offered to her originally was only for writing. They wouldn't consider her for directing. Then she went and made Lady Bird, and it was an awards darling, and then suddenly she was offered the chance to direct her Little Women script, which they were unwilling to let her do before. The novel If Beale Street Could Talk was published in 1974, but it took until 2017 to get made into a movie. Barry Jenkins used the clout he got from Moonlight's Oscar win to get that project going. Would he have been able to do that if Moonlight hadn't broken through on the awards circuit? I don't know. The original writer of Harriet began that script in 1994, and it took 25 years to get it made. That team specifically cited the Oscar success of both 12 Years a Slave and Black Panther as paving the way for that film to get a greenlight.

    If the Academy likes movies about white men and wants to nominate movies about white men, that is entirely their prerogative. Nor am I saying that there is any kind of problem with movies about white men, inherently. I am, after all, a white man. But if Hollywood runs on a system where awards attention gets you in the room for your next project, and then only white men get nominated, then that's a broken system. If you can't get a go-ahead for your movie without awards, but the only people winning awards are white or male, then they are just perpetuating a system in which non-white male voices don't get to tell their stories. And that is the problem, because there should be room for all kinds of stories from all kinds of people with unique perspectives on the world.
     
    MartinP. likes this.
  14. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    45,412
    Likes Received:
    21,058
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    One post has been deleted and a member given a two week thread ban for injecting politics into this discussion. This was the second post in a different thread by that member today that injected some kind of political reference. We're not playing that game here!
     
  15. Wayne_j

    Wayne_j Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Wayne
    And just like you said, my arthouse theater added this back to their lineup starting this weekend.
     
    Tino likes this.
  16. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    9,330
    Likes Received:
    3,181
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    I preferred "TS4" to "F2", but neither did a lot for me.

    "TS4" is the bigger disappointment just because I'm a much bigger fan of that series, but it's also a better film. While not on a par with the 1st 3, it's still entertaining.

    I just thought "F2" was dull. I didn't love the 1st one, but it gives us a much richer story, and it draws the characters much better.

    "F2" simply doesn't really go anywhere. It's only been a month since I saw it and I barely remember it!
     
  17. JohnRice

    JohnRice Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2000
    Messages:
    12,264
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    A Mile High
    Real Name:
    John
    Doesn’t this same argument happen every single year?
     
  18. Tino

    Tino Executive Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    17,006
    Likes Received:
    8,675
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    Valentino
    Which argument? There are multiple arguments going on in this thread. ;)
     
  19. JohnRice

    JohnRice Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2000
    Messages:
    12,264
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    A Mile High
    Real Name:
    John
    Correction. Arguments. :unsure:
     
  20. Mike Frezon

    Mike Frezon Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    52,138
    Likes Received:
    14,628
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Rensselaer, NY
    Yup. :D

    Surprise! :laugh:
     
    Jake Lipson likes this.

Share This Page